®

STRUCTURE
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

January 2014 Concrete

SPECIAL SECTION
FOUNDATIONS
Powers’ Pure110+ ePoxy Adhesive Anchor system (1:1 rAtio)

WHY DO WE CALL IT PURE110+?

• All adhesive anchor systems are required to be tested at
110˚F for sustained loading, known as “creep” For Anchoring
• Pure110+™ has passed creep Threaded Rod
and Rebar
testing and is also approved for both
cracked + uncracked concrete and
seismic loads
• Pure 110+ is the only
approved epoxy that has
the same bond strength at
high temperature (110˚F )
as it does at room
temperature
Adhesive anchors are now
included in the International
Building Code. So when
you’re looking for an adhesive
with great bond strength,
creep resistance and that is
code listed, remember the
number 110+!

NEW!

Pure110+ is now
available and in stock for
immediate shipment!

Powers Fasteners, inc. www.powers.com

2 Powers Lane P: (914) 235-6300
Brewster, ny 10509 F: (914) 576-6483
s-frame.com
 28
FEATURES
Concrete “Paint” Arrests Cofferdam
CONTENTS January 2014
Corrosion at Submarine Pier
By Brian Robinson, P.E. COLUMNS
Often, steel sheet pile walls are incorporated as part of
cost-effective waterfront earth-retaining structures. Many of 7 Editorial
these walls are subjected to a host of environmental factors The “Ins” and “Outs” of the
that accelerate corrosion. Cellular sheet pile cofferdams are Software Black Box
particularly difficult to repair because of the lack of redundancy By Andrew Rauch, CASE Chair
in the tensioned cell walls. This article highlights a unique 9 InFocus
method to repair a cellular cofferdam using a reinforced Risk and Virtue Ethics
concrete facing installed over the aging sheet piling. By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
10 Structural Forensics
30 Geopolymer Precast Floor Panels Untreated Submerged Timber
By Rod Bligh, B.Eng, MSc, CPEng, and Pile Foundations – Part 2
Tom Glasby, B.Eng (Civil), MBT, MIEAust, CPEng By Giuliana Zelada-Tumialan, P.E.,
William Konicki, P.E.,
Early in the design process, the structural engineering team Philip Westover, P.E. and
explored the potential for the incorporation of structural Milan Vatovec, Ph.D., P.E.
timber. Timber-Concrete Composite (TCC) floors were
16 Historic Structures
of interest and TCC was proposed as a potential floor
Deconstructing Bridge 92297
system that combined the benefits of timber framing with
By Ryan Salmon, EIT and
the acoustic, fire separation and wearing properties of Meghan Elliott, P.E.
concrete. It was at this stage that the strong potential for use
of geopolymer concrete in the system was identified.
20 Structural Rehabilitation
Prescription for Repair – Part 3
By D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E.,
46 Foundation Sector Grounded in SECB and Ross E. Stuart, P.E., S.E.

Special Optimism for New Year 23 Construction Issues

Welding Reinforcing Steel
Section By Larry Kahaner
By John Hlinka, P.E.
We have heard it before, but next year could be shaping
34 Professional Issues
up to be strong for the building business. What appears
Opposition to Structural Licensure
to be driving the industry are a growing economy, new
By Timothy M. Gilbert, P.E., S.E.,
offerings that are attracting clients, and a general optimism SECB
among those companies who have survived the lean years
of the building slowdown.
36 Structural Testing
Lateral Loads Generated by
Occupants on Exterior Decks
DEPARTMENTS
®

STRUCTURE

By Brian J. Parsons,
ON COVER
SPECIAL SECTION
FOUNDATIONS
THE
Donald A. Bender, P.E.,
The Pennoni Philadelphia J. Daniel Dolan, P.E.
43 InSights
and Frank E. Woeste, P.E.
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

ASTM A1085 Structural Division

By Kim Olson, P.E. investigated and developed 40 Engineer’s Notebook
repair bid documents for an
January 2014 Concrete

51 Spotlight Concrete Column Design

existing, three-level, 1,200- By Jerod G. Johnson, Ph.D., S.E.
Transforming the Fan Experience space precast concrete parking garage during
By John M. Hann, P.E. the last quarter of 2012. Part 3 of the series
58 Structural Forum of articles, page 20, conveys conclusions
regarding the feasibility of repairing the
IN EVERY ISSUE
Velocity of Learning Revisited garage in order to extend its service life.
By Tom Glardon, P.E. 8 Advertiser Index
44 Resource Guide
(Anchor Updates)
Publication of any article, image, or advertisement in STRUCTURE® magazine does not constitute endorsement 52 NCSEA News
by NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C 3 Ink, or the Editorial Board. Authors, contributors, and advertisers retain sole
responsibility for the content of their submissions. 54 SEI Structural Columns
56 CASE in Point
STRUCTURE magazine 5 January 2014
Appalachian State University (ASU) Boone, NC

Masonry has a New Edge.

And it’s called HALFEN FK4.
Introducing a new adjustable shelf angle with a thermal break.

H ALFEN FK4 brickwork supports transfer

the dead load of the outer brick veneer
to the building’s load-bearing structure: an
effcient construction principle developed with
the experience of over 80 years of lasting
technology.
Adjustability
HALFEN FK4 brickwork supports
provide continuous height adjustment of
+/- 13/8” which compensates for existing
tolerances of the structure as well as
installation inaccuracies of wall anchors.
Reduced Thermal Bridging
The HALFEN FK4 brickwork supports are
offset from the edge of slab allowing insulation
to pass behind. Minimal contact with the
building structure means reduced thermal
bridging and lower energy loss.

Efficient Design Structural Efficiency Quality

As the demand for higher energy efficiency in The HALFEN FK4 brickwork supports allow By using HALFEN FK4 brickwork supports, you
commercial buildings continues to increase, efficient anchoring of brickwork facades in profit from an approved anchoring system,
the cavity between the brick veneer and the connection with HALFEN cast-in channels. excellent adjustment options and a complete
substrate is getting larger to allow for more product program covering all aspects of
insulation and air space. Along with this brickwork facade.
increased cavity size, the traditional masonry
shelf angle, used to support the brick veneer Many advantages with one result:
at the slab edge, is also getting larger and HALFEN provides safety, reliability and
subsequently heavier and more expensive efficiency for you and your customers.
to install. Architects & engineers are look-
ing for a more efficient support solution.
The HALFEN FK4 brickwork supports use
a thinner, light weight shelf angle, eliminat-
ing brick notching while also allowing for a
wider cavity.

HALFEN USA Inc. · PO Box 547 Converse · TX 78109

Phone: 800.423.9140 · www.halfenusa.com · info@halfenusa.com
Editorial The “Ins” and “Outs” of
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
the Software Black Box
By Andrew Rauch, CASE Chair
L The question we must ask ourselves
ast spring, I had the opportunity to attend one of the
several terrific presentations that were part of the CASE
Risk Management Convocation at the 2013 Structures
Congress. This session was presented by James Parker and
Pedro Sifre of Simpson, Gumpertz, and Heger, and I thank them
for allowing me to present a portion of it to a wider audience.
The use of design software is in integral part of the structural engi-
neering design process. None of us can imagine what our profession
would be like without it. At the same time, it presents challenges
and concerns to those who are responsible for the operation of an
engineering firm. The attendees at this session discussed some of
those challenges, including staff skills and training, the black box
aspects of software, documentation of software results, and the
delegation of design and code interpretation to software companies.
Are we training our staff to use software appropriately? Are we
giving up an opportunity for young engineers to develop skills
needed to conceive and implement structural designs by allowing
them to extensively use software for design? As a young engineer,
I learned design through repetition, reading code requirements
and applying them in preparing calculations. (How many of you
eventually memorized the member properties of some of the
common beam sizes?) I began to understand what the expected
results should be prior to performing the calculations. Today’s
engineers need and use very different skills. They need to learn
how to use software effectively, to learn how to properly build a
structural model, and to learn how to make their design model
interface with building information models. When and how do
they develop a “feel” for the structure and intuition about a design
that tells them if their design is reasonable?
The situation may arise where an engineer is using software
to design a system they may not have previously designed. The
software is able to provide design results for that structure, but
has the engineer developed the skills to determine if the design
results are correct or reasonable? Does the engineer have the skills
necessary to approximate the design to verify the software results?
Obviously, in this situation,
the engineer needs a significant
amount of oversight.
®
structurE
Structural engineering soft-
ware can also be a black box.
How often have you heard
a member benefit
the explanation “that’s what
the output said” in response
to a question about a design
result? How does the program
handle design conditions such
as unbraced length, cracked
STRUCTURAL member stiffness, or the algo-
ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE rithm for selecting the number
of shear studs on a compos-
ite beam? Often, the manual
STRUCTURE magazine
is how much of our design skill
and interpretation do we want to
delegate to software companies?
provides little information to help the engineer determine what
process the software is using. Are we deferring code interpreta-
tion and some of our quality assurance to the software provider?
Documentation of design is another issue. Have you ever been
looking for design information to answer a question and found no
written calculations? You try to find a result from the software, only
to find several versions of the model with no clear indication of
which one is the most current or what the different models signify.
Young engineers will sometimes use the “brute force” method of
design, using the computer to run multiple iterations. When it
comes time to provide written documentation, suddenly there are
pages and pages of calculation for a design problem that could
have been designed much more simply. Are the requirements for
computer analysis and design documentation procedures a part
of your office policies and procedures?
The final question posed at this session asked how the profession
should react. Should one (or all) of the structural engineering orga-
nizations provide reviews and vetting of software? Should we leave
software verification to the purchasers and users, and let market
forces drive software quality? Should the structural engineering
organizations work with authorities having jurisdiction to demand
certification or verification of software? While it would be nice
to have third-party software verification, that is a Herculean task
for structural engineering organizations that are run primarily by
volunteers. For now, the consensus of those in attendance was to
let market forces drive the quality.
The question we must ask ourselves is how much of our design
skill and interpretation do we want to delegate to software com-
panies? To our knowledge, there are no standards or requirements
for software producers to check and verify their software. Writers
of software codes are not required to be licensed to work under
the direction of a licensed engineer. Our experience has been that
every software program we have purchased or licensed
has had some kind of error or bug that caused it not
to work properly. How are we as individuals and as a
profession going to react?▪
Andrew Rauch is a principal with BKBM Engineers in
Minneapolis, MN and is responsible for overseeing their quality
assurance and risk management programs. He is the current
chair of the CASE Executive Committee. He can be reached at
arauch@bkbm.com.
7 January 2014
 Advertiser index
American Concrete Institute ................. 22
AZZ Galvanizing .................................. 19
Bentley Systems, Inc. ............................. 59
Construction Specialties ........................ 15
CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp.......... 3
Fyfe ....................................................... 21
Geopier Foundation Company.............. 48
Halfen Inc. .............................................. 6
Hayward Baker, Inc. ........................ 46, 47
Editorial Board
Chair
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
Burns & McDonnell, Kansas City, MO
chair@structuremag.org
Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECB
CBI Consulting, Inc., Boston, MA
Mark W. Holmberg, P.E.
Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc., Marietta, GA
Dilip Khatri, Ph.D., S.E.
Khatri International Inc., Pasadena, CA
Roger A. LaBoube, Ph.D., P.E.
CCFSS, Rolla, MO
Brian J. Leshko, P.E.
HDR Engineering, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA
John A. Mercer, P.E.
Mercer Engineering, PC, Minot, ND
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
SELECTED AS
ENR’s Best Healthcare
Project of 2012
STRUCTURE magazine
Integrated Engineering Software, Inc..... 33
ITW Red Head ..................................... 29
KPFF Consulting Engineers .................... 8
NCEES ................................................. 41
NCSEA ................................................. 13
Pile Dynamics, Inc. ............................... 49
Polyguard Products, Inc......................... 50
Powers Fasteners, Inc. .............................. 2
QuakeWrap ........................................... 17
Brian W. Miller
Davis, CA
Evans Mountzouris, P.E.
The DiSalvo Ericson Group, Ridgefield, CT
Greg Schindler, P.E., S.E.
KPFF Consulting Engineers, Seattle, WA
Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
BergerABAM, Vancouver, WA
John “Buddy” Showalter, P.E.
American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA
Amy Trygestad, P.E.
Chase Engineering, LLC, New Prague, MN
PALOMAR MEDICAL CENTER, ESCONDIDO, CA
PHOTO COURTESY OF CO ARCHITECTS
Seattle • Tacoma • Lacey • Portland •
Eugene • Sacramento • San Francisco •
Walnut Creek • Los Angeles • Long Beach •
Pasadena • Irvine • San Diego • Boise •
Phoenix • St. Louis • Chicago • New York
8 January 2014
PleAse suPPort these Advertisers
RISA Technologies ................................ 60
S-Frame Software, Inc. ............................ 4
Simpson Strong-Tie......................... 25, 39
The Soc. of Naval Arch. & Marine Eng. 44
Structural Engineers, Inc. ...................... 24
StructurePoint ....................................... 42
Struware, Inc. ........................................ 35
Subsurface Constructors, Inc. ................ 45
USP Structural Connectors ................... 11
AdvErtising Account MAnAgEr
Interactive Sales Associates
Chuck Minor Dick Railton
Eastern Sales Western Sales
847-854-1666 951-587-2982
sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
EditoriAL stAFF
Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE
execdir@ncsea.com
Editor Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
Associate Editor Nikki Alger
publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
Graphic Designer Rob Fullmer
graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org
Web Developer William Radig
webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURE® (Volume 21, Number 1). ISSN 1536-4283.
Publications Agreement No. 40675118. Owned by the
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations and
published in cooperation with CASE and SEI monthly by C3 Ink.
The publication is distributed free of charge to members of
NCSEA, CASE and SEI; the non-member subscription rate
is $75/yr domestic; $40/yr student; $90/yr Canada; $60/yr
Canadian student; $135/yr foreign; $90/yr foreign student. For
change of address or duplicate copies, contact your member
organization(s).Any opinions expressed in STRUCTURE magazine
are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views
of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C3 Ink, or the STRUCTURE Editorial Board.
STRUCTURE® is a registered trademark of National Council of
Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA). Articles may not be
reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission
of the publisher.
www.ncsea.com
3
C Ink, Publishers
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
Visit STRUCTURE magazine
STRUCTURE magazine on-line
onlineat
Visit STRUCTURE magazine on-line
www.structuremag.org at at
www.structuremag.org
www.structuremag.org
inFocus Risk and Virtue Ethics
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
I
have previously (and repeatedly) cited a paper by philosophers
Allison Ross and Nafsika Athanassoulis that highlights the risk-
taking nature of engineering practice and draws out some of
the associated ethical implications. In two additional papers (“A
Virtue Ethical Account of Making Decisions About Risk,” Journal
of Risk Research, Vol. 13, No. 2, March 2010, pp. 217-230; “Risk
and Virtue Ethics,” chapter 33 in Handbook of Risk Theory, Springer,
2012), the same authors discuss risk in a more general sense and argue
convincingly that virtue ethics provides the most adequate approach
for dealing with it.
Ross and Athanassoulis concede that “it would be convenient if there
was a formula for making good and right decisions about whether,
when, and what to risk.” This is essentially what the dominant modern
ethical theories purport to offer: definitive guidance derived from
universal principles, such as assumed duties and obligations (deontol-
ogy) or assessment of anticipated outcomes (consequentialism). By
contrast, virtue ethics recognizes that any truly substantive ethical
inquiry will lead to “a complex, varied, and imprecise answer that
cannot be captured in an overriding rule.”
When it comes to risk, Ross and Athanassoulis raise specific objec-
tions to consequentialism. Evaluations based only on what ultimately
happens ignore the contributions of luck; for example, “avoiding the
consequences of one’s recklessness does not make one any less respon-
sible for it.” The alternative of assigning probabilities is problematic
at best, and the corresponding utilitarian calculation often “clashes
with our sense of fairness with respect to the equitable distributions
of the burdens of risk taking.” Furthermore, it “does not allow room
for differentiating between the bearers of risks and benefits,” who
may not be the same parties.
Virtue ethics shifts the focus from individual actions to patterns of
behavior – “choices that people make, those choices that are reaffirmed
over time, and those choices that express their deeply held values and
beliefs.” It is thus concerned primarily with someone’s long-term
attitude toward risk, especially with respect to the potential impacts
on the well-being of others. The central concept is character, defined
by Athanassoulis as “the set of stable, permanent, and well-entrenched
dispositions to act in particular ways.” These dispositions qualify as
virtues when they enable and incline someone “to respond well to
whatever situation is encountered.”
The circumstances of greatest interest to Athanassoulis and Ross are
those in which a person – say, an engineer – must intentionally make
“choices that involve risk to others”; i.e., when all of the following
conditions hold:
• The person is deliberating whether to take a certain action.
• The person cannot guarantee the outcome of that action; there are
multiple possibilities, one or more of which would affect others.
• The person is able to estimate (at least roughly) the likelihood
of various outcomes.
• Some outcomes are desired, while others are unwanted (by the
person and/or others).
• The person perceives the prospect of a positive outcome as
outweighing the danger of a negative one.
STRUCTURE magazine
According to virtue ethics, the last item is crucial and cannot simply
be the product of a straightforward cost-benefit analysis. Instead,
it requires “a state in which the faculties of perception, motiva-
tion, thought, and reason seamlessly interact” to discern the relevant
contextual features and properly take them into account – i.e., the
exercise of practical judgment or phronesis. Since what subsequently
transpires may not be entirely within the person’s control, what mat-
ters from an ethical standpoint is the quality of the decision at the
time when it is made.
In other words, risk-taking is a good decision whenever it is based on
defensible grounds, regardless of the actual results. Athanassoulis and
Ross suggest that this criterion is usually satisfied whenever someone
has “a clear and accurate view of the situation” and produces “a pro-
portionate, rational response.” The underlying motives – fear, desire
for pleasure, etc. – are not necessarily good or bad in themselves; what
is important morally is “how, when and why we are moved” by them.
Nevertheless, Ross and Athanassoulis acknowledge a prominent
place for emotions in the whole process: “Decisions about risk that
proceed from a good character involve emotional responses, which
are integral to firm and stable dispositions to virtue … The person
of practical wisdom is someone who has the appropriate emotions,
to the right degree at the right time.” Such sentiments may seem out
of place in an engineering magazine; after all, engineers generally
view themselves – and are widely viewed by others – as paragons of
unbiased analysis and dispassionate design. But is this an accurate
picture? And if so, should it be?
The framework that I have proposed for applying virtue ethics to
engineering practice identifies not only objectivity and honesty as moral
virtues of engineering, but also care. Is it possible for engineers to
exhibit genuine care for the people who will be affected by their work
while not experiencing any feelings toward them whatsoever? Can we
be completely indifferent and still “hold paramount the safety, health,
and welfare of the public” as stipulated by the most fundamental
canon in our codes of ethics? Instead, perhaps emotions should play
a more explicit role in our decision-making about risk.
In summary, according to Athanassoulis and Ross, “a decision to
risk is a complex decision which involves the bringing together of
personal reasons for acting, moral reasons for acting and a whole range
of facts … Good judgements require phronesis and sensitivity and
these are skills that are acquired and internalised through a process
of observation and emulation of good exemplars, practice
and reflection.” As engineers, we are routinely confronted
with such decisions; are we going about them in the right
way and preparing ourselves accordingly?▪
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB (chair@STRUCTUREmag.org), is
an associate structural engineer at Burns & McDonnell in Kansas
City, Missouri. He chairs the STRUCTURE magazine Editorial
Board and the SEI Engineering Philosophy Committee, and shares
occasional thoughts at twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt.
9 January 2014
Structural
ForenSicS
investigating structures
and their components
Untreated Submerged
Timber Pile Foundations
Part 2: Estimating
Remaining Service Life
By Giuliana Zelada-Tumialan, P.E.,
William Konicki, P.E.,
Philip Westover, P.E. and
Milan Vatovec, Ph.D., P.E.
Giuliana Zelada-Tumialan, P.E.,
is Senior Project Manager at
Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger,
Inc., Giuliana may be reached
atgazelada@sgh.com.
William Konicki, P.E., is Senior
Principal at Simpson, Gumpertz
& Heger, Inc. William may be
reached at wpkonicki@sgh.com.
Philip Westover, P.E., is a Staff
Consultant at Simpson, Gumpertz
& Heger, Inc. Philip may be
reached at plwestover@sgh.com.
Milan Vatovec, Ph.D., P.E., is Senior
Principal at Simpson, Gumpertz &
Heger, Inc. Milan may be reached at
mvatovec@sgh.com.
A
s discussed previously in Untreated
Submerged Timber Pile Foundations
– Part 1 (STRUCTURE® magazine,
December 2013), deterioration of pile
tops exposed above groundwater levels is a well-
known problem. It is less known that submerged
portions of timber piles can also deteriorate with
time, albeit at a slower rate, due to bacterial
attack. This may become critical when consider-
ing underpinning methods aimed at extending
service life of structures supported on timber piles.
Historically, timber-pile supported structures have
been underpinned by the cut-and-post method,
where the top portion of the timber piles is cut
and replaced with concrete posts or concrete-
encased steel posts. Although the cut-and-post
method appears to be relatively straight forward
and simple to execute, it remains an expensive
undertaking due to accessibility issues, required
temporary shoring and bracing, dewatering, and
labor costs. Klaassen (2008-1) reports that, in
the Netherlands, founda-
tion replacement or repair
sometimes involves up to
50% of the total renova-
tion costs for a structure.
The authors’ experience in
the Boston, Massachusetts
area indicates cut-and-post underpinning of a
typical downtown row house costs approximately
$200,000 to $250,000. Bacterial attack in the
remaining, submerged portion of the timber
piles, however, may limit the effectiveness of the
cut-and-post method, as well as the estimated
remaining service life of the piles.
Remaining Service Life
The aim of any foundation remediation/repair
design is similar to that of new foundation
Figure 1: Decrease in timber pile compressive strength with in-service age (Base figure from Van Kuilen, 2007).
10 January 2014
design: its design and execution must be able
to (1) safely sustain all likely applied loads with-
out failure (i.e. without overloading beyond the
strength capacity of the foundation system),
and (2) remain serviceable for the required use
of the structure (e.g. without excessive settle-
ment) during its intended service life. Hence,
one of the greatest challenges in pile foundation
remediation/repair design, and a key item for its
success, is performing a reliable assessment of the
current in-situ foundation’s material properties
and loading history, after years in service and
exposure to the surrounding natural environ-
ment. This forms the basis for the estimation
of the remaining service life of the foundation
system, if it is to be re-used.
The estimated remaining service life of any foun-
dation system is governed by the determined
minimum structural capacity (dependent on
material properties and level of deterioration),
the geotechnical capacity (dependent on soil
properties and soil-structure interaction), and
the magnitude of expected movements (e.g. settle-
ment) compared to the allowable movements that
a structure can sustain.
Determining Remaining
Structural Capacity
Based on the review of published literature and
on relevant experience, the following approach is
proposed to determine the remaining structural
capacity of continuously submerged timber piles:
Step 1 – Estimate the applied compressive stress
acting on the timber pile cross-section versus
time, considering the reduction in available
load-bearing pile cross-section due to continued
bacterial decay penetration. For spruce and pine
piles, an estimated rate of advance of severe degra-
dation of 0.0051 inch/year and 0.0098 inch/year,
respectively, can be used (Klaassen 2009). The
following considerations should be included:
• Current measured penetration of
severe bacterial deterioration (based
on probing to determine depth to
sound wood) to be used as the starting
point from which future reductions in
pile cross-section will occur.
• Determine the taper of the timber pile
for estimation of the pile tip diameter
based on pile top diameter. Timber
piles in many cases tend to derive their
capacity by end bearing on a suitable
soil stratum; therefore, the critical
pile section is located at or near
the pile tip. The rate of severe
bacterial degradation should be
applied uniformly over the entire
pile length.
• The rate of bacterial attack
decreases significantly beyond the
heartwood-sapwood interface in
spruce and pine piles. Therefore,
for these species at least, it is
reasonable to assume that for the
most typical required service life of
structures (i.e. 100 years or less),
would be expected that more than 90%
of the applied load is resisted by the
stiffer and stronger heartwood.
Step 2 – Estimate timber pile compressive
strength versus time by using the reduc-
tion in compressive strength due to aging/
duration of loading for heartwood shown in
Figure 1. This assumes that all of the remain-
ing pile section (based on probing to measure
the depth to sound wood), including any
small amount of sapwood present, can be
represented by the reduced average compres-
sive strength for heartwood.
Your One Source for
the Best Seismic and
Wind Solutions.
HARDY
FRAME
®
™ PRE-FABRICATED SHEAR WALL SYSTEMS
A M i Te k C o m p a n y
Step 3 – Determine estimated remaining
structural service life of submerged timber
piles by determining the time (from present)
at which the demand-to-capacity (D/C) ratio
for the various timber pile diameters consid-
ered (i.e. the ratio of applied compressive
stress to the remaining compressive strength)
is equal to the desired factor of safety level.
Alternatively, the designer may choose to use
a target minimum allowable percent loss in
pile cross-section to determine the remain-
ing structural service life of the submerged
timber pile.
continued on next page
TIE-DOWN SYSTEMS
A MiTek Company
TIE-DOWN SYSTEMS

only the sapwood will deteriorate

significantly and no further
reduction in pile cross-section due
to bacterial decay is expected once HARDY
FRAME
®

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

the sapwood thickness has been PRE-FABRICATED SHEAR WALL SYSTEMS
™
expended. The determination of
the sapwood/heartwood boundary
requires microscopic examination
for heartwood signs, and for Hardy Frame®
bacterial invasion and deterioration HFX Panel
at different depths within the pile;
this can be subjectively influenced
by the examiner’s experience.
Without detailed microscopic Hardy Frame®
observations, the depth to the Special Moment Frame
heartwood/sapwood boundary can
only be roughly estimated from
obvious color changes in the wood,
or based on publications like The
Wood Handbook (USDA, 2010)
or the Textbook of Wood Technology
(McGraw-Hill, 1980).
• Although the deteriorated sapwood
has some measurable compressive
strength, it seems prudent to ignore Zone Four
its contribution to the timber pile Quick Connect
Tie-down
strength capacity. Measured values System
of elastic modulus for specimens
of deteriorated sapwood obtained
from piles (from previous projects) hardyframe.com 800 754.3030 • uspconnectors.com 800 328.5934
indicate that the ratio of elastic
moduli between deteriorated
sapwood and sound heartwood is in A Berkshire Hathaway Company
Better Technology. Better Building.
the range of 0.1 or less. Therefore, it

Hardy/Z4/USP One Source - Structure

STRUCTURE magazine 11 January 2014
Half Page Size: 5" x 7.5"
 Pile Service Load (P) = 20 kips
Applied Compressive Stress:
Estimated Future Settlements
3000
6-inch diam. pile butt
Once cut-and-post underpinning is performed
(i.e. no inelastic settlement due to softening of
2500 7-inch diam. pile butt pile tops), and assuming no change in the level of
applied loads or in soil or groundwater properties,
the only viable mechanism for future settlement is
Compressive Stress (psi)

8-inch diam. pile butt

2000
elastic compression of the remaining submerged
9-inch diam. pile butt timber pile sections. This can be due to potential
1500 softening as a result of aging/creep, and decay
10-inch diam. pile butt (i.e. a decrease in the Young’s modulus, E) of the
timber piles. The National Design Specification®
1000 11-inch diam. pile butt (NDS®) for Wood Construction (2005) recom-
mends a creep factor of 2 for wet wood, i.e. the
12-inch diam. pile butt
500 E value should be decreased by 50% under long-
Estimated Average Heartwood
term permanent loads. Current design standards
Ultimate Compressive Strength do not provide recommendations for further
0 reductions in E values due to decay.
0 100 200 300 400 500 Time to 50% Pile Tip Cross-
Section Loss A review of limited data available from compres-
Time (in years from 2009)
sive-strength testing of timber pile samples from
Figure 2: Sample plots of applied compressive stress and estimated heartwood various projects throughout northern U.S. (with
compressive strength vs. time. in-service ages ranging from about 100 years to
137 years) indicates that there may be an ongoing
Figure 2 shows a sample plot of the calculated reduced heartwood reduction in E values with time, similar to that of compressive strength
compressive strength with time (Step 2), superimposed on plots of values. However, the data spread is too broad and the breadth of time
the applied compressive stress curves developed for various timber periods too limited to be able to more accurately and reliably infer a
pile diameters as bacterial decay penetrates to the heartwood/sapwood rate of degradation of the E value with time.
boundary for a service load of 20 kips (Step 1). The intersection of the Assuming a 50% loss of cross-section in the timber piles, a pile length
time under load dependent ultimate heartwood compressive strength of about 10.5 feet, and using an E value of 1.2 x 106 psi for spruce
curve and the applied compressive stress curves defines the expected (average published E value for fresh spruce from ASTM D2555-06),
remaining pile service life for each pile diameter at the expected load the added submerged pile settlement under sustained loads varies from
combination, with no factor of safety included. Figure 2 was developed less than 0.04 inches (for a service load of 50 kips combined with a
for spruce piles with an in-service age of 109 years, 2-inch sapwood continued on page 14
thickness, and measured severe bacterial attack penetration of about
0.75 inches at time zero. The plot of applied compressive stress is 600 2609
shown in relation to the pile butt (pile top) diameter, rather than the
critical pile section (i.e. pile tip) used to calculate the applied stresses

Remaining Structural Service Life (Year)

for ease of use during investigations where, typically, just the pile tops 500 2509
Remaining Structural Service Life

are exposed. Figure 2 also shows the time for 50% loss of original pile
cross-section for reference.
(Beyond 2009, in years)

Figure 3 shows plots of the estimated remaining service life for each 400 2409
timber pile butt (top) diameter and different levels of applied service
load calculated similarly to Figure 2, and considering a D/C ratio of
1.0 (i.e. no factor of safety is included). Since Figure 2 only considers 300 2309
time up to 500 years, the curves in Figure 3 level off at 500 years.
200 2209
Evaluation of Remaining Geotechnical Capacity
The Table (page 14) summarizes the results of load testing on five timber
piles from separate areas of a single project site in downtown Boston. 100 2109
Two of these piles were extracted after the load tests were performed.
Results of the pile load tests indicate no apparent adverse impact
of timber pile deterioration on the geotechnical bearing capacity 0 2009
4 6 8 10 12
of the piles. Area 1-1, which showed a larger penetration depth of
Pile Butt (Top) Diameter (in.)
severe deterioration (with 75% or more loss of pile cross-section),
performed stiffer and had a higher measured unit end bearing capac-
ity than the Area 1-2 pile which showed less deterioration (about P = Applied Service Load (per pile):
34% loss of pile cross-section). However, the data evaluated in this
analysis is too limited to draw more in-depth conclusions regard- P = 10 k P = 20 k P = 30 k P = 40 k P = 50 k
ing the impact of deterioration on the geotechnical capacity of the Figure 3: Sample plots of estimated remaining structural service
submerged timber piles. life of submerged timber piles.

STRUCTURE magazine 12 January 2014

 NCSEA Structural
Online Course Dates:
Engineering Exam Vertical: January 18–19, 2014
Lateral: March 8–9, 2014
Live Online Review Course Fee*
Pass the Structural Exam with Confidence! $1,199
This course is designed by the National Council of Structural Vertical or Lateral Only
Engineers Associations (NCSEA), Kaplan Engineering Education, $749
and leading structural engineers from across the industry. Course available with or
without books
This targeted review includes:
• Over 28 hours of instruction
• Instructor Blog Group pricing available
• Classes archived for 24/7 playback (As low as $425 per person)

Instructors:
• Tim Mays, Ph.D., P.E. • Jennifer Butler, P.E. Register today!
• Larry Novak, S.E., FACI, • John Lommler, Ph.D., P.E. 877.884.0828
LEED® AP PD+C • Donald R. Scott, S.E. www.kaplanaecengineering.com/LiveReview

• Joe Miller, Ph.D., P.E. • Thomas Grogan, P.E., S.E.

• Rafael Sabelli, S.E. • Steve Dill, S.E. *Students repeating the SE Review Course are eligible for
50% discount. Call for details.
• Ravi Kanitkar, S.E. • John Hochwalt, P.E., S.E.
MRKT-11908
Summary of pile load tests.
Pile Tip Diam
Load Test
(inches)
Area 1 – 1 7 (3)
Area 1 – 2 9 (4)
Area 2 – 1 6.5 (5)
Area 2 – 2 6 (5)
Area 2 – 3 8 (5)
(1) Based on Davisson’s Offset Criteria.
(2) Based on Meyerhoff’s method for driven piles in sand (Meyerhoff 1976).
(3) Severe to moderate soft rot/bacteria deterioration penetrating about 1.5 to 2 inches into the pile at the pile tip.
(4) Severe soft rot/bacteria deterioration penetrating about 0.75 inches into the pile at the pile tip.
(5) Estimated based on pile taper. Condition of pile tip not known. Microscopy on upper pile sections indicate none to slight bacterial erosion in outer 0.5 inches.
12-inch pile diameter), to about 0.2 inches
(for a service load of 50 kips and a 6-inch
pile diameter). Even if it is assumed that,
over time, the E value has degraded to about
50% of its original value throughout the pile
length, the added submerged pile settlement
under sustained loads for the same assumed
conditions remains low, varying from about
0.1 inches to 0.4 inches. If the applied loads
are sufficiently high, longer pile lengths could
result in settlements greater than 0.5 inches.
Based on the calculation case described
above, added settlement solely due to pile
elastic compression will likely not exceed
0.5 inches over the remaining service life of
timber piles. However, detailed settlement
calculations, taking into account actual pile
diameters, pile lengths, measured pile prop-
erties and applied load magnitudes, must
always be performed. Although most struc-
tures can experience differential settlements
on the order of 0.5 inches without resulting
in much structural distress, the foundation
remediation designer will have to take into
consideration the present condition of the
structure. If the structure is fragile and has
already undergone significant settlements,
even small added settlements could have an
adverse impact on its serviceability.
Conclusions
• The remaining service life of in-service
timber piles appears to be controlled
by the structural capacity of the timber
piles, rather than their geotechnical
capacity. Evaluation of a more
significant amount of data is necessary
for confirmation of this postulate.
• Measured rates of bacterial
deterioration indicate that, for piles
with 100 to 140 years of in-service age
STRUCTURE magazine
Max. Measured Pile Inferred Ultimate Theoretical Ultimate
Max. Applied Load
Top, Total Settlement Unit End Bearing Unit End Bearing
(Kips)
(inches) Capacity (ksf (1)) Capacity (ksf (2))
70 0.56 224.5 220
70 0.63 113.2 190
40 0.57 130 130
50 0.24 N/A 170
60 0.71 114.5 110
and with diameters of 6 inches or less, Final Thoughts
bacterial decay may have advanced
Further research remains to be performed
sufficiently that little to no remaining
regarding the impact of bacterial attack on
service life is anticipated. For relatively
submerged timber pile structures, especially
small applied service loads (around
any potential reduction of the pile’s geotech-
10 kips per pile and no factor of
nical capacity.
safety included), pile diameters of
There is also continued concern that soft-rot
7 inches or greater are likely have a
deterioration could still occur even with ground-
remaining service life of 100 years or
water levels maintained above the top of the
greater from present time. For larger
untreated pile cutoff. Recent research indicates
applied loads (on the order of 40 to
that soft-rot attack may be supported even in
50 kips per pile), pile diameters of 10
submerged conditions, if the dissolved oxygen
inches or greater would be required to
content in the groundwater is above a thresh-
attain the same remaining service life
old value of 2 ppm (Klaassen 2005). Given
expectancy (100 years or more).
that potable water is often used for recharging
• Once tops of piles are replaced and
groundwater levels near timber piles to maintain
the new pile cutoffs remain submerged
submersion, and this could lead to an increase
(e.g. cut-and-post underpinning is
in dissolved oxygen levels in the groundwa-
performed), settlements due to pile
ter, further research is required to confirm this
elastic compression over the remaining
potential deterioration mechanism.
service life of the timber piles will likely
Development of a large database of U.S. his-
not exceed 0.5 inches.
toric building stocks supported on untreated
The analysis used herein to estimate remain-
timber piles, similar to that currently in exis-
ing service life of submerged timber piles
tence for some European countries, would
is based on average conditions (i.e. average
be of significant value in evaluating current
measured strength and/or modulus values).
conditions and required foundation remedia-
Although measured strength and modulus
tion/repair options. Based on the European
data is well distributed around the average
studies on bacterial decay, existing untreated
values used, there is still a 50% probabil-
submerged small-diameter timber piles with
ity that the actual values may be lower or
more than about 100 years in service (which
higher than the ones used. In addition,
other than limiting the depth of penetra-
represents a significant percentage of the exist-
ing untreated timber pile stock in the U.S.)
tion of bacterial decay to include only the
are likely to be reaching a level of bacterial
thickness of the sapwood of submerged
attack at which there is little to no remaining
piles, it is possible that local building
service life. For these structures, significant
codes may require foundation remedia-
structural settlement, with the consequent
tion/repairs be performed once a certain
building distress, may start developing within
percentage of the original pile capacity has
a relatively short-time from present.▪
been lost. For the smaller-diameter timber
piles, this would likely result in smaller
remaining service life expectancies than The online version of this article
those indicated above. contains detailed references. Please visit
www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
14 January 2014
 More than
a joint cover,
it’s a collaboration.

The deYoung Museum

Architect: Herzog & deMeuron and Fong & Chan
Structural Engineer: Rutherford & Chekene Engineering

There’s no such thing as a typical project, which means that there’s no such thing
as a typical expansion joint cover. C/S has over 45 years of experience with projects
in every seismic hot bed in the world. It’s no wonder that architects and engineers
call us the experts. Let us partner with you to help design the perfect seismic solution
for you. And, getting us involved early will help avoid costly design modifications
so common in these types of projects. For a catalog and free consultation, call
Construction Specialties at 1-888-621-3344 or visit www.c-sgroup.com.
Historic
structures
significant structures of the past
Deconstructing Bridge 92297
From Destruction
Comes Knowledge
By Ryan Salmon, EIT and
Meghan Elliott, P.E., Associate AIA
Ryan Salmon, EIT (salmon@
pvnworks.com), is a project
associate and Meghan Elliott, P.E.,
Associate AIA (elliott@pvnworks.
com), is the founder and owner at
Preservation Design Works, LLC,
a historic preservation consulting
and project management firm in
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
The online version of this article
contains references. Please visit
www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
Figure 1: Bridge No. 92297 shortly before demolition. Photograph by Daniel R. Pratt, courtesy of MN Historical
Society Archives.
T
wo days of expected work turned into
a week; one equipment breakdown
cascaded into another; a 30-minute
delay became 24 hours. A documen-
tation project that was scheduled to happen in
June did not begin
until September.
The challenges of
keeping a bridge
demolition proj-
ect on schedule are
not unique, but the requirement for historical
documentation of a 1912 reinforced concrete
bridge by historians and engineers added another
layer of complexity to a highway widening
project. However, this documentation effort ulti-
mately provided interesting information about
the early development of reinforced concrete flat
slab design.
The historians’ involvement was prompted by
a routine set of circumstances. The structure in
question, Bridge No. 92297 – enumerated as
part of a statewide inventory of highway bridges
– was being demolished in order to facilitate a
joint Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT) and Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) project to reconstruct and widen a sec-
tion of the adjacent Interstate Highway I-35E
in St. Paul. The FHWA provided federal dollars,
which triggered the process known as a “Section
106 review.” Passed in 1966, the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) created the National
Register of Historic Places and requires all federal
agencies to take historic resources “into account”
when funding, permitting, or licensing under-
takings. Section 106 of the NHPA describes a
process of planning for preservation in advance
of construction.
For this project, MnDOT retained Summit
Envirosolutions, Inc. as the cultural resource
consultant to complete the initial portion of the
Section 106 review: identifying historic or poten-
tially historic resources by researching properties
and structures in the area that would be affected
by the highway expansion. Through this process,
16 January 2014
the consultants determined that Bridge No.
92297 was historically significant. In instances
when a federally funded project affects a historic
resource, the project agency must work with
the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
to determine how best to mitigate the impact.
Options can range from major changes, such as
re-routing a proposed road, to documenting the
historic structure prior to demolition, as was the
case with Bridge No. 92297. The pending demoli-
tion of the bridge presented a unique opportunity
to investigate the steel reinforcement concealed
within the structure. The team conducting
the sequenced research, documentation and
demolition included Summit Envirosolutions,
Preservation Design Works (PVN), a photog-
rapher, MnDOT engineers, and the contractor.
Bridge No. 92297 was a monolithic, single-span,
reinforced concrete flat slab deck with vertical
abutments supported on reinforced concrete strip
footings, constructed in 1912 (Figure 1). It was
oriented on a 35-degree skew, measured 49 feet in
total length, and had a clear span of 41 feet with
a 60-foot-wide deck. Without any background
about its history, the bridge would have appeared
rather unremarkable. However, research on the
bridge revealed that it was an innovative design
for its time. Its documentation shed more light on
the work of the bridge’s designer, and also created
a record available for future study.
C.A.P. Turner and the Flat Slab
Claude Allen Porter (C.A.P.) Turner, a Minneapolis-
based structural engineer, was a pioneer in the
development of the reinforced concrete flat slab
and designed bridge No. 92297. According to sev-
eral articles by Dario Gasparini, Turner was born
in Lincoln, Rhode Island in 1869, and graduated
from Lehigh University in 1890. He subsequently
worked for various bridge companies until 1901,
when he began his own consulting firm with
the Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie
Railroad (the “Soo Line”) as a principal client
(Gasparini, 2002). As Turner progressed in

Figure 2: Excerpt of C.A.P. Turner’s U.S. Patent
1,002,945: “Short-Span Flat-Slab Bridge,”
filed October 1, 1909. Although the deck
reinforcement of Bridge No. 92297 did not
resemble the design in this patent, the profile
of the deck, abutments, and footings, as well
as the abutment reinforcement bears a striking
resemblance. Digitized by Google Patents.
STRUCTURE - January 2014 HP-H-4C.indd 1
STRUCTURE magazine
his career, he expanded his practice to the
design of buildings, including the first one in
Minneapolis with reinforced concrete floors
and columns in 1904. His major break-
through in concrete design would be realized
two years later: in 1906, Turner designed his
first building with the “mushroom” system of
flat slab floors, the Johnson-Bovey building
in Minneapolis (now demolished).
In the next few years, implementation of
Turner’s proprietary flat slab floor system
grew at a furious pace. His design consisted of
floors with four-way reinforcement supported
directly on reinforced concrete columns, each
with a distinctive flared capital. Between 1906
and 1910, Turner claimed that buildings
constructed with his system were “rapidly
approaching a thousand acres of floor”
(Turner, 1910; 7-12). This growth can be
attributed in part to his extensive publication
of designs and load test results for his flooring
system in nationally prominent engineering
journals, which proved their reliability and
cost-effectiveness. However, a series of patent
lawsuits and countersuits beginning in 1911
resulted in a dramatic downturn in the use
of Turner’s flat slab system. Nevertheless, he
substantially contributed to the acceptance
of reinforced concrete flat slab technology
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
17 January 2014
among practicing engineers (Gasparini, et
al., 2001; 17-21).
In addition to implementing his system in
buildings, Turner designed several reinforced
concrete flat slab bridges, most as adaptations
of his mushroom floor system. To date, all
known flat slab bridges in the Twin Cities
designed by Turner have been demolished. The
bridge decks were often designed with four-way
reinforcement similar to his floors, with longi-
tudinal, transverse, and diagonal steel. With the
exception of a tunnel originally located not far
from the area studied for this project, Turner’s
published examples of flat slab bridges did not
bear much resemblance to Bridge No. 92297
(Gasparini, et al., 2001; 12-27). However,
Turner held a number of related patents for
both floor systems and bridges, one of which
bears a striking resemblance to Bridge No.
92297, particularly the configuration of the
abutment reinforcement (Figure 2).
Copies of construction drawings and plans
dating to the erection of the bridge, as well as
correspondence between the Soo Line railroad
engineers and the city of Saint Paul engineers,
revealed some insights into the bridge’s design
and also raised questions. Although the discov-
ery of original drawings was fortuitous – and
rare for a structure of this age – the copies
12/5/2013 11:44:34 AM
were of poor quality and only A two-stage demolition process
partially legible (Figure 3 ). Of accommodated the documenta-
the six sheets in the set, one tion process. Backhoes equipped
was stamped with “CAP Turner with hydraulic jackhammers
Consulting Engineer” in the removed concrete in selected areas
title block, while the “Chief of the bridge to expose reinforce-
Engineers Office” of the railroad ment. Fill placed below the bridge
was stamped on the remaining stabilized the abutment walls
sheets. The date of the sheet during the exposure and removal
stamped with Turner’s firm was of the deck. Two full-depth open-
illegible, but several of the sheets ings in the bridge deck – one near
stamped by the railroad engineers the middle, and another along the
were clearly dated to 1912. The edge and the adjoining transition
correspondence between engi- into the top of the abutment –
neers indicates that plans were facilitated its documentation
originally drawn for the bridge before complete demolition.
in 1908, and then were revised Next came excavating soil on
in 1912 because the earlier plans both sides of the abutment to the
did not meet the standards of Figure 3: Original construction drawing of plan and elevation top of the footing, then removing
of Bridge No. 92297.
the 1907 city ordinance. Summit concrete from the selected area to
Envirosolutions postulated that the drawing considered an ideal method of research, the expose the underlying reinforcement. The
sheet stamped by Turner was part of the removal of this 1912 bridge presented an investigation team took measurements and
original 1908 set, and the remaining sheets opportunity to gain additional knowledge photographs all along the way.
were a revision of Turner’s design made by of early flat slab bridge design. This investigative process was hampered by
the railroad’s engineers. poor accessibility of the machinery, especially
Interpretation of the original drawings Deconstruction and after demolition of the bridge began to com-
was also hampered by their poor legibil- promise its ability to support heavy loads. There
ity and a lack of corresponding notes or
Documentation were several equipment breakdowns, and the
engineering calculations. This was com- Bridge No. 92297 was documented to existing concrete was stronger than expected in
pounded by the fact that changes had Minnesota Historic Property Record some locations. These issues created unforeseen
obviously been made to the bridge after (MHPR) standards. MHPR is a modified delays that impacted the demolition schedule.
its construction, such as the replacement version of the national standard Historic Despite the slower than expected progress of
of the railing and the installation of a new American Engineering Record (HAER) the work, careful operation resulted in expo-
topping slab, which complicated efforts to program. The HAER program documents sure of the majority of the reinforcement with
differentiate original and more recently nationally significant historic mechanical minimal changes to its as-built configuration.
added features. Despite these difficulties, and engineering structures and sites; the The destructive nature of the work resulted in
comparison with observed conditions, the extensive collection is digitized and available some deformation or breakage of the reinforce-
original drawings, and Turner’s patent for to the public on the Library of Congress web- ment being recorded. In these cases, carefully
a similar bridge design, led to the con- site (www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/hh/). exposing adjacent sections made it possible to
clusion that the structural design of the Both programs maintain documentation of document the typical configuration of rein-
bridge can be substantially attributed to historic resources, and have a target archival forcement as originally placed.
C.A.P Turner. life of 500 years. The MHPR materials for The plan and profile of reinforcement was
The complications that the team expe- Bridge No. 92297 included a report with generally congruent with the original construc-
rienced in reading the Bridge No. 92297 a written description, large format photo- tion drawings from 1912, with the exception
drawings are actually typical obstacles to graphs, and measured drawings of selected of minor details and extra reinforcement along
understanding historic engineering struc- areas of the bridge highlighting its design the fillet corner in the deck-to-abutment
tures. Any engineer asked to retrofit an older and construction. transition. The skewed geometry of Bridge
building can relate to the frustration of not Deconstructing and documenting a historic No. 92297 was not well-suited to Turner’s
being able to locate the original engineering bridge requires time, care and coordination patented short-span bridge design, but the
design drawings; while architectural draw- that is not required with standard demoli- two layers of slab reinforcement in the bridge
ings are often kept as much for their visual tion and removal (Figure 4). Determining were similar to the configuration of diagonal
appeal as their content, engineering drawings the configuration of reinforcement for com- reinforcement in Turner’s patent. One layer of
are often inadvertently lost, or even inten- parison to the original construction drawings slab reinforcement was placed parallel to the
tionally destroyed for insurance and liability required investigative openings in areas that span of the bridge, and the other layer was
reasons. Likewise, details of the construction would expose representative samples of rein- placed perpendicular to the abutment walls.
methods and sequence may never have been forcement in the bridge deck, abutments and Some transverse reinforcement was present,
recorded, but rather negotiated in the field footings. Maintaining stability of the bridge which correlated with the patent, but it was so
by a contractor or builder. Finally, the struc- to allow for safe access after its partial demo- widely spaced – over five feet on center – that
ture itself is often concealed, limiting the lition, as well as to expose sections of the its intended purpose was likely just to sup-
ability to measure and record the structural abutments and footings, required an extensive port the draped geometry of the two primary
elements. While deconstruction is not often amount of earthwork. layers of slab reinforcement. The profile of the

STRUCTURE magazine 18 January 2014

Figure 4: Careful demolition of the bridge revealed the reinforcement, facilitating its documentation in selected areas.
slab and abutment reinforcement correlated
closely with the design illustrated in Turner’s
patent. Because of the geometry of the bridge
span, the flat slab of Bridge No. 92297 more
closely resembled a one-way structural system,
rather than the four-way systems found in
Turner’s published designs.
Considering its age, Bridge No. 92297 was
in remarkably good structural condition and
continued to perform as intended by car-
rying heavy vehicular traffic even into the
start of demolition. Despite the somewhat
deteriorated condition of the bridge, includ-
ing concrete spalling and substantial graffiti,
its continued use had demonstrated that the
early design was not only adequate for the
STRUCTURE magazine
COLORS
streetcar loads at the time of construction,
but also remained suited for the loading
demands imposed by modern traffic.
Conclusion
Researching the history of engineering has
unique and persistent challenges: structural
details are concealed, drawings are often not
available, and the field is relatively new com-
pared to the more established scholarship
of architectural history. However, programs
such as the MHPR and HAER provide a
framework for expanding this field of study.
When demolition of a resource is unavoid-
able, documentation can partially mitigate its
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
JOB# 19FILE NAME
January 2014
loss by recording and allowing for the future
study of its features. Understanding the his-
tory of a profession can provide a valuable
perspective on how its common practices and
philosophy have evolved.
Likewise, engineers seeking to preserve or
rehabilitate existing structures can benefit
from studying previously documented and
demolished examples for the insights that they
provide into design and construction. Bridge
No. 92297 offered a unique opportunity to
document the details of the steel reinforcement
in a historic reinforced concrete structure, a
task that is – for obvious reasons – gener-
ally infeasible for such structures that are to
remain intact.▪
OK as is

Structural
rehabilitation
renovation and restoration
of existing structures
Prescription for Repair
The Triage, Life Support
and Subsequent Euthanasia
of an Existing Precast
Parking Garage – Part 3
By D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E.,
F.ASCE, F.SEI, SECB, MgtEng
and Ross E. Stuart, P.E., S.E.
D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E.,
F.ASCE, F.SEI, SECB, MgtEng
(MStuart@Pennoni.com), is
the Structural Division Manager
at Pennoni Associates Inc. in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Ross E. Stuart, P.E., S.E.
(RStuart@Pennoni.com), is
a project engineer at Pennoni
Associates in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
A
s a part of Pennoni’s on-call contract
with an existing client, the Philadelphia
structural division investigated and
developed repair bid documents for an
existing, three-level, 1,200-space precast concrete
parking garage during the last quarter of 2012.
Part 1 of this series (September 2013) described
the existing structure and summarized Pennoni’s
observations and material testing results. Part 2
(November 2013) presented an analysis of those
findings. This article conveys Pennoni’s conclusions
regarding the feasibility of repairing the garage in
order to extend its service life.
The third level precast, prestressed inverted “T”
concrete girders that supported the 16-inch deep
double tees were in extremely poor condition.
The corresponding second level girders were also
in poor condition due to high chloride content,
and several locations exhibited large subsurface
delaminations. The cast-in-place, post-tensioned
concrete inverted “T” girders that supported the
conventional 24-inch-deep precast double tees
were generally in fair
condition due to limited
deterioration at isolated
areas. In addition, the
extremely high chloride
content of all of the concrete, in conjunction with
ongoing carbonization, was expected to cause
deterioration to accelerate in the near future.
Material testing indicated that the existing concrete
in the garage girders had a chloride content that
was significantly greater (25 times) than the limit
recommended by ACI for prestressed structures in
a moist environment that are exposed to chlorides
in the form of either admixtures or deicing salts
(0.06%). None of the previous testing performed
in 2002 or 2005 included chloride testing from the
beams, therefore the previous reports failed to reveal
the true nature of the current rapid demise of the
garage. Extrapolating the results of carbonization
analysis indicated that the depth of carbonization
would reach the embedded reinforcing in approxi-
mately two to three years. Significant repairs would
be required within that time to prevent permanent
damage to the embedded reinforcing.
Service Life Analysis
Pennoni determined that the practical remaining
operational service life of the existing parking
structure was approximately two years. This was
commensurate with the large spalls and severely
corroded reinforcing, observed during the site
visit, at the girders associated with the barricaded
portion of the third level. In addition, the service
life calculations were considered representative
of the remaining portions of the garage, which
indicated that some if not all of the other third
floor girders would also begin to corrode in the
same fashion within the next two years, and the
second level would follow shortly thereafter.
20 January 2014
From an engineering perspective, the service life of
a structure is considered to be over when the extent
of deterioration renders the facility inoperable due
to impending hazards to public safety, and reme-
diation is required in the form of complete repair
or replacement. Therefore, the end of a structure’s
service life does not mean that it is in a state of
imminent collapse, but instead implies that the
structure can no longer safely function or support
minimum loads as required by the building code.
In the case of this particular garage, vehicles and
pedestrians would no longer be able to use the
entire garage for parking, similar to the current
partial loss of service at the third level. Pennoni
estimated that, within the next two years, the
garage would have to be progressively closed as
additional areas became unsafe, until eventually
the entire facility would be completely out of
operation. The eventual and unavoidable loss
of use of the entire garage by the current occu-
pants would therefore have a direct impact on
the practical everyday operations of the facility
in the very near future.
Typically, a garage constructed with precast con-
crete components should have a useful lifespan
of 40 to 50 years before significant repairs would
be required. In this case, the actual service life
of the garage in the absence of any remediation
will be approximately one-half of this duration.
The shortened lifespan of the garage is directly
attributable to the use of chloride-containing
admixtures in the main girders.
Feasibility of Repairs
It is clear from the results of the condition assess-
ment, material testing and investigation that the
primary source of the internal reinforcing and con-
crete deterioration in the garage was the presence of
excessive chlorides in the concrete in conjunction
with continued exposure to deicing salts. In addi-
tion, it was anticipated that further carbonization
of the concrete would cause additional deterio-
ration of the structure. Therefore, any solutions
involving the repair and restoration of the garage
to extend its service life would have to address the
presence of the high chloride content.
Typically, a chloride extraction process, such
as Norcure by Vector Corrosion Technologies,
or an active galvanic protection system, such as
Ebonex or Vectrode TiTape by Vector Corrosion
Technologies, could be used to reduce or remove
the chloride ion content or arrest the current rate
of deterioration in conjunction with conventional
concrete repairs. However, the presence of the
high-strength prestressing steel precluded the use
of chloride extraction processes or active galvanic
protection systems due to the potential for hydro-
gen embrittlement of the strands, as described
by State-of-the-Art Report: Criteria for Cathodic
Protection of Prestressed Concrete Structures, pub-
lished by NACE International – The Corrosion
 H2O O2
CI-
Society. Damage to the internal prestressing H2O O2 H2O O2
steel due to hydrogen embrittlement would
clearly further increase the degradation of
the structure. OH- OH-
Pennoni performed additional research as Fe(OH)
part of an exhaustive effort to verify that e- Fe++ Fe++ e-
there were no other practical long-term
repair methods of lowering the extremely high CATHODE ANODE CATHODE
chloride content besides the types of systems
mentioned above. This led to a state-of-the-art protection system is disabled. As a result, new Part 4 will appear in a future issue and dis-
technology, known as nanoparticle treatment, corrosion cells rapidly occur on either side of the cuss recommendations for the temporary
which is intended to address the corrosion of repair, resulting in accelerated premature failure stabilization and ultimate replacement of
internal reinforcing of distressed prestressed of the surrounding concrete. the garage.▪
concrete beams. ACI Materials Journal
Technical Paper 109-M60, “Corrosion
Mitigation in Reinforced Concrete Beams
via Nanoparticle Treatment” (Kunal et
al.), contains a thorough discussion of
this process, which is not commercially
available at this time.
Based on the results of the referenced ACI
study, the potentials during and after the
nanoparticle treatment were as negative
as -1200 millivolts (mV). However, the
threshold for hydrogen embrittlement in
high-strength prestressing reinforcement is
around -1060 mV (or more positive if the
concrete pH is lower than 13). Therefore,
even this new technology is not applicable
for the repair of the garage. As a result,
Pennoni was confident that no viable
options existed for effectively reducing the
chloride content in the existing girders to
an acceptable level that would allow for a
conventional repair. In addition, the pres-
ence of high-strength bonded reinforcing
tendons would make conventional repairs
very difficult and time-consuming because
of the need to de-tension and then re-ten-
sion any strands impacted by deterioration
as a part of the overall remediation process.
Furthermore, conventional concrete repairs,
in the absence of chloride extraction or an
active or passive galvanic protection system,
would result in the accelerated deterioration
of the remaining existing concrete due to the
interruption of the incipient anode effect (see
Figure). The incipient anode effect is a phe-
nomenon by which steel corroding under the
influence of chloride contamination dissolves,
causing the formation of iron “ions” (tiny
charged particles of iron). Simultaneously,
electrons are released that flow along the bar
and react with both air and oxygen at some
point remote from the corrosion location.
The corroding areas are therefore supplying
electrons to surrounding areas of steel, effec-
tively providing localized cathodic protection
to the adjacent steel. If the corroding area
is removed and a repair patch is installed,
without dealing with chloride contamina-
tion in adjacent areas, the natural cathodic

STRUCTURE magazine 21 January 2014

 NOW AVAILABLE!
Building Code Requirements and Specification for
Masonry Structures and Companion Commentaries—530-13

The 2013 edition represents an update from the former edition both in
technical requirements and in layout. The Code and Specification are written
as legal documents so that they may be adopted by reference in general
building codes. The Code covers the design and construction of masonry
structures, with subjects ranging from quality assurance to the details and
development of reinforcement. Compliance with the Specification is
required by the Code to control materials, labor, and construction. The
commentaries present background details, committee considerations, and
research data used to develop the Code and Specification. The Commentaries
are not mandatory and are for information only.

A must-have document for masonry work.

Order Code: 53013.SPEC • $124.00 (ACI members $94.00)

RESOURCES FOR SUCCESS FROM ACI!

248-848-3800www.concrete.org

ACI-CRSI Adhesive Anchor Installer

Education and Certification available at
WOC 2014!

ACI-CRSI’s Adhesive Anchor Installer Certification program is designed to credential installers that have
demonstrated specific knowledge and are capable of effective installation of adhesive anchors in concrete.

For more information on this and other ACI Events at WOC 2014, visit www.worldofconcrete.com, click on
the Education tab at the top, then Certification & Exams link on the right.

Visit ACI at WOC 2014

Booth S10399
O
n a recent chemical plant project for
which the author was the Engineer
of Record, an electrical contractor,
contrary to contract specifications,
manually arc welded electrical grounding conduc-
tors to reinforcing steel for a pipe rack foundation.
The electrician explained that the National
Electric Code (NEC) allows welding to concrete
encased reinforcing steel, and he frequently does
so in lieu of independent electrical ground rods
which were specified on this project. Paragraph
250.52 (A) (3) Concrete-Encased Electrode of the
NEC does permit welding to reinforcing steel.
However, NEC does not reference AWS D1.4/
D1.4M Structural Welding Code-Reinforcing Steel
or provide any guidance to the special rules, regu-
lations, and procedures prescribed by AWS D1.4/
D1.4M. If AWS D1.4 is not followed for manual
arc welding reinforcing steel, the structural integ-
rity of reinforced concrete may be jeopardized.
Unfortunately, this particular contractor did not
conform to D1.4 and the reinforcing steel was
encased in concrete before a visual inspection
could be conducted.
This article covers AWS requirements for
welding reinforcing steel in reinforced concrete
applications. It summarizes the main themes of
the various sections as they pertain to welding
reinforcing steel and contains guidelines for work-
ing with the body of rules and procedures for
structural welding of reinforcing steel to reinforc-
ing steel, welding reinforcing steel to structural
steel, and welding reinforcing steel to electrical
grounding electrodes. Implications to improve
future projects are also addressed.
Fusion welds in shop fabrication of reinforcing
steel and CADWELDs are outside the scope of
this article. Electric resistance welds found in the
fabrication process of welded-wire reinforcement
are conducted by computer controlled welding
machines within a controlled environment. A
combination of pressure and heat generated by
electric impulses fuse intersecting wires together.
Shop personnel are never engaged in the actual
welding process and no filler material or other
foreign matter is introduced. CADWELDs do
not apply because the steel-filled coupling sleeve
of a CADWELD is a mechanical splice in which
molten metal interlocks the grooves inside the
sleeve with the deformations on the reinforcing bar.
Weldability of reinforcing steel and compatibil-
ity of welding procedures need to be considered
and closely supervised when manual arc weld-
ing of reinforcing steel is required. Weldability
is determined by the chemical composition of
steel and described by the Carbon Equivalent
(CE) number. Carbon is the primary hardening
element in steel. Hardness and tensile strength
are inversely related to ductility and weldability.
As carbon content increases up to 0.85%, so
does hardness and tensile strength. As carbon
STRUCTURE magazine
content decreases, ductility and weldability
increases. CE is an empirical value in weight
percentages, related to the combined effects of
different alloying elements used in making carbon
ConstruCtion
steel, of an equivalent amount of carbon. This
value can be calculated using a mathematical
equation. The lower the CE value the higher the
issues
weldability of the material. The welding Code
discussion of construction
provides two expressions for calculating CE.
The first expression (Equation 1) only consid- issues and techniques
ers the elements carbon and manganese, and is
to be used for all bars other than ASTM A706
material. A second more comprehensive equation
(Equation 2 ) is given for ASTM A706 and consid-
ers carbon, manganese, copper, nickel, chromium,
molybdenum, and vanadium content. Chemical
composition is obtained through certified mill
test reports or independent chemical analysis.
Chemical composition varies for each produc-
tion run, so it is important to obtain the analysis
that matches the specific material to be welded.
Once the CE number is
calculated, the minimum
Welding Reinforcing Steel
preheat and interpass
temperature is deter-
mined from Table 5.2 of
the Code. If material test
reports are unavailable and chemical composition AWS D1.4/D1.4M:2011
is not known, which is particularly common in
alterations and building additions of existing By John Hlinka, P.E.
structures, the Code prescribes the highest preheat
and interpass temperature for desired reinforcing
bar size: 300° F (150° C) for number 6 bars and
smaller, and 500° F (260° C) for number 7 bars
and larger. If the chemical composition for ASTM
A706 is not known or obtained, then preheat and
interpass requirements are somewhat relaxed; no
preheat is required for number 6 bars and smaller,
50° F (10° C) for number 7 to number 11 bars,
and 200° F (90° C) for number 14 and larger. John Hlinka, P.E., is Senior Project
As with all welding, when the material is below Manager/Structural Engineer at
32° F (0° C), the Code prescribes the material QualEx Engineering in Paducah,
to be preheated to at least 70° F (20° C), and Kentucky. He can be contacted at
maintained during the welding process. jhlinka@qualex.com.
CE = %C + %Mn/6 (Equation 1)
CE = %C + %Mn/6 + %Cu/40 + % Ni/20 +
%Cr/10–%MO/50–%V/10 (Equation 2)
Standard specifications for low-alloy steel
ASTM A706 limit chemical composition
and CE to enhance weldability. However, it
is permissible to weld other base metals, such
as ASTM A615, which is commonly used in
reinforced concrete, as long as the appropriate
weld procedure specification (WPS) is followed
and correct filler weld metal is used. Many
other permissible base metals are listed under The online version of this
paragraph 1.3.1 of the Code. High strength article contains detailed
reinforcing steel such as ASTM A615 material references. Please visit
is susceptible to cracking when not adequately www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
23
 Sample Material Comparison Table
Material Rebar
Grade Size C Mn P S
ASTM
A615
#7 0.39 1.00 0.018 0.037 0.21 0.39 0.20 0.13 0.038 0.00 0.00 0.56
ASTM
A706
#7 0.28 1.18 0.028 0.028 0.17 0.29 0.19 0.09
Sample mill test report data with calculated CE numbers and minimum preheat and interpass temperatures from Table 5.2 of AWS D1.4.
preheated. Welding of ASTM A615 mate-
rial should be approached with caution, since
no specific provisions have been included to
enhance its weldability. The Table compares
chemical composition, CE, and preheat
temperatures for sample ASTM A615 and
ASTM A706 materials. As shown, the pre-
heat requirements are lower for A706 than
A615 material. A lower carbon percentage
and the addition of molybdenum and vana-
dium contribute to a lower CE number for
A706. Bar size also is considered in determi-
nation of preheat temperature. The smaller
the bar size, generally, the smaller the pre-
heat temperature. With all rebar welding,
allow bars to cool naturally. Never accelerate
cooling; accelerated cooling will change the
metallurgy of the reinforcing steel.
Sections 2 and 3 of the Code provide
allowable stresses and structural details,
respectively. A wide range of details are pro-
vided, including Direct Butt Joints, Indirect
Butt Joints, Lap Joints, and Interconnection
of Precast Members. The effects of eccentric-
ity should be considered when designing Lap
Joints, if external restraint is not provided.
AWS D1.4 does not provide details for weld-
ing reinforcing steel to electrical grounding
conductors. If unavoidable, the author
suggests using the CADWELD method to
attach the grounding conductor to an ASTM
A36 plate and then using the AWS Lap Joint
detail to attach the plate to the reinforcing
Software and ConSulting
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
FLOOR VIBRATIONS
FLOORVIBE v2.10
• Software to Analyze Floors for Annoying Vibrations
• New release
• Demo version at www.FloorVibe.com
• Calculations follow AISC Design Guide 11 Procedures
• Analyze for Walking and Rhythmic Activities
• Check floors supporting sensitive equipment
• Graphic displays of output
• Data bases included
CONSULTING SERVICES
• Expert consulting available for new construction
and problem floors.
Structural Engineers, Inc.
Radford, VA 540-731-3330 tmmurray@floorvibe.com
STRUCTURE magazine
Chemical Analysis (Percent)
Si Cu Cr Ni Mo
0.02
steel, or CADWELD the conductor directly
to the reinforcing steel. Other mechanical
type attachments provided by NEC are pref-
erable to manual arc welding.
Section 4 of the Code addresses work-
manship in regards to preparation of base
metal, joint assembly, distortion, and quality.
Welding of bars which cross and welding
within two bar diameters from the points
of tangency for the radius of bent bars are
not permitted. Cross bar welding can lead
to local embrittlement of reinforcing steel.
When welding on bars that are already
embedded in concrete, allowances must be
made for thermal expansion of the steel to
prevent spalling or cracking of concrete or
destruction of the bond between the concrete
and steel. Acceptable and unacceptable fillet
and grove weld profiles are illustrated in
Section 4 of the Code.
Section 5 of the Code discusses welding
technique. Technique includes selection of
filler metal, minimum preheat and inter-
pass temperatures, welding environment,
arc strikes, cleaning, progression of welding,
coated base metal, and welding electrodes.
Allowed welding processes include shielded
metal arc welding (SMAW), gas metal arc
welding (GMAW), or flux cored arc welding
(FCAW). Other processes maybe used when
approved by the Engineer of Record. Special
storage conditions are required for low-hydro-
gen electrodes. Low-hydrogen electrodes must
be purchased in hermetically sealed con-
tainers or must be baked prior to use.
Selection of correct welding electrodes
which are compatible with base metal
material is critical. An incorrect choice
may lead to micro cracking in the heat
affected zone, which may lead to joint
failure. Generally speaking, tack welds
are prohibited unless they conform to all
design and control requirements of D1.4.
Tack welding can create a metallurgical
notch effect and weaken a bar at the weld.
Sections 6 and 7 of the Code pertain
to welder qualifications and inspections,
respectively. All structural welding must
be performed by qualified welders. WPS
qualification by testing must include
24 January 2014
Preheat
Cb V CE Temp. °F (°C)
200 (90)
0.00 0.24 0.48 50 (10)
specific joint type and size to be welded.
Inspectors must also be qualified. Acceptable
qualifications include AWS certification,
Canadian Welding Bureau certification, or
an Engineer/Technician trained or experi-
enced in metal fabrication, inspection, testing,
and who is competent to perform inspection
work. It is not unusual for the Engineer of
Record to request evidence of welder quali-
fications prior to starting a project. Annex A
of the Code includes the following sample
forms for informational purposes: Procedure
Qualification Record (PQR), Welding
Procedure Specification (WPS), and Welder
Qualification Test Record.
Conclusion
Welding of reinforcing steel should be
approached with caution to prevent cracking
of base metal and potentially jeopardizing
the integrity of a reinforced concrete founda-
tion or structure. AWS D1.4/D1.4M covers
the design, workmanship, technique, quali-
fication, and inspection requirements for
welding reinforcing steel in most reinforced
concrete applications.
NEC paragraph 250.52 (A) (3) allows weld-
ing of electrical conductors to reinforcing
steel without reference to AWS D1.4/D1.4M.
Electrical contractors can potentially damage
the structural integrity of reinforced concrete
foundations if the requirements of AWS D1.4
are not followed. Proposed Tentative Interim
Amendments (TIAs) were submitted to the
NFPA Standards Council on August 6, 2013.
Hopefully, the NFPA Standards Council will
adopt these amendments.
In the case presented at the beginning of
this article, the minimum amount of rein-
forcing steel required by ACI 318 provided
greater than two times the strength needed
for design loads. Therefore, if the integrity of
one reinforcing bar was reduced, the foun-
dation would still be structurally adequate.
The author suggests that a note be added
to future concrete drawings that specifically
prohibit welding of electrical conductors to
reinforcing steel without the approval of the
Engineer of Record.▪
 Solid Performance
Shear Versatility

Introducing the newest addition to our shearwall family – the Strong-Wall ® SB shearwall.
It combines performance – high load values – with versatility – it’s trimmable in the field.
The SB wood prefabricated shearwall offers greater lateral-force resistance for many applications,
including narrow and tall wall spaces and garage portals. In seismic and high-wind areas,
the SB wall is comparable to the strength of narrow steel shearwalls.
For a high-performance, versatile and economical solution, specify the Strong-Wall SB shearwall.
Learn more by calling your local rep at 800-999-5099 or visiting strongtie.com/sb.

© 2014 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. SWSB13-S

Concrete “Paint” Arrests Cofferdam
Corrosion at Submarine Pier
By Brian Robinson, P.E.

E
ach year, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
publishes a Report Card for America’s Infrastructure. Their
rating system uses familiar academic grading (A through F) to
report on the condition of America’s aging infrastructure. Last
year, America’s infrastructure received a D+, indicating deteriorating
infrastructure. Included in this report are waterfront structures, which
are vitally important. According to ASCE, America has over 3,700
maratime terminals serving as commerce and transportation hubs.
Often, steel sheet pile walls are incorporated as part of cost-effective
waterfront earth-retaining structures for these harbors. Many of these
walls are subjected to salt-water exposure, tidal fluctuations, and a
host of other environmental factors that accelerate corrosion. Even
if the coatings are maintained and a cathodic protection system is
employed, the corrosion near the waterline eventually necessitates
expensive repairs and, often, replacement of the structure. Cellular
sheet pile cofferdams are particularly difficult to repair because of the
lack of redundancy in the tensioned cell walls. This article highlights Figure 1: Submarine pier aerial view. Courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey.
a unique method to repair a cellular cofferdam using a reinforced
each cell was backfilled to form a cylindrical earth retaining structure.
concrete facing installed over the aging sheet piling.
Additional sheet pile arcs connect each cell. In total, the dry dock uses
20, 75-foot diameter cells connected by 19 arcs in a U-shaped pattern
Existing Structure Configuration that forms three sides of the dry dock structure. The fourth side is open
to accept vessels and configured to accept a caisson (gate) that closes
The submarine pier is located in the Hood Canal waterway in
the dry dock off from the surrounding water. The internal cast-in-place
Washington State’s Puget Sound region. Considered a vital natural
concrete dry dock walls envelope portions of the cofferdam cells and
resource, Hood Canal provides vessel passage and is home to many
arcs. However, at the outer perimeter, the sheet pile walls are fully
aquatic species, some of which are fished for human consumption.
exposed to the marine environment above and below the water line.
The triangular shaped pier, accessible from land by two pile-supported
trestles serves as a vessel docking-surface on two sides and a dry dock
is integrated into the third side of the triangle (Figure 1). The concrete Field Observations
deck supports gantry cranes, mooring hardware, and a number of build-
The first step in developing a comprehensive design strategy was to per-
ings. Most of the deck is supported by concrete piles, but portions are
form field investigations of the existing pile condition. From boat- and
supported by a cofferdam that surrounds the dry dock structure. The
deck-based observations, the design team documented the condition
cofferdam is formed by a series of circular interlocking steel sheet pile
of each exposed sheet pile face and noted special conditions that would
cells that form the outer perimeter of the dry dock structure. These
need to be considered through the design process. The existing coatings
sheet piles were vibrated or driven into the underlying seabed, and
were in a state of failure at most locations (Figure 2). The facility was
equipped with an active cathodic protection system that consisted
of anodes suspended from cantilevered beams extending over the
cofferdam face. It is important to note that this type of cathodic
protection system is fully effective only below the low water line,
with reduced effectiveness in the tidal zone. The field observations
also illuminated a number of construction constraints that would
have otherwise been difficult to discern from a review of the design
documents alone. The most surprising and important constraint was
the restricted conditions under the deck. As shown in Figure 3, some
existing concrete piles were less than 1 foot from the sheet pile face.
The number and proximity of existing concrete piles would present
a substantial access and construction challenge for under-pier work.
Additionally, the design team observed a number of deck-based and
water-based operations associated with the day-to-day function of
the pier that would present a construction staging and sequencing
challenge for the contractor.
Figure 2: Existing failing cofferdam coating.

STRUCTURE magazine 26 January 2014

Figure 3: Existing concrete piers in close proximity to the cofferdam wall face.
Corrosion Mitigation Selection
and Design Considerations
The owner considered a number of coating systems to mitigate further
sheet pile corrosion: a high performance marine coating, thermal spray
aluminum, copper-nickel cladding, and a concrete facing. Due to
the considerable durability and low life-cycle cost, the owner chose a
concrete facing extending from the top of the cofferdams to two-feet
below Mean Lower Low Water as the preferred repair alternative. The
owner called for a concrete service life of at least 50 years. Considering
the cofferdam pile structure appeared to be performing well and
did not exhibit excessive corrosion, the concrete facing would not
be structural, but rather would provide an overlay to passivate and
protect the steel cofferdam.
The concrete facing would present a number of different technical
design challenges, but most of them would be related to one central
issue: crack control. In this case, the design team had two related tools
for controlling concrete cracking: rebar configuration and concrete
specification.
Rebar Configuration
The design team considered that, during drying shrinkage, the forma-
tion of a crack requires a point or line of restraint. In this case, the
vertical interlock joints between the sheet piles provided that restraint.
Each interlock has two nested knuckles that protrude from the face
of each sheet by about an inch. This protrusion is the line of restraint
where an assumed crack might form. Table 4.1 of ACI 224R indicates
a reasonable crack width for seawater spray is 0.006 inches, so this
was adopted as the target crack width for the facing. Assuming the
crack would form vertically, in-line with the knuckles, the primary
reinforcement would be horizontal. Using minimum reinforcement,
the resulting calculated crack width was 0.003 inches.
Concrete Specification
The basis of the concrete design was the owner’s specification for
marine concrete with special considerations added for shrinkage con-
trol. Considering the non-structural nature of the facing, the concrete
would not need to develop especially high compressive strength. This
was advantageous because it presented the opportunity to lower the
cement content in the mix, which would lower the water content,
thereby minimizing shrinkage-induced cracks. This was accomplished
by limiting the specified 90-day strength to a range of 3500 pounds
STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 4: Pre-fabricated welded headed stud rails. Courtesy of Seaward Marine.
per square inch (psi) to 4000 psi. Additionally, the mix incorporated
a maximum water/cement ratio of 0.38 and a provision for rapid
strength gain with age combined with a low shrinkage requirement.
To assure maximum durability in this sea water environment, the
concrete mix was proportioned to maximize its resistance to the
penetration of chloride ions with a limit of less than or equal to 1000
coulombs at 56 days. The mix was also developed to limit the drying
shrinkage to a maximum of 0.03% at 28 days.
Special additives were also required in the concrete. Much of the
concrete casting was to be done underwater by divers in a bottom-up
pumping operation. Due to the strict environmental requirements for
working in the Hood Canal, anti-washout additives were required to
prevent concrete paste leakage. Also, due to the long travel time and
delays getting through the base, a set retarder was used.
Design for Constructability
The contractor would face a myriad of technical and operational chal-
lenges during construction of the facing. The following is a partial
list of these challenges:
• Under-pier access was substantially restricted due to the close
spacing of existing concrete piling.
• The curvature of the wall face would present a formwork
challenge.
• The contractor needed to minimize interruption of pier
operations. This would restrict construction laydown space
and vehicle access. Additionally, the contractor would have to
schedule activities around all pier operations.
• The construction crew and concrete deliveries would have to
pass through checkpoints.
• The large distance between the jobsite and the nearest concrete
batch plant would make the efficient delivery of concrete even
more critical, as the mix is intended to have rapid strength gain
as part of the shrinkage control strategy.
• The tidal fluctuation is as much as 11 feet, so the work
schedule would have to consider tidal conditions.
• Due to the presence of protected aquatic species, in-water
work was restricted to a 7-month period, called a “fish
window”, starting in July.
The operational nature of these restrictions made mitigating them by
design difficult. Some modest mitigating design strategies included
provisions to make construction of the panels as flexible as possible,
27 January 2014
like simple rebar layout and coordinating the welded-
headed-stud (WHS) spacing and rebar spacing to
minimize the amount of additional rebar. Prior to
construction, the designers and contractor also con-
ducted a constructability meeting to review the design.
This resulted in a number of adjustments:
• Welded headed studs were pre-fabricated on steel
bars, which were then fillet welded to the sheet
pile face (Figure 4, page 27). Considering the
large number of WHS’s on project, this would
save substantial time by minimizing layout and
welding time in the field, some of which had to
be done under water by divers.
• To more easily accommodate the in-water Figure 6: Completed cell and arc facing. Courtesy of Seaward Marine.
construction restriction, the contractor
implemented a horizontal cold joint, which broke the and under-pier work. Cores were taken of the test wall segment to
facing into “uppers” and “lowers.” This would allow the measure specific gravity, chloride ion penetration resistance, voids,
contractor to pour the “lowers” when in-water construction and compressive strength. Additionally, it was an opportunity to
was allowed and could continue construction above-water evaluate the cracking at specific concrete ages. Figure 6 shows a typi-
on the “uppers” between the fish windows. Figure 5 shows cal cell and arc with completed “uppers” and “lowers.” The test wall
a completed “upper” in an under-pier condition. The only was a success and remained as a permanent part of the facing. After
changes required to accommodate this configuration were a the test wall was approved by the owner, the contractor constructed
minor modification to the welded headed stud layout at the the project faster than expected, allowing it to be finished ahead of
cold joint and the implementation of epoxy-coated vertical schedule. During the last on-site observation, the facing appeared
bars, at the joint locations only. to be performing very well and very few cracks have formed. As you
might expect, the owner is very pleased with this outcome.
Test program and Completion
Since the construction of the facing panels would be so difficult,
Conclusion
contract documents included provisions for a test wall segment. This This project demonstrated the successful use of what amounts to a thick
would mitigate risk in two ways. One, it would give the contractor coat of “paint” made of high-tech concrete to repair an aging sheet pile
the opportunity to refine the construction process while including cofferdam located at a very challenging site. While more expensive to
provisions in the budget to re-construct the wall if necessary. Two, it install than other coatings, this solution is estimated to offer the greatest
would give the owner and designers the opportunity to inspect the long-term durability and lowest lifecycle cost. Additionally, this solu-
wall and adjust the design if necessary. The test wall segment would tion was installed with relatively little impact to the facility operations.
be constructed with the intent to remain as the first section of the With America’s infrastructure, including over 300 harbors, in
wall if all tests and inspections were acceptable. The wall segment a deteriorating state (remember that D+?), having cost-effective
was located to capture a representative collection of all the different and flexible strategies to mitigate corrosion while minimizing
existing conditions, including one cell, one arc, the cell-arc joint, day-to-day facility operations is imperative. If you find yourself
faced with a replace or repair scenario on a quay wall
or cofferdam, consider using a concrete
facing to extend the structure’s life. After
going through this project, I’d give the
strategy an A.▪

Brian Robinson, P.E., is a Project Engineer in the

structural group at KPFF Consulting Engineers in
Seattle. He specializes in excavation shoring and was a
design engineer on the cofferdam repair project. Brian
may be reached at brian.robinson@kpff.com.

Project Team
Owner: US Navy
Structural Engineers: KPFF Consulting
Engineers, Seattle, WA
Cathodic Protection Engineers: Norton
Corrosion, Woodinville, WA
General Contractor: Seaward Marine,
Chesapeake, VA
Figure 5: Completed “upper” facing under the pier. Courtesy of Seaward Marine.

STRUCTURE magazine 28 January 2014

GEOPOLYMER PRECAST FLOOR PANELS
Sustainable Concrete for Australia’s Global Change Institute
By Rod Bligh, B.Eng, MSc, CPEng, FIEAust and Tom Glasby B.Eng (Civil), MBT, MIEAust, CPEng, RPEQ

Figure 2: Panel soffit with ceiling service panel installed. Courtesy of Angus Martin.

T
he Global Change Institute (GCI) is an Australian orga-
nization within The University of Queensland (UQ) that
researches global sustainability issues including resource
security, ecosystem health, population growth and cli-
mate change (Figure 1). The design of its new $32 million (AUD)
building by project architects, HASSELL and structural and façade
engineers, Bligh Tanner, was to be an exemplar project benchmarked
using the Green Building Council of Australia’s Green Star rating (at
6 Star Green Star level), as well achieving an Australian-first Living
Building Challenge compliance. The Living Building Challenge is an
international rating system based in North America that explores a
broader basis of sustainability, assessing the seven performance areas
of site, water, energy, health, materials, equity and beauty. Further
design parameters set for the project were zero net carbon emission
for building operation, carbon neutral with carbon offset.
Design process
Early in the design, the structural engineering team explored the
potential for the incorporation of structural timber. The work
at the University of Technology, Sydney, developing and testing
Figure 1: Completed Global Change Institute building. Courtesy of Angus Martin.
Figure 3: Global Change Institute – vaulted panel soffit.
Timber-Concrete Composite (TCC) floors, was of interest and was
proposed as a potential floor system that combined the benefits of
timber framing with the acoustic, fire separation and wearing proper-
ties of concrete (Figure 2). It was at this stage that the strong potential
for use of geopolymer concrete in the system was identified, as the
structural topping would be working at low stress and precasting of
the TCC panels would enable quality control in a factory environ-
ment. Use of precast was also recognized as advantageous considering
the very limited site.
The design of the passive and low energy thermal control systems
was developing at the same stage, and was pushing the floor sys-
tems toward high thermal mass with active heat exchange by the
pumping of air or water through a concrete slab system. The next
logical iteration of the design was to precast geopolymer concrete
floor panels with incorporated hydronic pipes coils. To maximize
the effectiveness of the radiant heat transfer from the concrete, the
soffit needed to be exposed with maximum surface area. This then
led to the development of vaulted soffit panels, which were both
visually appealing, of high thermal efficiency and reflected light
down onto functional spaces (Figure 3). Suspended ceiling panels
contained lighting, communication technology and sprinklers.
Various forms of the 11-meter-span (36-foot) panels were explored,
which allowed for air distribution in a plenum/services void above

STRUCTURE magazine 30 January 2014

Figure 4: Support at the panel end during the full-scale test.
the panels. The exposed concrete frame, which supports the precast
geopolymer concrete panels, was designed to incorporate the air
distribution system, which supplies the plenum.
Bligh Tanner made contact with Wagners who were developing
a geopolymer concrete product branded Earth Friendly Concrete
(EFC). Wagners had undertaken some preliminary testing at the
time to produce an initial summary engineering report that would
ultimately lead to further verification testing for compliance with
AS3600 (Australian Standard for Concrete Structures). Although
the use of geopolymer was so novel that it would not gain any addi-
tional Green Star points in the Material category, The University
of Queensland, as the client, understood the significance of the
innovation which went beyond Green Star rating. Wagners were
asked to fast track the reporting and testing, with a critical cut off
date for the interim research report to be indicating whether or
not the use of geopolymer concrete on the project was viable. The
Green Star submission, which is currently being assessed, includes
two Innovation points for the use of the geopolymer concrete on
the basis of being a world-first innovation and exceeding the Green
Star benchmarks. A positive interim report was delivered during the
design period. The only issue identified as a potential concern relative
to normal concrete was carbonation resistance; however, this was
not considered to be of significance in this case as it was for internal
use only. Subsequent testing has shown that rate of carbonation for
the mix design adopted is similar to normal concrete incorporating
blended cement. At this point, the project consultants accepted
geopolymer concrete as the preferred option for the precast floor
beams used in the three suspended floors.
An additional concern was the ability to supply the geopolymer con-
crete to the precast fabricator, and also for the precast fabricator, to be
willing to take on the risk of working with a new product. The design
team and Wagners worked closely with Precast Concrete to ensure
that the process was feasible. Bligh Tanner stipulated that a full-scale
load test (up to maximum working load) could be undertaken on a
panel to confirm the strength and deflection were as predicted. This
was considered prudent given the world-first application of modern
geopolymer concrete for suspended construction.
Compliance Testing
Geopolymer concrete was included in the design for the 33 precast
floor beams (320m3 ≈ 419 c.y.) that formed three suspended floors in
STRUCTURE magazine 31
Figure 5: Full scale load test at precast factory.
the building. The specification for the geopolymer concrete in these
beams relied on:
• Testing key material properties referenced in AS3600.
• Independent engineering verification that the tested results
showed structural performance properties equivalent to the
design basis for design reinforced concrete dicated in AS3600.
All tests were undertaken by Wagners Technical services, in some cases
using external laboratories (Figure 4 ). The results were independently
assessed by Dr James Aldred of AECOM, who Wagners commissioned
to provide the independent certification on the geopolymer concrete.
Test samples, with the exception of creep and the fire and load tests,
were cast and made from geopolymer concrete used during the supply
phase of the project. The relevant Australian Standard test method was
used in all cases. Creep was assessed via full scale prestressed beams
which were made in 2010 and were monitored under load via the
use of internal vibrating wire strain gauges. A fire test was conducted
at the CSIRO fire testing station at North Ryde, Sydney prior to the
start of the project.
The first floor beam panel produced served as the prototype to be
load tested. Figure 5 shows that the measured deflection under an
equally distributed 10 ton load was 2.85 mm (0.10 inches), slightly
less than the predicted 3mm using an uncracked section analysis.
The testing program revealed a number of beneficial properties of
the geopolymer concrete compared to normal GP based concrete,
most notably:
• Half the typical 56 day drying shrinkage, at an average value of
320 microstrains
• 30% higher flexural tensile strength than a comparison
standard concrete
• Extremely low heat of reaction
These properties would indicate that an improved level of performance
would be achieved in a range of typical structural applications.
Practical Aspects
Apart from the design and specification details, the geopolymer
concrete was required to meet all of the usual handling requirements
involved in batching and delivering concrete. Based on several years
of EFC supply to a range of external projects and trials, Wagners
were able to demonstrate that the geopolymer concrete could be
handled and finished similarly to normal concrete. In the case of
filling and compacting precast moulds, the methods are the same
January 2014

Figure 6: Proto-Type EFC geopolymer beam load test.
(Figure 6 ). Loads can be batched with all ingredients except the
activating chemicals and transported for up to 12 hours to a remote
destination in a completely dormant non-reactive state. At the
destination, the chemicals are added in a dry powder form directly
into the Agitator bowl and mixed on site.
While EFC can be produced in normal concrete batching facilities,
it is a requirement that GP cement does not contaminate the mix
because it causes rapid setting, particularly at higher temperatures.
If weigh bins and the like are shared with normal concrete produc-
tion in a batch plant, then it is possible that the fines of GP cement
dust will enter the EFC geopolymer mix in enough quantity to cause
variable set times.
Another beneficial aspect of geopolymer concrete is its natural
off-white finish, is considered a desirable architectural feature. The
finished precast geopolymer beams were installed into the building
structure during the period of August to October 2012 (Figure 7 ).
Following installation, the precast geopolymer beams were sealed.
Several patch trials were carried out to ensure compatibility between
the geopolymer concrete and proprietary sealers.
Conclusion
Geopolymer concrete has now moved beyond an emerging technol-
ogy into the space of a structural concrete that can be designed and
used in structures and other applications, as long as the necessary
verification and testing is undertaken. The term geopolymer is
very broad and encompasses a range of different concretes which
Concrete finishing in the precast factory. Courtesy of Wagners.
STRUCTURE magazine 32
Figure 7: EFC geopolymer concrete being vibrated
into the beam molds, at Precast Concrete Pty Ltd
factory, Brisbane.
may have quite different structural properties. The proprietary
geopolymer concrete used in the Global Change Institute build-
ing proved to be fully compliant with the structural performance
parameters that AS3600 is based on.
The use of geopolymer concrete in the multi-storey Global Change
Institute building provides an example of how a medium sized engi-
neering consultancy went about assessing a new technology’s ‘fit for
purpose’ suitability. It is hoped that this example may provide a path
for others to explore new and innovative approaches to structures that
improve the sustainability of our built environment. In association
with a range of other sustainability innovations utilized
in this building, the geopolymer concrete floor beams
help to make the Global Change Institute building an
outward expression of its inner purpose.▪
Rod Bligh, B.Eng, MSc, CPEng, FIEAust, is a founding director
of Bligh Tanner in Australia. Rod may be reached at
rod.bligh@blightanner.com.au.
Tom Glasby B.Eng (Civil), MBT, MIEAust, CPEng, RPEQ, is a
professional engineer and manager in the construction materials group
at Wagners. Tom may be reached at tom.glasby@wagner.com.au.
A similar article was presented at the Concrete 2013 Conference,
October 2013 in Queensland, Australia. It was also used as a
reference document for media releases and other media articles.
January 2014
 “ St��ct�ral desig� is the core
of our business. IES allows
us to accomplish that in a
quick, productive manner. ”

Intuitive Software for

Structural Engineers
IES VisualAnalysis
Frame and finite element analysis.
Simple. Productive. Versatile.
Accurate results. Excellent value.

Model Courtesy of:

Morrison Maierle, Inc.

IES, Inc.
800.707.0816
info@iesweb.com
www.iesweb.com
Professional
issues
issues affecting the structural
engineering profession
Opposition to
Structural Licensure
By Timothy M. Gilbert, P.E.,
S.E., SECB
Timothy M. Gilbert, P.E., S.E.,
SECB (TGilbert.PE@gmail.com),
is a Project Specialist with Timken in
Canton, Ohio. He is also a member
of the NCSEA Structural Licensure
Committee, and a Director and the
Licensure Committee Chair for the
Structural Engineers Association of
Ohio (SEAoO).
S
upport for structural licensure led
NCSEA, SECB, ASCE-SEI and ACEC’s
CASE to form the Structural Engineering
Licensure Coalition (SELC). While SELC
serves to provide a common voice in support of
structural licensure, there are engineers and orga-
nizations that oppose structural licensure. This
article examines the reasons for such opposition.
Structural engineers’ efforts serve to protect the
public with safe designs. Every day, millions of
people work in, live in or travel on the buildings
and bridges that we design and rely on the power
plants, industrial facilities and numerous other
structures that have been built from structural
plans. The NCSEA and ASCE Codes of Ethics
place protection of the public as their highest
priority. ASCE’s first canon states:
Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health
and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply
with the principles of sustainable development
in the performance of their professional duties.
Along with a professional
obligation to protect
the public, engineers are
expected to prepare designs
under the responsible
charge of an engineer who
has demonstrated the necessary qualifications.
Training and studies provide engineers with pow-
erful tools, useful to serve clients and society. Like
other professions where special knowledge and
skills come to bear, the public has an interest in
regulating who may use these tools
In parallel with the growth of our society and
scientific understanding of physical phenomena,
the performance expectations of structures have
increased. This is manifest in the complexity and
size of the building codes. As we learn more about
structural performance, we amend or revise the
codes accordingly. As an example, consider how
the provisions related to roof anchorage have
changed in response to undesirable performance
in storms. Also consider the code changes related
to steel moment frames following earthquake
investigations. In both instances, increased
knowledge led to increased complexity of design
requirements in service of the public interest.
In 1907, to protect the public, as well as land
rights and water rights, Wyoming became the first
state to license engineers. By 1950, all of the states
and the District of Columbia had licensing rules
or laws. Now, engineering licensure has become
integral to building in our society.
Illinois first licensed structural engineers in 1915,
followed by California in 1931. Currently, fifteen
states hold the practice of structural engineer-
ing significant enough to have specific licensing
provisions for the discipline. Seven – California,
Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and
Washington – require a licensed structural
34 January 2014
engineer for the design of all or certain struc-
tures. Idaho and Nebraska limit the use of the
“structural engineer” title. Arizona, Louisiana,
New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and Vermont
designate structural engineers in their state rosters.
Structural engineering licensure is now rec-
ognized by NCEES, a federation of the state
licensing boards. The ANSI-accredited Model Law
Structural Engineer (MLSE) standard provides the
recommended criteria for structural licensure. The
MLSE is a guide framework that may be used in
the individual jurisdictions.
The concept of structural licensure and impos-
ing limitations on who may practice structural
engineering has opponents with reasoned per-
spectives on the issue. This article considers these
opponents and the grounds for their resistance.
Opposition
Opponents of structural licensure may contend
that the current system of professional engineer-
ing licensure provides adequate regulation of the
profession and protection for the public. Four
basic arguments are commonly made in support
of this view: 1) the lack of structural failures shows
the adequacy of the current system; 2) struc-
tural licensure is unnecessary, since engineers are
already required to practice only within their areas
of competence; 3) regulation of the engineering
profession is best implemented when the practice
is not segregated into various disciplines; and 4)
structural licensure would place undue restrictions
on the practice of engineering. These points do
not encompass all positions held by opponents;
for example, in some cases opposition is based on
the specific circumstances within a jurisdiction, a
situation that is outside the scope of this article.
The first point in opposition, citing a lack of
structural failures, may be viewed as a request for
evidence. Engineers’ professional practice is based
on scientific principles supported by evidence, and
it is rational to expect evidence in support of any
engineering-related proposition. This point of view
is commonly expressed by individuals who oppose
structural licensure. By logical extension, one might
consider this point of view as a reluctant opposition.
Implicit in the request for evidence is a willingness
to consider its possible veracity and relevance.
Specific structural failures attributable to those
who would not practice under a regime of struc-
tural licensure would answer the question: “Where
are the failures?” Unfortunately for society, the true
cause of a structural failure may never be known.
In his book, Beyond Failure, Dr. Norbert J. Delatte
examines several structural failures. The 1987
L’Ambiance Plaza collapse during construction
led to the death of 28 workers. Legal settlements by
the affected parties closed the investigation before a
definitive cause could be established. The engineer-
ing lessons which could have come from this failure
are clouded by its incomplete examination. It
is worth considering whether it is possible to
know where the failures are.
Opposition to structural licensure based on
an absence of evidence does have possible
limitations. It indirectly contends that an
absence of evidence about structural failures
is evidence in support of current regulations.
Proponents of this perspective might be insu-
lated from witnessing the effects of poor
design impacts on the public, and draw the
conclusion that no change is needed.
Two points can be offered for consideration
relative to this perspective. One is that many
structures have not been subjected to design-
level loads. Potentially deficient designs might
perform acceptably under common condi-
tions, yet fail when called upon to provide the
performance needed under code-level events,
such as a major windstorm or earthquake.
Second, a structural failure might not become
public knowledge, and waiting for a failure to
happen subjects the public to potential risk.
The second basis for opposition correctly
notes the ethical constraints on all profes-
sional engineers. Most jurisdictions require
that engineers practice only within their areas
of competence, and engineering codes of ethics
also recognize similar obligations. This implic-
itly recognizes that engineering is a diverse
practice, and practitioners are unlikely to be
competent in all fields of engineering. Inherent
in this thought is the idea that it is reasonable
to assume that we are the best judges of our
own abilities. Opponents citing this point
frequently note that these ethical obligations
preclude a need for structural licensure.
A corollary of this perspective is that opposi-
tion helps prevent an unwarranted growth of
governmental regulation and governmental
expenditures. From this perspective, struc-
tural licensure is a redundancy given the
ethical restriction already established.
Cornell University research has shown that
individuals may not be fully able to assess
their lack of competence in fields with-
out obvious objective standards. This has
come to be known as the Dunning-Kruger
effect. Proponents of structural licensure
also recognize the diversity in engineering
practice and cite this in support of their
view. Jurisdictions with partial practice
restrictions codify the concept by estab-
lishing a threshold for the involvement of a
licensed structural engineer. Structural licen-
sure proponents contend that this reduces
the chance that significant structures are
designed by professionals who inadvertently
overestimate their own capability.
The third common point in opposition
makes a case that the profession is best served
STRUCTURE magazine
ACEC – American Council of Engineering Companies
ASCE – American Society of Civil Engineers
CASE – Council of American Structural Engineers
NCSEA – National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
NSPE – National Society of Professional Engineers
SECB – Structural Engineering Certification Board
SEI – Structural Engineering Institute
by one regulatory agency in each jurisdiction
offering generic licensure to all engineers.
NSPE is a prominent proponent of this
perspective, and has officially endorsed it in
Position Statement No. 1737 – Licensure and
Qualifications for Practice. The following is
included within this document:
Professional engineering licensure is the
only qualification for engineering practice.
NSPE and its state societies will actively
oppose attempts to enact any local, state,
or federal legislation or rule that would
mandate certification in lieu of or beyond
licensure as a legal requirement for the
performance of engineering services.
NSPE members have offered the medical
profession as a guide for licensing profes-
sionals in a highly varied field. Doctors may
practice in a specific specialty or as a general-
ist. The state licenses the practice of medicine,
and specialists are recognized by nongovern-
mental certification boards. The American
Board of Medical Specialties coordinates with
several medical boards to certify specialists.
NSPE members have suggested that ASCE
and other professional engineering organiza-
tions could perform the same function.
Part of the NSPE position is a perception
that structural licensure proponents seek
a completely separate regulatory system.
Proponents of structural licensure bear some
responsibility in helping to create this per-
ception. In past discussions, the term
“separate” was frequently used in rela-
tion to structural licensure. However, in
general, structural licensure proponents
believe that the current licensing boards
are adequate agencies to administer struc-
tural licensure as part of their existing
engineering licensing responsibilities.
The fourth point of opposition relates
to structural licensure’s effect on busi-
ness. Some view the process to become a
licensed structural engineer as an obstruc-
tion to fair business practices. More
ardent opponents with this perspective
view the structural licensure movement
as an attempt to limit competition and
artificially increase fees. This viewpoint
35 January 2014
inherently includes a contention that cur-
rent regulations are sufficient, and it may
frequently be linked to one or more of the
other three points of objection.
Supporters of structural licensure recognize
that all forms of licensure affect business, both
by limiting who may participate and by pro-
viding buyers with confidence in the quality
of the marketplace. Structural licensure would
have the same effect by restricting practice to
qualified individuals. Supporters also favor a
transition process, often called “grandfather-
ing,” that would allow current practitioners
to continue and ensure that new practitioners
meet higher standards of qualification.
As noted earlier, the four points considered
here do not address all grounds for opposition.
However, common sources of opposition are
based on the number of known failures, our
profession’s ethical obligations, a perspective
for regulating engineers, or possible effects
on business practices. Each jurisdiction that
considers structural licensure will encounter
opponents with alternate perspectives.
Understanding these objections and open-
ing a dialog with opponents is a crucial step
toward structural licensure. Actions taken
in support of structural licensure are more
likely to have positive results when there is
better understanding of the opposition and
recognition of their interests. As Ben Franklin
said, “Would you persuade, speak of interest,
not of reason.”▪
StruWare, Inc
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
Structural Engineering Software
The easiest to use software for calculating
wind, seismic, snow and other loadings for
IBC, ASCE7, and all state codes based on
these codes ($195.00).
CMU or Tilt-up Concrete Walls with &
without openings ($75.00).
Floor Vibration for Steel Bms & Joists ($75.00).
Concrete beams with torsion ($45.00).
Demos at: www.struware.com
Structural
teSting
issues and advances related
to structural testing
Lateral Loads Generated by
Occupants on Exterior Decks
By Brian J. Parsons,
Donald A. Bender, P.E.,
J. Daniel Dolan, P.E. and
Frank E. Woeste, P.E.
Brian J. Parsons, former graduate
student, Civil and Environmental
Engineering.
Donald A. Bender, P.E.,
Director, Composite Materials
& Engineering Center, and
Weyerhaeuser Professor, Civil
and Environmental Engineering,
Washington State University,
Pullman, WA. Donald may be
reached at bender@wsu.edu.
J. Daniel Dolan, P.E., Professor,
Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Washington State
University. Daniel may be reached
at jddolan@wsu.edu.
Frank E. Woeste, P.E., Professor
Emeritus, Virginia Tech
University. Frank may be reached
at fwoeste@vt.edu.
The online version contains
detailed references. Please visit
www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
T
he safety of exterior elevated decks,
balconies and porches is an important
national issue due to numerous docu-
mented structural collapses that have
resulted in serious injuries and, in some cases,
deaths (Shutt 2011; Legacy Services 2010). The
problem is not confined to residential construc-
tion, as decks are also popular in commercial
structures. Due to larger occupancies, the stakes
are even higher in commercial construction
as evidenced by deck collapses in Polson, MT
casino with 52 injured in 2004 and a Miami, FL
sports bar with 24 injured in 2013. Engineered
design has been hampered by knowledge gaps
on structural loads – especially lateral loads. This
information is vital for registered design profes-
sionals to create safe and efficient engineered
designs for decks, porches and balconies.
Vertical loads on decks, such as occupancy and
snow, are straightforward to calculate using the provi-
sions of the 2012 International Building Code (IBC)
and ASCE/SEI 7-10
Minimum Design
Loads for Building
and Other Structures
(ASCE 2010); how-
ever, determining
lateral loads on decks
is more challenging. Wind and seismic loads can
be calculated using the provisions of ASCE 7-10.
Lyman et al. (2013a; 2013b) demonstrated the
ASCE 7-10 methodology for wind and seismic loads
through example calculations for a 12 x 12 foot
deck. They found that while wind loads generally
control over seismic, the wind loads would not pose
much of a design challenge except for hurricane and
special wind regions. Of course, the results of the
analyses would vary for decks with different sizes
and aspect ratios.
The building codes and ASCE 7-10 are silent
on the subject of lateral loads due to occupant
movement, with the exception of grandstands,
bleachers, and stadium seating. This article
describes laboratory experiments on full-size
decks with two types of occupant loadings:
cyclic side-sway and impulse (run and jump
stop). Results indicate that lateral loading from
occupants will often exceed the worst-case loads
from either wind or seismic. The key point
being that occupant loading can occur on any
deck, anywhere.
Preliminary research at Washington State
University revealed that forces generated by
occupants are significant, and in many cases
greater than wind or seismic forces. The objec-
tive of this study was to quantify lateral loads
caused by dynamic actions from the occupants.
Two deck configurations and two dynamic load
cases were investigated:
• Deck Configuration 1: Deck boards
oriented parallel to the ledger
36 January 2014
• Deck Configuration 2: Deck boards
oriented 45 degrees to the ledger
• Load Case 1: Cyclic
• Load Case 2: Impulse
It was expected that the two deck board orien-
tations would result in dramatically different
stiffnesses in the lateral loading plane since
according to the ANSI/AF&PA Special Design
Provisions for Wind and Seismic (AWC 2008), dia-
phragms and shear walls sheathed with diagonally
oriented boards compared to horizontal boards
results in a four-fold increase in stiffness. The two
dynamic load cases were chosen to represent the
types of occupant behavior that might result in
the greatest lateral loads. The full details of the
research reported herein can be found in Parsons
et al. (2013b).
Background
The 2009 (IBC) and the ASCE/SEI 7-10 are
silent on the subject of lateral loads from occu-
pants, with one exception. Table 4-1 in ASCE
7-10 gives gravity loads for reviewing stands,
grandstands and bleachers, along with Footnote
k which stipulates lateral loads of “… 24 lbs per
linear feet of seat applied in the direction parallel
to each row of seats…”. Footnote k was based on
empirical research by Homan et al. (1932) where
the lateral forces caused by the movement of a
group of people on a simulated grandstand were
studied. The lateral load provision in Footnote k is
a convenient benchmark for comparing the deck
loads reported in this article. For example, assum-
ing each row of bleacher seats is approximately
2 feet apart, this lateral load provision would be
equivalent to 12 psf of plan area.
Materials
Both deck floor configurations were 12 feet square
using similar materials, with the orientation of
deck boards being the only factor that differed.
Decks were built according to Design for Code
Acceptance 6 (DCA 6) (AWC, 2010), which is
based on the 2009 International Residential Code
(IRC). The deck ledger was constructed of 2x12
lumber; joists were 2x10, spaced 16 inches on
center; and deck boards were 2x6, installed with
no gapping. Deck boards were not gapped due to
their high moisture content at time of installation.
All lumber was incised and pressure preservative
treated (PPT), with a grade of No. 2 and Better,
and species grouping of Hem-fir. The PPT for-
mulation was Alkaline Copper Quaternary Type
D (ACQ-D) with a retention level of 0.40 pcf.
The hangers used to connect the deck joists to
the ledger were Simpson Strong-Tie Model No.
LU210, which use 20-gauge steel and 16 fasten-
ers; 10 into the header and 6 into the joist. This
hanger was selected because the fastener pattern
(all fasteners installed perpendicular to the
member faces) performed well when joists
were loaded in tension (pulling away from the
hanger). The manufacturer’s joist hanger that
was recommended for corrosive environments
had a double-shear (toe-nail) type fastening
pattern for attaching to the joists, which did
not perform well in preliminary tests when
the joists were loaded in withdrawal from
the hanger. Of course, before any connection
hardware is used in an actual deck, the appro-
priate corrosion protection must be satisfied.
The joist hanger manufacturer permits their
hangers to be installed with either nails or
screws as specified in their technical litera-
ture. Screws were used with the joist hangers
to meet the provisions of the model build-
ing codes. IRC-2009 Section R507.1 and
IBC-2009 1604.8.3 both state that the deck
attachment to an exterior wall shall not be
accomplished by nails subject to withdrawal.
These provisions have been widely interpreted
as applying to the deck ledger attachment;
however, these provisions also should apply
to deck joist hanger attachment to the deck
ledger to complete the lateral load path from
the deck to house. The joist hanger screws
were #9 (0.131 inch diameter, 1½-inch long)
Simpson Strong-Tie Structural-Connector
Screws (Model No. SD9112). These screws
have a Class 55 2006 IRC-compliant mechan-
ical galvanized coating to mitigate corrosion
due to the preservative chemicals in the
lumber and wet use conditions. The deck
boards were attached to the top of each joist
with two 3-inch #8 wood screws rated for
outdoor use.
Test Methods
Standard test methods are not available for
occupant-induced lateral loading, so two test-
ing protocols were developed to represent
worst-case conditions. Each person partici-
pating in the study was weighed, allowing
occupant density evaluations of 10, 20, 30,
and 40 psf. A conservative assumption was
Table 1: Forces generated by occupants from impulse loading.
Occupant Load Deck Board
Level, (psf ) Orientation to Ledger
Impulse loading perpendicular to ledger
10 Parallel
10 45 Degrees
Impulse loading parallel to ledger
10 Parallel
10 45 Degrees (East)
10 45 Degrees (West)
STRUCTURE magazine
made that other than the attachment at the
ledger, the deck substructure would provide
negligible lateral resistance; therefore, the deck
was supported on rollers as shown in Figures 1
and 2 ( page 38 ). In reality, many decks have
some degree of lateral support provided by
stairs, braces or other configurations that pro-
vide resistance to lateral movement. Lateral
stiffness of decks differs substantially when
loaded parallel versus perpendicular to the
ledger; hence, loadings in both directions
were conducted for all cases.
The first load case was an impulse. For this
type of loading, the occupants were instructed
to start at one end of the deck and run and
jump, in unison, towards the opposite side
of the deck. Impulse loading was conducted
with an occupant density of 10 psf to allow
occupants ample room to run and jump.
The second load case was cyclic, in which the
occupants were instructed to sway, in unison,
following visual and audible cues, back and
forth at an approximate frequency of 1 Hz.
All impulse and cyclic tests were performed
with motion parallel and perpendicular to
the deck ledger. Forces were recorded at the
two corners where the deck was anchored
to the laboratory floor with steel brack-
ets (simulating the building). In an actual
building, the load path would differ from
this test set-up since deck ledger boards
are typically connected to the house along
the entire length. The rationale for attach-
ing the deck at two discrete points was to
obtain a conservative (high) load estimate
by attracting all load to the two attach-
ment points. Load path from the deck into
the house floor diaphragm was investigated
in a separate study reported in a paper by
Parsons et al. (2013a).
Results & Discussion
Results of this study were reported as equiva-
lent uniform lateral surface tractions in psf
generated by occupant actions. These values
were determined by dividing the total force
Total Force, Uniform Lateral Load,
(lbs) (psf )
384 2.7
443 3.1
428 3.0
1,297 9.0
1,351 9.4
37 January 2014
Figure 1: Impulse loading caused by occupants
leaping/stopping in unison.
generated by the surface area of the deck floor.
Loads in this form can easily be applied to
decks of any size for design purposes. For the
perpendicular to ledger load cases, the total
force was taken as the sum of the two load
cells. For the parallel to ledger load cases,
the total force was taken as two times the
maximum load cell value by applying basic
equilibrium principles.
Impulse Loading
Forces generated for both deck configurations
are shown in Table 1 for the perpendicular
and the parallel to ledger load cases. All tests
were recorded with high-definition video and
retained by the authors. A sample still shot
from the video can be seen in Figure 1 for the
impulse loading.
Perpendicular to ledger: Impulse loads were
similar for both decking configurations since
deck stiffness was primarily controlled by axial
stiffness of the joists rather than the decking
orientation. The stiffness of the deck resulted
in many short duration pulses as each person
landed, but was not flexible enough to allow
the pulses to accumulate into one large force.
Parallel to ledger: When impulse loading
was directed parallel to the deck ledger,
as shown in Figure 1, decking orienta-
tion controlled the stiffness of the system.
Table 1 shows that the less stiff deck (with
decking oriented parallel to the ledger)
experienced lower loads as the pulse dura-
tion was relatively long at impact, and the
occupants velocities were reduced by the
deck movement as the occupants pushed
off to accelerate. The greatest loads were
observed for diagonal decking. Apparently
this scenario “hit the sweet spot” of a deck
with just enough flexibility to allow the
individual impacts to act additively in a
long enough time interval. In any case, the
maximum traction load of 9.4 psf was less
than the value of 12.1 psf for cyclic loading.
Cyclic Loading
Figure 2 shows a sample still shot from the
video for the cyclic side-sway motion.
continued on next page
 The highest lateral load observed in all tests was
12.1 psf, as shown in Table 2. In this case, deck
boards were oriented parallel to the deck ledger,
resulting in a very flexible deck that swayed back
and forth approximately 7 inches each way at a
frequency of approximately 1 Hz. These large
displacements caused significant inertial forces
from the mass of the deck and also allowed the
occupants to “feel” the deck movement, making
it easier for them to synchronize their move-
ments. As displacements of the deck reached
maximum values of approximately 7 inches,
the occupants started pivoting their hips (like
downhill skiers) with the deck while leaving their Figure 2: Cyclic loading caused by occupants swaying side-to-side in unison.
upper body nearly motionless. At this point, it
could be argued that the majority of the force parallel to the ledger, large side-to-side dis- The 12 psf observed in the laboratory is
generated is coming from deck inertial forces placements were observed when a cyclic action similar to the lateral load specified in Table
rather than from the occupants. This would was performed by the occupants. These large 4-1, Footnote k (ASCE/SEI 7-2010) for
imply that if lateral sway/acceleration of a deck is displacements produced significant inertial reviewing stands, grandstands and bleach-
adequately restrained, these inertial forces could forces with a maximum equivalent uniform ers, which call for 24 lb/linear feet of seating
be reduced or eliminated. For example, when lateral surface traction load of 12.1 psf. When (assuming seats are 2 feet apart, the resulting
the cyclic motion was perpendicular to the deck cyclic actions were perpendicular to the ledger load would also be 12 psf ). One surprising
ledger (the stiffest orientation), the maximum (i.e. the stiffest lateral direction), it was dif- outcome of this research is that measured
traction load was 4.5 psf. In summary, it could ficult for the occupants to synchronize their lateral loads from occupancy exceeded the
be argued for design that 12 psf would provide movements and the resulting maximum uni- calculated worst-case lateral loads from wind
a reasonable upper estimate of lateral loads from form surface traction load was 4.5 psf. The or seismic events (Lyman and Bender, 2013;
occupants for flexible decks. maximum recorded impulse load resulted in Lyman et al., 2013). Furthermore, extreme
a uniform lateral surface traction load of 9.4 occupant loading can occur anywhere in the
psf as compared to 12.1 psf. US, while extreme wind and seismic events
Conclusions A design lateral load of 12 psf of plan are limited to smaller geographic regions.
When deck boards were oriented parallel to area is recommended, which conservatively The testing protocol and conclusions
the ledger and occupant loading was applied includes inertial forces from a flexible deck. reported herein are based on the assumption
that the proposed deck or porch sub-struc-
Table 2: Forces generated by occupants from cyclic loading. ture has no auxiliary lateral support to resist
Occupant Load Deck Board Total Force, Uniform Lateral Load, occupant loading. The design professional is
Level, (psf ) Orientation to Ledger (lbs) (psf ) encouraged to include lateral support struc-
tures to resist all or part of the lateral loads
Cyclic loading perpendicular to ledger (stiffest direction)
produced by occupant loads (as well as other
10 Parallel 224 1.6 design loads such as wind or seismic).
10 45 Degrees 226 1.6 It should be noted that the weak link in the
load path might be the fasteners used in the
20 Parallel 398 2.8 joist hangers. Test assemblies were fabricated
20 45 Degrees 543 3.8 with screws to prevent premature withdrawal
of nails in the joist hangers. The first step
30 Parallel 411 2.9 in any lateral load analysis, when required,
30 45 Degrees 482 3.3 should be to address the lateral design capacity
40 Parallel 651 4.5 of the joist connections (hang-
ers) as nails would likely not be
40 45 Degrees 502 3.5 adequate in resisting lateral loads
Cyclic loading parallel to ledger produced by occupants.▪
10 Parallel 320 2.2
Acknowledgement: Donation of
10 45 Degrees 567 3.9 construction hardware from Simpson
20 Parallel 983 6.8 Strong-Tie is gratefully acknowledged.
20 45 Degrees 862 6.0
This article, which originally appeared in
30 Parallel 1,431 9.9 Wood Design Focus, contains minor edits
30 45 Degrees 995 6.9 and additions and is used with permission.
Wood Design Focus is a quarterly
40 Parallel 1,747 12.1 publication available through the Forest
40 45 Degrees 1,020 7.1 Products Society at www.forestprod.org.

STRUCTURE magazine 38 January 2014

 Powerful
calculations,
Concrete solutions

Performing challenging calculations required by current design methodologies can be

completed quickly and accurately with the new Simpson Strong-Tie ® Anchor Designer™
software. A fully interactive 3D graphical-user interface with 42 pre-loaded anchor
configurations simplify input, and calculation results are output for verification and
submission of your design. Anchor Designer complies with current ACI 318, ETAG
and CSA code requirements.
Call (800) 999-5099 to learn more and download the free software
at www.strongtie.com/anchordesigner.

Visit us at The World of Concrete for product and software demos – Booth #S10507 and #O31746
© 2014 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. ADESIGN13
EnginEEr’s
notEbook
aids for the structural
engineer’s toolbox
Concrete Column Design
Back to the Basics
By Jerod G. Johnson, Ph.D., S.E.
Jerod G. Johnson, Ph.D., S.E.
(jjohnson@reaveley.com), is a
principal with Reaveley Engineers
+ Associates in Salt Lake City, Utah.
A similar article was published
in the Structural Engineers
Association-Utah (SEAU)
Monthly Newsletter (April 2007).
It is reprinted with permission.
O
ften a summary refresher
helps keep us grounded in
the fundamentals of ele-
ments that we commonly
design. Owing to many requests from
peers, this article is provided as a sum-
mary of the steps that may be taken for
the development of a typical reinforced
concrete column interaction diagram.
The methodology outlined below
reflects the provisions of ACI 318, but Figure 1: Superimposed series of strain diagrams.
it is not the only viable method. In fact,
ACI 318 does not explicitly require an
interaction diagram for column design. However, The result is a strain for each and every bar in the
most structural engineers understand that such a column as it correlates to the level of strain that
tool is the most convenient form of expressing the was arbitrarily assigned to the layer of reinforce-
nominal axial and flexural capacities, as well as the ment opposite the compression surface. This also
best tool for helping us know how axial loads and helps us know where the theoretical neutral axis
bending loads influence and affect one another. for the column is for this strain condition, which
Assume, just for the sake of argument, that the occurs where the aforementioned line intersects
factored load effect for the design of a tied con- the vertical axis of the strain diagram. Once the
crete column is a trivial strain levels and the neutral axis are known, the
matter, and that we have design may proceed to the next step.
the results for Mu and By Hooke’s Law, stress is equal to strain
Pu. The next step that we multiplied by the material’s elastic modulus.
might follow would be Multiplying the strain for each layer of reinforce-
to examine a generated ment by 29,000 ksi yields the corresponding
interaction diagram and see whether our inter- stress. This must be truncated to the yield stress
active load (represented by Mu and Pu) falls within for any results lying outside of the elastic range
the capacity boundary of our trial column. of behavior for the reinforcement (typically 60
Let us further assume that we do not have the ksi). For the concrete acting in compression, the
benefit of an interaction diagram and thus are depth of the compression zone is related to the
‘starting from scratch’. You may recall that an neutral axis by the β1 value, which is a function
interaction diagram for a reinforced concrete of f 'c and ranges from 0.65 to 0.85 (0.85 for f 'c of
column may be developed by examining a 4000 psi or less). The stress in the concrete has
series of strain conditions at one surface of the a default value of 0.85f 'c and is assumed to be
column. These strain conditions are arbitrary, and distributed uniformly over the entire compres-
are selected on the basis of providing the most sion region. Figure 2 illustrates the relationship
descriptive capacity boundary that can conve- between the strain and stress diagrams for one
niently be determined. At the opposing surface, iteration of interaction diagram development.
an ultimate concrete compressive strain of 0.003 Once the stress in each layer of reinforcement
is assigned. This is meant to represent the strain in is known, as well as the dimensions of the
the concrete at ultimate compressive failure and is concrete compressive stress region, the resul-
assigned this value regardless of concrete strength. tant forces in each are calculated simply by
Figure 1 illustrates the establishment of the fixed multiplying the stresses by the respective areas.
0.003 strain value at the compression edge while Summing the result yields a total force Pn,
the layer of reinforcement at the opposite surface the nominal axial capacity of the column as it
is subject to a series of strain conditions.
The series of strains (tensile and compressive)
are then assigned to the layer of reinforcement
opposite the concrete compressive failure sur-
face. For any one particular level of strain that
we have arbitrarily assigned, we can follow ACI
318 criteria and connect the two opposing points
of strain on a diagram with a straight line, thus
assuming that the strain is distributed linearly
across with column width. This makes for simple
calculation of the strain in the remaining layers
of reinforcement, using the simple formulas
for similar triangles that we learned in high
Figure 2: Assumed strain and stress diagrams for
school math. reinforced concrete.
40 January 2014
correlates to this level of strain. Multiplying
these same forces by their relative distances
from the centroid of the gross column sec-
tion and summing the result yields the
nominal moment capacity Mn.
The final step for this one iteration of design
is to determine the strength reduction factor
that is appropriate for the level of strain under
consideration. This is a function of the net
tensile strain arbitrarily assigned earlier; it has
a value of 0.9 for net tensile strains of 0.005
or more and a value of 0.65 for net tensile
strains of 0.002 or less. Intermediate values are
linearly interpolated. The strength reduction
factor is then multiplied by each of the Mn and
Pn values calculated previously to determine
the resulting φMn and φPn that define this one
point on the interaction diagram.
The entire process is repeated several times,
with varying levels of strain assigned to
produce a series of points that define the inter-
action diagram boundary. Figure 1 depicts
the superimposed strain conditions as recom-
mended by prominent textbook authors. For
each level of strain, the calculations described
herein are repeated. For each level of strain,
a corresponding point on an interaction dia-
gram can be determined. Interconnecting
the points results in the interaction diagram
(potentially similar to Figure 3) on which we
STRUCTURE magazine
can plot Mu, Pu and assess whether
the column is sufficient.
In summary, the steps for
developing a concrete column
interaction diagram are:
1) Assign an arbitrary level
of strain to the layer of
reinforcement opposite the
compressive surface and
calculate the depth to the
neutral axis (c), the depth
of the compression stress
zone (a), and the level of
strain in the remaining
layers of reinforcement (using Figure 3: Typical interaction diagram.
linear interpolation, similar
triangles, etc.). nominal axial capacity (Pn). Multiply
2) Using the ultimate compressive these same forces by their distances
stress in the concrete (0.85f 'c ) and from the center of the section and
the dimensions of the compression add the results to yield the nominal
stress zone, calculate the resultant flexural capacity (Mn). Determine
compressive force in the concrete. the strength reduction factor and
Using the strains in each layer of multiply it by Mn , Pn . Plot the point
reinforcement, calculate the stresses φMn, φPn on the interaction diagram.
and the resultant forces in each layer 4) Repeat steps 1-3 at least a dozen
by multiplying the stress in each layer times, with strain values typically
by the area in each layer. ranging from 0.5 to -6, to create
3) Add the resultant concrete force enough points to draw the
and the forces in all of the layers interaction curve. Then, simply
of reinforcement to determine the connect the points.▪
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
41 January 2014
 Work quickly.
Work simply.
Work accurately.

StructurePoint’s Productivity Suite of powerful software tools

for reinforced concrete analysis & design

Finite element analysis & Analysis, design

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

Design & investigation Analysis, design

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

Finite element analysis & design of reinforced concrete

foundations, combined footings or slabs on grade

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

STR_7-13

ASTM A1085
An Update to a Classic Material Specification
By Kim Olson, P.E.
A
STM A500 has been the preferred
material specification in the United
States for cold formed, welded
carbon steel hollow structural
sections (HSS) since the late 1970s. In
April of 2013, a new material specification,
ASTM A1085, was released for steel tubes
used in structural applications.
The development of A1085 took approxi-
mately six years and was led by the American
Institute of Steel Construction’s (AISC’s)
HSS Marketing Committee. The goal of the
Committee, which also included HSS pro-
ducers, was to improve the efficiency and
performance of the HSS members in three
main areas: material, seismic design and
bridge design.
Traditionally, ASTM A500 allowed for a wall
thickness tolerance of -10% of the value speci-
fied. Hence, manufacturers have produced
tubes with a design thickness of up to 10%
less than the nominal thickness required by
the standard. This reduction in material led
to recommendations made jointly between
AISC and the Steel Tube Institute (STI), lead-
ing to provisions (AISC 2010 Specification for
Structural Steel Buildings ANSI/AISC 360-
10, Section B4.2) requiring a reduction in
the nominal thickness of all HSS members
by 7% for all HSS section calculations. In
comparison, A1085 tightens the wall thick-
ness tolerance to -5% and adds a new mass
tolerance of -3.5%. These tighter restrictions
better align HSS tolerances with other struc-
tural members and eliminate the need for the
0.93 factor in calculations. Obviously, these
improvements result in more efficient designs
when utilizing HSS.
Designers are aware A500 includes four dis-
tinct grades of steel for different HSS section
shapes, each having different yield and ten-
sile strengths. A1085 greatly simplifies these
values for the designer. The specification has
one grade and one yield strength (of 50 ksi)
for all HSS shapes. This value represents an
increase over A500 Grade B, offering another
potential savings.
Bending a flat plate of steel into a square or
rectangle shape requires careful attention to
the radius of the corners. Too tight of a bend
STRUCTURE magazine
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
could lead to cracking, which often is not
visible until a weld is made along the corner
of the member and is subjected to extreme
heat. A500 lists a maximum corner radius
but does not limit the minimum radius bend,
whereas A1085 specifies both a minimum
and maximum for the reasons listed above.
For material that is less than 0.4-inch thick,
the corner radius is permitted to be between
1.6t and 3.0t. For material greater than 0.4-
inch thick, the lower bound of the corner
radius is 1.8t. Most domestic manufacturers
produce tubes with a corner radius of 2t so
there will be little difference in the workable
flat face of a tube.
A common application of HSS mem-
bers is in a braced frame to resist seismic
load. HSS sections are often utilized as the
bracing element due to their efficiency in
carrying both tension and compression
loads. This efficiency has come at a price
when designing a building with a resistance
factor (R) of greater than 3. The seismic
provisions of AISC 360 require an engineer
to focus on the actual capacity of a member
in order to control the failure mechanism
of the lateral force resisting system. To
realize the actual capacity of a steel brace, a
designer must multiply the specified yield
strength by an overstrength factor (R y) to
account for inherent overstrength in steel
members. R y for A500 is 1.4, while R y for
A992 is 1.1. Clearly, the larger Ry results in
a nearly 30% increase in force the designer
must account for. The high R y for A500 is
due to the high variability in acceptable
yield strength of tubes. A1085 specifies an
upper bound on the yield strength of 70
ksi. In time, this upper bound limit will
logically lead to better predictability of the
material strength, a lower R y factor, and
more economical seismic designs utilizing
HSS members.
Historically, HSS members have not been
used frequently in pedestrian and vehicular
43 January 2014
InSIghtS
bridges, but the demand to utilize these
architecturally pleasing shapes in transpor-
tation structures has increased. According to
the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO),
sufficient fracture toughness is a requirement
for primary bridge members. Accordingly,
A1085 includes a Charpy V-notch test
requirement of 25 ft-lb at 40°F. This cor-
responds to an AASHTO Temperature Zone
2, which is applicable throughout the major-
ity of the United States. If more stringent
requirements must be met, A1085 carries a
supplement that may be specified. Hence,
A1085 allows for the usage of HSS shapes
in the transportation field by meeting the
requirements of AASHTO.
A1085 is already an option for designers
when selecting a material to use for design in
software packages. STI has been in contact
with most major design software companies
to better educate them on the intricacies and
advantages of new specification. RISA, SCIA
Engineer, RAM Structural System and RAM
Elements all will include the new material
and section properties in their updates to be
released in the near future, with other soft-
ware packages to follow. AISC has surveyed
domestic manufacturers on A1085 produc-
tion and the results of that survey are available
on the AISC website (www.aisc.org/hss)
along with section properties and column
load tables for A1085. Further, the new sec-
tion properties are also available on STI’s
website (www.steeltubeinstitute.org/hss/
tech-brochures), and any questions on A1085
may be submitted in the Contact section to
be answered by STI’s Technical Consultants.▪
Kim Olson, P.E., is a structural engineer
at FORSE Consulting and serves as a
technical advisor to the HSS Committee
of the Steel Tube Institute. Kim may be
reached at kim@forseconsulting.com.
 ANCHOR UPDATES news and information from anchor companies

Bentley Systems, Inc. HALFEN USA Powers Fasteners

Phone: 610-458-1491 Phone: 800-423-9140
Email: francisco.diego@bentley.com Email: pschmidt@halfenusa.com
Web: www.bentley.com/structural Web: www.halfenusa.com
Product: RAM Connection Product: Anchor Channels
Description: The software includes base plates for Description: Halfen is a global leader in design and
almost any kind of column support. Choose between manufacturing of anchor systems for concrete. Hot
uniaxial or biaxial analysis, design the base plate per rolled anchor channels for edge or top of slab transfer
AISC 360-05 (additional seismic check per AISC high loads while also providing field adjustability.
341-05 included), design the anchor bolts per Custom anchors are available for special corners and
ACI 318 Appendix D in seconds. thin slab conditions.
Cintec Reinforcement Systems Heckmann Building Products, Inc.
Phone: 800-363-6066 Phone: 800-621-4140
Email: solutions@cintec.com Email: david@heckmannanchors.com
Web: www.cintec.com Web: www.heckmannanchors.com
Product: Cintec Reiforcement Anchors Product: Pos-I-Tie® ThermalClip™
Description: The patented Cintec anchoring Description: This new break-through in masonry
system is straightforward: injecting a proprietary construction adds thermal-break technology to all
cementitious fluid grout into an anchor surrounded of the advantages of the Original Pos-I-Tie Veneer
by a fabric sock, which has already been placed in an Anchoring System! The ThermalClip decreases thermal
oversized drilled hole. The system’s ingenuity lies in transfer and has over 100 times less conductivity than
its versatility. Cintec designers can customize it to metals such as steel. The snap-on design provides for
any specification. easy installation.
Devco Software, Inc. Hilti, Inc.
Phone: 541-426-5713 Phone: 800-879-8000
Email: rob@devcosoftware.com Email: us-sales@hilti.com
Web: www.devcosoftware.com Web: www.us.hilti.com
Product: LGBEAMER v8 Product: Hilti HIT-HY 200 Adhesive Anchor System
Description: Analyze and design cold-formed cee, Description: The industry’s most revolutionary system
channel and zee sections. Uniform, concentrated, to date. Inadequately cleaning holes during installation
partial span and axial loads. Single and multi-member can reduce the performance of conventional adhesive
designs. 2007 NASPEC (2009 IBC) compliant. anchor systems. Hilti Safe Set™ Technology eliminates
Pro-Tools include shearwalls, framed openings, this almost entirely, and improves reliability and
X-braces, joists and rafters. productivity because no manual hole cleaning is
required to obtain optimum performance.
Grip-Tite Mfg. Co., LLC
Phone: 515-462-1313 Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. – CHANCE
Email: nfarkas@griptite.com Phone: 855-477-2121
Web: www.griptite.com Email: civilconstruction@hubbell.com
Product: Anchors and Piles Web: www.abchance.com
Description: Grip-Tite provides a complete line of Product: Helical Anchors
anchors and piles for general construction and retrofit Description: A helical anchor/pile is a segmented
applications. This includes Push Piers, Helical Piles deep foundation system with helical bearing plates
and Anchors and Wall Anchor retention systems. welded to a central steel shaft. Load is transferred from
Grip-Tite has been continually manufacturing high- the shaft to the soil through these bearing plates.
quality anchoring products since 1921.
IES, Inc.
Phone: 800-707-0816
Email: sales@iesweb.com
ADVERTISEMENT – For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
Phone: 985-807-6666
Email: jack.zenor@sbdinc.com
Web: www.powers.com
Product: Anchoring Systems
Description: ICC Listed/IBC Compliant Anchoring
Systems: Powers-Stud+ SD1/SD2 carbon steel wedge
anchors; Powers-Stud+ SD4/SD6 304/316 stainless
wedge anchors; Powers-Stud SD5 galvanized carbon
steel wedge anchors; Pure 110+ adhesive anchoring
(meets high temperature performance requirements in
IBC 2012).
Simpson Strong-Tie
Phone: 925-560-9000
Email: web@strongtie.com
Web: www.strongtie.com
Product: Anchor Products
Description: Wide range of code-listed and general
purpose anchoring, fastening, and repair products for
concrete and masonry applications. Design software,
adhesives, mechanical anchors, gas and powder-
actuated tools and fasteners, carbide drill bits, and
repair, protection and strengthening products offer
innovative solutions for infrastructure, commercial,
industrial and residential construction.
Standards Design Group, Inc.
Phone: 800-366-5585
Email: info@standardsdesign.com
Web: www.standardsdesign.com
Product: Window Glass Design 5
Description: WGD5 performs all required
calculations to design window glass according to
ASTM E 1300-09. WGD5 also performs window
glass design using ASTM E 1300 02/03/04, ASTM E
1300-98/00 and ASTM E 1300-94. GANA endorses
WGD5 as best tool available in designing window
glass to resist wind and long-term loadings.
Strand7 Pty Ltd
Phone: 252-504-2282
Email: anne@beaufort-analysis.com
Web: www.strand7.com
Product: Strand7
Description: An advanced FEA system used worldwide
by engineers for a wide range of structural analysis
applications. It comprises preprocessing, a complete
set of solvers and post processing. It includes a range of
material models suitable for the analysis of soil allowing
for simulations of the complete soil/structure system.

Web: www.iesweb.com
ate
or e Product: IES VisualAnalysis Timberlinx
l l ab ienc Phone: 877-900-3111
co per p Description: VisualAnalysis offers ACI Anchor
ex velo Design checks with the base plate design feature Email: timberlinx@rogers.com
de end included in VAConnect. Use VisualAnalysis for a wide Web: www.timberlinx.com
att rn
lea are variety of analysis and design projects. It is simple, Product: Timberlinx
sh eet productive and versatile. Description: A connection tube, inserted equally
PPORTUNITY
m n in both members of the joint and linked by two
joi
RCHITECTS
LA
A

&
ETY OF NAV

MA

expanding cross pins. Wood/wood, wood/concrete,

RINE ENG

Kelken Construction Systems

CI

wood/steel connectors.
O

NE
I

ERS S
• THE

We can help you get a head start, get ahead,
get recognized, and give back.
No matter what stage of your career,
SNAME has opportunities for you.
The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers F www.sname.org
Phone: 732-416-6730
Email: dick@kelken.com
Web: www.kelken.com All Resource Guides and Updates for the 2014
Product: Keligrout Anchor Systems Editorial Calendar are now available on the website,
Description: Structural high strength polyester www.STRUCTUREmag.org. STRUCTURE®
anchoring system. magazine is not responsible for errors.

STRUCTURE magazine 44 January 2014

FOUNDATIONS
Foundation Sector Grounded
in Optimism for New Year
By Larry Kahaner
2014 is shaping up to be a strong year, according to those working in
the foundations sector. “We probably have more backlog going into
a winter of a new year than I can remember,” says Lyle Simonton,
Director of Business Development at Subsurface Constructors, Inc.
(www.subsurfaceconstructors.com), St. Louis, Missouri. “We’re not
seeing that winter slowdown that we’ve sometimes seen in the past.
Rather than have a seasonal lull, we have a lot of work carrying on
into the first months of the year.”
Jim Hussin, Director at Hayward Baker, Inc. (www.haywardbaker.com)
in Tampa, Florida agrees. “There has been a steady increase in work
in the past few years to where, when combined with our acquisitions,
we are now back to record sales volumes.”
What appears to be driving the industry are a growing economy, new
offerings that are attracting business, and a general optimism among
those companies who have survived the lean years of the building
slowdown. One sign of improvement is companies that recently
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURE magazine
relied heavily on government work are now seeing increases in pri-
vate work. Says Kord Wissmann, President of Davidsonville, North
Carolina-based Geopier Foundation Company (www.geopier.com),
“Like the rest of the construction industry, we have seen a rebound
in residential (multi-family) developments along with the light com-
mercial and retail projects that follow.” He also credits increasing
worldwide awareness of seismic risks for interest in companies like
Geopier that engage in soil mitigation. The company specializes
in providing a wide variety of cost-effective ground improvement
solutions to support load ranges on any project, Wissmann says.
“Recent innovations including the Geopier Armorpact system,
provide structural engineers with the tools to support higher loads
with increased allowable bearing pressures in very soft cohesive soils.
The Geopier Densipact system affords allowable bearing pressures
of up to 14,000 psf in granular soils. All of these systems are geared
to save time and money for foundation construction.”
46 January 2014
 Wissmann adds: “Historically, the industry has focused on liquefac-
tion mitigation using soil densification techniques. This remains the
case on many projects. There is also a growing trend towards the use
of more cost-effective approaches by reducing liquefaction triggering
while simultaneously addressing dynamic settlement – particularly
differential settlement. Geopier uses many of its systems, for example,
its Impact pier technology, to reduce liquefaction-induced settlements
while providing cost-effective foundation support.” (See ad on page 48.)
Hayward Baker’s Hussin notes that soil mixing is a relatively new
product offering. The process improves weak soils by mechanically
mixing them with a cementitious binder, and it continues to gain
popularity. “The binder can be added as a slurry for dryer soft soils
or as a dry powder to very wet soft soils. To construct columns, a
powerful drill advances drill steel with radial mixing paddles located
near the bottom of the drill string. The binder is pumped through
the drill steel to the tool as it advances, and additional soil mixing is
achieved as the tool is withdrawn. To perform mass soil mixing, or
mass stabilization, a horizontal axis rotary mixing tool is located at
the end of a track hoe arm. The technique has been used to strengthen
soft soils at sites of planned buildings, storage tanks and embank-
ments,” he says. One impetus for soil mitigation, according to Hussin,
is an increase of soft soil sites, particularly port facilities. Recently,
the company acquired Geo-Foundations, a full-service geotechnical
construction firm operating out of Toronto, Ontario. “This dem-
onstrates Hayward Baker’s commitment to the Canadian market,
especially when combined with our parent company Keller’s recent
acquisition of the assets of North American Energy Partners’ piling
division, known as North American Caisson (NAC). The company
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURE magazine
has been renamed Keller Foundations Ltd.,” says Hussin, “and it
operates throughout Canada.”
Simonton says that Subsurface continues to build on its capacity to
perform ground improvement work all over the country. “We have
created some new equipment to support that endeavor, and it’s led
to work even further away from our traditional Midwestern base,” he
says. “We’re doing a lot of work in the Northeast, the New England
area… we’ve just seen a lot of development, commercial and other-
wise, all over the U.S. but in the Northeast in particular. I think a
lot of people assume that we’re a smaller, Midwestern company, that
there’s no way we could cost-effectively travel to the Northeast and
be competitive. And yet, we’ve done about four or five Boston and
New England-area projects in the last year or two.”
At CTS Cement Mfg. Corp. (www.ctscement.com) in Cypress,
California, Marketing Director Janet Ong Zimmerman also says that
business is improving. “Things are better than last year and slowly
going in the right direction… We are seeing a gradual, yet steady,
recovery in the commercial, industrial and non-residential markets.”
The company manufactures Rapid Set fast-setting hydraulic cement and
Type K shrinkage compensating cement. “Rapid Set exceeds 3000 psi in
one hour, which means you can make structural repairs and rehabilitation,
and return the concrete to full use in just one hour,” Zimmerman says. She
would like SEs to know about Rapid Set Flooring Products that “offer a
complete way to repair, resurface and renew interior and exterior floors.”
She adds: “Products include TRU Self Leveling for polished overlays and
toppings, LevelFlor for self-leveling underlayment, acrylic and epoxy
primers, Skim Coat for patching and skim coating, and repair mortars.”
In addition, the company is touting Rapid Set Corrosion Inhibitor which
continued on page 49
47 January 2014
 We help you fix bad ground.
Practical. Adaptive. Economical.
Sand. Clay. Fill. Organics. Liquefaction. Slides.

geopier iS ground iMproVeMenT™

EnGInEErEd SOLUTIOnS FOr Virtually all soil types & groundwater conditions

Work with engineers worldwide to solve your

ground improvement challenges. For more information
call 800-371-7470, e-mail info@geopier.com or visit geopier.com.

©2014 Geopier Foundation Company, Inc. The Geopier® technology and brand names are protected under U.S. patents and trademarks listed at www.geopier.com/patents and other trademark
applications and patents pending. Other foreign patents, patent applications, trademark registrations, and trademark applications also exist.
provides triple-protection against corrosion. “It increases corrosion resis- aggregates that is used at any thickness from 1½ to 24 inches.
tance when used in areas susceptible to corrosion and chloride. It repels It delivers 20-30 minutes of working time.
water, thereby preventing an unsightly appearance to concrete. It reduces Owens notes that he’s seeing an interest in turning plain, grey con-
chloride permeability, thereby increasing the life expectancy of metals, crete into attractive surfaces. “With this growing interest in designer
steel and rebar,” Zimmerman says. (See ad on page 3.) concrete, we’ve introduced a new suite of advanced formula concrete
John Somers, Vice President of Sales/General Manager at Polyguard décor products including stains, sealers, coatings and cleaners.
Products (www.polyguardproducts.com), Architectural Division On the testing side of the foundations sector, Senior Consulting
in Ennis, Texas announced that his company is celebrating its 60th Engineer, Marketing Director Gina Beim of Pile Dynamics, Inc.
anniversary. “Our Architectural Division provides high quality water- (www.pile.com) of Cleveland, Ohio, says that her company has wit-
proofing membranes for both pre and post pour concrete applications nessed an ‘explosion’ of popularity of the Thermal Integrity Profile (TIP).
as well as drainage boards, thru wall flashings and the best sealants “The interest in evaluating the shape of drilled foundations using TIP
and transition products in the industry. In addition we manufacture with either data collection method – thermal probes or thermal wire
a complete line of fluid applied air barrier and waterproofings.” cables – is increasing, and the industry recognizes that. The TIP received
He says that for some SEs, Polyguard may be a new name but their two innovation awards in 2013 – one from the Deep Foundations
products, such as Underseal and 650, are likely to be familiar. “In institute and the prestigious NOVA Award for Innovation from CURT/
2013, we launched a new balcony product called Balconyguard. This CIF (Construction Innovation Forum). In 2013 some testers branched
is a membrane product and system specifically designed for balcony out to try the thermal profiling on jet grouting columns, soil nails and
applications. We also introduced a series of pre-fabricated boot prod- micropiles. It’s exciting to see these new applications tried out, and PDI
ucts for waterproofing around columns and penetrations. They save thinks most of them will open new markets for the TIP.”
time and are easy to install,” Somers says. The company also increased the number of options available for its
“The boots were a result of customer requests. Job-site fabricated Pile Integrity Tester. “That’s PDI’s instrument for pulse echo testing
boots are time consuming and cumbersome, particularly in harsh job of concrete foundations. The PIT, as it’s known, now comes in two
site and poor weather conditions. Having the boots prefabricated in sizes (some people favor a compact size, others prefer a larger screen
advance saves time, and results in a high quality job in the end,” says to visualize results), with either wireless or traditional (cabled) sensors,
Somers. (See ad on page 50.) and with either one or two channels of data acquisition.”
Another company celebrating longevity is The QUIKRETE PDI hasn’t stopped there, Beim says. “We have developed another device,
Companies (www.quikrete.com) of Alpharetta, Georgia, says Frank an instrument for independent inspectors of ACIP / CFA piling jobs. It
Owens, Vice President Marketing. “We were founded nearly 75 years streamlines and standardizes the entire process of recording the installation,
ago, and we manufacture more than 200 professional-grade products something that inspectors still tend to do with pencil and paper. PDI will
including mortar mixes, cements, concrete repair products, stucco, start marketing it to inspectors soon,” she says. Speaking about 2014, Beim
waterproofing, tile setting, blacktop products, floor underlayments, predicts that the U.S. market will remain steady. “Outside the U.S., some
sand and aggregates from more than 100 facilities in the U.S., Canada, countries are seeing increased interest in foundation quality control, either
Puerto Rico and South America.” just as a natural evolution of construction practices or because new codes
Owens says that the company has a state-of-the-art technical center have been enacted that require or incentivize deep foundation testing.
where research and development is constantly driving product enhance- One example is Sweden, which now requires pile driving
ments. “Our FastSet line, which features five products designed for monitoring in virtually all construction sites. Brazil requires
rapid strength gain while providing contractors with adequate time a significant amount of pile load testing, too. PDI’s repre-
for mixing, pouring and finishing projects, is a great example of sentatives are, therefore, cautiously optimistic,” says Beim.▪
QUIKRETE product innovation.”
He also wants SEs to know about three
FastSet products that are designed specifi- Thermal Integrity Profiler
cally with engineering job requirements
in mind. The Heat Is On.
• QUIKRETE FastSet Repair Mortar

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

uses a special low-sag formula Shape, quality, cage alignment
to make vertical and overhead and concrete cover of drilled
structural repairs to any concrete, shafts. Shape and quality of
masonry or stucco surface. It jet grouting columns. Winner of
the 2013
delivers 20-30 minutes of working CIF/CURT NOVA
Data acquisition with Probes Award for
time and allows sculpting of the Innovation
or Thermal Wire® cables.
material during placement.
• QUIKRETE FastSet Non-Shrink TIP: test fast and soon after Winner of
the DFI 2013
Grout is designed for structural casting, so construction can
C. William
Bermingham
concrete repairs from ¼ to 24 move on.
Award for
Innovation

inches deep, and can be mixed

to a plastic, flowable or fluid
consistency. It delivers 30 minutes
of working time.
• QUIKRETE FastSet Concrete
Mix is a blend of cement with www.foundations.cc www.pile.com/tip
specifically graded fine and coarse engineering@foundations.cc sales@pile.com

STRUCTURE magazine 49 January 2014

 Innovation based. Employee owned. Expect more.
Polyguard celebrates our 60th year in business this year! For
years on thousands of projects across the U.S. and globally,
Polyguard’s high quality engineered products have been
protecting structures from Moisture and Air intrusion.
Our complete line of commercial grade Waterproofing,
Air Barrier, and Drainage products help designers and
contractors protect their projects. Polyguard’s below
grade waterproofing product line includes membranes
intended for both pre and post concrete pour applications
and our Air Barrier products have passed NFPA 285 test
protocols. When your project calls for protection think of
Polyguard first! “ Moisture and Air Stop with us!”

Architectural Products Division

Phone: 214-515-5000 • Fax: 972-875-9425
www.polyguardproducts.com archdivision@polyguardproducts.com

Transforming the Fan Experience
A New Arena for the Yellow Jackets
By John M. Hann, P.E., LEED AP
KSi/Structural Engineers was an Award Winner for the McCamish Pavilion
project in the 2013 NCSEA Annual Excellence in Structural Engineering awards
program (Category – Forensic/Renovation/Retrofit/Rehabilitation Structures).
T
he McCamish Pavilion is the
home of the Georgia Tech Yellow
Jacket basketball program and has
been a part of the Georgia Tech
Community since 1956. The original facility
included a 50-foot tall, 270-foot diameter,
32 rib structural steel Schwedler dome over a
25 foot deep, cast-in-place, circular concrete
bowl. Several renovations and additions have
been performed over the life of the facility.
Georgia Tech’s goal for this renovation was
simply to improve the fan experience in the
arena. Desired improvements included better
sight lines, increased seating row depth from
front to back, a circulation concourse open
to the court, modern audio visual equip-
ment including a center hung scoreboard,
an improved HVAC system, an enlarged
circulation concourse and compliance with
current building codes.
To improve sight lines and address seating
row depth issues, a new octagonal seating
bowl design was developed. The original
bowl was demolished and a new cast-in-place
concrete bowl installed at grade. The new
octagonal bowl design eliminated approxi-
mately 2,000 seats. To replace these lost seats,
a new upper deck was installed within the
existing Schwedler dome. The upper deck uti-
lizes elevated flooring supported on structural
steel raker beams which are in turn supported
on curved structural steel struts.
Traditional materials for elevated arena seat-
ing floors include precast concrete and folded
steel plate, but neither of these materials was
optimal due to the capacity of the existing
structure. The precast concrete option was
simply too heavy and overstressed the existing
steel dome ribs. The layout of the upper deck
made it desirable to span the upper deck riser
system from existing rib to existing rib, on
the order of 25 feet. Folded steel plate could
not span this far without the addition of sig-
nificant secondary framing. A new material,
the Sandwich Plate System, SPS, was inves-
tigated and selected for the flooring system.
This composite flooring system was originally
developed for the offshore and shipbuilding
STRUCTURE magazine
award winners and outstanding projects
industry. The SPS system includes
two ¼-inch steel plates at the
top and bottom of the assembly
infilled with a polymer resin layer
on the order of 1-inch thick. The
McCamish Pavilion installation is
the first onshore use of the SPS material in
the western hemisphere.
The SPS system cannot be field cut or
welded; it has to fit perfectly the first time.
Innovative point cloud technology was used
in the design, fabrication and installation of
the upper deck structural steel and SPS. A
three dimensional map of the upper deck
was developed by inserting a laser scanned
point cloud survey of the existing steel into
the 3D BIM model of the new structural
steel components. All of the structural steel
and SPS components were fabricated from
this model. The method was so precise that
all pieces fit without shimming, trimming or
other modification upon installation.
The raker beams supporting the SPS are
attached to the existing Schwedler dome for
lateral stability, and balanced on curved struts
to limit the gravity load introduced to the
existing framing. New foundation systems
to support the struts were also challenging.
The location of the facility over an abandoned
landfill, and thrust loads from the new upper
deck, required the use of battered deep foun-
dations. These deep foundations were installed
from the sloped side of the existing bowl
underneath the existing steel ribs, resulting
in a low headroom condition on a working
platform sloped at 30 degrees. Because of the
installation conditions, steel pipe micro piles
were utilized for this application.
The addition of the other fan amenities
also posed structural challenges for the proj-
ect. The audio visual, lighting, and HVAC
components all added significant load to
the Schwedler dome. A three dimensional
analytical model of the facility was devel-
oped to study the effects of added loads
from new audio, visual, lighting and HVAC
components. The added load significantly
overstressed the existing building ribs. To
51 January 2014
Spotlight
mitigate the effects, connections of existing
secondary roof members were modified to
resist increased tension loads, converting the
secondary members into tension rings. In
the review of the existing documentation, it
became evident the existing facility had no
discrete lateral load resisting system. To bring
the existing structure into compliance with
the current building code, a new lateral load
resisting system within the existing dome
structure was required. New structural steel V
brace frames were selected because they were
the least intrusive applicable system. The new
frames were “woven” through existing steel,
changing the planar angle of the brace at each
level to reduce impacts to seating counts and
sight lines.
To limit lateral bracing locations, supporting
the need for unobstructed site lines, all lateral
loads were transferred from the new circula-
tion concourse to the dome bracing through
the use of roof diaphragms and collector ele-
ments. Conversely, the amount of gravity load
the new concourse framing transferred to the
existing structure had to be limited to avoid
overstressed conditions in the existing dome
ribs. The layout of the concourse framing was
developed to achieve these goals.
The look and feel of the arena was completely
changed by the renovation, transforming an
aging facility from the 1950s into a twenty-
first century arena. The renovation would
not have been possible without the inno-
vative structural materials, assemblies, and
construction techniques developed by the
project team.▪
John M. Hann, P.E., LEED AP, is a
Principal at KSi/Structural Engineers
in Atlanta, GA. John can be reached at
jhann@ksise.com.
 EN
GINEERS
President’s Message
ASS
Keeping Up
RAL
OCIATI
STRUCTU
O NS
NATIONAL COUNCI L
Last week, I was preparing to give a presentation on snow
load design. In order to support one of the points I wanted to
include, I was doing some research on how much the codes
News form the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
have changed over the past 15-20 years. Looking at this really
made me stop and think. We understand so much more today
about how drifting affects snow loads and about the amount
of snow we should design our structures to support; and this is
just one example of the myriad of changes that we as structural
engineers have to keep up with, in order to provide our clients
with safe structures. We must understand the codes, keep up
with changes, and understand how materials perform. This
highlights how important it is to make sure that all engineers
who are practicing structural engineering are qualified to do
so and are keeping up with the changes. NCSEA supports the
following three efforts that I feel speak directly to this need and
serve to raise the bar in our profession.
The first is an ongoing effort by NCSEA’s Basic Education
committee to determine and promote the core curriculum that
should be offered to, and required of, structural engineering
students. Integral parts of this committee’s mission include
working with the Structural Engineering Certification Board
(SECB) to achieve a common objective, working with educa-
tional institutions on curriculum content, and working with
practitioner employers to ease students from the academic
environment into the workplace. Although the committee
has been successful in determining which universities offer
the recommended coursework, a number of universities claim
they are unable to do so. Most universities are being pushed
to provide more economical degrees, which typically means
requiring fewer hours, rather than adding to their programs.
Recognizing this, the focus of the committee has turned to
NCSEA Webinars
January 23, 2014
ASCE 7-10
Ron Hamburger, S.E., SECB
January 28, 2014
Prying Action in the AISC Manual
of Steel Construction –
Historical Development & Current Usage
NCSEA News
Dr. William Thornton, P.E.
February 6, 2014
Understanding ASCE-7 Requirements for
Seismic Design of Nonstructural Components
Maryann Phipps, S.E.
These courses will award 1.5 hours of continuing education. Approved for
CE credit in all 50 States through the NCSEA Diamond Review Program.
Time: 10:00 AM Pacific, 11:00 AM Mountain, 12:00 PM Central, 1:00
PM Eastern. Register at www.ncsea.com.
NEW! Webinar Subscription Option!
NCSEA is offering a Webinar Subscription Plan. For an annual
fee of $750, an individual can access all NCSEA live webinars
over a one-year period. This option is only open to NCSEA
members, i.e., members of NCSEA MO’s. Enrollment form
available at www.ncsea.com.
STRUCTURE magazine 52
providing a framework for individuals to take
courses outside of the traditional setting and
to recognizing those individuals who do so. This is an important
endeavor and a joint effort with SECB and NCSEA’s Young
Member Group Support Committee. I look forward to seeing
what their efforts produce.
Second is an ongoing effort to promote Structural Licensure.
All fields of engineering have become increasingly complex
and specialized over time, but none more so than structural
engineering. In addition, structural engineering has a unique
responsibility to provide structures that protect the safety, health,
and welfare of the public. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon
for clients to retain an engineer who is not qualified to provide
the services required, whether the client realizes it or not. Yet,
of the 55 jurisdictions in the United States, only 12 of them
have a Structural Engineering Title or Practice Act. Illinois
recognized this as far back as 1915, but other jurisdictions
have been slow getting on board. The mission of the Structural
Licensure committee reads “The NCSEA Structural Licensure
Committee works with the Member Organizations to influ-
ence states to adopt consistent licensing laws and rules in the
interest of public safety, especially relating to the licensure of
structural engineers”. Over the last year, NCSEA joined with
SEI, CASE, and SECB to form the Structural Engineering
Licensure Coalition (SELC), so that these four organizations can
speak with one voice and combine their efforts in this endeavor.
I am hopeful that we will have a new structural licensing act in
several states over the next few years.
The third effort involves required continuing education.
NCEES has advocated for uniform laws regarding continuing
education for many years. At this time, 40 states require continu-
ing education, indicating that this concept has been embraced
by the licensing boards in most of the country. Although the
requirements vary, the most common requirement matches
the NCEES recommendation of fifteen hours per year, which
calculates to only 75 minutes per month. Opportunities for good
continuing education are plentiful. Most of NCSEA’s member
organizations offer monthly meetings that include a continuing
education offering. Also, quite a few of the member organiza-
tions have day-long conferences with continuing education
presentations. This is an excellent way to meet with colleagues
and engage in discussion about our practice. For those unable to
attend local meetings or interested in topics not offered locally,
NCSEA offers webinars each month that have been thoughtfully
discussed and reviewed for content by NCSEA’s Continuing
Education committee. The NCSEA conference each Fall also
offers two full days of continuing education opportunities.
I would be remiss if I didn’t say that I’m also very excited about
the upcoming Winter Leadership Forum (WLF), focusing on
tools for business success, which is another critical aspect of
our practices. The WLF format includes roundtable discussions
that really give attendees a chance to learn from and about each
other; and the location, in Napa, California on March 20-21,
should only add to that opportunity.
Carrie Johnson, S.E., SECB, is the NCSEA President for 2014
and is a Principal at Wallace Engineering in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
She can be reached at cjohnson@wallacesc.com.
January 2014
 NCSEA News
Winter Leadership Forum
March 20 – 21, 2014
The Meritage Resort & Spa, Napa, California

The second NCSEA Winter Leadership Forum will gather together structural engineering principals and leaders in an
energetic and engaging environment, focused on key strategic issues vital to firm survival and success. Sessions include:

Thursday Friday Last year I gained some

Get the Value You Deserve
Without Ruining the
Relationship – Steven Isaacs
This interactive session
includes a new approach to negotiations
and will offer a variety of field-tested ways
to get the value and compensation you
deserve, from current and future clients.
Steven Isaacs, P.E., Division Manager, FMI
Corporation, assists firms in strategic plan-
Leadership is a Full-Contact
Sport: Dealing with Conflict
in the Workplace
– Jennifer Morrow
This session will focus on effectively
dealing with conflict in the workplace
and beyond.
Jennifer Morrow is the Executive Director
of Commercial Services at ADR (Alternative
Dispute Resolution) Systems of America, LLC,
valuable insights into
how to differentiate our
firm from our competi-
tors in a challenging
economy. The speakers
provided fresh and practical lessons
that I have applied throughout this year
in real project pursuits. I found the
Winter Leadership Forum very relevant
and I look forward to attending again
in the future.

News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

ning, financial controls, project performance/ and consults with law firms and companies Bart Miller, P.E.
profitability, negotiation, ownership transi- on the effective use of mediation, arbitration Principal
tion, joint ventures and partnering. and all types of dispute resolution processes. Walter P Moore

Managing the Cost of Conflict: While in college, engineers

Baby Boomers Delay Retirements:
Career Bottleneck at the Top
– Steven Isaacs
Professionals enjoy and count on on
their work, salaries, and benefits, and,
especially today, are less willing or able to
retire. Determine how your firm should
react to retain talented employees.
Ownership Transition Case Studies
How does a firm transition ownership?
Leaders of three engineering firms that
have confronted these issues will tell how
they did it.
Robert L. Miller Associates
& Sound Structures, Inc.
Brian Dekker, President
7 staff
PCS Structural Solutions
Brian Phair, CEO
40 staff
DCI Engineers
Mark Aden, President
185 staff
Mediation, Arbitration or Litigation? typically have no courses
in business management
– Jennifer Morrow and Kevin Sido
and typically learn man-
This session will explore the full spectrum
agement skills by trial and
of dispute resolution processes available
error while on the job.
and provide tools for evaluating when
The 2013 Winter Leadership Forum
to use which process. Learn the nomen-
was a great experience providing useful
clature, know your options and make
fundamental management insights for
more informed decisions to minimize the
individuals running an engineering office
impact on your time, your business and
or thinking of starting their own firms.
your reputation.
The structural engineering profession is
You’ve Been Sued – Now What? evolving, just as are business manage-
ment practices. I highly recommend the
What Engineers Need to Know to Winter Leadership Forum to anyone to
Structure Their Defense – Kevin Sido help keep them abreast of currently devel-
Realizing that claims will inevi- oping management practices.
tably be filed against Structural
Michael Cochran, S.E., SECB
Engineers regardless of merit,
Associate Principal
what should the Structural
Weidlinger Associates Inc.
Engineer do when the summons
is served and in the months that follow?
Kevin Sido, attorney, is a senior partner in Take Your Seat at the Table
the Chicago office of Hinshaw & Culbertson
Discuss and develop new
LLC. He has represented design profession-
als for more than 38 years, is an author and strategies, and learn what other
speaker on construction law issues, and is the
principals are doing and thinking.
editor of Architects and Engineers Liability,
Claims Against Design Professionals.

The Winter Leadership Forum will take place at the beautiful Meritage Resort &
Spa in Napa, California. The Resort is centrally located in idyllic Wine Country at Major Corporate Platinum Sponsor: EN
GINEERS

the southern tip of Napa Valley and has an evening shuttle for guest transportation
ASS
RAL

to Downtown Napa’s restaurants and tasting rooms.

OCIATI
STRUCTU

Register at www.ncsea.com
O NS

NATIONAL COUNCI L

STRUCTURE magazine 53 January 2014

 Structures Congress 2014 Technical Sessions
Thursday April 3, 2014
Building diSproporTionaTe BridgeS – BridgeS –
Track STeel TopicS caSe STudieS SeiSmic collapSe currenT pracTice emerging TrendS
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE

Track Chair Cynthia Duncan Brian McElhatten  Mustafa Mahamid Shalva Marjanishvili Bruce Peterson Cheng Lok “Caleb” Hing
8:00 AM – ST100 New AISC Design BB100 Integrated SE100 Seismic DC100 Disproportionate BP100 Expediting Project BT100 Dynamic Effects
9:30 AM Guides: 26-Design of Design of Tall Design in New Collapse Resistance of Floor Delivery in the MassDOT
Blast Resistant Structures Buildings England Systems Accelerated Bridge
and 28-Stability Design of Program
Steel Buildings

10:00 AM – ST110 Steel Connection BB110 The Boston SE110 Low-Ductility DC110 Multi-Hazard BP110 The MassDOT BT110 Seismic Effects
11:30 AM Innovations School of Tall Braced Frames in Robustness Assessment of Accelerated Bridge
Buildings Moderate Seismic Building Structural Systems Program
Regions

2:00 PM – ST120 Steel Braced BB120 Museum SE120 Practical DC120 Designing for BP120 Bridge Design BT120 Blast Protection
3:30 PM Frame Innovations Projects in Boston Considerations for Robustness to Resist for Bridges
Implementation Disproportionate Collapse
of Self-Centering
Seismic Systems

4:00 PM – ST130 Cold-Formed BB130 Impact of SE130 Seismic DC130 International BP130 Construction and BT130 Damage Detection
5:30 PM Steel Design: Advances Boston Geology Analysis in Regions Disproportionate Collapse Performance and Evaluation
through Industry- on Foundation of Moderate Design Requirements and
Academic Collaboration Development Seismicity Research

Friday April 4, 2014

7:00 AM – 8:15 AM CASE Breakfast
Special Building maSonry and codeS and BridgeS – BridgeS –
Track TopicS Wood TopicS STandardS BlaST and impacT currenT pracTice emerging TrendS
Track Chair Cynthia Duncan Brian McElhatten William Jacobs, V Shalva Marjanishvili Bruce Peterson Cheng Lok “Caleb” Hing
8:30 AM – BD200 Structural MW200 Design CO200 The State of BL200 Boston Marathon BP200 Rehabilitation of BT200 Case Studies of
10:00 AM System Innovations and Construction Design Loads – Bombing and West Fertilizer Historic Bridges Sensing for Structural
of Masonry – A A discussion of Explosion Health Monitoring:
Look towards New changes in the new Bridges
Requirements and ASCE 7, ASCE 24,
Recommendations & ASCE 37

10:30 AM – BD210 Vibration MW210 Evaluation CO210 Using the BL210 Blast Load BP210 Recent Advances BT210 Steel Orthotropic
12:00 PM Serviceability and Repair of New ASCE 41 – Predictions in Bridge Inspection Bridge Decks – Recent
Masonry Seismic Evaluation Practices Developments and
and Retrofit of Implementation
Structural Columns

Existing Buildings

1:30 PM – BD220 Optimization in MW220 Timber CO220 The BL220 Blast Environment BP220 Bridge Evaluation BT220 Evaluation and
3:00 PM Tall Buildings Structures and 2014 NEHRP and Hazard Predictions Assessment of Bridges
Bridges Recommended Subject to Fire
Seismic Provisions –
An Overview

3:30 PM – BD230 Composite MW230 Investigation CO230 Snow Loads BL230 Blast Protection: BP230 Rehabilitation BT230 Next-Generation
5:00 PM Construction and Repair of Existing and Rain Loads – From R&D to Design/ and Strengthening Multihazard Resilient
Wood and Timber What’s New and Retrofit Bridge Systems
Framed Buildings Different

Saturday April 5, 2014

progreSSive BridgeS – BridgeS –
Track concreTe TopicS Wood TopicS collapSe BlaST and impacT currenT pracTice emerging TrendS
Track Chair Mustafa Mahamid Brian McElhatten William Jacobs, V Shalva Marjanishvili Bruce Peterson Cheng Lok “Caleb” Hing
8:30 AM – CT300 Modeling Shear WW300 Experimental PC300 Dispro- BL300 Analysis Methods for BP300 Designing BT300 High-Performance
10:00 AM and Bond in PCC and Modeling Studies portionate Collapse Blast Loads Concrete Bridges for Materials
on Wood Frame Considerations Increased Durability and
Buildings Resiliency

10:30 AM – CT310 Concrete: WW310 Application PC310 Design and BL310 Exterior Envelope BP310 Vehicle Impact BT310 Recent
12:00 PM Code Revisions and of Wood Frame Detailing of Bearing and Barriers Developments in
Innovations Research to Design Wall Systems to Resist Improving the Fatigue
Practice Disproportionate Life of Infrastructure
Collapse

For more information about the Structures Congress 2014,

including Registration and Housing, visit our website at www.structurescongress.org.

STRUCTURE magazine 54 January 2014


April 3– 5, 2014 – Boston, Massachusetts
STrucTural
opTimizaTion and
moniToring
Colby Swan
SM100 Integration of
Construction Practice into
Structural Optimization
SM110 Advanced
Sensing for Infrastructure
Monitoring
SM120 Case Studies of
Sensing for Structural
Health Monitoring: Other
Structures
SM130 Instrumentation for
Monitoring and Assessment
of Structures
CASE Breakfast
riSk reSilience
and reliaBiliTy
Colby Swan
RR200 Panel Discussion:
From LRFD to Risk-based
Design and Beyond
RR210 Incorporating
Life-Cycle Concepts into
Structural Design and
Assessment
RR220 Operationalizing
Risk-informed Decisions for
Sustainable and Resilient
Civil Infrastructure
RR230 Applications of
Resilience Design Concepts
in Structures
duraBiliTy and
maTerialS
Colby Swan
DM300 Understanding
Steel Corrosion in Civil
Infrastructure
DM310 Novel Structural
Materials
To view the interactive Technical Program, including all presenters
and abstracts visit www.structurescongress.org
non Building
and Special
STrucTureS
J. Gregory Soules
NB100 Design of Thermal
Power Generating Facilities
NB110 Design and Analysis
of Power Plants
NB120 Design and Analysis
of Tanks and Silos
NB130 Modular Design of
Petrochemical Structures
non STrucTural
componenTS
John F. Silva
NS200 Analytical
Modeling of Nonstructural
Components for Seismic
Loading
NS210 Experimental
Investigations of
Nonstructural Components
for Seismic Loading
NS220 Wind Loads on
Solar Panels
NS230 Access Granted:
Design and Evaluation
of Exterior Building
Maintenance Equipment
non Building
and Special
STrucTureS
J. Gregory Soules
NB300 Offshore Wind in
the Northeast
NB310 Design and Analysis
of Wind Turbine Support
Towers
naTural diSaSTer
miTigaTion
John F. Silva
ND100 Modeling Coastal
Hazards
ND110 Hurricane Risk
Assessment and Mitigation
ND120 Advancing Multi-
Hazard Analysis to Improve
Emergency Response
ND130 Modeling Earth-
quake Risk and Damage
naTural diSaSTer
miTigaTion
John F. Silva
ND200 Lessons Learned
from Recent Tornadoes
ND210 Extreme Load
Design: Tornado-Generated
Missile Protection
ND220 ASCE Response
to Natural Disasters –
Hurricane Sandy and
Moore, OK Tornado
ND230 Addressing
Tornados and Hurricanes
naTural diSaSTer
miTigaTion
John F. Silva
ND300 Security, Resiliency,
and Sustainability
ND310 Resilient and
Sustainable Structures and
Infrastructures
STRUCTURE magazine
www.structurescongress.org
emerging TrendS
in STrucTural
eng. educaTion
Paul Mlakar
ED100 Emerging Trends in
Education
ED110 New Direction in
Structural Eng. Education
ED120 Student Structural
Design Competition
ED130 Classical Methods
of Analysis – The Art
and Feel of Structural
Engineering – Work &
Energy Methods of Analysis
career
developmenT
Paul Mlakar
CD200 The Cycle of a
Structural Engineering
Career: Learning and
Leading
CD210 Life in Academia,
Life in the Profession
CD220 Mentoring and the
Young Professional
CD230 Changing the
Paradigm for Engineering
Ethics
innovaTionS
in STrucTural
TeSTing
Paul Mlakar
IT300 Seismic Experiments
for Structures with Rate-
dependent Behavior
IT310 Innovative Structures
Testing Concepts
55 January 2014
profeSSional
pracTice
John Tawresey
PP100 Codes After Failures:
Changes in Structural Codes
and Standards
PP110 Professional Practice
Topics
PP120 Practicing Engineers
Trial Design Problems
PP130 The Structural
Engineering License Exam-1
applied BuSineSS
mechanicS
John Tawresey
AB200 How Technology is
Changing our Business
AB210 Productivity Tools
for the Structural Engineer
AB220 The Case of
Inadequate Factors of
Safety – What Engineers
Should Know
AB230 Meet the Press
applied BuSineSS
mechanicS
John Tawresey
AB300 SEI BPC-Financial
Monitoring
AB310 Structural
Deficiencies and Failure
Investigations  for Structural-Fire Safety
Structural Columns
SuSTainaBle
BuSineSS
Jeremy Isenberg
SB100 Exploding the
Myth – Successful
International Working is
not just the Preserve of the
Largest Businesses
SB110 The International
Market: The Opportunities
and the Challenges
SB120 How to Leverage
Various Alternative Delivery
Methods to Solve our
Infrastructure Problem
in US
SB130 The Philosophy of
Sustainability
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
caSe
Jeremy Isenberg
CS200 Mobile Technology
for the Field
CS210 Developing an
Internal Culture to Manage
a Firm’s Risk
CS220 SE Agreements and
Lessons Learned
CS230 Key Components
to Starting Your Own
Successful Engineering
Practice
fire
Cynthia Duncan
FF300 Multi-Hazard
Design of Structures
Considering Earthquake
and Fire
FF310 Innovations and
Advances in Test Methods
 Updated in 2013 – CASE 962-D
A Guideline Addressing Coordination and Completeness of Structural Construction Documents
The guidelines presented in this document will assist not
only the structural engineer of record (SER) but also everyone
involved with building design and construction in improving
the process by which the owner is provided with a success-
fully completed project. Their intent is to help the practicing
The Newsletter of the Council of American Structural Engineers

structural engineer understand the importance of preparing

coordinated and complete construction documents, and to
provide guidance and direction toward achieving that goal.
These guidelines focus on the degree of completeness required **New for 2013 was a top to bottom comprehensive update
in the structural construction documents (“Documents”) to that incorporated important added insights on coordina-
achieve a “successfully completed project,” and on the com- tion and completeness, including issues involving BIM and
munication and coordination required to reach that goal. They alternative project delivery.**
do not attempt to encompass the details of engineering design;
This update is available for purchase at
rather, they provide a framework for the SER to develop a qual-
www.booksforengineers.com.
ity management process.

CASE Risk Management Convocation in Boston

The CASE Risk Management Convocation will be held in conjunction with the Structures Congress at the Sheraton Boston Hotel
and Hynes Convention Center in Boston, MA, April 3-5, 2014. For more information and updates go to www.seinstitute.org.
The following CASE Convocation sessions are scheduled to take place on Friday, April 4:

7:00 AM – 8:15 AM 1:30 PM – 3:00 PM

CASE Breakfast: The Storms are Coming, the Storms
are Coming: The Need for a Revolution in Engineering
Approaches to Climate and Disaster Risk
Stephen Long, The Nature Conservancy
8:30 AM–10:00 AM
Mobile Technology for the Field
Speaker – Theron Peacock, Woods Peacock
SE Agreements and Lessons Learned
Speaker – Steven Schaefer, Schaefer Associates
3:30 PM – 5:00 PM
Key Components to Starting Your Own Successful
Engineering Practice – Panel Discussion
Moderator – Chris Poland, Degenkolb Engineers

10:30 AM – 12 Noon Follow ACEC Coalitions on

Developing an Internal Culture to Managing a Firm’s Risks
Speaker – Michael Strogoff, Strogoff Consulting Twitter – @ACECCoalitions.
CASE in Point

Creating a Culture of Accountability within a Small Firm

The new normal is here, and even firms thriving in growing
markets have been forced to adjust strategies as large or out of
town competitors sweep in. For most firms, the competitive
advantage lies not in a better plan, but in a much murkier
area of organizational life: culture. Industry professionals are
increasingly asked to do more with less, both resources and
people. A/E firm leaders need employees to step up. But they
know that accountability is an attitude, and it can’t be forced.
This will be the main topic of discussion when ACEC’s Small
Firm Council (SFC) holds its annual Winter Meeting Feb.
7-8, 2014, in New Orleans, LA. Facilitator Geordie Aitken of
Aitken Leadership Group will lead a two-day discussion and
exploration of how accountability – the personal “ownership”
employees demonstrate in their work – is developed.
This program will offer ways for firms to achieve competitive
advantage and explore how to build a culture of accountability
by recognizing and reinforcing industry best practices.
SFC was established to protect and promote the interests of
the smaller firms within ACEC. Its winter meeting provides an
exclusive forum for small firm principals to attend seminars,
network with peers, address key issues affecting their firms,
and learn and share ideas. Attendees provide valuable input
that helps SFC direct a business and legislative agenda for the
coming year. To register for the SFC Winter Meeting, please
visit www.acec.org/coalitions.
For questions regarding the Small Firm Council Winter
Meeting or ACEC’s Coalitions, please contact Heather Talbert,
202-682-4377 or htalbert@acec.org.

STRUCTURE magazine 56 January 2014


Foundation 3 – Planning
Plan to be Claims Free
Tool 3-1: A Risk Management Program Planning
Structure (Updated in 2013)
This tool is designed to help a Firm Principal design a Risk
Management Program for his or her firm. The tool consists of
a grid template that will help focus one’s thoughts on where
risk may arise in various aspects of their engineering practice,
and how to mitigate those risks. Once the risk factor is identi-
fied, then a policy and procedure for how to respond to that
risk is developed. This tool contains 10 sample risk factors with
accompanying policies and procedures to illustrate how one
might get started. The tool is designed to insert custom risks
and policies and tailor it to individual firms.
Tool 3-2: Staffing and Revenue Projection
Firms are provided a simple to use and easy to manipulate
spreadsheet-based tool for predicting the staff that will be neces-
sary to complete both “booked” and “potential” projects. The
spreadsheet can be further utilized to track historical staffing
demand to assist with future staffing and revenue projections.
ACEC Business Insights
Upcoming ACEC Online Seminars
Ownership Transition 2.0
February 5, 2014; 1:30 pm to 3:00 pm Eastern
Learn how to establish value, design an ownership transi-
tion program, choose appropriate transfer mechanisms,
and identify leaders. For more information and to register:
www.acec.org/education/eventDetails.cfm?eventID=1512
Are You Fighting Fires Instead of
Managing Your Employees – 2014
February 11, 2014; 1:30 pm to 3:00 pm Eastern
Proper delegation techniques will get you out of the fire-
fighting syndrome. For more information and to register,
www.acec.org/education/eventDetails.cfm?eventID=1515
Enabling Social Collaboration and
Engagement in the Workplace
February 26, 2014; 1:30 pm to 3:00 pm Eastern
Social collaboration allows for one common space for
individuals to get together, share ideas, share tasks,
manage tasks, share files, share calendars and col-
laborate with the entire group to move your project
to completion. For more information and to register,
www.acec.org/education/eventDetails.cfm?eventID=1521
STRUCTURE magazine
CASE in Point
Tool 3-3: Website Resource Tool
This tool lists website links that contain information that could
be useful for a Structural Engineer. A brief description of the
website is also included. For example, there is information
about doing business across state lines, information regarding
the responsibility of the Engineer of Record for each state, links
to each State’s Licensing Board, etc.
Tool 3-4: Project Work Plan Templates
Preparing and maintaining a proper Project Work Plan is a
fundamental responsibility of a project manager. Work Plans
document project delivery strategies and communicate them
to the team members. Project Managers will use this template
to create a project Work Plan that will be stored with the
CASE is a part of the American Council of Engineering Companies
project documents.
All of these tools and more are available
at www.booksforengineers.com.
Donate to the CASE
Scholarship Fund!
The ACEC Council of American
Structural Engineers (CASE) is
currently seeking contributions to
help make the structural engineer-
ing scholarship program a success.
The CASE scholarship, adminis-
tered by the ACEC College of
Fellows, is awarded to a student
seeking a Bachelor’s degree, at
minimum, in an ABET-accredited
engineering program.
We have all witnessed the stiff
competition from other disciplines and professions eager to
obtain the best and brightest young talent from a dwindling
pool of engineering graduates. One way to enhance the ability
of students in pursuing their dreams to become professional
engineers is to offer incentives in educational support.
In addition, the CASE scholarship offers an excellent oppor-
tunity for your firm to recommend eligible candidates for our
scholarship. If your firm already has a scholarship program,
remember that potential candidates can also apply for the CASE
Scholarship or any other ACEC scholarship currently available.
Your monetary support is vital in helping CASE and ACEC
increase scholarships to those students who are the future of our
industry. All donations toward the program may be eligible for
tax deduction and you don’t have to be an ACEC member to
donate! Contact Heather Talbert at htalbert@acec.org to donate.
57 January 2014
Structural Forum
Velocity of Learning Revisited
By Tom Glardon, P.E.
I
read eagerly the Structural Forum
column in the July 2013 issue, Increasing
the Velocity of Knowledge, by Gene
Frodsham, MS, S.E. As a professional
educator and professional engineer, I hoped
that he had insights that I could use. I am
constantly faced with clientele that ask me to
teach them the same material faster – always
faster. Do not teach me cost estimating in five
days; teach it to me in five hours. Do not take
four hours to teach me basic timber design;
show me in four minutes. So I need a way to
increase the velocity of knowledge. Indeed,
he had good ideas to propose.
However, I need to temper these good ideas
with a cold dose of reality. The human operat-
ing system, regardless of the beliefs of popular
culture and the amazing digital effects that
are now routine, is still working on version
1.0. The 10-year-olds of today have the same
brain capacity that our founding fathers had.
We certainly have different tools available to
us, and we have been trained to learn through
different media, but we constantly face the
fact that the human mind processes cognitive
learning in certain ways.
According to the most common model
(Bloom’s Taxonomy), knowledge and (to
some degree) comprehension learning are
fairly well-supported by our digital tools, from
automated systems to modeling software to
Internet knowledge bases. Mr. Frodsham and
his virtual environments seem to focus at this
level; note his title: “Increasing the Velocity
of Knowledge.” Throughout the article, he
has great ideas on how to make knowledge
– or, perhaps more appropriately, informa-
tion – more accessible and more mobile for
engineers. These are excellent points! We need
to better prepare our engineers for constantly
evolving sciences and environment by making
them more information-proficient.
However, returning to our cognitive learn-
ing model, analysis and synthesis learning is
much more difficult to teach and inevitably
takes time. I can lecture to achieve knowl-
edge, but to achieve analysis and synthesis
takes exercises, case studies, research, and
projects – and not just one exposure, but
Structural Forum is intended to stimulate thoughtful dialogue and debate among structural engineers and other participants in the design and
construction process. Any opinions expressed in Structural Forum are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NCSEA,
CASE, SEI, C 3 Ink, or the STRUCTURE® magazine Editorial Board.
STRUCTURE magazine
opinions on topics of current importance to structural engineers
The skill set of the engineer is to explore the real
world and to determine how to apply the tools
that we have learned.
multiple exposures in a variety of scenarios
and environments. Analysis in the cognitive
model involves examining and breaking a
complex problem into its parts to determine
the elements, relationships and organization.
Synthesis involves such skills as hypothesis,
design, organization, planning, and experi-
ment based on a set of abstract relations. These
are not skills that you can explain to someone
and they simply repeat; students must prac-
tice, experience, and develop them.
This skill set is the definition of an engineer:
when faced with a real-world situation, we
can break it into its elements to determine
how we can solve it using our wide variety
of tools. From this analysis, we then hypoth-
esize, potentially test it, and then design and
plan the solution. I joke in my structural
classes that our undergraduate degrees teach
students how to distribute arrows pointing at
a beam on a teeter-totter and a rolling pin.
I then show the students a building and ask
them to tell me where they should be put-
ting the arrows and where they might find a
teeter-totter or a rolling pin. The skill set of
the engineer is to explore the real world and
to determine how to apply the tools that we
have learned.
In this cognitive process, the digital tools
are simply tools. It does not matter if we use
software or a slide rule, I need the engineer
to be able to solve problems. I do not need an
engineer to be able to load data into a com-
puter program and produce a result; I need
the engineer to determine what the problem
is and then decide which computer program
to use. I recall a project of mine in which the
consultant team faced an apparently failed
floor fastening system. The five seasoned pro-
fessional engineers were not standing around
scratching their heads over how to use model-
ing software. Instead, they were deliberating
58 January 2014
over what the problem was (analysis) and
what the possible solutions were (synthesis).
From that point on, the technical design was
simply running the numbers.
Regarding the move toward a bachelor’s
degree plus 30 hours for future professional
engineers, I am not sure what Mr. Frodsham’s
point is. I do not see us being able to make it
an associate’s degree plus 15 YouTube videos.
The issue is that the BS, as important as it
is, only provides the beginning of any pro-
fessional engineer’s skill set. We must set
standards for proficiency, and education credit
is one such standard. Mr. Frodsham appears
to agree that we need to set high standards,
but his thought appears to be that engineers
can attain the necessary ‘knowledge’ through
non-traditional methods.
I applaud Mr. Frodsham’s concepts of how to
“digitize” our learning environment. I encour-
age him to become an educator and help us
get there! I want to work with him! The pro-
fession can certainly gain efficiencies in this
direction. We are in a world where I do not
need to be in a university laboratory to learn
how to design timber connections. There are
many high-quality, big-name master’s degree
programs out there that prove every day that
I do not need to sit in a lecture hall to learn
the material. But to suggest that students can
learn the higher-level skills needed as engi-
neers faster … I would challenge proponents
of that assertion to prove it. Grand visions …
but show me the money.▪
Tom Glardon, P.E., is an instructor at
The Civil Engineer School of the Air Force
Institute of Technology at Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio. He can
be reached at thomas.glardon@afit.edu.