Nov 09

STRUCTURE
Steel
November 2009
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI
Nick Ciminello, P.E.

IBC CODE LISTING SPECIALIST
Patrick Buckley, I.E.

DOT APPROVALS SPECIALIST
Powers knows that understanding the newly adopted building code and DOT requirements is vital for everyone involved in the construction industry. Powers dedicated team of experts can help clarify the code, and how it impacts your project lists. When you call our Code Compliance Hotline at (888)745-CODE (888-745-2633) you get accurate answers to your specific anchoring questions. Powers is committed to providing products and real time solutions that satisfy the new code, and is continuously developing new code compliant solutions. In fact, Powers has the most code compliant anchors* on the market. So call our experts today, and see how Powers can help make your next project code compliant.
SEE OUR EXPERTS ON THE WEB AT WWW.POWERS.COM
*As of August 2009
Powers Fasteners, Inc. www.powers.com 2 Powers Lane P: (914) 235-6300 Brewster, NY 10509 F: (914) 576-6483
CONTENTS
22 Gateway to the Circle City
By Scott E. Rouse, P.E.
FEATURES
The Indianapolis Airport Authoritys objectives for a new Airport Terminal included the design and construction of a modern, efcient gateway, uniquely representative of the history and future of Indiana. The end result is a graceful, elegant structure featuring a 200-foot diameter circular skylight sixty feet above a grand civic plaza, a tting metaphor for the citys dening downtown space known as Monument Circle.
5 Editorial
COLUMNS
Structural Engineering Licensing and NCSEA Committees
26 Quality Assurance Corner
DEPARTMENTS
By William D. Bast, P.E., S.E., SECB
Understanding the Limitations of Structural Engineering Software
7 InFocus
By Clifford Schwinger, P.E., SECB and Eric J. Heller, E.I.T.
What Computers Cant Do
29 Professional Issues 32 Business Practices
By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
Building Disaster Resilient Communities

By Chris D. Poland, S.E.
8 Structural Design 12 InSights
12
Coming Up with Tie-downs
By Bryan Wert, M.S., P.E., SECB
Structural Design Delegation

By David J. Hatem, PC and Matthew P. Tuller, Esq.
Post-Tensioned Podium Slabs Make Their Way to the Northeast

By Michael A. Russillo, P.E.
14 Structural Testing
IN EVERY ISSUE
34 36 38 40 42 Software Updates NCSEA News SEI Structural Columns CASE in Point Advertiser Index
Full-Scale Monitoring
By Tracy Kijewski-Correa, Ph.D.
18 Engineers Notebook
Antiquated Structural Systems Series Part 9b

By D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E., F. ASCE, SECB
22
STRUCTURE
STRUC T U R E magazine
New!
Electronic editions of this months issue and our 2009 Trade Show in Print!
ON
THE
COVER
November 2009
Steel
The New Indianapolis Airport Terminal is uniquely representative of the history and the future of Indianapolis. The design incorporates an aerodynamic shape and includes a 200 foot diameter circular skylight, a tting metaphor for the Circle City.
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.
Now at
www.STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURE magazine
November 2009
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI
Editorial
Structural Engineering Licensing and NCSEA Committees
By William D. Bast, P.E., S.E., SECB President, NCSEA As the new President of NCSEA beginning my term in October 2009, I plan to lead the organization by helping to focus our available time and energy on two activities initiating efforts leading to structural engineering licensing in up to 10 states, and increasing the participation and effectiveness of our committees. Of the 55 jurisdictions in the United States, only 12 of them currently have a Structural Engineering Practice or Title Act. One of NCSEAs Strategic Initiatives is to provide leadership and assistance to our State Member Organizations (MOs) such that they can facilitate legislation leading to SE licensing. Utah and Washington were recently successful in this effort; and several other states are currently interested in and/ or already pursuing such Acts including Florida, Ohio, California (has a Partial Practice Act currently), Michigan, Nebraska, Alaska, and Texas. There are several factors in our favor in this effort. ACECs CASE, and ASCEs SEI, both agree with NCSEA that separate licensure is recommended. SEIs policy reads as follows: The Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) supports structural engineering licensure, encourages all qualied and licensed engineers practicing structural engineering to obtain a structural engineer license, and encourages jurisdictions to license structural engineers as a specialty. Also in our favor is the recent NCEES development of a new, 16-hour S.E. exam. Currently, the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) offers two separate eighthour structural engineering (SE) examinations: SE I and SE II. Many state registration boards currently recognize, accept and offer the SE I examination for PE candidates. Effective April 2011, NCEES will cease offering the present SE I and SE II examinations and replace them with a single 16-hour SE examination. We at NCSEA believe that this new exam may eventually be accepted in all states for structural engineering licensure, a huge breakthrough in attaining our goal of uniform licensing requirements throughout the country. The new S.E. exam is, in part, attributable to work done by the Structural Engineering Certication Board (SECB). SECB was established by NCSEA as an interim step towards uniform national licensing, setting as its goals: 1) establishing an identity for structural engineering as a unique profession, and 2) specifying the knowledge and qualications appropriate to the practice of structural engineering. SECB has recognized and requires the SE II exam, but not the SE I exam, and has worked with NCEES to promote the concept of a single appropriate exam. Lastly, NCEES is working on establishing their Model Law Structural Engineer as an ANSI standard for engineering practice. The standard would specify the criteria for dening competency in the practice of structural engineering and include specications for uniformity in requirements for education, experience, and examination for licensure as a Structural Engineer. However, there are certain forces working against us. NSPE is not in favor of separate licensing for structural, nor any other, engineers. The State of Connecticuts Governor M. Jodi Rell recently submitted a proposal to do away with the state Architectural Licensing Board, as well as the State Board of Examiners for Professional Engineers and STRUCTURE magazine Land Surveyors. Crains Chicago Business ran an article in August 2009 that questioned the need for state licensing of some professions, including manicurists, barbers, and engineers! Now is the time to organize a group of volunteers within your MO and start the process with your state legislature to enact a Structural Engineering Practice Act! A second activity for NCSEA to focus on in 2010 is increasing the participation and effectiveness of our committees. NCSEAs Code Advisory Committee (CAC) is arguably our most effective committee. With 45 members and 5 sub-committees, this group represents NCSEA on the International Code Committee and has been very effective in providing One Voice that represents the consensus of thought of all practicing structural engineers regarding code changes and updates. Notably, the NCSEA Joint Industry Committee on Structural Integrity, an ad hoc sub-committee of the CAC, was instrumental in providing reasonable code changes in response to the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. Some of our other committees have been limited in effectiveness by the available time and energy of their members, which tells us that we are going to need more participation in the future, to become stronger and more successful in achieving our goals and initiatives. NCSEA Committees in need of your help include: Advocacy, Continuing Education, Licensing, Basic Education, Publications, SEER (Structural Engineer Emergency Response), and Membership. Please check our website at www.ncsea.com for more information about our committees and their activities. From my experience with committee work through SEAOI, I learned that you get out of it what you put into it or, as the Bible states, I will repay them according to their deeds and the work of their hands. For example, 7 years ago, SEAOIs City of Chicago Liaison Committee was quite active with the so-called Scaffold and Faade Ordinances. As a result of the March 9, 2002 scaffold collapse at the John Hancock Center, a scaffold ordinance was introduced on May 29, 2002 by Mayor Daley at the Chicago City Council meeting. Later, Alderman Stones Building Committee introduced a revised faade ordinance on July 2, 2002. Working on both of these proposed ordinances required signicant extra-curricular work by me, along with my committee members, but the involvement and people that I met along the way added tremendously to my experiences as a structural engineer. In addition to meeting and working with municipal leaders, I developed a working relationship with the leaders of BOMA Chicago, prominent architects in the city, and contractors involved with scaffolding and faade repairs. I hope that I have piqued your interest and that you will choose to join us in our adventures in 2010. I believe that you will nd the time and effort well worth it!
of the American Society of Civil Engineers
November 2009
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
Jeanne M. Vogelzang, JD, CAE Executive Director 312-649-4600 execdir@ncsea.com David Bixby Director, Coalitions 202-347-7474 case@STRUCTUREmag.org
ADVERTISEMENT For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
Council of American Structural Engineers
Structural Engineering Institute

John E. Durrant, P.E. Manager ASCE Engineering Programs 703-295-6360 sei@STRUCTUREmag.org
ADVERTISING ACCOUNT MANAGER

Interactive Sales Associates Dick Railton
Western Sales 951-587-2982
Chuck Minor
Eastern Sales 847-854-1666
sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
EDITORIAL STAFF
Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE Editor Associate Editor Graphic Designer Web Developer
execdir@ncsea.com
publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
Christine M. Sloat, P.E. Nikki Alger
graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org
Rob Fullmer
webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org
William Radig
STRUCTURE (Volume 16, Number 11). ISSN 15364283. Publications Agreement No. 40675118. Owned by the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations and published in cooperation with CASE and SEI monthly by C3 Ink. The publication is distributed free of charge to members of NCSEA, CASE and SEI; the non-member subscription rate is $65/yr domestic; $35/yr student; $125/yr foreign (including Canada). For change of address or duplicate copies, contact your member organization(s). Any opinions expressed in STRUCTURE magazine are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C3 Ink, or the STRUCTURE Editorial Board. STRUCTURE is a registered trademark of
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA).
Published By:
C3 Ink
C3 Ink
A Division of Copper Creek Companies, Inc. 148 Vine St., Reedsburg WI 53959 P-608-524-1397 F-608-524-4432 publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
Visit STRUCTURE magazine on-line at Visit Visit STRUCTURE STRUCTURE magazine magazine on-line online at at www.structuremag.org www.structuremag.org www.STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURE magazine
6 November 2009
InFocus
By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
thoughts from a member of the Editorial Board
What Computers Cant Do

My title this month comes from a controversial 1972 book by Hubert L. Dreyfus, which he revised and updated in 1979 and again in 1992, at which point he retitled it What Computers Still Cant Do. The subtitle is A Critique of Articial Reason, and the basic thesis is that disembodied machines are inherently incapable of reproducing the higher mental functions required for human-like intelligence and consciousness. The original edition appeared at a time when optimism about cognitive simulation (CS) and articial intelligence (AI) was largely unbridled. Dreyfus sought to bring the tools of philosophy to bear on the matter, and his ndings ran completely counter to the dominant mindset of those working in the eld. He identied and challenged what he saw as four key assumptions underlying their objectives and strategies: 1) The Biological Assumption On some level, presumably that of the neurons, the brain processes information by means of discrete operations. 2) The Psychological Assumption The mind can be viewed as a device operating on individual bits of information in accordance with formal rules. 3) The Epistemological Assumption All knowledge can be formalized; i.e., whatever can be understood can be expressed in terms of logical relations. 4) The Ontological Assumption Everything that exists can be represented as a set of facts, each of which is logically independent of all the others. Taken together, these premises amount to characterizing intelligent humans as general-purpose symbol-manipulating devices in other words, as digital computers. Dreyfus presented and defended his main objections to each of them in turn: 1) Empirical evidence strongly suggests that the brain operates more like an analog computer than a digital one for example, there is no one-to-one correspondence between each synapse ring and some symbol in a processing sequence; rather, the rate of pulse transmissions appears to be a more important factor. 2) Information theory should not be confused with or illegitimately transformed into a theory of meaning; the ability to nd rules that accurately describe a certain behavior does not mean that the behavior itself is actually caused by such rules. 3) The ability to nd rules that accurately describe some behaviors does not mean that such rules can be found for all nonarbitrary behaviors, nor that such rules can be used by a computer to reproduce those behaviors. 4) There is no reason to suppose that the specic kind of data that a computer is capable of processing discrete, explicit, and determinate is truly available with respect to the human world; and even if it is, that such a large mass of data could ever be feasibly stored and accessed. Dreyfus then offered three alternative accounts of intelligent human behavior using phenomenological descriptions: The role of the body in organizing and unifying our experience of objects. The role of the situation in providing a background against which behavior can be orderly without being rule-like. The role of human purposes and needs in organizing the situation so that objects are recognized as relevant and accessible. I think that Dreyfuss case has interesting ramications for structural engineering, especially his effective refutation of the last two assumptions. One of the major concerns in the profession today is establishing and maintaining appropriate parameters for the proper use of computers within the analysis and design process, so that practitioners are not relegated to serving merely as technicians, with the software doing most or all of the real work. Recognizing and calling attention to the (apparently) insurmountable limitations of CS and AI can help us resist this potentially dangerous trend. It is worth noting that Dreyfus traces the roots of the epistemological and ontological assumptions all the way back to Plato that is, throughout the entire history of Western philosophy. As Steven L. Goldman has written (see my InFocus column, The Principle of Insufcient Reason, in the May 2008 issue of STRUCTURE), this history has largely favored the formulation of abstract theories that lead to universal and necessary truths. The misguided notion that intelligence involves merely the application of explicit rules to isolated facts is consistent with this entrenched tradition. By contrast, as Goldman (and I) also pointed out, engineering largely involves the implementation of concrete practices that lead to particular and contingent solutions. It cannot be reduced to a programmable list of rules and facts, no matter how large and comprehensive such a compilation might become. As a result, engineering is and probably always will be something that computers cant do.
Your Turn
Do you believe that the development of articial intelligence is possible? Could computers ever take over the practice of structural engineering from humans? Why or why not? 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.
Editorial Board
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB Burns & McDonnell Kansas City, MO chair@structuremag.org
Chair
Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECB CBI Consulting, Inc. Boston, MA Richard Hess, S.E., SECB Hess Engineering Inc. Los Alamitos, CA Mark W. Holmberg, P.E. Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc. Marietta, GA
Brian J. Leshko, P.E. HDR Engineering, Inc. Pittsburgh, PA John A. Mercer, P.E. Mercer Engineering, PC Minot, ND Brian W. Miller AISC Davis, CA
Mike C. Mota, P.E. CRSI Williamstown, NJ Evans Mountzouris, P.E. The DiSalvo Ericson Group Ridgeeld, CT Matthew Salveson, Ph.D., P.E. Dokken Engineering Folsom, CA
Greg Schindler, P.E., S.E. KPFF Consulting Engineers Seattle, WA Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. Kramer Gehlen & Associates, Inc. Vancouver, WA John Buddy Showalter, P.E. AF & PA/American Wood Council Washington, DC
Executive Editor
Jeanne M. Vogelzang, JD, CAE NCSEA Chicago, IL execdir@ncsea.com
STRUCTURE magazine
November 2009
Coming Up with Tie-downs

Wind Uplift Restraint Design Using Continuous Rod Tie-down Assemblies
By Bryan Wert, M.S., P.E., SECB Continuous load path or complete load path are key phrases in engineering design established in International Building Code (IBC) sections 1604.9, 2304.9.6, and International Residential Code (IRC) section R301.1. These phrases require designers to detail connections throughout the structure to resist and transfer overturning, sliding and uplift forces from their point of origin down to the foundation. However, wind uplift restraint and load transfer may be negligible in some conditions, or unfamiliar to many engineers. Engineers designing structures with tile roof coverings in regions with 85 or 90 mph wind speeds may have a general note or typical detail pertaining to uplift restraint on their plans. In these areas of the country, heavy dead load often allows toenail fastening of roof framing to wall framing to restrain wind uplift. Thats it end of load path. Conversely, engineers designing structures with lighter weight roof coverings, such as asphalt shingles, in areas with relatively low 90 mph wind speeds must use hurricane ties to transfer uplift loads, ranging from 60 to almost 300 pounds per lineal foot (plf ). Wall and oor dead loads reduce this force as it is transferred down the structure but, typically, connections are still needed to create the required continuous load path all the way down to the foundation. This is especially true in high wind regions like the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, Hawaii, and special wind regions in the Rockies and Pacic Northwest where design wind speeds can reach up to 150 mph. Structures in these regions, depending on exposure category, may experience extremely high uplift loads exceeding 1000 plf.
Truss or Rafter at 2'-0" o.c.
Rod
Stud 16" o. c.
On-Center Spacing Wood Wall
Roof sheathing not shown for clarity
Truss or Rafter at 2'-0" o.c.
Bond Beam
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
Rebar
On-Center Spacing CMU Wall
Roof sheathing not shown for clarity
Figure 1: Load path comparison between CMU wall using steel rebar and wood wall using steel all-thread rod.
design issues for structural engineers
A New Load Path Solution

For decades, metal connectors, such as hurricane ties, twist straps, at straps and hold-downs, have been used to resist uplift loads from the point of origin to the foundation, creating the uplift restraint load path in light-framed construction. Realworld tested and proven, these connectors, their capacities, and their installation methods are well understood by both designers and installers. Recently, rod systems have been introduced to the light-framed construction industry as a seemingly simple
means of creating a continuous load path for resisting wind uplift forces. When rod systems were rst introduced, some likened all-thread rods spaced regularly every few stud bays in wood construction to vertical rebar spaced regularly every few cells in CMU construction, equating the wood double top plate to the block bond beam or concrete tie beam (Figure 1). While its fairly simple to understand how these load paths work, this is where the similarities end. The capacity of a steel reinforced bond beam
or concrete tie beam clearly is much different than that of a wood top plate when acting as an uplift load collector. Unfortunately, some may over simplify the load path by providing rod system layouts that base the wind uplift rod restraint spacing on rod tension and bearing plate capacities alone. This inadequate design may lead to building damage, structural system performance problems, and ultimately life-safety issues. Many other factors need to be considered in the design of a wind uplift rod system, such as bending
STRUCTURE magazine
November 2009
capacity of wood top plates, deection limitations of wood top plates, top plate rotation issues, tension rod elongation limitations, wood shrinkage concerns, and wood compression under dead load.
Determining Uplift Load Paths

Unlike lateral forces from wind or seismic loading which transfer into the structure at the roof and each oor diaphragm, wind uplift typically loads the structure solely at the roof diaphragm. Uplift may be calculated using ASCE 7 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, or pre-calculated uplift values can be found in either Table 2.2A of the Wood Frame Construction Manual (WFCM) for One- and Two-Family Dwellings, or Table 2308.10.1 of the IBC. Uplift reactions then may be provided in engineering plans or in roof truss calculations. Once the uplift along each wall line of a building is determined and the appropriate hurricane ties to transfer uplift from the roof framing to the top plate are chosen, what comes next? What are the requirements to properly create a continuous load path using steel all-thread rod tie-down assemblies? What governs rod spacing? To date, there doesnt exist a guide or a design standard that provides these steps for design. Consequently, designers are currently left with using engineering judgment based on rational analysis to create this load path.
Figure 2: Obvious top plate bending in testing of rod system with 72 inch o.c. spacing at the Simpson StrongTie Tyrell Gilb Research Lab in Stockton, California. Ultimate load is 290 plf; using a factor of safety 2.0, yields an allowable uplift capacity of 145 plf.
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
Figure 3: The distance between the hurricane tie and the rod restraint creates an eccentric loading condition, causing top plate rotation and reducing the uplift load that the system is capable of transferring.
The Missing Link: Top Plate Considerations

Knowing rod tensile strength and wood bearing capacity is important, but they do not provide enough information to complete the rod spacing layout. Designers must verify that top plate bending capacity does not control the design of wind uplift rod systems by analyzing the at wood plate bending (or exural forces) in the wood top plates. Unless specically detailed for splice conditions, only one of the wood top plate members should be considered to resist the uplift bending forces. To nd the bending stress in the top plate, designers can use the simple engineering equation: Fb = M/S, where M = moment (possibly based on three equal span uniform loading) and S = section modulus (of the wood top plate). If the span between rods is too great, top plate bending failure will control design. Testing has shown this wood top plate exural failure (Figure 2). Servicibility issues also must be considered in rod spacing design. In many cases deection, not bending strength, of the top plates may actually govern the rod spacing design. As the top plate bends, it is deecting between supports which in this case, are rods. Of course, in extreme cases this could lead to
structural system damage and possible failures, but consider the effect of top plate deection on wall and ceiling nishes. What deection limit should be allowed in the top plate? inch? inch? Should the limit be based on the span between rods, such as L/180 or L/240 as suggested by REA, an engineering group in Florida that has been working with rod systems for several years? At this point, the judgment of the design professional and the requirements of the building owner govern as this is not currently dened in the code. Another important concern is top plate rotation due to eccentric loading. The uplift load path becomes compromised if the top plate rotates. Uplift forces are generally transferred into the top plate through a hurricane tie in highwind areas. Hurricane ties are typically installed by attaching the rafter or truss to the side of the top plate, and usually on the inside of a structure. If the next connection in the load path is in the middle of or on the opposite side of the wall, the eccentricity created by the offset load path causes the top plate to rotate, diminishing the amount of load the system is capable of transferring. More than a decade ago, Clemson University completed a study on top plate roll showing this diminished load transfer. While their
STRUCTURE magazine
November 2009
ndings were published in the Journal of Light Construction in 1996, this phenomenon, which Clemson researchers dubbed top plate roll, still is not widely known or understood. Compared to an assembly with the rafter-totop plate and top plate-to-stud connection on the inside of the wall, an assembly with the rafter-to-top plate connector on the inside and sheathing on the outside as the only plate to stud connection had nearly a 60% reduction in uplift capacity. The latter scenario creates an uplift load path moment arm equal to the wall width, forcing the top plate to roll when loaded. In a rod system, the bearing plate transfers the load into the steel rod roughly at the center of the top plate width. This reduces the uplift load path moment arm, and thus reduces the eccentric loading. However, testing has shown that even this shorter moment arm causes the top plate to rotate before it is capable of transferring the full load into the rod system. The test in Figure 3 (page 9) shows rods at 48 inches on center and this top plate roll phenomenon in action.
Figure 4: Sheathing and hurricane ties on opposing sides of the wall with rods at 48 inches o.c. Top plate rotation is still unrestrained.
Pulling Double Duty What is the Effect of Sheathing?

Can sheathing installed on the opposite side of the wall from the hurricane tie help to control top plate roll by restraining the side of the top plate? Uplift testing did show that the wood top plates ability to transfer load increased if the wall was sheathed on one side. However, Figure 4 shows this same rotation action even with sheathing attached to the outside of the wall and hurricane ties on the inside of the wall. Is this surprising? It shouldnt be, considering why the sheathing is usually there for shear resistance, not uplift. As a designer, if you count on that sheathing to help with uplift transfer, then the interaction effects of uplift and shear must be considered in order to know how much the shear wall capacity will be reduced. Another design issue becomes evident in Figure 5, which shows that restraining the top
plate on one side with structural sheathing, while uplift load is transferred into the top plate with a hurricane tie on the opposite side, can cause cross-grain tension failure in the top plate. The National Design Specication for Wood Construction (NDS ) states in section 3.8.2 that, Designs that induce tension stress perpendicular to grain shall be avoided whenever possible. When tension stress perpendicular to grain cannot be avoided, mechanical reinforcement sufcient to resist all such stresses shall be considered. Figure 6 shows that top plate rotation can be compensated with the use of top plate-to-stud connectors so much so, in fact, that the test can force extreme top plate failure and achieve a true ultimate load. This top plate rotation restraint also may be possible if the roof framing-to-top plate connections are made on the outside of the wall, on the same side as structural sheathing. This allows the sheathing to resist rotation, but it creates new design questions. Will sheathing be on every wall? If not, what detailing is required for both sheathed and un-sheathed wall conditions? If hurricane ties attach the roof framing to the top plates and sheathing is fastened over them, what installation and inspection issues arise? Do hurricane ties have similar capacities installed over sheathing? And again, by relying on sheathing for uplift resistance, its likely to reduce shear capacity which is usually the primary purpose for structural sheathing.
The gap between the nut and the bearing plate requires additional deection to occur prior to the system being engaged in a wind event. Figure 7 shows a substantial gap between the nut and bearing plate in a wind uplift restraint rod system at a project in Orlando, Florida. This is the only point of restraint in wind uplift rod tie-down systems, and hence the only location for the gap to occur when wood shrinks and the steel rod does not. Even though most manufacturers recommend that contractors go back and tighten all the nuts down to the bearing plates prior to closing up the wall and ceiling assembly, it can be assumed this doesnt always happen. Furthermore, shrinkage and dead load compression may continue to occur through the rst six months to one year of the life of the structure. Take-up devices will keep rod tie-down systems continuously engaged, compensating for wood shrinkage and compression. Without a take-up device, gaps are likely to occur in rod systems and will reduce the systems effectiveness and performance.
Thats Stretching it: Steel Rod Elongation

Another important consideration is steel rod elongation. The elongation or stretch of a steel rod is calculated with a simple equation, = PL/AE, dependant on the tensile force (P), rod length (L), effective cross-sectional area (A), and modulus of elasticity (E) which is 29,000,000 psi for all structural steel. From this equation, it is easily surmised that the higher the tensile (uplift) force, the longer the rod, or the smaller the rod diameter, the greater the elongation. For example, in a four-story, 40foot tall structure, a -inch diameter rod with a tensile capacity of roughly 1,100 pounds would stretch more than half an inch, which is obviously not the best solution if this is your wind uplift restraint system. More elongation in the rod leads to more deection in the structure under uplift loading. Consequently, it makes sense to limit elongation, but again
Wood Shrinkage Leads to a Less Effective System

At the top of a continuous rod tie-down system, uplift will not transfer into the rod unless a nut is tight against the bearing plate. As moisture escapes from wood framing, the wood begins to shrink. Coupling wood shrinkage with compression due to dead load causes the bearing plate to shrink away from the nuts xed position on the all-thread rod.
Figure 5: With rods centered in the wall and sheathing on opposite side of wall, cross-grain tension failure occurs as top plate bends upward. Mechanical reinforcement is needed.
Figure 6: Simpson Strong-Tie TSP top plate to stud connectors restrain the top plate rotation, allowing the maximum load to be transferred to the rod tiedown system.
STRUCTURE magazine
10
November 2009
this limit is another issue that falls on the shoulders of the designer as there are no current code limitations.
The Bigger Picture

The uplift-force resisting system is only one of the force resisting systems in a structure. Lateral-force resisting and gravity-force resisting systems are also required. In wood construction, beams, joists, plates, and studs may initially be sized to resist gravity loads. Lateral loads, however, require reevaluation of wood members and the addition of steel fasteners, connectors, and anchors to create a properly designed continuous load path. Markedly different from the single point of origin for uplift forces, lateral forces are introduced into the structure at multiple points of origin. Diaphragms at the roof and each oor level distribute these forces and, in wood construction, shear walls typically continue the load path to the foundation. The architects layout of door and window openings and the engineers choice of shear wall locations, shear wall lengths, sheathing materials, end stud/post size, and overturning restraint hardware greatly affect the overturning forces in a structure. The rod sizes in wind uplift tie-down systems are generally too small to resist the higher uplift forces generated by cumulative shear wall overturning in multi-
story structures, so higher capacity hold down solutions are required at the ends of shear walls. Accordingly, uplift resisting and lateral-force resisting systems should usually be designed as two distinct systems. If not, the effects of combined loading must be considered for example, when using a steel rod to resist wind uplift and lateral force induced shear wall overturning to properly design components of these systems.
Design with the Public in Mind

Buildings are going up every month with continuous rod tie-down assemblies used as the structural system for uplift restraint. Unfortunately, not all of these systems are designed correctly. Designs often forego important constraints of wood top plate bending capacity, wood top plate deection, wood top plate rotation, wood shrinkage, wood compression under dead load, and tensile steel rod elongation. Worse yet, some designs compound these errors by relying on rods designed solely for uplift for lateral overturning as well, without proper consideration given to the effects of load interaction. Its up to the designers and professional engineers that seal continuous rod tie-down uplift restraint assemblies to ensure these design factors are taken into consideration in order to protect the life safety of the public. This task is not necessarily easy, especially
Figure 7: What was once a nut tightly secured to the bearing plate now has a gap, as wood shrinkage and dead load compression occur throughout the structure.
without a code approved design guide or standard to follow. Engineers will have to interpret the existing information from rod system manufacturers, and use their experience and judgment to create robust, economical, and most importantly, safe continuous rod tiedown uplift restraint systems. Bryan Wert, M.S., P.E., SECB, is a branch engineer for Simpson Strong-Tie in McKinney, Texas. He can be reached at bwert@strongtie.com.
Cracked-Concrete Solutions
Cracked & Uncracked

CONCRETE
IBC
2006
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. THDSBSETXP09-S
Since the 2006 ICC L i sted 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.
2009
Anchors that crack the code.

ICC-ES ESR-2713
Titen HD
Strong-Bolt
ICC-ES ESR-1771
SET-XP ICC-ES ESR-2508
STRUCTURE magazine
11
November 2009
Post-Tensioned Podium Slabs Make Their Way to the Northeast

By Michael A. Russillo, P. E. Podium slabs are a special type of oor system that transfers the loads from woodframe or steel superstructures above the slab to columns and walls below. They have been in use on the West Coast for years, and now are proving to be an efcient solution in the Northeast for 3 and 4 story residential projects with covered parking below grade. Zoning requirements for open space and re protection, as well as the cost of land and the move toward green building techniques, have encouraged the popularity of this type of structural frame for low-rise, multi-unit residential projects. The use of post-tensioned (PT) castin-place construction for these transfer slabs achieves several benets. The solid concrete separation between parking and living space provides inherent re and sound protection. The use of PT twoway slabs allows for the reduction of the overall depth of the frame, which in turn reduces the amount of excavation required since the parking is below grade. This reduction of volume over a beam and slab approach, along with the reduced requirement of concrete and steel, plays a part in achieving a greener project. The at soft, with sufcient cover for the PT and rebar, requires no additional re protection and allows for the most efcient lighting, electrical and HVAC distribution. As soon as the stressing of the PT tendons takes place (2-3 days after the pour), the forms and shores may be removed and used for another pour. The slab is ready to carry the framing loads for the upper oors. Concrete by nature is never watertight, but the PT does provide a tight slab with signicant crack
The photo above shows the sequence of construction from right to left beginning with the column spacing for parking, the post-tensioning being placed, a poured slab and nally the wood framing being erected. Courtesy of Plumb House Inc.
control. The P/A induced into the slab is a minimum of 125 psi and generally averages 200 psi. This proves especially benecial in the plaza and open areas where planters, soil and grass plots, public spaces and truck loading may be located. Due to the high superimposed loading delivered thru the bearing walls and posts of the 3 or 4 oors of superstructure above onto the larger support spacing required for the parking below, the slab needs to be thicker than the normal span/depth ratio of 45 for PT slabs. 12to 14-inch post-tensioned slabs are used to accommodate the 28- to 30-foot spans for parking, with 3 to 4 story structures above. The post-tensioning is designed to balance the podium slabs dead load, thereby providing zero deection on the rst oor from which to erect the balance of the structure. The slab will generally have a mat of bottom rebar, as well as the top steel at columns, sufcient to satisfy strength requirements. The tendon ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org layout has a narrow band of tendons in one direction along column StruWare, Inc lines and uniformly distributed tenStructural Engineering Software dons in the orthogonal direction. This allows ease of placement of The easiest to use software for calculating the tendons and rebar, and provides wind, seismic, snow and other loadings for much exibility in locating required IBC, ASCE7, and all state codes based on penetrations. Encapsulated tendons these codes ($195.00). are recommended throughout and Tilt-up Concrete Wall Panels ($95.00). epoxy coated rebar is used in the areas exposed to salts and earth. Floor Vibration for Steel Beams and Joists These projects generally have large ($100.00). footprints, with slab areas greater Concrete beams with torsion ($45.00). than 200,000 square feet common. The large post-tensioned slabs sitDemos at: www.struware.com ting on perimeter walls need to STRUCTURE magazine
INSIGHTS
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
be constructed such that they are not restrained from the volume reduction that wants to take place. This is accommodated by providing a smooth nish at the top of the wall and a detail for dowel bar sleeves that allows slab movement before the rebar locks the slab and wall together. Another common detail used with these large slabs is pour strips of 4-foot width to accommodate the stressing, and when left open for 30-60 days allows for the majority of the shrinkage, shortening and creep to take place. Differences of 12 inches or so in the elevations of various parts of the slab from interior enclosed spaces to outer areas are handled by having the lower slab poured rst then, with a separating material used between the slabs, the upper slab is poured overlapping the lower one. The Post-Tensioning Institute, PTI, has provided design examples and useful details to assist in the efcient design and construction of this type of frame in its publication, Post-Tensioning Manual, 6th Edition. Michael A. Russillo, P. E. is the Senior Manager of the Special Products Group at Barker Steel, LLC. His focus since joining Barker Steel in 2003 has been on the development of the monostrand post-tensioning business in the Northeast as well as Barkers other concrete reinforcement related products. Mr. Russillo is a licensed Professional Engineer and is a member of the PostTensioning Institute and the American Concrete Institute. He can be reached via email at mrussillo@barker.com.
12
November 2009
Dont let your plans go sideways.
Strong Frame ordinary moment frames
Wood and Steel Strong-Wall shearwalls
Anchor Tiedown System
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
Full-Scale Monitoring
Three Lessons Learned from a Chicago Program
By Tracy Kijewski-Correa, Ph.D. Trends and attitudes toward full-scale monitoring of buildings in the United States have varied regionally. In seismic zones, human and property losses have generally led to municipal incentives and even federal sponsorship of massive instrumentation efforts. This has resulted in an overall positive public perception surrounding monitoring and even open disclosure of building details and datasets, with many lessons learned. In contrast, monitoring under wind had previously only been undertaken in situations where a buildings performance was suspect. Thus the studies were often condential and public perception was not generally unfavorable, even though there is as much to learn and benet from full-scale monitoring of buildings under wind as there is under earthquakes. Clearly, with respect to embracing full-scale monitoring nationwide, we are behind the curve. This has resulted in a lack of systematic validation of tall buildings, even though these projects are valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars and impact the safety and comfort of millions of Americans each day. Recognizing this deciency, the author and her colleagues established the Chicago Full-Scale Monitoring Program in 2001, with support from the National Science Foundation. The main goal of the project is to evaluate the performance of highrise buildings under wind by comparing their measured and predicted responses, generated through the use of commercially available nite element models and wind tunnel testing. By pooling the expertise of researchers at the University of Notre Dame, consultants at the Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory (BLWTL) at the University of Western Ontario, and designers at Skidmore Owings and Merrill (SOM), this program was able to instrument three tall buildings in Chicago with a collection of global positioning systems (GPS), accelerometers and meteorological stations/anemometers (Figure 1) to observe their responses under a variety of wind events. Due to owner condentiality, the identities of the buildings cannot be disclosed; their general designations are as follows: Building #1 is a steel, stiffened tubular structure Building #2 is a reinforced concrete shear wall/outrigger system Building #3 is a steel tubular system
A fourth building in Seoul, Korea was added in 2005, comprised of a reinforced concrete core and belt wall system; a fth composite building in Toronto, also employing a core and outrigger, was added in 2007. The data from these buildings continues to stream into the program and has been supplemented by other full-scale data sets for a more comprehensive assessment of dynamic properties in common lateral systems. These include a full-scale database of 67 buildings in South Korea, including 25 steel-framed structures ranging from 30 to 66 stories in height, 22 reinforced concrete apartment buildings ranging from ve to 30 stories, and 20 low-rise reinforced concrete structures in the range of ve to 10 stories, from collaborations with Seoul National University of Technology. The following outlines three lessons learned from the analysis of these rare full-scale data sets under wind.
LESSON 1
Accelerometers Alone are Insufcient to Monitor Wind-Induced Motions The displacement response of any structure under wind can be characterized by three components: a mean component () that does not vary over a specied time interval, a background component (B) that does vary over this time interval, but at a slow rate, and a resonant component (R) that also varies over this time interval but at fast rate, oscillating at the natural frequencies of the structure (Figure 2). While many monitoring applications attempt to recover displacements by double integrating recorded accelerations, two constants of integration are neglected, implying that the mean and background components of the displacement response cannot be fully recovered. Studies have shown that the background response contributions can be as high as 20-80% for some structures in certain wind events, implying that a large portion of the overall response picture may be lost when using accelerometers alone. The only way to recover these components is by directly measuring full-scale building displacements. Unfortunately, until recently, there were no reliable means to do so, though the rapid advancement of GPS now makes this possible. The GPS necessary for high delity structural monitoring, on the order of 5 millimeters in accuracy, is ten times more expensive that traditional sensors like accelerometers and requires a local stationary reference point. The deployment
STRUCTURAL TESTING
issues and advances related to structural testing
Figure 1: Schematic of sensors distributed on generic oor plan; dashed lines indicate rooftop installations.
STRUCTURE magazine
14
November 2009
and operation of the GPS on Building 1 of the Chicago Full-Scale Monitoring Program since 2002 is arguably one of the longest on a tall building, and has proven that GPS can be as accurate in full-scale as established technologies like accelerometers (Figure 3a). Having established condence in GPS data, these efforts then allowed the documentation of the background responses of tall buildings for the rst time in full-scale (Figure 3b). However, it should be noted that GPS is not an off-theshelf technology. In fact, the continuous variation in satellite visibility and orientation, as well as the potential for multipath distortions, requires considerable signal processing and compensation to achieve consistently reliable measurements.
Figure 3: (a) Comparison of full-scale accelerations measured by accelerometer (blue) and by GPS (red) on Building 1 of the Chicago Full-Scale Monitoring Program; (b) decomposition of full-scale displacements of Building 1 into its background and resonant components. Table 1: Best-t line to amplitude-dependent natural frequencies in fundamental sway modes of Buildings 1-4 of the Chicago Full-Scale Monitoring Program.
LESSON 2
Dynamic Properties Can Show Amplitude Dependence, Even Under Wind Though the linear equation of motion is often invoked to simplify analysis, it is not reasonable to suggest that these structures are truly linear. In fact, nonlinearities in connections and the interaction of non-structural elements have produced variations in both frequency and damping with amplitude. As a result, when considering different limit states in design (10 year vs. 50 year wind events), it is entirely conceivable that the structures dynamic properties will differ for each of these limit states. The general hypothesis is that buildings soften with increasing amplitude, leading to a reduction in frequency or elongation of period, generally accompanied by an increase in energy dissipation (damping). These behaviors are expected to plateau as cracks or interfaces between components widen and eventually lose contact. Indeed a softening of frequency with amplitude, with a strongly linear trend, has been observed for both the fundamental sway modes of the three high rises in Chicago. By normalizing the slope of the linear t to this trend by its y-intercept (initial frequency), provided in
X-Sway (Hz) Building #1 Building #2 Building #3 Building #4 -0.0034x + 0.2078 -0.0062x + 0.1827 -0.0030x + 0.1200 -0.0027x + 0.1992
Y-Sway (Hz) -0.0019x + 0.1438 -0.0204x + 0.1854 -0.0029x + 0.1200 -0.0023x + 0.2076
100 I tall headquarters Abu Dhabi National Oil Companys new 1
Table 1, the degree of amplitude dependence cracked concrete showing a greater tendency can be veried. Thus, Building 1 shows an toward amplitude-dependence than steel, it amplitude dependence of only 1-2% of the should be noted that Building 4, which is also initial frequency indicating it is fairly insensitive concrete, shows only 1.1-1.3% amplitude deto this phenomenon, quite similar to Build- pendence in its two fundamental sway modes. ing 3, which also shows modest amplitude This observation underscores the authors dependence (2.5% in both axes). It should hypothesis that the structural system, and be reiterated that both of these buildings are steel tubes, which engage columns in axial shortening/ elongation in a so-called cantilever behavior. This is in contrast to Building 2, whose y-axis shows signicantly more amplitude CKC provides structural dependence than its x-axis (11% vs. 3%). While engineering excellence it may be contended that for major projects this is merely a result of the material in question, throughout the United States
and beyond. We invite you to visit us at www.ckcps.com and explore our unique and exciting career opportunities.
Cary Kopczynski & Company
Figure 2: Schematic demonstrating the mean, quasi-static (background) and resonant response components.
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
10500 NE 8th Street, Ste 800 Bellevue, WA 98004-4351 Phone: (425) 455-2144 www.ckcps.com
STRUCTURE magazine
15
November 2009
Figure 4: Amplitude-dependent critical damping ratios in fundamental sway modes of Buildings 1-3 of the Chicago Full-Scale Monitoring Program.
Figure 5: Critical damping ratio as a function of height for common steel structural systems in Korean Full-Scale Database.
specically its primary deformation mechanism, is the key predictor of these behaviors. Building 2s x-axis is dominated by axial shortening associated with its slender shear walls and outriggers, much like the core and belt walls (virtual outriggers) of Building 4. The fact that comparable levels of amplitude dependence are observed in these and other cantilever-dominated systems like tubes would at least suggest that this amplitude dependence in frequency is more pronounced in systems dominated by shearing (frame action), such as Building 2s yaxis, which relies on the weak axis of the shear walls in conjunction with the slab action of the oor system for its lateral resistance. It is now interesting to explore whether analogous behaviors are observed in the critical damping ratios. Figure 4 shows the result of the amplitude dependent damping analysis on the three buildings in Chicago. The trends here are clearly not linear, but do demonstrate a very subtle increase in damping with amplitude. Perhaps more interesting to note is that the two steel tube buildings (Buildings 1 and 3) both show comparable damping ratios on their respective fundamental sway axes, while Building 2 again shows distinctly different behaviors on its two axes. In fact, the y-sway axis, again previously noted to be dominated by more frame action, shows markedly higher damping than the x-axis of the building known to be dominated by its tall, slender shear walls behaving as vertical cantilevers. This is particularly an interesting nding considering that damping values are traditionally assigned to a project based on the construction material, or perhaps gauged from damping databases where damping ratios are parameterized by generic quantities like building height. Instead, the results for Building 2 suggest that
damping is more closely tied to the structural system and its deformation mechanism, which can vary even within a given building. Further, even for the two tube systems in Buildings 1 and 3, although both being of steel, Building 1 has lower damping and is known to have a greater proportion of cantilever action in its structural system. This motivates the third and perhaps most important lesson
LESSON 3
Damping is Lower in Systems with Greater Cantilever Action The ndings surrounding the damping values in Figure 4, as well as the trends surrounding amplitude dependence of frequency, suggest that structural system type can be correlated with trends in the in-situ dynamic characteristics. This hypothesis was explored in greater detail using the database of 67 buildings from South Korea, which includes 22 reinforced concrete buildings employing the same structural system, foundation type and occupancy with heights of 9- to 25-stories. The structural system employed by this subset of buildings is fundamentally a modular shear wall system tied to a reinforced concrete slab and perimeter frames, in many cases characterized by elongated oor plates. For these buildings, damping in the short direction, whose lateral resistance was primarily derived from shear walls, manifested values that decreased with height, as the cantilever contribution to the shear wall deformation increased. Meanwhile, in the long direction there was little correlation between damping and height, and instead damping increased with oor plate aspect ratio. In the long direction of these modular buildings, slab action is the primary means to engage the
various shear wall cores, thus generating more frame action. Since the area of slab present in the building increases with the oor plate aspect ratio, it was only logical that the energy dissipation would also increase in direct proportion. This demonstrates that damping should be parameterized differently depending on the primary deformation mechanism of the structural system it is associated with, and not generically by parameters like material or height. Investigations involving the steel building subset of this South Korean database further supported the observations in Lesson 2. The eight steel buildings considered had heights from 31-60 stories and include braced/moment resisting frames (MRF), outriggers, and tube systems, as visualized in Figure 5 where the vertical lines connect damping values for a given building in its two orthogonal directions. It is immediately obvious that damping is not tied solely to structural height, as only one building exhibits the same damping value on both its axes. The black vertical line highlights the fact that only braced frames are used for the taller buildings in this subset. This conscious choice is required to eliminate excessive frame action in tall MRFs and invoke the axial stiffness of the braces and tied columns in vertical cantilever action. Thus, it is not surprising to note that the damping values on the right side of the graph do not exceed 1.5%, consistent with the hypothesis that the increasing role of axial deformations results in less energy dissipation. The limited data herein appear to suggest that, beyond a height of 125 meters, the damping falls off considerably, potentially due to the transition to a more cantilever-dominated braced structural system. This may be further supported by the case of the outrigger and tube buildings in Figure 5, which are of
STRUCTURE magazine
16
November 2009
comparable height and aspect ratio and again made of the same material, yet the outrigger structure has considerably less damping. As an outrigger engages the perimeter columns to resist overturning moments, it increases the degree of cantilever action. On the other hand, a tube structure, though intended to behave as a vertical cantilever, can suffer from a signicant amount of shear lag unless diagonal bracing is provided or exceptionally small column spacing is employed. Thus, it is plausible that shear lag (frame action) has contributed to the increased energy dissipation in this particular tube. The traditional MRF makes one appearance in this subset of buildings, as the system used in the long direction of one of the buildings, offering a shear-racking mechanism again dissipating more energy than the slender, braced frame on the opposing axis.
Acknowledgements
The analyses conducted here are drawn from the work of the authors graduate students David Pirnia, Stephen Erwin and Audrey Bentz, and would not be possible without the wider collaborations encompassed by the Chicago Full-Scale Monitoring Program, which is forever indebted to the building owners and management for their support. This work was funded by the National Science Foundation, under grants CMS 00-85109, CMS 06-01143, the Chicago Committee on High Rise Buildings, and the Canadian Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC). The collective efforts of the projects principal investigator, Ahsan Kareem (University of Notre Dame), and collaborators at SOM (William Baker and Bradley Young), at BLWTL (Nicholas Isyumov and Dave Morrish) and McMaster University (Mike Tait), as well as other collaborators who were previously with these organizations, are humbly acknowledged. Collaborations with Dr. Sung Won Yoon of the Seoul National University of Technology are also acknowledged for enabling use of the Korean Building Database.
FYFE
Conclusions
The three lessons presented here are but a small cross section of the insights that can be gained from the full-scale data made available by projects like the Chicago Full-Scale Monitoring Program, ultimately allowing the development of more faithful predictive tools for dynamic properties and critical validations of underlying models and design methodologies. These lessons demonstrate the importance of integrating advanced sensing technologies to fully characterize mean and background response components, the need to account for amplitude-dependence in dynamic properties, particularly for systems dominated by frame action, and the apparent trend of diminished energy dissipation in increasingly efcient structural systems dominated by cantilever action. However, it becomes clear that these lessons learned and the hypotheses they pose must be vetted by more full-scale observations over a wide range of structural systems in varying wind conditions. This will only happen if the community continues to embrace and promote the concept of full-scale monitoring as an important nal validation step in the design process. After all, the current practice in seismic zones has already proven that public support and owner incentive for these measures can be established; there is no reason that Americas other windy cities shouldnt follow suit. Tracy Kijewski-Correa, Ph.D., is Associate Chair and Associate Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering and Geological Sciences at the University of Notre Dame and directs the departments Structural DYNAmics and MOnitoring (DYNAMO) Laboratory (www.nd.edu/~dynamo). She can be reached at tkijewsk@nd.edu.
Co. LLC Ty fo Fibr wrap Systems
w w w. f y f e co.co m
20 years ago we created the industry... today we set the standard

The Company
Fyfe Company is the pioneer and global leader in FRP strengthening solutions, established in 1988, and is an ISO 9001:2008 registered rm.
The Services
Engineers, Material Scientists, Designers and Technicians are here to help bring more elegant solutions to your structural problems at no obligation.
The Products
TYFO Fibrwrap Systems are the most rigorously tested products in the industry. They are compliant with the 2006 IBC (ICC ESR #2103) and have more acceptances than any other supplier.
Over 5,000 projects have been completed in over 25 countries around the world. Let us know how we might be able to help bring creative solutions to your projects.
NSF
R
Certified to NSF/ANSI 61
8380 Miralani Drive, San Diego, CA 92126 Tel: 858.642.0694 zFax: 858.444.2982 Email: info@fyfeco.com
STRUCTURE magazine
17
November 2009
Antiquated Structural Systems Series

Part 9b Open Web Steel Joists
By D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E., F. ASCE, SECB 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. This article, however, deals with a method of construction that is still very much in use today. Nevertheless, the historic, original construction practices described here may still be encountered in existing structures. Therefore, the primary purpose of this series of articles will be fullled, which is to compile and disseminate a resource of information to enable structural engineers to share their knowledge of existing structural systems that may no longer be in use but are capable of being adapted or reanalyzed for safe reuse in the marketplace of today and the future.
TYP. CONCENTRATED LOAD L2x2x REQD IF LOAD DOES NOT OCCUR AT JOIST PANEL POINT OR > 6 AND EXCEEDS 150#
JOIST
HANGER ROD
Figure 1: Typical concentrated load on joist detail.
Evaluation and Modication of Existing Joists

The author would rst like to thank the Steel Joist Institute (SJI) for providing much of the material that was used in the development of this article. The evaluation and strengthening of existing open web steel joists and Joist Girders is often required as a result of equipment upgrades or new installations and adaptive reuse or change in use of a facility. The SJI provides an excellent resource for the evaluation and modication of existing joists and Joist Girders in Technical Digest No. #12. The rst step in the process of evaluating an existing joist is to determine the capacity of the member. Ideally, the best method for doing this is through original construction or shop drawings, which allow the identity of the joist to be established. Similarly, it is also sometimes possible to identify the joist by means of fabrication tags left attached to the joists in the eld. However, if tags can be found, more often than not the tag only identies the shop piece mark number rather than the actual joist designation. In some instances, it may only be possible to establish the type or series of the joist through the available documentation. In this situation, it is possible to assume conservatively that the capacity of the existing joist is no more than the lightest joist in the corresponding series for the given depth. In addition, if it is not clear whether a J- or H-Series joist is involved, the J-Series joist should always be conservatively assumed because of its lower load-carrying capacity. However, if a denitive distinction is required, and it is possible to secure a material sample in order
to obtain results from a standard ASTM tension coupon test, a determination as to whether the joist is 36 ksi (J- Series) or 50 ksi (H-Series) can be made. If no drawings are available, it is still possible to establish the approximate capacity of the member by eld measuring the chord and web member sizes, as well as the overall conguration of the joist. This information can then be used to analyze the structure as a simple truss. Critical assumptions that must be made with this approach include the yield strength of the members and whether the existing panel point welds are capable of developing the full capacity of the connected component members. An alternate method includes lling out the Joist Investigation Form located on the SJI website. SJI has indicated considerable success in identifying the series and designation for many older joists with this resource. The next step in the evaluation process is to determine all of the existing loads on the joist system. The existing and new loading criteria are then used to establish the shear and moment envelope of the individual joist, for comparison with the allowable shear and moment envelope based on either the historical data provided by SJI or an independent analysis of the member as a simple truss. In the former case, unless the joists were fabricated with a uniform shear and moment capacity over the entire span length (i.e., KCS joists), then it is also necessary to evaluate the location of the maximum imposed moment. Typically, if the maximum moment is within one foot of the midspan point and the maximum applied moment is less than the joist moment capacity, the
joist is capable of safely supporting the imposed loads. However, if the maximum moment is greater than one foot from the midspan point, the capacity of the joist may not be sufcient even if the applied moment is less than the specied capacity. This situation can occur for two reasons. First, the moment capacity envelope of the joist may actually be less in regions of the span that are not within one foot of the midspan point. Second, a shift in the moment envelope from that normally associated with a uniformly loaded simple span (and the prerequisite shear envelope) may result in stress reversals in the web members (i.e., from tension to compression) for which the original member was not designed or manufactured. A similar, although typically more advantageous, condition also can occur with J- or H-Series joists because of variations in the uniform shear capacity of these members. When the existing joists do not have sufcient capacity to support the new loads, one of three methods can be used to rectify the condition: load redistribution, adding new joists or beams, or reinforcing the existing joists. Load redistribution involves the installation of a sufciently stiff member perpendicular to the span of the joist as required to distribute the applied load to enough adjacent joists such that no one joist is overstressed as a result of the new loading. Adding new joists or beams typically involves the installation of an additional framing member parallel to the joist span, such that all or most of the new applied load is supported by the new framing. New self-supporting beams can also be installed perpendicular to the joist span, as required to reduce the original
ENGINEERS NOTEBOOK
aids for the structural engineers toolbox
STRUCTURE magazine
18
November 2009
span length of the member. Another alternative consists of new independent, self-supporting beam and column frames that avoid the imposition of any new loads on the existing joist framing system. Reinforcing involves the installation of supplemental material to the original joist as required to increase the loadcarrying capacity of the member. The key to the successful use of load redistribution is the installation of a structural member that can adequately and predictably distribute the applied load to enough adjacent joists to justify the safe support of the load. A method of calculating the relative stiffness of a distribution member is available in the reference material noted in the online version of this article. In general, if the spacing of the joists is less than approximately 78% of the calculated relative stiffness of the distribution member and the joists, and the length of the distribution member is less than the inverse of the calculated relative stiffness, then the distribution member may be considered as rigid enough to calculate the static load reactions to the affected joists. For load redistribution solutions, it is the authors preference to use trussed distribution members, rather than individual beams, to ensure adequate transfer of the applied load. Trussed means continuous members located perpendicular to both the bottom and top chords of the existing joists in conjunction with diagonal web members connected to the continuous members at the intersection of the joist chords. The resulting conguration looks like a truss and provides greater stiffness than an individual beam connected to either the bottom or top joist chords alone. The author also recommends that no more than ve joists be engaged by any one redistribution member. In addition, the use of pipes for the continuous redistribution truss chord members can be advantageous, as this type of section ts neatly through the V-shaped panel point openings created at the intersection of the existing chords and web members. However, load redistribution solutions may be difcult to install, depending on accessibility and the presence of existing MEP systems, ceilings or other appurtenances. As indicated above, adding new joists or beams to an existing system can also be used to accommodate new loads on an existing joist structure. When new members are added parallel to the existing joists, the new framing can be used either to reduce the tributary area of the existing joists or to provide direct support of the new loads such that there is no impact on the existing joists. Methods used to install new parallel framing often involve manufacturing, shipping and erecting the new members using eld splices. However, it is possible to install new full-length manufactured STRUCTURE magazine
19
November 2009
joists by means of loose end bearing assemblies. In this scenario, the joists are rst erected on a diagonal to allow the top chord to be lifted above the bearing elevation. The joist is then rotated into an orthogonal position, with the lower portion of the bearing assembly then dropped and welded into place. Typically, in this situation, a shallower bearing seat is also provided for ease of installation and then shimmed once the new joist is in its proper position. When new beams or other similar members are added perpendicular to the joist span, the new framing serves to reduce the span of the existing members, thereby increasing the loadcarrying capacity of the joists. However, it is still necessary to analyze the existing joists to ensure that no load reversals have occurred in tension-only web members, and that the actual applied moment falls within the remaining existing moment capacity envelope of the joist. As with load redistribution solutions, both of the above new framing approaches may be difcult to install. New framing that involves the installation of independent, stand-alone beam and column frames is intended to provide Figure 2. direct support of the new loads such that there is no impact on the existing joist framing. This type of new framing can involve beams located either beneath or above the impacted existing framing and supported by new columns and foundations, or beams that frame between existing columns. This type of solution can also involve new beam frames supported from posts located directly above existing beams or columns. The above solutions are typically more adaptable to the presence of existing MEP systems, ceilings or other appurtenances. Procedures for reinforcing joists are expertly described in SJI Technical Digest No. #12 and involve two basic approaches: 1) ignore the strength of the existing member and simply design the new reinforcement to carry all of the applied load, or 2) make use of the strength of the existing member when designing the reinforcing. Both of the recommended approaches typically involve signicantly more labor costs than material costs because of the expense associated with eld welding.
The author prefers to avoid the use of eld reinforcement for the following reasons. A manufactured open web steel joist is basically a pre-engineered product; however, when an engineer involved with the modication of an existing joist species new eld installed reinforcement, that same engineer assumes the responsibility for the overall adequacy of the joist. This liability extends to not only the reinforcing modications but also, inherently, to any pre-existing, unknown conditions or deciencies in the joist. In addition, eld welding associated with the installation of reinforcement also poses concerns for the design engineer. Problems associated with eld welding are discussed in Technical Digest No. #12 and include temporary localized loss of the material strength of the existing steel due to heat generated by the weld, induced eccentricities, inadequate load path mechanisms, and lack of access, particularly at the top chord. The only exceptions that the author makes include the installation of supplemental web
members as needed to transfer concentrated loads greater than 150 pounds on chords that are located greater than 6 inches from a panel point to the closest adjacent panel point (Figure 1, page 18), and reinforcement designed by the original manufacturers engineer. The rst exception is the authors rule of thumb and is not formally endorsed by SJI, because it is not applicable in all cases; for example, it may be ne for a 30K12, but not for a 10K1. The analysis of existing open web steel joists can be a challenging undertaking and often involves a considerable amount of detective work. Unfortunately, there is typically little or no documentation available concerning the capacity of a specic existing joist under investigation. However, it is hoped that the reference information provided in the online version of this article will assist in increasing the likelihood that the capacity of a joist can be determined using the historical data that is available from SJI. Typically, the investigation of an existing joist results in the need to modify the structural system to provide for the support of new imposed loads. At this juncture, the engineer must then determine if he or she is more comfortable with assuming the responsibility and liability for modifying a pre-engineered product or employing a possibly less risky option, such as load redistribution or adding new joist or beam framing. To assist structural engineers with the evaluation and modication process, the author has included a copy of a owchart (Figure 2) that was developed as result of numerous projects that involved existing joists. 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, and also serves as Adjunct Professor for the Masters of Structural Engineering Program at Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA. Mr. Stuart may be contacted at mstuart@CMXEngineering.com. The online version of this article contains detailed references. Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
STRUCTURE magazine
20
November 2009
BUILDING INTELLIGENT CONNECTIONS.
Connecting Through SDS/2

Building intelligent connections is more than beams, columns and bolts. Its seamlessly integrating your project delivery and connecting project partners its the essence of BIM. SDS/2 provides you with a superior BIM tool by connecting with many commonly used steel software products. You can share information from all disciplines: architecture, engineering, piping and HVAC, detailing, fabricating, erecting, and much more. Whether you are importing a model or exporting information for CNC or conflict resolution, SDS/2 provides trustworthy model data, from start to finish. Become a BIM expert in time for your next project. Visit sds2.com or call 800.443.0782 to learn how you can connect through SDS/2 to start building intelligent connections in your projects today.
Want to see SDS/2 in action? Check out ars sds2.com/webin to sign up today
www.sds2.com
Copyright 2009 Design Data, Inc. All rights reserved.
800.443.0782
402.441.4000
e-mail: info@sds2.com
G ATEWAY
New Indianapolis Airport Terminal and Enplanement Drive.
TO THE CIRCLE CITY By Scott E. Rouse, P.E.

secondary trusses at 56 feet on center in each direction. The trusses cantilever nearly sixty feet out over the enplanement drive at the most extreme condition. The trusses consist of round HSS bottom chords and diagonal web members, and wide ange top chords. The top and bottom chords were all continuously rolled to the 1260-foot radius rather than provided in straight segments, to meet the architectural aesthetic requirements. As a result of this, the quantity of fully welded splices that would be necessary was signicantly reduced. The roof joist purlins of the terminal serve multiple functions beyond the standard vertical load carrying duties. The typical joist spans 56 feet between secondary trusses. Axial loads were specied at each end of the joists top chords based on the lateral bracing requirements for the top chords of the two-way trusses. Even the joist bridging was designed for specied loads by the structural engineer to torsionally restrain the curved box girder at the roof perimeter, and to prevent twist buckling of the primary truss wide ange top chords. The runoff from rain on the roof is collected by a perimeter gutter system designed as an open channel with weirs to control the ow into the roof drain system, which consists of eighteen inch diameter stainless steel piping. There are more than 7 acres, about 320,000 square feet, of surface runoff from the roof. The routing of the roof drains were carefully coordinated with the joist supplier, due to the signicant loads generated by the fully loaded 18-inch diameter piping. The joists were designed and reinforced locally for the individual concentrated loads from the piping hangers. A series of guardrail systems to contain sliding snow on the steeper parts of the roof protect Tekla X-Steel Isometrics of the roof. the perimeter gutter system.
Some people call it a saddle, a clamshell, a snakes head, a bike seat, a potato chip, or a tortilla chip. The mathematical description is a 1260-foot radius, double reverse curve in one direction with a single 1260-foot radius curve intersecting the double curve in the orthogonal direction. The Indianapolis Airport Authoritys objectives for a new Airport Terminal included the design and construction of a modern, efcient gateway, uniquely representative of the history and future of Indiana. The design architect responded with an undulating aerodynamically shaped terminal roof of structural steel to work with the wind and the sun. The result is a graceful, elegant structure featuring a 200foot diameter circular skylight sixty feet above a grand civic plaza, a tting metaphor for the citys dening downtown space known as Monument Circle.
Terminal Roof Design

Geometric Complexities The challenge was mathematically dening the intersection of the saddle shaped roof surface with the perimeter of the 200-foot circular skylight as well as the roof s perimeter gutter condition, and converting it into constructible components. Since the curvature was not conned within one plane, the members had to be made of built up plate box girders bent to a varying radius rather than conventional shapes rolled to a constant radius. The curve of the perimeter steel then matched the curve of the architectural nish. Therefore, the attachment detail could be a constant condition around the entire perimeter. This was considered more economical than using straight segments of structural steel with constantly varying conditions for the nish attachments. Structural Design Wind tunnel analysis and snow deposition studies were performed to compare the wind and snow loads to the code prescribed forces for this project. The design snow load for this project was determined to be less than the International Building Code (IBC) prescribed forces for the Indianapolis area, due to its relatively open exposure to wind during snow storms. A two-way truss system offers the redundancy that is not provided by one-way trusses. The primary trusses typically span 112 feet in each direction, with the main space in the terminal ticket counter area being 140 by 112. The primary trusses carry a series of two-way STRUCTURE magazine
Tekla X-Steel Isometrics of the roof.
22
November 2009
Terminal Columns
The structures hallmark feature is the slender pencil shaped columns supporting the roof framing. Each column consists of a 24-inch diameter main body, with each end tapered to a 13-inch diameter over an eight foot length. A cluster of four columns supports each intersection of the primary two-way trusses. Each spindle in each cluster varies in length due to the curvature of the Signature Building Features: roof s surface. Curtain Wall and Skylight The connection at each end of the columns Natural light was paramount in the design consists of an elegant, single 4-inch diameter of the building, which is one of the earliest pin and gusset plate system. Since each spinairport terminal facilities to apply for LEED dle of the column cluster is pinned at each certication. The 200-foot diameter skylight, end, the columns supporting the roof were as well as the full height structural curtain not stable until they were fully connected to wall system on three sides of the ticketing the roof framing and the oor framing, and and baggage halls, allow plenty of natural not until after the roof framing was tempolight into the building, saving signicant rarily stabilized. amounts of energy for lighting and heating This presented several challenges to the in the winter. The structural requirements erector. The trusses were erected on a tempoat the interface between these major systems rary shoring support system for construction were carefully detailed in the construction gravity and lateral loads. The pinned documents, and coordinated with the columns were suspended from each truss concladding systems engineers. A preliminary nection without the bottom gusset plates. The gap at the base was then eld measured, the Slender roof columns taper at each end to a single pin connection. analysis of these components was performed gussets eld ground to t and then eld installed at the base of columns by the design team prior to bidding and construction. Each support condition and structural deections at each attachment point to the before removing the temporary shoring system. The cone shaped portions of the columns were meticulously fabricated primary structure were detailed in the bid documents for the cladfrom individual trapezoidal shaped pieces of rolled plate, which were ding suppliers to use in detailing their respective systems. The structural
welded up after rolling. Nonconventional means were necessary to roll the plate material since the radius of curvature varies linearly from one end to the other. A disc shaped internal plate stiffener was installed at the transition point between the straight portion of the column and the tapered portion, to handle the forces due to the change in direction of the column wall.
Restoration Team Experience Since 1978
Masonry Faade Re-Anchoring Solutions
SA VE THE W ALL!
Helical Wall Tie System for Stabilizing Veneers and Crack Repair
Strengthen and stabilize masonry faades while adding veneer stiffness for added decades of protection and comfort. CTP has engineered anchor performance solutions for claddings of brick and stone. A selection of corrosion resistant products are available to re-anchor brick to wood, concrete, steel, block, brick, metal stud, or tile back-ups.
CTP Stitch-Tie
Mechanical Anchors for Stabilizing Stone Panel Veneers
Dont Tear it Down or Cover it with Insulation and Stucco
CTP Grip-Max
For Brick Additions or Replacement; and for Brick Veneer Stud Cavity Wall Construction. Veneer Anchoring System That Keeps the Air Barrier Intact and the Veneer in Place.
CTP CT-16
Construction Tie Products, Inc. is committed to supplying the highest quality masonry tie and construction systems in North America and satisfying all stringent national codes and standards for today's building structures. CTP, Inc. promises to be a reliable product source along with on-time business integrity for all demanding builders.
ANOTHER ORIGINAL!
CTP
Shown Here With:
NEW!
CTP GRIP-MAX*
* Patent Pending
CTP Wall Tie
a Multifunctional Triangle Wall Tie That Can be Used in Standard or Seismic Veneer Anchoring Applications
CTP Grip-Tie
Mechanical Repair Anchors for Stabilizing Veneers
Contact our Technical Services Team with your repair application needs for a cost effective and performance targeted veneer stabilizing solution.
7974 W. Orchard Drive Michigan City, Indiana 46360-9390 USA Phone: (219) 878-1427 Contact: Steve Getz, BSCE www.ctpanchors.com
Engineered Anchoring Solutions Provider
Proudly Made In the USA!
STRUCTURE magazine
23
November 2009
Project Team
Owner: Indianapolis Airport Authority Structural Engineer of Record: Fink, Roberts and Petrie, Inc., Indianapolis, IN Other Structural Engineers: Thornton Tomasetti Group, Chicago Illinois and DLZ South Bend, IN Architect of Record: Aerodesign Group, Indianapolis, IN Construction Manager: Hunt/Smoot Construction Managers A Joint Venture Concrete Contractor: FA Wilhelm Indianapolis IN Steel Fabricator: Cives Corporation (Terminal) Wolcott, IN; Hillsdale Fabricators (Concourses) St. Louis, MO; Geiger and Peters Inc. (Entry Canopy) Indianapolis, IN Steel Erector: Ben Hur (Terminal) St. Louis, MO and FA Wilhelm (Concourses) Indianapolis, IN Steel Joist Manufacturer: Canam Steel Corporation, Washington, MO The concourse roof system is free of interior columns. The curved trusses and joists span from exterior wall to exterior wall. The columns are architecturally expressed in a V shaped arrangement, and also provide the lateral stability of the system due to the moment capacity at the top of the V connection to the long span trusses. No obtrusive bracing was needed stabilize the roof system.
AESS
Architecturally Exposed Structural Steel (AESS) components were a critical aspect of the project, although special requirements were relaxed for the high roof portion. The terminal columns, concourse columns, ticket counter canopies and front drive up canopy were meticulously detailed and coordinated with the architectural design. Special requirements for grinding of welds, removal of backing bars, fabricator piece marks, and removal of surface imperfections were explicitly spelled out in the specications.
Concourse construction.
drawings included architectural elevations of the cladding systems, with symbols for each assumed support condition and the anticipated primary structures deection at each connection point. The systems were performance specied, with the design responsibility for the components within the systems boundaries assigned to the supplier.
Conclusion
The result speaks for itself. The designers and builders created a graceful, aerodynamic roof of subtle undulating curves. Although the building is very modern in style, it has been noted by some that the interior spaces harken back to the grand terminal spaces created earlier in the century for rail transportation. Scott E. Rouse, P.E. is Vice President and Senior Project Manager at Fink, Roberts and Petrie, Inc. in Indianapolis, Indiana.
Terminal Floors
The terminal oor framing system is made up of a more conventional structural steel framing system compared to the roof. However, a typical 56- by 56-foot bay along with numerous transfer conditions presented plenty of challenges to the designers. The oor framing had to be carefully coordinated with the baggage conveyor systems suspended below. Vibrations were a concern, as with all large open spaces with very little damping available. Natural frequencies of the oor framing were calculated, and peak accelerations and velocities were checked against the AISC Design Guide 11 recommendations.
Concourse Design
Vibration concerns are especially pertinent for the oor framing in airport concourses, since this is where passengers spend most of their time in the facility. Vibrations due to walking are most easily mitigated in a cast-in-place concrete framing system. The concourse oor framing spans were small enough to warrant a comparative study of cast-in-place framing versus structural steel framing. It was determined that, to get the same vibration resistance characteristics from a structural steel system as a cast-in-place concrete system of comparable depth, the steel tonnage had to be signicantly increased. Furthermore, the repetitive nature over the 1200-foot length of each of the concourses framing lent itself to signicant economies in formwork. The design team and owner selected the cast-in-place concrete system for bidding. The contractor was able to design a ying form system for each bay, and the forms were own horizontally as the Skylight trusses support suspended artwork. construction progressed from one end to the other. STRUCTURE magazine
24
November 2009
QUALITY ASSURANCE CORNER

meeting and exceeding requirements and expectations
Understanding the Limitations of Structural Engineering Software

By Clifford Schwinger, P.E., SECB and Eric J. Heller, E.I.T. The use of engineering software is an important tool for efciently analyzing and designing building structures; however, in order for engineers to effectively use computer software, they must understand the limitations of their software and know how to quickly validate the results with manual calculations. This article discusses numerous examples of potential pitfalls associated with the use of computer software that the authors have encountered, and provides suggestions for managing software within an ofce. Mid to large rms should designate inhouse experts for each program used. These individuals are responsible for understanding how their programs work, keeping abreast of updates, training the rest of the ofce and answering questions. Understanding software assumptions and limitations is crucial to avoiding problems. While computers are good at bulk analysis and design, they only are capable of accomplishing the specic tasks for which they were programmed. Knowing the limit states not considered by the software is crucial to ensuring safe and complete structural design. Note that this article focuses solely on understanding software limitations, and does not address human error in data input. Software issues typically fall into one of four categories: Incorrect or misunderstood default settings Conditions not considered by the software Constructability issues Programming errors and idiosyncrasies program does not check. Software users manuals do not dwell on software shortcomings, and lists of things not analyzed or designed are usually not provided. Some typical examples of items not checked by most analysis and design software are: Column bracing requirements: Do members bracing columns have sufcient strength and stiffness? Slab on metal deck capacity: Does the slab on metal deck have sufcient strength to span between beams? Floor diaphragm strength and stiffness: Do oor diaphragms have sufcient strength and stiffness to transfer loads to the lateral load resisting system, and are connections between diaphragms and the lateral load resisting elements sufcient? Is the distribution of lateral loads to the lateral load resisting system resulting from a rigid diaphragm assumption a realistic one? Figure 1 illustrates how a computer analysis distributed lateral loads to the shear walls and moment frames in a precast concrete parking structure. A rigid diaphragm default setting was used in the computer analysis. While the structure did have substantial torsional stiffness, engineering judgment dictated that the computer analysis resulted in too little load going into the moment frame. The design was revised to require the moment frame to carry substantially more lateral load than the computer analysis required. Drag struts: Are drag struts required to transfer loads from oor diaphragms to lateral load resisting elements? Wind girt design: Were wind girts designed to resist lateral wind loads? Connection design: Are connections designable without requiring expensive details such as web reinforcing plates, stiffeners, etc.? Connection workpoints: Are connection workpoints assumed by the software the same as the workpoints assumed by the engineer and indicated in the details on the Contract Documents? Concrete column load transfer through oor slabs: Where column concrete strength is higher than the oor slab compressive strength, will the slabs have sufcient strength to transfer the column loads through the oors?
Constructability Issues
All engineers should review their designs for constructability. Computer software will generally not consider constructability issues unless those issues are addressed indirectly in the default settings. Some typical constructability issues include: Reinforcing steel in concrete columns: For economy and ease of construction, try to limit the percentage of steel in columns to 2 percent. Top reinforcing steel in concrete slabs perpendicular to slab edges: Select bars such that hooked bars at slab edges can be easily installed in thin slabs. Hooks on larger bars will hinder installation of thin slabs.
Incorrect or Misunderstood Default Settings

Misunderstanding software defaults can lead to mistakes varying from minor to catastrophic. A single set of default settings should be used ofce-wide, and these defaults should not be modied without consent of the engineer in charge. When software is upgraded to a newer version, default settings must be reviewed to ensure that they have been copied properly from the previous version, and that no new defaults have been added.
Conditions Not Considered By the Software

Conditions not considered by the software include limit states or load path issues that the
Figure 1: Illustration of unrealistic computer-generated lateral load distribution to shear walls and moment frame.
STRUCTURE magazine
26
November 2009
Use of commonly available reinforcing steel: Use Grade 60 reinforcing steel, unless availability of grade 75 is conrmed. Review constructability of connections for steel and cast-in-place concrete construction: Constructability of connections is a whole topic in and of itself. Sufce to say, computers are capable of designing any imaginable conguration of framing; however, a review must be performed to understand whether connections can be accomplished in an efcient and economical manner. Standardization of reinforcing steel congurations: The optimal least-weight reinforcing steel arrangement generated by a computer analysis may not always be the least-cost conguration.
Figure 2: Illustration showing inuence of girder deections on deection at end of cantilevered beam.
Y O U B U I L D I T. W E L L P R O T E C T I T.
Programming Errors and Idiosyncrasies

Computer programs occasionally have aws. Engineers need to be familiar with these aws and understand how to work around them. Finding software aws can be challenging, and when they are discovered, all engineers using the software must be alerted to them. An example of a aw of this type is one in which a program incorrectly computes deections at the ends of cantilevered beams when the cantilevers are supported by transverse girders. Some programs do not consider effects of the girder deections when computing the deection at the tip of the cantilever and, accordingly, can substantially underestimate the cantilever deection (Figure 2).
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.
Conclusion
No structural engineering analysis and design software is perfect. Understanding the methodology and assumptions used by the software and the default settings available is crucial to efciently and effectively using the program to design building structures. That said, manual checks of computer results are essential to verify the accuracy of the analysis. The next QA Corner article will discuss quick and easy methods of validating the results of computer analysis and design. Clifford Schwinger, P.E., SECB is a Vice President at The Harman Groups King of Prussia, PA ofce where he is the Quality Assurance Manager. He may be reached at cschwinger@harmangroup.com. Eric Heller, E.I.T. is a Design Engineer at The Harman Group. He may be reached at eheller@harmangroup.com.
Taylor Devices Fluid Viscous Dampers give you the seismic protection you need and the architectural freedom you want.
w w w. t a y l o r d e v i c e s . c o m
North Tonawanda, NY 14120 - 0748 Phone: 716.694 .0800 Fax: 716.695 .6015
STRUCTURE magazine
27
November 2009
S LOTTED W EB C B A
ONNECTION LOWS WAY
SSDAs SlottedWeb design is a far superior moment frame connection solution because it eliminates lateral torsional buckling in the beam, drastically reducing damage to columns and curtain-wall attachments during windstorms and earthquakes. The result is up to 10 times the cyclic life of preNorthridge connections and up to 3 times the cyclic life versus Dog Bone (RBS) moment frame connections. Over 500 buildings have been completed to date with extensive cost savings and significantly improved cyclic life. Sound to good to be true? Do your own cyclic life calculations using your dynamic analysis input with our interactive software at www.slottedweb.com or call Chip callJay JayAllen Allenor or Jim McCorkle Partridge at 888-4-slot-web or Frank Marino today at 888-4-slot-web.
at 415-258-9315.
COMPETITION
Reduces steel requirements by approximately 2.5 lbs./sq. ft. OSHPD* permits W36x396 girders with deep column sections based on cyclic tests provided for hospitals.
Whats more, this unique design affords significant cost savings over existing designs:
Cuts the number of braces per span by a magnitude of up to 3 to 1, so its far easier to route mechanical, electrical, sprinkler systems and waste lines.
Requires less shop fabrication time and field flange welding. No hand grinding of the access hole is required and shop prep can be done entirely with computerized torches.
* Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, State of California
Seismic Structural Design Associates Inc.

Keeping steel construction competitive
Qualifi es for Leed Points
Published in FEMA 350; approved by every U. S. Federal and State authority for use in hospitals, schools and commercial and residential construction. ICC-ES LR-Approval ER-5861, City of Los Angeles RR25614, U.S. Patents 5,680,738; 6,237,303; 7,047,695. SSDA SlottedWeb is a registered trademark of Seismic Structural Design Associates, Inc.
PROFESSIONAL ISSUES
issues affecting the structural engineering profession
Building Disaster Resilient Communities

By Chris D. Poland, S.E. Healthy cities continuously grow by driving economic development while protecting cultural heritage. Success, in part, depends on a healthy built environment that is rooted in contemporary urban planning, sustainability and disaster resilience. Our job, as design professionals, is to provide a built environment that supports all of those goals. Our designs need to be efcient, economical, adaptive, sustainable, and disaster resilient. We are doing well on all fronts except for the last. We need to develop, and include in the code, provisions that will provide the buildings and lifelines needed to support disaster resilience. Resilient communities have a credible disaster response plan that assures a place and ability to govern after a disaster has struck. Their power, water, and communication networks begin operating again shortly after a disaster and people can stay in their homes, travel to where they need to be, and resume a fairly normal living routine within weeks. The return to a new normal can then occur within a few years. While every building should protect its occupants from harm, a select few buildings need to remain operational and a larger group needs to be at least usable during repair. Lifeline systems must be restored quickly to support response and reconstruction. San Francisco is already moving in this direction. The San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR at www.spur.org) recently published four policy papers related to what San Francisco needs from its seismic mitigation policies. Called the Resilient City Initiative, these papers dene resiliency in a deterministic manner based on what the city needs from its buildings and lifelines to support response, recovery and rebuilding post-disaster. It is a set of goals that can be applied to any community facing any natural disaster. At the heart of the recommendations are the need for clarity in the hazard level and the expected damage from a disaster. Engineers have used a variety of measures to dene the size of earthquakes they design to. The rst, and one held in high regard by the media, is the Richter Magnitude. Unfortunately, it means little to earthquake engineers and is not referenced in the code. These days, we prefer to talk about earthquakes in terms
Table 1: Performance Measures that Support Disaster Resilient Cities.
CATEGORY BUILDINGS A Safe and Operational. This describes the performance now expected of new essential facilities such as hospitals and emergency operations centers. Buildings will experience only very minor damage and have energy, water, wastewater, and telecommunications systems to back up any disruption to the normal utility services. Safe and usable during repair. This describes performance for buildings that will be used to shelter in place and for some emergency operations. These will experience damage and disruption to their utility services, but no signicant damage to the structure. They may be occupied without restriction and are expected to receive a green tag after the expected earthquake. Safe and usable after repair. This describes the current expectation for new, non-essential buildings. Buildings may experience signicant structural damage that will require repairs prior to resuming unrestricted occupancy, and therefore are expected to receive a yellow tag after the expected earthquake. Time required for repair will vary from four months to three years or more. Safe but not repairable. This level of performance represents the low end of acceptability for new, non-essential buildings, and is often used as a performance goal for existing buildings undergoing rehabilitation. Buildings may experience extensive structural damage and may be near collapse. Even if repair is technically feasible, it might not be nancially justiable. Many buildings performing at this level are expected to receive a red tag after the expected earthquake. Unsafe. Partial or complete collapse. Damage that will likely lead to signicant casualties in the event of an expected earthquake. These are the killer buildings that need to be addressed most urgently by new mitigation policies. LIFELINES I Resume 100% of service levels within 4 hours. Critical response facilities, including evacuation centers and shelters, need to be supported by utility and transportation systems. This level of performance requires a combination of well built buildings and systems, provisions for making immediate repairs or activating back-up systems as needed, and redundancy within the networks that allows troubled spots to be isolated. Resume 90% service within 72 hours, 95% within 30 days, and 100% within four months. Housing and residential neighborhoods require that utility and transportation systems be restored quickly so that these areas can be brought back to livable conditions. There is time to make repairs to lightly damaged buildings and replace isolated portions of the networks or create alternate paths for bridging around the damage. There is time for parts and materials needed for repairs to be imported into damaged areas. These systems need to have a higher level or resilience and redundancy than the systems that support the rest of the city. Resume 90% service within 72 hours, 95% within 30 days, and 100% within three years. The balance of the city needs to have its systems restored as buildings are repaired and returned to operation. There is time to repair and replace older vulnerable systems. Temporary systems can be installed as needed. Most existing lifeline systems will qualify for Category III performance. STRUCTURE magazine
II
III
29
November 2009
Table 2: Resilient performance requirements for the built Environment.
Phase 1
Time Frame 1 7 days Immediate Within 4 hours Within 24 hours
Condition of the Built Environment Initial Response and staging for reconstruction Mayor proclaims a local emergency and the City activates its Emergency Operations Center. Hospitals, police stations, re stations and City Department operations centers are operational. People who leave or return to the city in order to get home are able to do so. Lifeline systems that support critical response facilities are operational. Emergency response workers are able to activate and their operations are fully mobilized. Hotels designated to house emergency response workers are safe and usable. Shelters are open. All occupied households are inspected by their occupants, and less than 5% of all dwelling units are found unsafe to be occupied. Residents can shelter in place in supercially damaged buildings even if utility services are not functioning. 90% of the utility systems (power, water, wastewater, natural gas and communication systems) are operational and serving the facilities supporting emergency operations and neighborhoods. 90% of the major transportation systems routes, including Bay crossings and airports, are open at least for emergency response. The initial recovery and reconstruction efforts will be focused on repairing residences and schools to a usable condition, and providing the utilities they need to function. Essential City services are fully restored. Housing restored ongoing social needs met All utility systems and transportation routes serving neighborhoods are restored to 95% of pre-event service levels, public transportation is running at 90% capacity. Public schools are open and in session. 90% of the neighborhood businesses are open and serving the workforce. Medical provider ofces are usable again. Airports are open for general use, public transportation is running at 95% capacity, minor transportation routes are repaired and reopened. Temporary shelters are closed, with all displaced households returned home or permanently relocated. 95% percent of the community retail services are reopened. 50% of the non-workforce support businesses are reopened. All business operations, including all City services not related to emergency response or reconstruction, are restored to pre-earthquake levels. and that the design for disaster resilience should accommodate the expected earthquake dened as the event that could occur once in the life of the building under consideration. Urban planners and city policy makers are more comfortable planning for expected events rather than extreme events in all aspects of their work. For San Franciscos buildings, its an M=7.2 on San Andreas Fault located as close to the city as possible. For lifelines, other scenario events need to be dened. Earthquake Professionals are rarely clear about the level of damage that can occur to their buildings and lifeline systems in the expected earthquakes they are designing for. While this is a comfortable position to take because of the concern about liability, it has led to a signicant misconception on the part of the public. Because they are generally not told that their building was only designed to keep the people safe and may actually be seriously damaged, they believe that their buildings are earthquake proof . SPUR decided to tackle that misconception head on and dened eight states of damage that clearly state whether people are safe inside and how soon the building can be used after the shaking stops. Table 1 (page 33), taken from the SPUR Urbanist, denes these transparent performance measures that are key to the publics understanding of the problem and interest in the proposed solution. These categories of damage need to become part of the design and construction vocabulary. Cities do not need to resist disaster without damage. In fact, history shows that, most often,
Within 72 hours 30 to 60 days Within 30 days Within 60 days 3 Within 4 months Within 3 years
Several Years Long-term reconstruction
of their probabilities of occurrence. The favorites are the 10/50 and 2/50. That is an earthquake that will have a 10% or 2% chance of exceedence in 50 years. In the SPUR Initiative, a combined track was taken by suggesting that every city faced three characteristic sizes of earthquakes, (routine, expected, and extreme),
Stronger Than Steel
ADVANTAGES:
High tensile strength Lightweight Conforms to all shapes Full cure in 24 hours Ease of installation Non-toxic No odor Waterproof
WALLS
COLUMNS/PILES
BEAMS/SLABS
APPLICATIONS:
Concrete Masonry Steel Wood Underwater Piles Blast Protection
Pioneered since the 1980s by QuakeWrap President, Professor Mo Ehsani, Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) is applied like wallpaper, reaching 2 to 3 times the strength of steel in 24 hours. TURNKEY SOLUTIONS:
Design Materials Installation
FREE EVALUATION BY A (866) QuakeWrap SENIOR STRUCTURAL (866-782-5397) www.QuakeWrap.com ENGINEER AND COST ESTIMATES IN 24 HOURS
STRUCTURE magazine
30
November 2009
recovery can occur even though signicant damage occurs. The key to success is at the heart of disaster resilience. SPUR denes response and recovery in three phases, the same often used by emergency planners. Table 2 denes the needed condition of the built environment to properly support the recovery. In the rst phase, the weeklong response and rescue period, only the emergency response centers are needed. These buildings need to be capable of Category A performance, Safe and Operational, and the supporting lifelines capable of Category I performance. These are the Occupancy Category IV buildings specied in the 2006 International Building Code (IBC), though there is no code requirement for the lifelines. The second phase of recovery focuses on restoring the neighborhoods within 30 to 60 days so that the workforce can be reestablished, their communities restored, and people are able to return to a normal life style and back to work. This is a new idea that grew out of the Katrina experience. People need to have a place to live, send their kids to school, do their shopping, and create community if they are to participate in the cities economic recovery. The buildings they depend on need to be capable of Category B performance, safe and usable during repairs, and the lifelines that serve them capable of Category II performance. This is a new performance level, not covered by the IBC today, though it does look a lot like the requirements for Occupancy III buildings. There are no such requirements for lifelines. The third phase of recovery covers the repair and reconstruction of the affected area. Buildings need only be safe while they are repaired or replaced within the target period. The current IBC requirements for Occupancy I and II buildings should meet this goal, although the extent and cost of repair needs to be planned for if the 3 year time frame is to be achieved. Funding for the repairs is a key consideration, as are the standards that the repair needs to follow. Pre-event planning and insurance should be given serious consideration. In many ways, we have the tools and procedures to create disaster resilient cities. It will require some modication to the current IBC, signicant alignment of the lifeline systems around common performance objectives, and strong community support for adopting the policies needed to mitigate the decient buildings, build new buildings to the performance levels needed, and insist that the lifeline systems they depend on can deliver as needed. Making such a shift to updated codes, and generating community support for new policies, is not possible without solid, unied support from
the science and engineering communities that support design. We as design professionals need to take the time to understand this issue, join the conversation about how to achieve resiliency, build it into our research programs, convince our owners to incorporate it in their projects, and be a part of the common voice from our profession on how to change the codes. We need to do this.
Chris Poland, S.E. is the Chairman and CEO of Degenkolb Engineers. A passionate seismic safety advocate, he actively participates in the academic, ethical and social advancement of his eld. He is the 2006 recipient of the Alfred E. Alquist award from the California Earthquake Safety Foundation and is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. He can be reached at cpoland@degenkolb.com.
GT STRUDL
Structural Analysis & Design Software
The Best Choice for Infrastructure & Nuclear

NEW Base Plate Module
it 64-B r NEW l Solve e l l Para
Georgia Tech - CASE Center Phone: 404-894-2260 Email: casec@ce.gatech.edu www.gtstrudl.gatech.edu
STRUCTURE magazine
31
November 2009
BUSINESS PRACTICES
business issues
Structural Design Delegation

By David J. Hatem, PC and Matthew P. Tuller, Esq. Design delegation refers to the determination of which professional or party to a construction project will have the ultimate responsibility for the design of a specic component. The focus is on whether the principal design professionals basic scope of services includes every component in the design under either a contract or a national standard, or delegates certain portions of the completed design to the contractor. This shift in responsibility generally ows from the design professional to the contractor or sub-contractor who will construct the specic component. Examples of these secondary components in structural design are elevator support rails and beams, stairs, and retaining walls independent of the primary building. By delegating certain components of the design under the contract, the principal engineer can shift component design to a specialty structural engineer, manufacturers, or contractors who focus on design of specic components, leading to greater expertise and depth of knowledge with the design element. The use of a specialty structural engineer should lead to an efcient design, standardized design criteria, and lower building costs. Then the question is: how can a structural engineer properly delegate portions of the design to a third party? The answer: a proper delegation of design responsibility begins with the initial engagement on the project and the determination of the scope of services on the project, continues with the drafting of specications, and ends with the review of shop drawings. The scope of services to be provided by the structural engineer should be set forth in the contract between the prime (architect) and the sub-consultant. A contractual agreement that properly identies the scope of services, incorporating the requirements called for in the owner-architect agreement, will provide the structural engineer some protection from future claims. The scope of services incorporated into the standard AIA contracts for both the prime and the sub-consultant agreements sets forth a general denition of the normal and usual structural design services. This terminology does not provide the parties with a full appreciation for the services that will be performed by the structural engineer on the project. The ambiguous nature of this terminology would require later interpretation by a court or other fact nder to determine what each party believed the scope of services was on the project. Over the last decade, national groups representing structural engineers have provided guidelines for developing appropriate contract language to outline the design services included in a normal structural design, and those that are delegated to third-parties. These guidelines are modeled to apply further amplication to the AIA contract language. If incorporated into the structural engineers contract, the ...how can a structural engineer properly delegate portions of the design to a third party? guidelines can be used to dene the structural engineers scope of services. One such guideline is the Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE) National Guidelines which has developed recommended denitions for the primary structural design, and those items that are part of the secondary structural design not included in the basic services provided by the structural engineer of record. CASE recommends that these denitions, or reference to the guidelines, be included in all structural design contracts. Under these guidelines, the primary structural system is dened as: The completed combination of elements which serve to support the Buildings self weight, the applicable live load which is based upon the occupancy and use of the spaces, the environmental loads such as wind, seismic, and thermal. Curtain wall members, non-load-bearing walls or exterior facade, to name a few items, are not part of the Primary Structural system. This primary structural system does not include such secondary items as stairs or elevator support rails. CASE recommends that the secondary structural design should either be included as an additional service under the contract, or are delegated to others to complete. The delegation should be accomplished with express language in the contract and specications to effectively shift the design criteria from the structural engineer to the specialty structural engineer. The specications should expressly state that the contractor will need to utilize a specialty structural engineer to provide the design services necessary for the delegated component. For example, the inclusion of a specied pre-casters connection system in the specications, or a specication section which states that the elevator equipment design, including bearing loads, will be provided by the selected manufacturer or contractor. Utilizing specic examples in the contract documents, with the caveat that similar type products or designs will be acceptable, alerts the contractor that a specialty structural engineer will be required to developing the nal design of the delegated component. The principal design engineer will provide such guidance by stating as an example that retaining walls built with stone or CMU of certain lengths, widths, and heights will be designed by the contractors specialty engineer. The specialty retaining wall contractor or secondary designer then develops the appropriate design to meet those general requirements. The specications provide the basic guidelines to direct the specialty contractor and demonstrate that the nal design has been delegated by the principal designer. The most common example of design delegation involves the stairs in a structure. Under the CASE guidelines, the stairs are a secondary element not part of the primary structural design. The structural engineer of record is required to provide the primary structural support for the stairs, but is not required to design the connections attaching the stairs to the structure. This design, along with the overall design of the stairs, is delegated to the contractors stair manufacturer or fabricator. The principal structural engineer remains involved in the design process through the review of shop drawings. As such, the specialty structural engineer will still need to obtain nal approval for the nal design. In the area of stair design, that review normally focuses on the load calculations in relation to the primary support structure. This nal review provides the specialty design professional an opportunity to conrm the accuracy of its design. The specialty structural engineer benets from design delegation because his/her scope of work is limited to the specic component. In most instances, the specialty design professional will also be the fabricator or contractor who will construct the component. This dual role allows the speciality design professional
STRUCTURE magazine
32
November 2009
to develop a niche in the industry that can be marketed as leading to more efcient project development. This expertise will allow for greater marketability of the speciality engineers services. As demonstrated above, the delegation of responsibility is limited to the requirement that the prinicipal design professional review shop drawings prior to construction of the component. This limited or qualied delegation raises the question of what entity or person will be responsible should the ultimate design fail or cause delay on the project. The resolution of this answer will revolve around three issues: 1) the contractual scope of services, 2) the review of shop drawings, and 3) the language included in the specications. As detailed above, a properly drafted contract that limits the scope of services should specically identify secondary items as not included within the scope of work. This contractual design delegation would diminish, if not extinguish, structural engineers duties for design of secondary components. Of course, if the principal design engineers criteria submitted to the secondary engineer is awed or in error, the principal design professional would face potential liability for those errors. For example, if the principal design professional sets an inappropriate stair width for the building and the stairs get fabricated with the errant width, that error could lead to exposure. Similarly, the structural engineers review of shop drawings from the stair fabricator can affect its overall design duties. While conicts with heights or beams that are discovered may not be part of the structural engineers delegated duties, the structural engineer remains responsible for the primary structure and must ensure the stairs will not adversely affect the superstructure. The engineers failure to document conicts could limit the effectiveness of the design delegation. Properly drafted specications which detail the responsibility of the contractor to have a structural engineer prepare the stair drawings and the associated structural calculations can relieve the principal structural engineer of responsibility, and demonstrate that the stair design was delegated to another party. This is the so-called performance specication. To ensure that the duty for secondary items was properly delegated, the principal structural engineer should review the specications, if he did not draft them, to ensure that they are consistent with the overall design delegation. A specication that provides details for connections or additional stair information could limit the effective delegation of the design. Similarly, a design delegation that states that the stair contractor is responsible for the nal
design of the stairs in a manner consistent with XYZ stair manufacturers base design would be an effective delegation of the design. The ability to delegate design elements may also be limited by local building codes, regulations, and professional licensure requirements. When developing standard language for inclusion in contracts, the structural engineer should review these requirements before attempting to delegate design responsibilities. A local jurisdiction may have specic code requiring the structural engineer of record to have designed items not included in the normal services. In those occasions, the structural engineer should address those secondary items that are not normally included in the basic services in the contractual language. The proper delegation of design services from the structural engineer of record to specialty design professionals or to contractors requires an express statement of the intent of the parties to delegate these components. The delegation of design components must be done through the contractual language, specications, and in compliance with local regulations. When such a delegation has been accomplished, it can remove certain aspects of potential liability from the structural engineer. (See the online version of this article, www.STRUCTUREmag.org, for a resource on design delegation.) In addition, the expanding use, and statutory requirement, of peer reviews for life safety issues in the structural design can cloud the issue of ultimate responsibility should the system fail. The peer reviewers determination that a life safety issue exists will lead to some alteration of the structural design. If the peer reviewer is later discovered to have erred in its determination, the structural engineer of record might want to assert that the portions of the design changed as a result of the peer review were delegated to the peer reviewer by statute. Unfortunately, the structural engineer of record will not be able to utilize design delegation in responding to such a problem, as the structural engineer of record remains primarily responsible. David J. Hatem, PC, is a Founding Partner of the multi-practice law rm, Donovan Hatem LLP, and leads the rms Professional Practices Group which represents engineers, architects and construction management professionals. Mr. Hatem can be reached via email at dhatem@donovanhatem.com. Matthew P. Tuller serves as Of Counsel in the Professional Practices Group at Donovan Hatem LLP. Mr. Tuller can be reached via email at mtuller@donovanhatem.com.
STRUCTURE magazine
33
November 2009
SOFTWARE UPDATES
news and information from software vendors
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. 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
AceCad Software Inc Phone: 610-280-9840 Email: m.connolly@strucad.com Web: www.acecadsoftware.com
Product
StruCad V15 and StruM.I.S .NET V7.3.10
Description
AceCad Software is a major provider of integrated technologies including world leading CAD software, StruCad and an unparalleled MRP system, StruMIS. AceCad prides itself on being the rst and only company to offer a complete FIM solution in coordination with BIM. Let AceCad show you the way to success. ADAPTs Structural Concrete Design Suite provides practical and reliable solutions for the design of concrete slab systems, beams, beam frames and foundations. ADAPT-Floor Pro features integrated vibration analysis, enhanced capabilities for forensic analysis, and retrot design. ADAPT-RC offers up-to-date US and Canadian codes with an all new 3D graphical input. Autodesk Revit Structure software offers building information modeling (BIM) to structural engineering rms, delivering better coordinated and more reliable models for more efcient and more accurate design and documentation. Improve multidiscipline coordination, and incorporate analysis through bidirectional linking to popular structural analysis software, including Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional software. ISM Synchronizer v8i works behind the scenes to provide engineers with a shared and dynamic repository for all of their structural content including visualization and revision history facilitating increased coordination. ISM Synchronizer offers structural engineers new and improved ways to manage the multiple software applications required for their structural projects. Go paperless with Bluebeam PDF Revu. This PDF editor includes industry-standard tools for digitally redlining and stamping PDFs of shop drawings and RFIs, calculating takeoffs and more. Bluebeam users have reported paper savings of up to 85%. How much can you save? Find out by trying Bluebeam. Computers & Structures, Inc. develops leading structural and earthquake engineering software that is used in more than 180 countries worldwide. From simple building structures to complex long-span bridges, CSI products do it all with an unmatched balance of practicality and sophistication, setting the industry standard for innovation, productivity and integration. The upgraded Version 3.1 of the widely-used FREE Decon Studrail software can be downloaded at no charge from the Decon website. Updates include references to ACI 318-05 and ACI 421.1R-99 and a modernized user interface. Round columns and a wider variety of openings are also handled by this new software.
ADAPT Corporation
Phone: 650-306-2400 Email: info@adaptsoft.com Web: www.adaptsoft.com Autodesk, Inc. Phone: 800-964-6432 Email: brian.haines@autodesk.com Web: www.autodesk.com Bentley Systems, Inc. Phone: 800-236-8539 Email: structural@bentley.com Web: www.bentley.com Bluebeam Software, Inc. Phone: 866-496-2140 Email: sales@bluebeam.com Web: www.bluebeam.com ADAPT 2010 Solutions
Autodesk Revit Structure
ISM Synchronizer v8i
Bluebeam PDF Revu
Computers & Structures, Inc.

Phone: 510-649-2248 Email: info@csiberkeley.com Web: www.csiberkeley.com Decon U.S.A., Inc. Phone: 800-975-6990 Email: neil@decon.ca Web: www.deconusa.com
SAP2000, ETABS, SAFE, Perform-3D
Studrail STDESIGN V3.1
Design Data
Phone: 800-443-0782 Email: Info@sds2.com Web: www.sds2.com Devco Software, Inc. Phone: 541-426-5713 Email: rob@devcosoftware.com Web: www.devcosoftware.com Dimensional Solutions, Inc. Phone: 281-497-5991 Email: info@dimsoln.com Web: www.dimsoln.com SDS/2
Design Datas SDS/2 steel detailing software is the only product on the market with the built-in intelligence to automatically design connections using a 3D model with a multitude of options for beams, columns, bracing and joists. A full station of SDS/2 gives you the power to get the job done.
LGBEAMER v7 Pro
Design cold-formed cee, zee and channel shapes. Single and multi-span. Uniform, concentrated, sloped, partial span and axial loads. Includes the 2004 NASPEC Supplement per IBC 2006.
Foundation3D and Mat3D
Dimensional Solutions Foundation3D and Mat3D can import support reactions from an Excel spreadsheet to quickly complete soil and pile supported foundation designs using various international concrete design codes such as ACI 318, BS 8110, CSA A23.3, IBC, Euro EN, CP 65, IS 456, AS 3600. Visit our website today. GTSTRUDL Version-30 Comprehensive Linear/Nonlinear, Static/Dynamic analysis features for Frame and Finite element structures includes moving load generation, response spectrum, transient, and pushover analyses. Models plastic hinges, discrete dampers, tension/compression only members and nonlinear connections. Steel and Reinforced Concrete Design capabilities. NEW Base Plate Analysis Module and Muti-Processor Solvers are available. Concrete anchor calculations are easier with Hilti PROFIS Anchor v2.0. With the ability to perform strength design calculations for cast-in-place and post-installed anchor systems compliant with the latest building codes, PROFIS Anchor v2.0 offers users a powerful and exible design tool. For a free download go to our website.
GT STRUDL
Phone: 404-894-2260 Email: joan.incrocci@ce.gatech.edu Web: www.gtstrudl.gatech.edu Hilti Phone: 800-879-8000 Email: custserv@us.hilti.com Web: www.us.hilti.com iLevel by Weyerhaeuser Phone: 888-453-8358 Email: ilevel@weyerhaeuser.com Web: www.iLevel.com MIDASoft Inc. Phone: 800-584-5541 Email: midasoft@midasuser.com Web: www.midasuser.com National Concrete Masonry Association Phone: 703-713-1900 Email: dgraber@ncma.org Web: www.ncma.org GT STRUDL
PROFIS Anchor v2.0
iLevel Forte Sizing Software
Whether youre sizing joists, beams or columns, iLevel Forte software automatically selects the best member for any application based on your particular needs whether youre sizing for a specic spacing or member depth, or just the best overall t. Request your FREE copy at the website or by calling 800-833-9491.
midas Civil
midas Civil (Integrated solution system for bridges & civil structures): 3-D analysis and design software for all bridge structures curved girder, composite, segmental post-tensioning, Suspension, Cable-Stayed, skewed Slab, Frame and Culvert bridges. Live Load optimizers for AASHTO LRFD, CSA-S6, BD37, BS, Eurocode, etc.
SRWALL version 4
NCMAs Segemental Retaining Wall software has been completely rewritten based on the new 3rd Edition of the NCMA SRW Design Manual. Many new features including internal compound stability analsis. 30-day free trial download.
STRUCTURE magazine
34
November 2009
Company
Omnitech Associates, Inc. Phone: 510-658-8328 Email: kiciman@desconplus.com Web: www.desconplus.com POSTEN Engineering Systems Phone: 510-506-8284 Email: sales@postensoft.com Web: www.postensoft.com
Product
Descon, Steel Connections Design Software
Description
DESCON SOFTWARE version6.1 Designs Connections of Steel Moment Frames and Braced Frames Structures using Latest AISC Specications, US Customary and Metric Units in Allowable Stress (ASD) and Load and Resistance Factor (LRFD) Procedures including prequalied Seismic Designs. DESCON Produces Detailed Calculation Report and Scaled Engineering Drawing of the Designed Connections. Introducing POSTEN Multistory V8, the most Efcient way to design Post-tensioned Concrete Structures. POSTEN Multistory designs the tendons, drapes, prestress anf mild steel for you, the rst time, automatically. No ddling with drapes, No guessing prestress, no time wasting, with capabilities not found in any other software.
POSTEN Multistory V8
Powers Fasteners
Phone: 985-807-6666 Email: jzenor@powers.com Web: www.powers.com Retain Pro Software Phone: 800-422-2251 Email: hbrooks@retainpro.com Web: www.retainpro.com Concrete Anchoring Software
Powers Design Assist Anchoring Software: Downloadable Post installed and Cast-in-Place anchoring software to assist in designing to the IBC 2006 ACI 318 Appendix D.
Retain Pro 9
Retain Pro 9 is now available with more features and enhancements. See them and download a demo at our website. Immediate download after ordering. Coming soon is the new 8th. edition of Basics of Retaining Wall Design see our website for contents and ordering. RISAFloor designs and optimizes building systems constructed of steel (composite and noncomposite), concrete, wood and CFS, as well as combinations of materials. Automatic live load reduction, additive or exclusive oor area loads, vibration calculations and more make RISAFloor the rst choice for the design of all types of building systems. WLS2005 performs all wind load computations in ASCE7-05, 02 and 98, Section 6., allows the user to build structures within the system (buildings, signs, chimneys, tanks, and other structures), provides basic wind speeds from a built-in version of the wind speed map or allows the user to enter a wind speed. StructurePoints software suite is so easy to learn and simple to use that youll be able to start saving time and money almost immediately. Formerly pcaSlab, pcaWall, pcaMats, pcaColumn, pcaBeam and pcaFrame, our programs are widely used for analysis, design and investigation of reinforced concrete buildings and structures.
RISA Technologies
Phone: 949-951-5815 Email: info@risatech.com Web: www.risa.com Standards Design Group, Inc. Phone: 800-366-5585 Email: info@standardsdesign.com Web: www.standardsdesign.com StructurePoint Phone: 847-966-4357 Email: info@structurepoint.org Web: www.StructurePoint.org RISAFloor
Wind Loads on Structure 2005
Concrete Software Solutions
Struware, Inc.
Phone: 904-302-6724 Email: mail@struware.com Web: www.struware.com Tekla, Inc. Phone: 877-835-5265 Email: info.us@tekla.com Web: www.tekla.com/us Struware Code Search
The Struware Code Search program will provide you with all pertinent wind, seismic, snow, live and dead loads on your building in just minutes. The program simplies ASCE 7 & IBC (and codes based on these) by catching all the buts, ifs, insteads, footnotes and hidden items that most people miss. Demos available at our website.
Tekla Structures
The best of breed BIM solution for structural engineers that takes any building project, no matter how large or complex, from design to detailing, construction and beyond. Interoperability with 2D and BIM tools used by architects, MEP, etc. Works with popular A&D programs. Modules for Steel, CIP and Precast detailing.
ADVERTISEMENT For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTURE.org
STRUCTURE magazine
35
November 2009
NCSEA 2010 Winter Institute The Marriot Coronado Island Resort

March 12 & 13, 2010 News form the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
Coronado, California
A two-day seminar featuring Seismic Design: Explaining the Y Factor From One Generation to the Next
Included in the program Friday is a tour of the Charles Pankow Structures Laboratory and the Robert and Natalie Englekirk Structural Engineering Center at the University of California San Diego.
Reservations:
The Marriott Coronado Island Resort 1-800-228-9290 or 1-619-435-3000
Mention NCSEA Winter Institute for a special $149 room rate until February 24. Register online at: www.ncsea.com Registration fee: $350 per day, $595 for both days
Friday, March 12, 2010

7:00 a.m. 8:00 a.m. REGISTRATION AND CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST 8:00 a.m. 8:30 a.m. ASCE 7 Chia-Ming Uang
8.0 Professional Development Hours
8:30 a.m. 10:00 a.m. Underlying Concepts in Seismic Design Codes: Application to Steel Building Structures Seismic loadings and materials design codes have evolved signicantly over the past few decades; but the underlying concept remains more or less the same. This presentation will demystify these ever-sophisticated codes from a historical perspective. The 2010 AISC Seismic Provisions will be used to demonstrate how these principles are implemented in the code. Chia-Ming Uang, Ph.D., is a Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of California, San Diego. His research area is in seismic design methodology, large-scale testing, seismic analysis and design of steel structures. 10:00 a.m. 10:15 a.m. BREAK 10:15 a.m. 11:45 a.m. Design Issues and Evaluation Methods for Masonry Structures This talk will cover basic concepts on the seismic design of reinforced masonry structures using the strength design method, including issues and pitfalls in current code provisions. Analytical methods for performance assessment of different masonry systems, including older unreinforced masonry structures, will be presented. Benson Shing, Ph.D., is a Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of California at San Diego. He has been engaged in masonry research for a number of years, including large-scale testing and nonlinear analysis of masonry structures. 11:45 a.m. 12:30 p.m. Q & A with Benson Shing and Chia Ming Uang 12:30 p.m. 1:30 p.m. LUNCH 1:30 p.m. 2:00 p.m. Discussions enroute to UCSD Laboratory 2:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m Tours of UCSD Laboratory and UCSD Shake Table Facility Attendees will have the opportunity to visit the Charles Pankow Structures Laboratory and the Robert and Natalie Englekirk Structural Engineering Center at the University of California San Diego. Large scale dynamic and static tests are often performed in these two laboratories. The most recently commissioned Englekirk laboratory hosts the NEES Large Outdoor High-Performance Shake Table, a blast simulator and two soil pits for performing soil-foundation studies. 6:30 p.m. 7:30 p.m. RECEPTION
Saturday, March 13, 2009
7.5 Professional Development Hours
NCSEA News
7:00 a.m. 8:00 a.m. REGISTRATION AND CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST 8 a.m. 9:30 a.m. System Performance Factors for Concrete Structures from a Displacement-Based Perspective This presentation will compare the design lateral forces obtained using the conventional force-based methods as prescribed in ASCE 7-05 with those obtained from a displacement-based method. The seminar will also examine the seismic response of a full-scale 7-story, load-bearing building slice tested on the NEES-UCSD shake table. Jos I. Restrepo, Ph.D., is a Professor in Structural Engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and Director of Operations of the Charles Lee Powell Structural Research Laboratories, the largest Structures Laboratory complex in the United States and the world. 9:30 a.m. 9:45 a.m. BREAK 9:45 a.m. 11:00 a.m. Design Provisions for Wood Construction A Comparison of Past and Present A comparison of wood design provisions, past and present, will highlight differences and similarities, as well as expose underlying considerations embedded in todays wood design provisions. Wood design issues covered include design of wood structural panel shear walls, connection design, member design, and implementation of LRFD for wood. Phil Line, P.E., works extensively with wood industry technical committees on the development of wood design standards, including the National Design Specication (NDS ) for Wood Construction. He also serves on the BSSC Provisions Update Committee, ASCE 7 Seismic Subcommittee and ASTM D07 Committee on Wood. STRUCTURE magazine
36
November 2009
NCSEA News
11:00 a.m. 12:30 p.m. Fragility of Nonstructural Components and Systems Minimizing seismic-induced damage to nonstructural components and systems (NCSs) continues to be a difcult task for earthquake professionals. At present, continued development and population of data for use in fragility-type approaches provides designers the most fruitful opportunity to design against seismic loading. In this presentation, we discuss fragilitybased approaches and provide design examples specic to the most critical NCSs in typical building systems. Tara Hutchinson, Ph.D., P.E., is an Associate Professor in the Department of Structural Engineering at the University of California, San Diego. She received an M.S. degree in Civil Engineering (structures) from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor in 1995 and a Ph.D. degree (geotechnical and structures) from the University of California, Davis in 2001. 12:30 p.m. 1:30 p.m. LUNCH 1:30 p.m. 2:45 p.m. Modeling Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction in a Design Environment Easy, Difcult or Impossible? This lecture will discuss the various aspects of soil-foundation-structure-interaction (SFSI) including when SFSI effects may be signicant and when these effects may be ignored. Various modeling techniques for incorporating SFSI in seismic analyses are presented and compared. Farzad Naeim, Ph.D., J.D., is the current President of Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), Vice President and General Counsel for John A. Martin & Associates, Inc. in Los Angeles and a licensed patent attorney. Dr. Naeim serves as the editor of The Seismic Design Handbook, now in its second edition, and is the coauthor of Design of Seismic Isolated Structures. 2:45 p.m. 3:00 p.m. BREAK 3:00 p.m. 4:30 p.m. Development of Next-Generation Peformance-Based Seismic Design Criteria Since 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been sponsoring the Applied Technology Councils ATC-58 project to develop Next-generation Performance-based Design Criteria. Intended to eventually replace the technology contained in the present ASCE standards, this new methodology permits engineers to characterize performance directly in terms of probable repair costs, occupancy interruption time, and casualties associated with building response to earthquakes. Ronald O. Hamburger, S.E., SECB, is a Senior Principal with Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. in San Francisco. A PastPresident of NCSEA, current chair of its Code Advisory Committee and present chair of the Structural Engineering Certication Board, Mr. Hamburger is an international expert on performance-based engineering for extreme events.
News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
NCSEA Seventeenth Annual Conference, Scottsdale, AZ

NCSEA and SEAoA would like to thank all of the exhibitors and sponsors who made the Seventeenth Annual Conference possible. Their contribution of knowledge, time and resources greatly enhanced this years event.
EXHIBITORS
American Institute of Steel Construction Arizona Ram Jack and HJ3 ASC Steel Deck Boise Cascade CADsoft Consulting CETCO CMC Steel Products/CMC Joist & Deck ConXtech, Inc. Copper State Bolt and Nut CoreBrace CSC Inc. Chicago Design Data Magnum Piering Euclid Chemical Co. Fyfe Co. LLC Hardy Frames, Inc. Hayward Baker Helical Anchors, Inc. Hilti, Inc. ICC International Code Council Intermat Sure-Board ITW Red Head Lindapter North America NCEES Nucor Vulcraft Group Pacic Helix Distributing Powers Fasteners QuakeWrap, Inc. Quincy Joist Company RISA Technologies Schuff Steel Company/SSDA SidePlate Systems, Inc. Simpson Strong-Tie Spancrete Mfrs. Assoc. Speedie & Associates, Inc. Star Seismic Steel Cast Connections Steel Joist Institute USG Structural Tech. USP Structural Connectors Valmont Industries Vector Corrosion Tech. Verco Decking, Inc. W. R. Grace & Co. Wheeling Corrugating
Hilti, Inc.
Gold Sponsor
ConXtech, Inc. KPFF Consulting Engineers M3 Engineering & Technology Quincy Joist Company
Silver Sponsor
Caruso Turley Scott Headed Reinforced Corporation Lloyd Construction Company Inc. P. Douglas Folk Schneider & Assoc. Structural Engineers Terra Consultants, Inc
SPONSORS Copper Sponsor
Breakfast Sponsors
ICC International Code Council PLAN Professional Liability Agents Network
Lunch Sponsors
Hilti, Inc. SidePlate Systems Inc.
View pictures and video of the 2009 NCSEA Annual Conference online, in the digital issue of STRUCTURE, at www.structuremag.org.
Break Sponsors
CADsoft Consulting Canam Steel Corporation Simpson Strong-Tie
STRUCTURE magazine
37
November 2009
Improving the Seismic Performance of Existing Buildings and Other Structures

December 9-11, 2009 San Francisco, CA
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
advance registration available until november 15!

Visit the conference website for registration details: www.atc-sei.org/. This inaugural conference, organized by the Applied Technology Council and the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, is dedicated solely to improving the seismic performance of existing buildings and other structures and includes: 4 Concurrent Tracks of Technical Sessions including papers on: Case Studies in Seismic Evaluation and Rehabilitation of Buildings Incremental Seismic Rehabilitation and Cost Benet Studies Seismic Performance and Rehabilitation of Non-Building Structures Seismic Performance of Nonstructural Components Suggested Improvements to Guidelines, Standards and Analysis Procedures Probable Maximum Loss (PML) Studies and Issues New Materials and Innovative Approaches for Seismic Rehabilitation Improving Seismic Performance Using Seismic Isolation, Supplemental Damping and Monitoring Mitigation Policy Issues, Strategies and Ongoing Programs Earthquake Surface Rupture Design Considerations Luxury and location converge in perfect balance at Hyatt Regency San Francisco. The only Four-Diamond downtown San Francisco hotel situated right on the Embarcadero waterfront, guests will enjoy immediate access to both the Financial District and the citys most famous attractions. Youll nd the historic Ferry Building on one side of the hotel, the ferry to Alcatraz and the Bay on the other, and stunning views all around. With so many options, you may choose to wander through Chinatown to Fishermans Wharf, shop in Union Square or board the cable cars for a riding tour of the city. Equally impressive are the hotels extensive in-house amenities and tempting dining choices. Hyatt Regency San Francisco 5 Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA Hotel information on the SEI website: www.atc-sei.org/hotels.html.
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.
Errata
Structural Columns
News from the Design Practices Committee

The Design Practices Committee recently completed assessing the results of the latest Trial Design Problem related to snow loading. Thank you to the many engineers across the country that submitted a solution to the problem. The consistency and accuracy of the results are very heartening. If you live in an area of the country where snow loading is a major design factor, we encourage you to review the results summarized in a short white paper located on the SEI website at: http://content.seinstitute.org/. We are also interested in expanding our committee membership. If you have a design background and are interested in identifying and assessing areas of the code that need improvement, please consider joining the Design Practices Committee. For the online application, see the SEI website at: www.seinstitute.org/committees/bpadform.cfm.
2x 6 S tuds S heathing
Call for Participation in SEI Trial Design Problem Solutions

2009 Anchor Design Problem
S ection V iew
3x 6 Sill Plate S hear B olts to be D esigned
C oncrete S lab and F oundation with M inim al R einforcing
E levation V iew
Deadline for submission November 30, 2009 Trial Design problems are an investigation into how structural engineers interpret code provisions. The exercise is designed to take about an hour, and all solutions will be anonymous in the publication of results. Your participation will help ensure that ASCE/SEI standards continue to provide information clearly. Please participate and encourage your colleagues to do so. Visit www.SEInstitute.org to access the problem and instructions and submit your solution by November 30, 2009 to Suzanne Fisher (see contact information on the right). STRUCTURE magazine Suzanne Fisher SEI of ASCE 1801 Alexander Bell Dr. Reston, VA 20191 ssher@asce.org Fax 703-295-6361
38
November 2009
Structural Columns
2010 Bridge Calendar Now Available

The stunning images of the Bridges 2010 Calendar showcase a diverse collection of bridges from around the world. Complete with historical notes, the calendar celebrates the form, function, and style central to civil engineering. This full-size wall calendar (14 x 24 with twin loop binding) offers plenty of room to jot down daily activities and appointments. View featured bridges and order your copies online at: pubs.asce.org.bridges. Imprints are available-advertize your company name and logo on the calendar all year long! The Bridges 2010 Calendar 2010 Structures Congress is an ideal gift that truly connects with those you work and do May 12-15, 2010 business with. Bulk discounts are also available! Orlando, FL For more information see the SEI website at http://content.asce.org/conferences/Structures_2010/.
SAVE THE DATE
Business Practice Committee Call for New Members
The Business Practice Committee of the Business and Professional Activities Division (BPAD) of SEI is accepting applications for new members. The committee focuses on subjects pertaining to the business of structural engineering such as getting closer to the money, contracts, costs implications of implementing BIM in your practice, and other general business practices. If you are interested in joining the Business Practice Committee, please visit: http://content.seinstitute.org/committees/business.html.
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
2010 Fazlur R. Khan Lecture Series at Lehigh University

Bethlehem, PA 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:
1st Lecture:
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, February 26, 2010 4:10 pm
Location:
Sinclair Lab Auditorium Lehigh University 7 Asa Drive Bethlehem, PA, USA Please contact Leslie J. Ladick at 610-758-6123 or Email: ljl2@lehigh.edu with any questions. For more information about the lecture series, see the Lehigh University website at: www.lehigh.edu/frkseries.
2nd Lecture:
RON KLEMENCIC, President, Magnusson Klemencic Associates, Seattle, WA, OUTRAGEOUS! Friday, March 19, 2010 4:10 pm
3rd Lecture:
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 Friday, April 16, 2010 4:10 pm
STRUCTURE magazine
39
November 2009
Edward W. Pence, Jr. Receives CASE Past Chairmans Award

During the ACEC Fall Conference last month, the CASE Past Chairmans Award was presented to Edward W. Pence, Jr., of Stroud, Pence & Associates, Ltd., in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Ed had served as CASE Chairman for 2006-2007. In addition to his tireless service to CASE itself, he was a Board member of SERMAC, a founding member and former chairman of the Virginia Structural Engineers Council, and a co-author of several publications dealing with loss prevention and risk management. The award was presented by CASE Past Chairman Chris Poland during a special awards luncheon held during the ACEC conference. Since 1997, the CASE Past Chairmans award is given each year to a structural engineer who has been an outstanding champion for the profession. CASE was formed over 20 years
The Newsletter of the Council of American Structural Engineers
Shown left to right: ACEC President David Raymond, Ed Pence, Chris Poland and ACEC Chairman Timothy Psomas.
ago out of the need to control skyrocketing professional liability insurance premiums. Over that time, CASE has expanded its agenda to feature a full risk management program including seminars, documents and convocations that are highly valued by structural engineering rms nationwide.
Next CASE Risk Management Convocation Coming to Orlando Spring 2010

Next spring, 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 following CASE Convocation sessions are scheduled to take place on May 14:
6:45 a.m. 8:00 a.m.

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.
1:45 p.m. 3:15 p.m.

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 will cover communication, corporate culture, planning and prevention, education, scope and contracts, construction documents and construction.
CASE in Point
3:30 p.m. 5:00 p.m.

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.
8:00 a.m. 9:30 a.m.

Steel Fabricator Perspective on Quality of Engineering Documents or Change Orders Speaker: Carol Drucker, Drucker Zaidel; Other Speakers TBA This session will be led by a licensed specialty structural engineer who can comment on the document quality as it relates to potential risk management issues for the structural engineer of record. 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.
STRUCTURE magazine
40
November 2009
CASE in Point
CASE Releases New Tool to Record and Document Phone Conversations to Reduce Risk
Remembering who you talked to, or what you talked about, is just about impossible for most of us. Last month, CASE released Tool No. 4-4: Phone Conversation Log, the 4th tool related to the Fourth Foundation of CASEs Ten Foundations of Risk Management, Communication. The tool will help you keep track of all your phone conversations and track action items, right on your computer. Poor communication is frequently listed among the top reasons for lawsuits and claims. It is the intent of this tool to make it faster and easier to record and document phone conversations. Tools related to the other CASE Foundations can be downloaded from the CASE website at www.acec.org/case/tools.cfm. If you have any questions or suggestions for new tools, please contact the Toolkit Committee through the website and click on any of the committee members email addresses. A few years ago, CASE set out to improve the practice of structural engineering by reducing the frequency and severity of claims. One of the ways CASE planned to accomplish this was through the production of software-based tools that are made available to CASE members through e-mail and on the CASE website at www.acec.org/CASE. Shown below are the CASE Ten Foundations of Risk Management and the corresponding tool(s) for each. A summary for each tool can be found at www.acec.org/case/tools.cfm. To obtain these tools your rm must be a member of CASE, or you can purchase them from ACECs Contracts Central at www.contractscentral.net. More Tools are on the way!!!! 1) Culture Tool 1-1: Create a Culture for Managing Risks and Preventing Claims 2) Prevention and Proactivity Tool 2-1: A Risk Evaluation Checklist Tool 2-2: Interview Guide and Template 3) Planning Tool 3-1: A Risk Management Program Planning Structure 4) Communication Tool 4-1: Status Report Template Tool 4-2: Project Kick-Off Meeting Agenda Tool 4-3: Sample Correspondence Guidelines Tool 4-4: Phone Conversation Log 5) Education Tool 5-1: A Guide to the Practice of Structural Engineering 6) Scope Tool 6-1: CASE Contract Scope Exhibit Checklist 7) Compensation Tool 7-1: Client Evaluation 8) Contracts Tool 8-1: Contract Review 9) Contract Documents Tool 9-1: A Guideline Addressing Coordination and Completeness of Structural Construction Documents 10) Construction Phase Tool 10-1: Site Visit Cards Tool 10-2: Construction Administration Log
CASE is a part of the American Council of Engineering Companies
U.S. House of Representatives Honors ACECs 100 th Anniversary

The House passed legislation last September recognizing the remarkable contributions of the American Council of Engineering Companies for its 100 years of service to the engineering industry and the Nation. Introduced by Congressman Heath Shuler (DNC) and Congressman John Boozman (R-AR), House Resolution 447 further states: Whereas the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) and its thousands of member rms are celebrating the Councils 100 th anniversary in 2009; Whereas the ACEC is the oldest and largest business association of Americas engineering industry, representing more than 5,000 engineering rms that employ 500,000 professionals, engaged in a wide range of practices that propel our economy and ensure a high quality of life for all people in the United States; Whereas the ACEC represents engineers in private practice, who design the infrastructure, energy, and technological projects that ensure our Nation enjoys the highest standard of living in the world and continues to compete successfully in the 21st century economy; Whereas the ACEC member rms have been responsible for many of the Nations most signicant achievements over the past 100 years, including the roads, bridges, subways, airports, buildings, industrial facilities, and water systems that are the most advanced in the world; and Whereas the ACEC member rms have also been at the forefront of the environmental movement, cleaning up hazardous waste sites and incorporating sustainable solutions in infrastructure works: Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the House of Representatives congratulates the American Council of Engineering Companies for its 100 years of service. STRUCTURE magazine
41
November 2009
Advertiser Index
free information from advertisers
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
ADAPT Corporation American Galvanizers Association Cary Kopczynski & Co. Inc. Commins Manufacturing, Inc. Computers & Structures, Inc. CTP, Inc. CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp. Design Data Fyfe Co. LLC Global Engineering Technologies, LLP GT Strudl Hayward Baker Inc. KPFF Consulting Engineers Powers Fasteners, Inc. QuakeWrap, Inc. RISA Technologies Structural Engineers Association of Illinois (SEA of IL) SidePlate Systems, Inc. Simpson Strong-Tie SSDA Seismic Structural Design Associates, Inc. Taylor Devices Your Name Here
PHONE
650-306-2400 720-554-0900 425-455-2144 360-378-9484 510-845-2177 219-878-1427 800-929-3030 800-443-0782 858-642-0694 502-589-0149 404-894-2260 800-456-6548 206-622-5822 800-524-3244 866-QuakeWrap 800-332-RISA 312-726-4165 800-475-2077 800-999-5099 866-750-SSDA 716-694-0800 847-854-1666
WEBSITE
www.adaptsoft.com www.galvanizeit.org www.ckcps.com www.comminsmfg.com www.csiberkeley.com www.ctpanchors.com www.ctscement.com www.sds2.com www.fyfeco.com www.globalengtech.com www.gtstrudl.gatech.edu www.HaywardBaker.com www.kpff.com www.powers.com www.QuakeWrap.com www.risatech.com www.seaoi.org www.sideplate.com www.strongtie.com www.slottedweb.com www.taylordevices.com sales@STRUCTUREmag.org (email)
PAGE #
Page 19 Page 35 Page 15 Page 9 Page 44 Page 23 Page 33 Page 21 Page 17 Page 6 Page 31 Page 4 Page 6 Page 2 Page 30 Page 43 Page 42 Page 25 Pages 11 & 13 Page 28 Page 27
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS REFRESHER COURSE

Review for the Illinois State Board of Examination November 9, 2009April 5, 2010
DESCRIPTION:
The Structural Engineers Association of Illinois (SEAOI) offers an in-depth review of structural engineering principles and applications to help prepare candidates for the Illinois Structural Engineers State Board Examination (to be held April 1617, 2010). Classes are taught by practicing structural engineers with experience as university faculty and in professional practice. Continuing Education credits are available for many sessions. Geotechnical Design Earthquake-Resistant Design Structural Steel Design Structural Concrete Masonry Bridge Design Timber Design Exam Details November 9, 12, 16, 2009 November 19, 23, 30, December 3, 7, 10, 2009 December 14, 17, 21, 2009, January 4, 7, 11, 14, 21, 25, 28, February 1, 2010 February 4, 8, 11, 15, 18, 22, 25, March 1, 2010 March 4, 8, 2010 March 11, 15, 18, 2010 March 22, 25, 29, April 1, 2010 April 5, 2010
CONTENT AREAS:
WEB ACCESS: WEB ACCESS: LOCATION: FEES:
This course, either in its entirety, or by particular content area, can be accessed via the Web. Continuing education credit may be available. The course will be offered in downtown Chicago. All sessions are from 6:007:45 p.m. on Mondays and Thursdays. The cost is $1,250 for the entire course ($1,100 for SEAOI members). For a particular content area, the cost is $85 per session ($75 for members). Contact the SEAOI office at 312.726.4165 x200 or visit the website at www.seaoi.org
STRUCTURE magazine
QUESTIONS:
42
November 2009

Nov 09

Transféré par

Informations du document

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

Nov 09

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

STRUCTURE

A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

Nick Ciminello, P.E.

Patrick Buckley, I.E.

SEE OUR EXPERTS ON THE WEB AT WWW.POWERS.COM

*As of August 2009

Structural Engineering Licensing and NCSEA Committees

26 Quality Assurance Corner

By William D. Bast, P.E., S.E., SECB

Understanding the Limitations of Structural Engineering Software

By Clifford Schwinger, P.E., SECB and Eric J. Heller, E.I.T.

What Computers Cant Do

29 Professional Issues 32 Business Practices

By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB

Building Disaster Resilient Communities

8 Structural Design 12 InSights

Coming Up with Tie-downs

By Bryan Wert, M.S., P.E., SECB

Structural Design Delegation

Post-Tensioned Podium Slabs Make Their Way to the Northeast

By Tracy Kijewski-Correa, Ph.D.

Antiquated Structural Systems Series Part 9b

A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

ADVERTISEMENT For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

Council of American Structural Engineers

Structural Engineering Institute

John E. Durrant, P.E. Manager ASCE Engineering Programs 703-295-6360 sei@STRUCTUREmag.org

ADVERTISING ACCOUNT MANAGER

Christine M. Sloat, P.E. Nikki Alger

thoughts from a member of the Editorial Board

What Computers Cant Do

Coming Up with Tie-downs

On-Center Spacing Wood Wall

Roof sheathing not shown for clarity

Truss or Rafter at 2'-0" o.c.

On-Center Spacing CMU Wall

Roof sheathing not shown for clarity

design issues for structural engineers

A New Load Path Solution

Determining Uplift Load Paths

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

The Missing Link: Top Plate Considerations

Pulling Double Duty What is the Effect of Sheathing?

Thats Stretching it: Steel Rod Elongation

Wood Shrinkage Leads to a Less Effective System

The Bigger Picture

Design with the Public in Mind

Cracked & Uncracked

Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. THDSBSETXP09-S

Anchors that crack the code.

SET-XP ICC-ES ESR-2508

Post-Tensioned Podium Slabs Make Their Way to the Northeast

new trends, new techniques and current industry issues

Dont let your plans go sideways.

Strong Frame ordinary moment frames

Wood and Steel Strong-Wall shearwalls

Anchor Tiedown System

Strong-Tie Company Inc. LATSYTM09-S

issues and advances related to structural testing

100 I tall headquarters Abu Dhabi National Oil Companys new 1

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

Cary Kopczynski & Company

Co. LLC Ty fo Fibr wrap Systems