2014-01 Jan

A
J
o
i
n
t

P
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

N
C
S
E
A

|

C
A
S
E

|

S
E
I
S

T

R

U

C

T

U

R

E

January 2014 Concrete
SPECIAL SECTION
FOUNDATIONS
Cover-Jan14.indd 1 12/19/2013 11:07:10 AM
P O W E R S P U R E 1 1 0 + E P O X Y A D H E S I V E A N C H O R S Y S T E M ( 1 : 1 R A T I O )
WHY DO WE CALL IT PURE110+?
Powers Fasteners, Inc.
2 Powers Lane
Brewster, NY 10509
www.powers.com
P: (914) 235-6300
F: (914) 576-6483
Pure110+ is now
available and in stock for
immediate shipment!
All adhesive anchor systems are required to be tested at
110F for sustained loading, known as creep
Pure110+
has passed creep

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 (110F )
as it does at room
temperature
Adhesive anchors are now
included in the International
Building Code. So when
youre looking for an adhesive
with great bond strength,
creep resistance and that is
code listed, remember the
number 110+!
NEW!
For Anchoring
Threaded Rod
and Rebar
POW2251_pure110.indd 1 10/2/13 8:23 AM
Blank.indd 1 10/2/2013 8:31:06 AM
Full-page template.indd 1 12/16/2013 2:30:13 PM
s-frame.com
Full-page template.indd 1 12/3/2013 11:15:51 AM
STRUCTURE magazine January 2014
5
CONTENTS
Publication of any article, image, or advertisement in STRUCTURE
magazine does not constitute endorsement

by NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C
3
Ink, or the Editorial Board. Authors, contributors, and advertisers retain sole
responsibility for the content of their submissions.
FEATURES
COLUMNS
DEPARTMENTS
IN EVERY ISSUE
January 2014
Te Pennoni 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 3 of the series
of articles, page 20, conveys conclusions
regarding the feasibility of repairing the
garage in order to extend its service life.
28
30
46
Special
Section
Foundation Sector Grounded in
Optimism for New Year
By Larry Kahaner
We have heard it before, but next year could be shaping
up to be strong for the building business. What appears
to be driving the industry are a growing economy, new
offerings that are attracting clients, and a general optimism
among those companies who have survived the lean years
of the building slowdown.
Concrete Paint Arrests Cofferdam
Corrosion at Submarine Pier
By Brian Robinson, P.E.
Often, steel sheet pile walls are incorporated as part of
cost-effective waterfront earth-retaining structures. Many of
these walls are subjected to a host of environmental factors
that accelerate corrosion. Cellular sheet pile cofferdams are
particularly difcult to repair because of the lack of redundancy
in the tensioned cell walls. This article highlights a unique
method to repair a cellular cofferdam using a reinforced
concrete facing installed over the aging sheet piling.
Geopolymer Precast Floor Panels
By Rod Bligh, B.Eng, MSc, CPEng, and
Tom Glasby, B.Eng (Civil), MBT, MIEAust, CPEng
Early in the design process, the structural engineering team
explored the potential for the incorporation of structural
timber. Timber-Concrete Composite (TCC) oors were
of interest and TCC was proposed as a potential oor
system that combined the benets of timber framing with
the acoustic, re separation and wearing properties of
concrete. It was at this stage that the strong potential for use
of geopolymer concrete in the system was identied.
7 Editorial
The Ins and Outs of the
Software Black Box
By Andrew Rauch, CASE Chair
9 InFocus
Risk and Virtue Ethics
By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
10 Structural Forensics
Untreated Submerged Timber
Pile Foundations Part 2
By Giuliana Zelada-Tumialan, P.E.,
William Konicki, P.E.,
Philip Westover, P.E. and
Milan Vatovec, Ph.D., P.E.
16 Historic Structures
Deconstructing Bridge 92297
By Ryan Salmon, EIT and
Meghan Elliott, P.E.
20 Structural Rehabilitation
Prescription for Repair Part 3
By D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E.,
SECB and Ross E. Stuart, P.E., S.E.
23 Construction Issues
Welding Reinforcing Steel
By John Hlinka, P.E.
34 Professional Issues
Opposition to Structural Licensure
By Timothy M. Gilbert, P.E., S.E.,
SECB
36 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.
40 Engineers Notebook
Concrete Column Design
By Jerod G. Johnson, Ph.D., S.E.
43 InSights
ASTM A1085
By Kim Olson, P.E.
51 Spotlight
Transforming the Fan Experience
By John M. Hann, P.E.
58 Structural Forum
Velocity of Learning Revisited
By Tom Glardon, P.E.
8 Advertiser Index
44 Resource Guide
(Anchor Updates)
52 NCSEA News
54 SEI Structural Columns
56 CASE in Point
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI
S

T

R

U

C

T

U

R

E

January 2014 Concrete
SPECIAL SECTION
FOUNDATIONS
ON THE COVER
ToC-Jan14.indd 5 12/19/2013 11:10:26 AM
H
ALFEN FK4 brickwork supports transfer
the dead load of the outer brick veneer
to the buildings load-bearing structure: an
ecient 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.
Structural E ciency
The HALFEN FK4 brickwork supports allow
e cient anchoring of brickwork facades in
connection with HALFEN cast-in channels.
Masonry has a New Edge.
And its called HALFEN FK4.
Introducing a new adjustable shelf angle with a thermal break.
Reduced Thermal Bridging
The HALFEN FK4 brickwork supports are
oset from the edge of slab allowing insulation
to pass behind. Minimal contact with the
building structure means reduced thermal
bridging and lower energy loss.
Quality
By using HALFEN FK4 brickwork supports, you
prot from an approved anchoring system,
excellent adjustment options and a complete
product program covering all aspects of
brickwork facade.
E cient Design
As the demand for higher energy e ciency in
commercial buildings continues to increase,
the cavity between the brick veneer and the
substrate is getting larger to allow for more
insulation and air space. Along with this
increased cavity size, the traditional masonry
shelf angle, used to support the brick veneer
at the slab edge, is also getting larger and
subsequently heavier and more expensive
to install. Architects & engineers are look-
ing for a more e cient 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.
Many advantages with one result:
HALFEN provides safety, reliability and
e ciency for you and your customers.
HALFEN USA Inc. PO Box 547 Converse TX 78109
Phone: 800.423.9140 www.halfenusa.com info@halfenusa.com
Appalachian State University (ASU) Boone, NC
FK4_Ad_213x276mm_StructureMag_US_july13.indd 1 11.07.2013 10:12:37
7
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
Editorial
The Ins and Outs of
the Software Black Box
By Andrew Rauch, CASE Chair
STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
a

m
e
m
b
e
r

b
e
n
e
f
i
t
L
ast spring, I had the opportunity to attend one of the
several terrifc presentations that were part of the CASE
Risk Management Convocation at the 2013 Structures
Congress. Tis 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.
Te 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 frm. Te attendees at this session discussed some of
those challenges, including staf 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 staf 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. Todays
engineers need and use very diferent skills. Tey need to learn
how to use software efectively, 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.
Structural engineering soft-
ware can also be a black box.
How often have you heard
the explanation thats 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
member stifness, or the algo-
rithm for selecting the number
of shear studs on a compos-
ite beam? Often, the manual
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 fnd a result from the software, only
to fnd several versions of the model with no clear indication of
which one is the most current or what the diferent 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 ofce policies and procedures?
Te fnal 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 verifcation to the purchasers and users, and let market
forces drive software quality? Should the structural engineering
organizations work with authorities having jurisdiction to demand
certifcation or verifcation of software? While it would be nice
to have third-party software verifcation, 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.
Te 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.
The question we must ask ourselves
is how much of our design skill
and interpretation do we want to
delegate to software companies?
C-Editorial-InFocus-Jan14.indd 7 12/19/2013 11:15:44 AM
8
Visit STRUCTURE magazine on-line at
www.structuremag.org

Visit STRUCTURE magazine online at
www.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 C
3
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 reect the views
of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C
3
Ink, or the STRUCTURE Editorial Board.
STRUCTURE
is a registered trademark of National Council of

Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA). Articles may not be
reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission
of the publisher.
C
3
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
ADVERTISING ACCOUNT MANAGER
Interactive Sales Associates
Chuck Minor Dick Railton
Eastern Sales Western Sales
847-854-1666 951-587-2982
sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
EDITORIAL STAFF
Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE
execdir@ncsea.com
Editor Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
Associate Editor Nikki Alger
Graphic Designer Rob Fullmer
graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org
Web Developer William Radig
webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org
WWW.NCSEA.COM
STRUCTURE magazine
InFocus
ADVERTISER INDEX PLEASE SUPPORT THESE ADVERTISERS
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
Editorial Board
Brian W. Miller
Davis, CA
Evans Mountzouris, P.E.
The DiSalvo Ericson Group, Ridgeeld, 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
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
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
RISA Technologies ................................ 60
S-Frame Software, Inc. ............................ 4
Simpson Strong-Tie......................... 25, 39
Te Soc. of Naval Arch. & Marine Eng. 44
Structural Engineers, Inc. ...................... 24
StructurePoint ....................................... 42
Struware, Inc. ........................................ 35
Subsurface Constructors, Inc. ................ 45
USP Structural Connectors ................... 11
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
PALOMAR MEDICAL CENTER, ESCONDIDO, CA
PHOTO COURTESY OF CO ARCHITECTS
SELECTED AS
ENRs Best Healthcare
Project of 2012
A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T
F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

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

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
January 2014

Visit STRUCTURE magazine online at
www.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 C
3
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 reect the views
of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C
3
Ink, or the STRUCTURE Editorial Board.
STRUCTURE
is a registered trademark of National Council of

Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA). Articles may not be
reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission
of the publisher.
ADVERTISING ACCOUNT MANAGER
Interactive Sales Associates
Chuck Minor Dick Railton
Eastern Sales Western Sales
847-854-1666 951-587-2982
sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
EDITORIAL STAFF
Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE
execdir@ncsea.com
Editor Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
Associate Editor Nikki Alger
Graphic Designer Rob Fullmer
graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org
Web Developer William Radig
webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org
WWW.NCSEA.COM
9
InFocus
Risk and Virtue Ethics
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 Teory, 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. Tis is essentially what the dominant modern
ethical theories purport to ofer: defnitive 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 specifc objec-
tions to consequentialism. Evaluations based only on what ultimately
happens ignore the contributions of luck; for example, avoiding the
consequences of ones recklessness does not make one any less respon-
sible for it. Te 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 diferentiating between the bearers of risks and benefts, 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 reafrmed
over time, and those choices that express their deeply held values and
beliefs. It is thus concerned primarily with someones long-term
attitude toward risk, especially with respect to the potential impacts
on the well-being of others. Te central concept is character, defned
by Athanassoulis as the set of stable, permanent, and well-entrenched
dispositions to act in particular ways. Tese dispositions qualify as
virtues when they enable and incline someone to respond well to
whatever situation is encountered.
Te 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:
Te person is deliberating whether to take a certain action.
Te person cannot guarantee the outcome of that action; there are
multiple possibilities, one or more of which would afect others.
Te 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).
Te person perceives the prospect of a positive outcome as
outweighing the danger of a negative one.
According to virtue ethics, the last item is crucial and cannot simply
be the product of a straightforward cost-beneft 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 persons 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 satisfed whenever someone
has a clear and accurate view of the situation and produces a pro-
portionate, rational response. Te 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 frm and stable dispositions to virtue Te 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?
Te framework that I have proposed for applying virtue ethics to
engineering practice identifes 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 afected by their work
while not experiencing any feelings toward them whatsoever? Can we
be completely indiferent 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 refection. 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.
January 2014
10
investigating structures
and their components
STRUCTURAL
FORENSICS
STRUCTURE magazine
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 Staf
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.
By Giuliana Zelada-Tumialan, P.E.,
William Konicki, P.E.,
Philip Westover, P.E. and
Milan Vatovec, Ph.D., P.E.
Part 2: Estimating
Remaining Service Life
Untreated Submerged
Timber Pile Foundations
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. Tis 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.
Te 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 efectiveness of the
cut-and-post method, as well as the estimated
remaining service life of the piles.
Remaining Service Life
Te aim of any foundation remediation/repair
design is similar to that of new foundation
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 foundations material properties
and loading history, after years in service and
exposure to the surrounding natural environ-
ment. Tis forms the basis for the estimation
of the remaining service life of the foundation
system, if it is to be re-used.
Te 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,
Figure 1: Decrease in timber pile compressive strength with in-service age (Base fgure from Van Kuilen, 2007).
C-StrucForensics-Vatovec-Jan14.indd 10 12/19/2013 11:17:00 AM
January 2014 STRUCTURE magazine January 2014
11
A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T
F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

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

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
respectively, can be used (Klaassen 2009). Te
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. Te rate of severe
bacterial degradation should be
applied uniformly over the entire
pile length.
Te rate of bacterial attack
decreases signifcantly beyond the
heartwood-sapwood interface in
spruce and pine piles. Terefore,
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),
only the sapwood will deteriorate
signifcantly and no further
reduction in pile cross-section due
to bacterial decay is expected once
the sapwood thickness has been
expended. Te determination of
the sapwood/heartwood boundary
requires microscopic examination
for heartwood signs, and for
bacterial invasion and deterioration
at diferent depths within the pile;
this can be subjectively infuenced
by the examiners experience.
Without detailed microscopic
observations, the depth to the
heartwood/sapwood boundary can
only be roughly estimated from
obvious color changes in the wood,
or based on publications like Te
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
its contribution to the timber pile
strength capacity. Measured values
of elastic modulus for specimens
of deteriorated sapwood obtained
from piles (from previous projects)
indicate that the ratio of elastic
moduli between deteriorated
sapwood and sound heartwood is in
the range of 0.1 or less. Terefore, it
would be expected that more than 90%
of the applied load is resisted by the
stifer 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. Tis 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.
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
HARDY
FRAME
A Mi Te k Co mp a n y
PRE-FABRICATED SHEAR WALL SYSTEMS
HARDY
FRAME
PRE-FABRICATED SHEAR WALL SYSTEMS

TIE-DOWN SYSTEMS
TIE-DOWN SYSTEMS
A Mi Tek Company
Hardy Frame

HFX Panel
Hardy Frame
Special Moment Frame

Zone Four
Quick Connect
Tie-down
System
hardyframe.com 800 754.3030 uspconnectors.com 800 328.5934
Better Technology. Better Building.
A Berkshire Hathaway Company
Hardy/Z4/USP One Source - Structure
Half Page Size: 5" x 7.5"
12-11-2013
Your One Source for
the Best Seismic and
Wind Solutions.
12
STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 2 shows a sample plot of the calculated reduced heartwood
compressive strength with time (Step 2), superimposed on plots of
the applied compressive stress curves developed for various timber
pile diameters as bacterial decay penetrates to the heartwood/sapwood
boundary for a service load of 20 kips (Step 1). Te intersection of the
time under load dependent ultimate heartwood compressive strength
curve and the applied compressive stress curves defnes the expected
remaining pile service life for each pile diameter at the expected load
combination, with no factor of safety included. Figure 2 was developed
for spruce piles with an in-service age of 109 years, 2-inch sapwood
thickness, and measured severe bacterial attack penetration of about
0.75 inches at time zero. Te plot of applied compressive stress is
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
for ease of use during investigations where, typically, just the pile tops
are exposed. Figure 2 also shows the time for 50% loss of original pile
cross-section for reference.
Figure 3 shows plots of the estimated remaining service life for each
timber pile butt (top) diameter and diferent 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
time up to 500 years, the curves in Figure 3 level of at 500 years.
Evaluation of Remaining Geotechnical Capacity
Te Table (page 14) summarizes the results of load testing on fve timber
piles from separate areas of a single project site in downtown Boston.
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
of the piles. Area 1-1, which showed a larger penetration depth of
severe deterioration (with 75% or more loss of pile cross-section),
performed stifer and had a higher measured unit end bearing capac-
ity than the Area 1-2 pile which showed less deterioration (about
34% loss of pile cross-section). However, the data evaluated in this
analysis is too limited to draw more in-depth conclusions regard-
ing the impact of deterioration on the geotechnical capacity of the
submerged timber piles.
Estimated Future Settlements
Once cut-and-post underpinning is performed
(i.e. no inelastic settlement due to softening of
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
elastic compression of the remaining submerged
timber pile sections. Tis can be due to potential
softening as a result of aging/creep, and decay
(i.e. a decrease in the Youngs modulus, E) of the
timber piles. Te National Design Specifcation
(NDS) for Wood Construction (2005) recom-
mends a creep factor of 2 for wet wood, i.e. the
E value should be decreased by 50% under long-
term permanent loads. Current design standards
do not provide recommendations for further
reductions in E values due to decay.
A review of limited data available from compres-
sive-strength testing of timber pile samples from
various projects throughout northern U.S. (with
in-service ages ranging from about 100 years to
137 years) indicates that there may be an ongoing
reduction in E values with time, similar to that of compressive strength
values. However, the data spread is too broad and the breadth of time
periods too limited to be able to more accurately and reliably infer a
rate of degradation of the E value with time.
Assuming a 50% loss of cross-section in the timber piles, a pile length
of about 10.5 feet, and using an E value of 1.2 x 10
6
psi for spruce
(average published E value for fresh spruce from ASTM D2555-06),
the added submerged pile settlement under sustained loads varies from
less than 0.04 inches (for a service load of 50 kips combined with a
Figure 2: Sample plots of applied compressive stress and estimated heartwood
compressive strength vs. time.
Figure 3: Sample plots of estimated remaining structural service
life of submerged timber piles.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 100 200 300 400 500
)
i
s
p
(

s
s
e
r
t
S

e
v
i
s
s
e
r
p
m
o
C
Time (in years from 2009)
Pile Service Load (P) = 20 kips
6-inch diam. pile butt
Estimated Average Heartwood
Ultimate Compressive Strength
Time to 50% Pile Tip Cross-
Section Loss
Applied Compressive Stress:
2009
2109
2209
2309
2409
2509
2609
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
4 6 8 10 12
R
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

L
i
f
e

(
Y
e
a
r
)
e
f
i
L

e
c
i
v
r
e
S

l
a
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
S

g
n
i
n
i
a
m
e
R
(
B
e
y
o
n
d

2
0
0
9
,

i
n

y
e
a
r
s
)
Pile Butt (Top) Diameter (in.)
P = 10 k P = 20 k P = 30 k P = 40 k P = 50 k
P = Applied Service Load (per pile):
continued on page 14
Pass the Structural Exam with Condence!
This course is designed by the National Council of Structural
Engineers Associations (NCSEA), Kaplan Engineering Education,
and leading structural engineers from across the industry.
Online Course Dates:
Vertical: January 1819, 2014
Lateral: March 89, 2014
Course Fee*
$1,199
Vertical or Lateral Only
$749
Course available with or
without books
Register today!
877.884.0828
www.kaplanaecengineering.com/LiveReview
M
R
K
T
-
1
1
9
0
8
NCSEA Structural
Engineering Exam
Live Online Review
* Students repeating the SE Review Course are eligible for
50% discount. Call for details.
Instructors:
Tim Mays, Ph.D., P.E.
Larry Novak, S.E., FACI,
LEED

AP PD+C
Joe Miller, Ph.D., P.E.
Rafael Sabelli, S.E.
Ravi Kanitkar, S.E.
Jennifer Butler, P.E.
John Lommler, Ph.D., P.E.
Donald R. Scott, S.E.
Thomas Grogan, P.E., S.E.
Steve Dill, S.E.
John Hochwalt, P.E., S.E.
Group pricing available
(As low as $425 per person)
This targeted review includes:
Over 28 hours of instruction
Instructor Blog
Classes archived for 24/7 playback
Blank.indd 1 10/7/2013 10:41:33 AM
14
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 sufciently 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 diferential 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 signifcant settlements,
even small added settlements could have an
adverse impact on its serviceability.
Conclusions
Te 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
signifcant amount of data is necessary
for confrmation of this postulate.
Measured rates of bacterial
deterioration indicate that, for piles
with 100 to 140 years of in-service age
and with diameters of 6 inches or less,
bacterial decay may have advanced
sufciently that little to no remaining
service life is anticipated. For relatively
small applied service loads (around
10 kips per pile and no factor of
safety included), pile diameters of
7 inches or greater are likely have a
remaining service life of 100 years or
greater from present time. For larger
applied loads (on the order of 40 to
50 kips per pile), pile diameters of 10
inches or greater would be required to
attain the same remaining service life
expectancy (100 years or more).
Once tops of piles are replaced and
the new pile cutofs remain submerged
(e.g. cut-and-post underpinning is
performed), settlements due to pile
elastic compression over the remaining
service life of the timber piles will likely
not exceed 0.5 inches.
The analysis used herein to estimate remain-
ing service life of submerged timber piles
is based on average conditions (i.e. average
measured strength and/or modulus values).
Although measured strength and modulus
data is well distributed around the average
values used, there is still a 50% probabil-
ity that the actual values may be lower or
higher than the ones used. In addition,
other than limiting the depth of penetra-
tion of bacterial decay to include only the
thickness of the sapwood of submerged
piles, it is possible that local building
codes may require foundation remedia-
tion/repairs be performed once a certain
percentage of the original pile capacity has
been lost. For the smaller-diameter timber
piles, this would likely result in smaller
remaining service life expectancies than
those indicated above.
Final Thoughts
Further research remains to be performed
regarding the impact of bacterial attack on
submerged timber pile structures, especially
any potential reduction of the piles geotech-
nical capacity.
Tere is also continued concern that soft-rot
deterioration could still occur even with ground-
water levels maintained above the top of the
untreated pile cutof. Recent research indicates
that soft-rot attack may be supported even in
submerged conditions, if the dissolved oxygen
content in the groundwater is above a thresh-
old value of 2 ppm (Klaassen 2005). Given
that potable water is often used for recharging
groundwater levels near timber piles to maintain
submersion, and this could lead to an increase
in dissolved oxygen levels in the groundwa-
ter, further research is required to confrm this
potential deterioration mechanism.
Development of a large database of U.S. his-
toric building stocks supported on untreated
timber piles, similar to that currently in exis-
tence for some European countries, would
be of signifcant value in evaluating current
conditions and required foundation remedia-
tion/repair options. Based on the European
studies on bacterial decay, existing untreated
submerged small-diameter timber piles with
more than about 100 years in service (which
represents a signifcant percentage of the exist-
ing untreated timber pile stock in the U.S.)
are likely to be reaching a level of bacterial
attack at which there is little to no remaining
service life. For these structures, signifcant
structural settlement, with the consequent
building distress, may start developing within
a relatively short-time from present.
Load Test
Pile Tip Diam
(inches)
Max. Applied Load
(Kips)
Max. Measured Pile
Top, Total Settlement
(inches)
Inferred Ultimate
Unit End Bearing
Capacity (ksf
(1)
)
Teoretical Ultimate
Unit End Bearing
Capacity (ksf
(2)
)
Area 1 1 7
(3)
70 0.56 224.5 220
Area 1 2 9
(4)
70 0.63 113.2 190
Area 2 1 6.5
(5)
40 0.57 130 130
Area 2 2 6
(5)
50 0.24 N/A 170
Area 2 3 8
(5)
60 0.71 114.5 110
(1) Based on Davissons Ofset Criteria.
(2) Based on Meyerhofs method for driven piles in sand (Meyerhof 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.
Summary of pile load tests.
Te online version of this article
contains detailed references. Please visit
www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
C
l
i
e
n
t
:

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

S
p
e
c
i
a
l
t
i
e
s

J
o
b
#
:

9
6
4
9

N
a
m
e
:

C
/
S

E
J
C

d
e
Y
o
u
n
g

A
d

P
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

M
a
g
a
z
i
n
e
C
o
l
o
r
s
:

C
M
Y
K

B
l
e
e
d
:

Y
e
s

S
i
z
e
:

8
.
3
7
5
"

x

1
0
.
8
7
5

I
n
s
e
r
t
i
o
n
:

#
1
2
9
5

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
3
More than
a joint cover,
its a collaboration.
Theres no such thing as a typical project, which means that theres 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. Its 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.
The deYoung Museum
Architect: Herzog & deMeuron and Fong & Chan
Structural Engineer: Rutherford & Chekene Engineering
EJC deYoung Ad SM.indd 1 11/12/13 1:07 PM
January 2014
16
signicant structures of the past
HISTORIC
STRUCTURES
STRUCTURE magazine
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 frm in
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
By Ryan Salmon, EIT and
Meghan Elliott, P.E., Associate AIA
From Destruction
Comes Knowledge
Deconstructing Bridge 92297
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.
Te 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 efort ulti-
mately provided interesting information about
the early development of reinforced concrete fat
slab design.
Te historians involvement was prompted by
a routine set of circumstances. Te 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. Te 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 afected
by the highway expansion. Trough this process,
the consultants determined that Bridge No.
92297 was historically signifcant. In instances
when a federally funded project afects a historic
resource, the project agency must work with
the State Historic Preservation Ofce (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. Te pending demoli-
tion of the bridge presented a unique opportunity
to investigate the steel reinforcement concealed
within the structure. Te 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 fat 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 bridges 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 fat 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 frm with
the Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie
Railroad (the Soo Line) as a principal client
(Gasparini, 2002). As Turner progressed in
Figure 1: Bridge No. 92297 shortly before demolition. Photograph by Daniel R. Pratt, courtesy of MN Historical
Society Archives.
Te online version of this article
contains references. Please visit
STRUCTURE - January 2014 HP-H-4C.indd 1 12/5/2013 11:44:34 AM
C-HistStructures-Salmon-Jan14.indd 16 12/19/2013 11:25:12 AM
17
ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
his career, he expanded his practice to the
design of buildings, including the frst one in
Minneapolis with reinforced concrete foors
and columns in 1904. His major break-
through in concrete design would be realized
two years later: in 1906, Turner designed his
frst building with the mushroom system of
fat slab foors, the Johnson-Bovey building
in Minneapolis (now demolished).
In the next few years, implementation of
Turners proprietary fat slab foor system
grew at a furious pace. His design consisted of
foors with four-way reinforcement supported
directly on reinforced concrete columns, each
with a distinctive fared capital. Between 1906
and 1910, Turner claimed that buildings
constructed with his system were rapidly
approaching a thousand acres of foor
(Turner, 1910; 7-12). Tis growth can be
attributed in part to his extensive publication
of designs and load test results for his fooring
system in nationally prominent engineering
journals, which proved their reliability and
cost-efectiveness. However, a series of patent
lawsuits and countersuits beginning in 1911
resulted in a dramatic downturn in the use
of Turners fat slab system. Nevertheless, he
substantially contributed to the acceptance
of reinforced concrete fat slab technology
among practicing engineers (Gasparini, et
al., 2001; 17-21).
In addition to implementing his system in
buildings, Turner designed several reinforced
concrete fat slab bridges, most as adaptations
of his mushroom foor system. To date, all
known fat slab bridges in the Twin Cities
designed by Turner have been demolished. Te
bridge decks were often designed with four-way
reinforcement similar to his foors, with longi-
tudinal, transverse, and diagonal steel. With the
exception of a tunnel originally located not far
from the area studied for this project, Turners
published examples of fat 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 foor systems and bridges, one of which
bears a striking resemblance to Bridge No.
92297, particularly the confguration 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 bridges design
and also raised questions. Although the discov-
ery of original drawings was fortuitous and
rare for a structure of this age the copies
Figure 2: Excerpt of C.A.P. Turners U.S. Patent
1,002,945: Short-Span Flat-Slab Bridge,
fled October 1, 1909. Although the deck
reinforcement of Bridge No. 92297 did not
resemble the design in this patent, the profle
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 12/5/2013 11:44:34 AM
18
STRUCTURE magazine
were of poor quality and only
partially legible (Figure 3). Of
the six sheets in the set, one
was stamped with CAP Turner
Consulting Engineer in the
title block, while the Chief
Engineers Ofce of the railroad
was stamped on the remaining
sheets. Te date of the sheet
stamped with Turners frm was
illegible, but several of the sheets
stamped by the railroad engineers
were clearly dated to 1912. Te
correspondence between engi-
neers indicates that plans were
originally drawn for the bridge
in 1908, and then were revised
in 1912 because the earlier plans
did not meet the standards of
the 1907 city ordinance. Summit
Envirosolutions postulated that the drawing
sheet stamped by Turner was part of the
original 1908 set, and the remaining sheets
were a revision of Turners design made by
the railroads engineers.
Interpretation of the original drawings
was also hampered by their poor legibil-
ity and a lack of corresponding notes or
engineering calculations. This was com-
pounded by the fact that changes had
obviously been made to the bridge after
its construction, such as the replacement
of the railing and the installation of a new
topping slab, which complicated efforts to
differentiate original and more recently
added features. Despite these difficulties,
comparison with observed conditions, the
original drawings, and Turners patent for
a similar bridge design, led to the con-
clusion that the structural design of the
bridge can be substantially attributed to
C.A.P Turner.
Te complications that the team expe-
rienced in reading the Bridge No. 92297
drawings are actually typical obstacles to
understanding historic engineering struc-
tures. Any engineer asked to retroft an older
building can relate to the frustration of not
being able to locate the original engineering
design drawings; while architectural draw-
ings are often kept as much for their visual
appeal as their content, engineering drawings
are often inadvertently lost, or even inten-
tionally destroyed for insurance and liability
reasons. Likewise, details of the construction
methods and sequence may never have been
recorded, but rather negotiated in the feld
by a contractor or builder. Finally, the struc-
ture itself is often concealed, limiting the
ability to measure and record the structural
elements. While deconstruction is not often
considered an ideal method of research, the
removal of this 1912 bridge presented an
opportunity to gain additional knowledge
of early fat slab bridge design.
Deconstruction and
Documentation
Bridge No. 92297 was documented to
Minnesota Historic Property Record
(MHPR) standards. MHPR is a modifed
version of the national standard Historic
American Engineering Record (HAER)
program. Te HAER program documents
nationally signifcant historic mechanical
and engineering structures and sites; the
extensive collection is digitized and available
to the public on the Library of Congress web-
site (www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/hh/).
Both programs maintain documentation of
historic resources, and have a target archival
life of 500 years. Te MHPR materials for
Bridge No. 92297 included a report with
a written description, large format photo-
graphs, and measured drawings of selected
areas of the bridge highlighting its design
and construction.
Deconstructing and documenting a historic
bridge requires time, care and coordination
that is not required with standard demoli-
tion and removal (Figure 4). Determining
the confguration of reinforcement for com-
parison to the original construction drawings
required investigative openings in areas that
would expose representative samples of rein-
forcement in the bridge deck, abutments and
footings. Maintaining stability of the bridge
to allow for safe access after its partial demo-
lition, as well as to expose sections of the
abutments and footings, required an extensive
amount of earthwork.
A two-stage demolition process
accommodated the documenta-
tion process. Backhoes equipped
with hydraulic jackhammers
removed concrete in selected areas
of the bridge to expose reinforce-
ment. Fill placed below the bridge
stabilized the abutment walls
during the exposure and removal
of the deck. Two full-depth open-
ings in the bridge deck one near
the middle, and another along the
edge and the adjoining transition
into the top of the abutment
facilitated its documentation
before complete demolition.
Next came excavating soil on
both sides of the abutment to the
top of the footing, then removing
concrete from the selected area to
expose the underlying reinforcement. Te
investigation team took measurements and
photographs all along the way.
Tis investigative process was hampered by
poor accessibility of the machinery, especially
after demolition of the bridge began to com-
promise its ability to support heavy loads. Tere
were several equipment breakdowns, and the
existing concrete was stronger than expected in
some locations. Tese issues created unforeseen
delays that impacted the demolition schedule.
Despite the slower than expected progress of
the work, careful operation resulted in expo-
sure of the majority of the reinforcement with
minimal changes to its as-built confguration.
Te destructive nature of the work resulted in
some deformation or breakage of the reinforce-
ment being recorded. In these cases, carefully
exposing adjacent sections made it possible to
document the typical confguration of rein-
forcement as originally placed.
Te plan and profle of reinforcement was
generally congruent with the original construc-
tion drawings from 1912, with the exception
of minor details and extra reinforcement along
the fllet corner in the deck-to-abutment
transition. Te skewed geometry of Bridge
No. 92297 was not well-suited to Turners
patented short-span bridge design, but the
two layers of slab reinforcement in the bridge
were similar to the confguration of diagonal
reinforcement in Turners patent. One layer of
slab reinforcement was placed parallel to the
span of the bridge, and the other layer was
placed perpendicular to the abutment walls.
Some transverse reinforcement was present,
which correlated with the patent, but it was so
widely spaced over fve feet on center that
its intended purpose was likely just to sup-
port the draped geometry of the two primary
layers of slab reinforcement. Te profle of the
Figure 3: Original construction drawing of plan and elevation
of Bridge No. 92297.
E M A N E L I F JOB# COLORS
SI ZE PROOF
T S I T R A P O T K S E D P U T E S L A I T I N I
SI GNATURE
OK as is
OK with changes
Supply new proof with changes
817.335.1373
19
slab and abutment reinforcement correlated
closely with the design illustrated in Turners
patent. Because of the geometry of the bridge
span, the fat slab of Bridge No. 92297 more
closely resembled a one-way structural system,
rather than the four-way systems found in
Turners 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 trafc even into the
start of demolition. Despite the somewhat
deteriorated condition of the bridge, includ-
ing concrete spalling and substantial grafti,
its continued use had demonstrated that the
early design was not only adequate for the
streetcar loads at the time of construction,
but also remained suited for the loading
demands imposed by modern trafc.
Conclusion
Researching the history of engineering has
unique and persistent challenges: structural
details are concealed, drawings are often not
available, and the feld 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 feld of study.
When demolition of a resource is unavoid-
able, documentation can partially mitigate its
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 beneft
from studying previously documented and
demolished examples for the insights that they
provide into design and construction. Bridge
No. 92297 ofered 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.
Figure 4: Careful demolition of the bridge revealed the reinforcement, facilitating its documentation in selected areas.
E M A N E L I F JOB# COLORS
SI ZE PROOF
T S I T R A P O T K S E D P U T E S L A I T I N I
SI GNATURE
OK as is
OK with changes
Supply new proof with changes
817.335.1373
January 2014
20
renovation and restoration
of existing structures
STRUCTURAL
REHABILITATION
STRUCTURE magazine
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.
The Triage, Life Support
and Subsequent Euthanasia
of an Existing Precast
Parking Garage Part 3
Prescription for Repair
A
s a part of Pennonis 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 Pennonis
observations and material testing results. Part 2
(November 2013) presented an analysis of those
fndings. Tis article conveys Pennonis conclusions
regarding the feasibility of repairing the garage in
order to extend its service life.
Te third level precast, prestressed inverted T
concrete girders that supported the 16-inch deep
double tees were in extremely poor condition.
Te corresponding second level girders were also
in poor condition due to high chloride content,
and several locations exhibited large subsurface
delaminations. Te 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 signifcantly 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. Signifcant 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. Tis 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
foor girders would also begin to corrode in the
same fashion within the next two years, and the
second level would follow shortly thereafter.
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. Terefore, the end of a structures
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. Te 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 signifcant 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.
Te 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. Terefore, 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 Te Corrosion
C-StrucRehab-Stuart-Jan14.indd 20 12/19/2013 11:30:32 AM
21
Society. Damage to the internal prestressing
steel due to hydrogen embrittlement would
clearly further increase the degradation of
the structure.
Pennoni performed additional research as
part of an exhaustive efort to verify that
there were no other practical long-term
repair methods of lowering the extremely high
chloride content besides the types of systems
mentioned above. Tis led to a state-of-the-art
technology, known as nanoparticle treatment,
which is intended to address the corrosion of
internal reinforcing of distressed prestressed
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). Terefore,
even this new technology is not applicable
for the repair of the garage. As a result,
Pennoni was confdent that no viable
options existed for efectively 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 difcult 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 efect (see
Figure). Te incipient anode efect is a phe-
nomenon by which steel corroding under the
infuence of chloride contamination dissolves,
causing the formation of iron ions (tiny
charged particles of iron). Simultaneously,
electrons are released that fow along the bar
and react with both air and oxygen at some
point remote from the corrosion location.
Te corroding areas are therefore supplying
electrons to surrounding areas of steel, efec-
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
protection system is disabled. As a result, new
corrosion cells rapidly occur on either side of the
repair, resulting in accelerated premature failure
of the surrounding concrete.
Part 4 will appear in a future issue and dis-
cuss recommendations for the temporary
stabilization and ultimate replacement of
the garage.
CATHODE CATHODE ANODE
Fe
++
Fe
++
OH
-
CI
-
OH
-
Fe(OH)
H
2
O H
2
O
H
2
O
O
2
O
2
O
2
e
-
e
-
C-StrucRehab-Stuart-Jan14.indd 21 12/19/2013 11:30:32 AM
248-848-3800 www.concrete.org
The 2013 edition represents an update from the former edition both in
technical requirements and in layout. The Code and Specication 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 Specication 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 Specication. The Commentaries
are not mandatory and are for information only.
A must-have document for masonry work.
Building Code Requirements and Specication for
Masonry Structures and Companion Commentaries530-13
NOW AVAILABLE!
Order Code: 53013.SPEC $124.00 (ACI members $94.00)
RESOURCES FOR SUCCESS FROM ACI!
Visit ACI at WOC 2014
Booth S10399
ACI-CRSI Adhesive Anchor Installer
Education and Certication available at
WOC 2014!
ACI-CRSIs Adhesive Anchor Installer Certifcation program is designed to credential installers that have
demonstrated specifc knowledge and are capable of efective 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 Certifcation & Exams link on the right.
STRUCTURE magazine
23
discussion of construction
issues and techniques
CONSTRUCTION
ISSUES
John Hlinka, P.E., is Senior Project
Manager/Structural Engineer at
QualEx Engineering in Paducah,
Kentucky. He can be contacted at
jhlinka@qualex.com.
By John Hlinka, P.E.
AWS D1.4/D1.4M:2011
Welding Reinforcing Steel
O
n a recent chemical plant project for
which the author was the Engineer
of Record, an electrical contractor,
contrary to contract specifcations,
manually arc welded electrical grounding conduc-
tors to reinforcing steel for a pipe rack foundation.
Te 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 specifed 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.
Tis 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 fller material or other
foreign matter is introduced. CADWELDs do
not apply because the steel-flled 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
content decreases, ductility and weldability
increases. CE is an empirical value in weight
percentages, related to the combined efects of
diferent alloying elements used in making carbon
steel, of an equivalent amount of carbon. Tis
value can be calculated using a mathematical
equation. Te lower the CE value the higher the
weldability of the material. Te welding Code
provides two expressions for calculating CE.
Te frst expression (Equation 1) only consid-
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 certifed 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 specifc material to be welded.
Once the CE number is
calculated, the minimum
preheat and interpass
temperature is deter-
mined from Table 5.2 of
the Code. If material test
reports are unavailable and chemical composition
is not known, which is particularly common in
alterations and building additions of existing
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.
As with all welding, when the material is below
32 F (0 C), the Code prescribes the material
to be preheated to at least 70 F (20 C), and
maintained during the welding process.
CE = %C + %Mn/6 (Equation 1)
CE = %C + %Mn/6 + %Cu/40 + % Ni/20 +
%Cr/10%MO/50%V/10 (Equation 2)
Standard specifcations 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 specifcation (WPS) is followed
and correct fller weld metal is used. Many
other permissible base metals are listed under
paragraph 1.3.1 of the Code. High strength
reinforcing steel such as ASTM A615 material
is susceptible to cracking when not adequately
Te online version of this
article contains detailed
references. Please visit
C-ConstrIssues-Hlinka-Jan14.indd 23 12/19/2013 11:34:28 AM
24
preheated. Welding of ASTM A615 mate-
rial should be approached with caution, since
no specifc provisions have been included to
enhance its weldability. Te 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. Te 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. Te efects 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
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 fllet
and grove weld profles are illustrated in
Section 4 of the Code.
Section 5 of the Code discusses welding
technique. Technique includes selection of
fller 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 fux 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
afected 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 efect and weaken a bar at the weld.
Sections 6 and 7 of the Code pertain
to welder qualifcations and inspections,
respectively. All structural welding must
be performed by qualifed welders. WPS
qualifcation by testing must include
specifc joint type and size to be welded.
Inspectors must also be qualifed. Acceptable
qualifcations include AWS certifcation,
Canadian Welding Bureau certifcation, 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-
fcations prior to starting a project. Annex A
of the Code includes the following sample
forms for informational purposes: Procedure
Qualification Record (PQR), Welding
Procedure Specifcation (WPS), and Welder
Qualifcation 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-
fcation, 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. Terefore, if the integrity of
one reinforcing bar was reduced, the foun-
dation would still be structurally adequate.
Te author suggests that a note be added
to future concrete drawings that specifcally
prohibit welding of electrical conductors to
reinforcing steel without the approval of the
Engineer of Record.
Sample Material Comparison Table
Material
Grade
Rebar
Size
Chemical Analysis (Percent)
Preheat
Temp. F (C)
C Mn P S Si Cu Cr Ni Mo Cb V CE
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 0.56 200 (90)
ASTM
A706
#7 0.28 1.18 0.028 0.028 0.17 0.29 0.19 0.09 0.02 0.00 0.24 0.48 50 (10)
Sample mill test report data with calculated CE numbers and minimum preheat and interpass temperatures from Table 5.2 of AWS D1.4.
A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T
F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

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

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
SOFTWARE AND CONSULTING
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 oors supporting sensitive equipment
Graphic displays of output
Data bases included
CONSULTING SERVICES
Expert consulting available for new construction
and problem oors.
Structural Engineers, Inc.
Radford, VA 540-731-3330 tmmurray@floorvibe.com
C-ConstrIssues-Hlinka-Jan14.indd 24 12/19/2013 11:34:29 AM
Solid Performance
Shear Versatility
2014 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. SWSB13-S
Introducing the newest addition to our shearwall family the Strong-Wall
SB shearwall.
It combines performance high load values with versatility its trimmable in the eld.
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.
SWSB13-S-8_3-8x10_7-8.indd 1 12/9/13 2:43 PM Full-page template.indd 1 12/9/2013 5:07:15 PM
26
STRUCTURE magazine
Concrete Paint Arrests Cofferdam Corrosion at Submarine Pier
E
ach year, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
publishes a Report Card for Americas Infrastructure. Teir
rating system uses familiar academic grading (A through F) to
report on the condition of Americas aging infrastructure. Last
year, Americas 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-efective
waterfront earth-retaining structures for these harbors. Many of these
walls are subjected to salt-water exposure, tidal fuctuations, 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 coferdams are particularly dif cult to repair because of the
lack of redundancy in the tensioned cell walls. Tis article highlights
a unique method to repair a cellular coferdam using a reinforced
concrete facing installed over the aging sheet piling.
Existing Structure Conguration
Te submarine pier is located in the Hood Canal waterway in
Washington States Puget Sound region. Considered a vital natural
resource, Hood Canal provides vessel passage and is home to many
aquatic species, some of which are fshed for human consumption.
Te 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). Te concrete
deck supports gantry cranes, mooring hardware, and a number of build-
ings. Most of the deck is supported by concrete piles, but portions are
supported by a coferdam that surrounds the dry dock structure. Te
coferdam is formed by a series of circular interlocking steel sheet pile
cells that form the outer perimeter of the dry dock structure. Tese
sheet piles were vibrated or driven into the underlying seabed, and
each cell was backflled to form a cylindrical earth retaining structure.
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
that forms three sides of the dry dock structure. Te fourth side is open
to accept vessels and confgured to accept a caisson (gate) that closes
the dry dock of from the surrounding water. Te internal cast-in-place
concrete dry dock walls envelope portions of the coferdam cells and
arcs. However, at the outer perimeter, the sheet pile walls are fully
exposed to the marine environment above and below the water line.
Field Observations
Te frst step in developing a comprehensive design strategy was to per-
form feld investigations of the existing pile condition. From boat- and
deck-based observations, the design team documented the condition
of each exposed sheet pile face and noted special conditions that would
need to be considered through the design process. Te existing coatings
were in a state of failure at most locations (Figure 2). Te facility was
equipped with an active cathodic protection system that consisted
of anodes suspended from cantilevered beams extending over the
coferdam face. It is important to note that this type of cathodic
protection system is fully efective only below the low water line,
with reduced efectiveness in the tidal zone. Te feld observations
also illuminated a number of construction constraints that would
have otherwise been dif cult to discern from a review of the design
documents alone. Te 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.
Te 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 1: Submarine pier aerial view. Courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey.
Figure 2: Existing failing coferdam coating.
By Brian Robinson, P.E.
Concrete Paint Arrests Cofferdam
Corrosion at Submarine Pier
SF-SubmarinePier-Jan14.indd 26 12/19/2013 11:39:39 AM
27
Corrosion Mitigation Selection
and Design Considerations
Te 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 coferdams to two-feet
below Mean Lower Low Water as the preferred repair alternative. Te
owner called for a concrete service life of at least 50 years. Considering
the coferdam 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 coferdam.
Te concrete facing would present a number of diferent 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 confguration and concrete
specifcation.
Rebar Conguration
Te 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. Tis 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 Specication
Te basis of the concrete design was the owners specifcation 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. Tis
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. Tis was accomplished
by limiting the specifed 90-day strength to a range of 3500 pounds
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. Te 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
Te contractor would face a myriad of technical and operational chal-
lenges during construction of the facing. Te following is a partial
list of these challenges:
Under-pier access was substantially restricted due to the close
spacing of existing concrete piling.
Te curvature of the wall face would present a formwork
challenge.
Te contractor needed to minimize interruption of pier
operations. Tis would restrict construction laydown space
and vehicle access. Additionally, the contractor would have to
schedule activities around all pier operations.
Te construction crew and concrete deliveries would have to
pass through checkpoints.
Te large distance between the jobsite and the nearest concrete
batch plant would make the efcient delivery of concrete even
more critical, as the mix is intended to have rapid strength gain
as part of the shrinkage control strategy.
Te tidal fuctuation 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 fsh
window, starting in July.
Te operational nature of these restrictions made mitigating them by
design difcult. Some modest mitigating design strategies included
provisions to make construction of the panels as fexible as possible,
Figure 3: Existing concrete piers in close proximity to the coferdam wall face. Figure 4: Pre-fabricated welded headed stud rails. Courtesy of Seaward Marine.
28
Owner: US Navy
Structural Engineers: KPFF Consulting
Engineers, Seattle, WA
Cathodic Protection Engineers: Norton
Corrosion, Woodinville, WA
General Contractor: Seaward Marine,
Chesapeake, VA
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.
Tis resulted in a number of adjustments:
Welded headed studs were pre-fabricated on steel
bars, which were then fllet welded to the sheet
pile face (Figure 4, page 27). Considering the
large number of WHSs on project, this would
save substantial time by minimizing layout and
welding time in the feld, some of which had to
be done under water by divers.
To more easily accommodate the in-water
construction restriction, the contractor
implemented a horizontal cold joint, which broke the
facing into uppers and lowers. Tis would allow the
contractor to pour the lowers when in-water construction
was allowed and could continue construction above-water
on the uppers between the fsh windows. Figure 5 shows
a completed upper in an under-pier condition. Te only
changes required to accommodate this confguration were a
minor modifcation to the welded headed stud layout at the
cold joint and the implementation of epoxy-coated vertical
bars, at the joint locations only.
Test program and Completion
Since the construction of the facing panels would be so difcult,
contract documents included provisions for a test wall segment. Tis
would mitigate risk in two ways. One, it would give the contractor
the opportunity to refne the construction process while including
provisions in the budget to re-construct the wall if necessary. Two, it
would give the owner and designers the opportunity to inspect the
wall and adjust the design if necessary. Te test wall segment would
be constructed with the intent to remain as the frst section of the
wall if all tests and inspections were acceptable. Te wall segment
was located to capture a representative collection of all the diferent
existing conditions, including one cell, one arc, the cell-arc joint,
and under-pier work. Cores were taken of the test wall segment to
measure specifc gravity, chloride ion penetration resistance, voids,
and compressive strength. Additionally, it was an opportunity to
evaluate the cracking at specifc concrete ages. Figure 6 shows a typi-
cal cell and arc with completed uppers and lowers. Te test wall
was a success and remained as a permanent part of the facing. After
the test wall was approved by the owner, the contractor constructed
the project faster than expected, allowing it to be fnished ahead of
schedule. During the last on-site observation, the facing appeared
to be performing very well and very few cracks have formed. As you
might expect, the owner is very pleased with this outcome.
Conclusion
Tis project demonstrated the successful use of what amounts to a thick
coat of paint made of high-tech concrete to repair an aging sheet pile
coferdam located at a very challenging site. While more expensive to
install than other coatings, this solution is estimated to ofer the greatest
long-term durability and lowest lifecycle cost. Additionally, this solu-
tion was installed with relatively little impact to the facility operations.
With Americas infrastructure, including over 300 harbors, in
a deteriorating state (remember that D+?), having cost-efective
and fexible strategies to mitigate corrosion while minimizing
day-to-day facility operations is imperative. If you fnd yourself
faced with a replace or repair scenario on a quay wall
or coferdam, consider using a concrete
facing to extend the structures life. After
going through this project, Id give the
strategy an A.
Figure 6: Completed cell and arc facing. Courtesy of Seaward Marine.
Figure 5: Completed upper facing under the pier. Courtesy of Seaward Marine.
Project Team
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 coferdam repair project. Brian
may be reached at brian.robinson@kpf.com.
30
STRUCTURE magazine
GEOPOLYMER PRECAST FLOOR PANELS
Sustainable Concrete for Australias Global Change Institute
By Rod Bligh, B.Eng, MSc, CPEng, FIEAust and Tom Glasby B.Eng (Civil), MBT, MIEAust, CPEng, RPEQ
T
he Global Change Institute (GCI) is an Australian orga-
nization within Te University of Queensland (UQ) that
researches global sustainability issues including resource
security, ecosystem health, population growth and cli-
mate change (Figure 1). Te design of its new $32 million (AUD)
building by project architects, HASSELL and structural and faade
engineers, Bligh Tanner, was to be an exemplar project benchmarked
using the Green Building Council of Australias Green Star rating (at
6 Star Green Star level), as well achieving an Australian-frst Living
Building Challenge compliance. Te 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 ofset.
Design process
Early in the design, the structural engineering team explored the
potential for the incorporation of structural timber. Te work
at the University of Technology, Sydney, developing and testing
Timber-Concrete Composite (TCC) foors, was of interest and was
proposed as a potential foor system that combined the benefts of
timber framing with the acoustic, fre 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 identifed, 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.
Te design of the passive and low energy thermal control systems
was developing at the same stage, and was pushing the foor sys-
tems toward high thermal mass with active heat exchange by the
pumping of air or water through a concrete slab system. Te next
logical iteration of the design was to precast geopolymer concrete
foor panels with incorporated hydronic pipes coils. To maximize
the efectiveness of the radiant heat transfer from the concrete, the
sof t needed to be exposed with maximum surface area. Tis then
led to the development of vaulted sof t panels, which were both
visually appealing, of high thermal ef ciency and refected 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
Figure 1: Completed Global Change Institute building. Courtesy of Angus Martin.
Figure 2: Panel sof t with ceiling service panel installed. Courtesy of Angus Martin.
Figure 3: Global Change Institute vaulted panel sof t.
F-GlobalInst-Jan14.indd 30 12/19/2013 11:41:50 AM
31
the panels. Te 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 verifcation 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, Te University
of Queensland, as the client, understood the signifcance of the
innovation which went beyond Green Star rating. Wagners were
asked to fast track the reporting and testing, with a critical cut of
date for the interim research report to be indicating whether or
not the use of geopolymer concrete on the project was viable. Te
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-frst innovation and exceeding the Green
Star benchmarks. A positive interim report was delivered during the
design period. Te only issue identifed as a potential concern relative
to normal concrete was carbonation resistance; however, this was
not considered to be of signifcance 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 foor
beams used in the three suspended foors.
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. Te 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 confrm the strength and defection were as predicted. Tis
was considered prudent given the world-frst application of modern
geopolymer concrete for suspended construction.
Compliance Testing
Geopolymer concrete was included in the design for the 33 precast
foor beams (320m
3
419 c.y.) that formed three suspended foors in
the building. Te specifcation for the geopolymer concrete in these
beams relied on:
Testing key material properties referenced in AS3600.
Independent engineering verifcation 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 ). Te results were independently
assessed by Dr James Aldred of AECOM, who Wagners commissioned
to provide the independent certifcation on the geopolymer concrete.
Test samples, with the exception of creep and the fre and load tests,
were cast and made from geopolymer concrete used during the supply
phase of the project. Te 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 fre test was conducted
at the CSIRO fre testing station at North Ryde, Sydney prior to the
start of the project.
Te frst foor beam panel produced served as the prototype to be
load tested. Figure 5 shows that the measured defection 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.
Te testing program revealed a number of benefcial 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 fexural tensile strength than a comparison
standard concrete
Extremely low heat of reaction
Tese 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 specifcation 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 fnished similarly to normal concrete. In the case of
flling and compacting precast moulds, the methods are the same
Figure 4: Support at the panel end during the full-scale test. Figure 5: Full scale load test at precast factory.
F-GlobalInst-Jan14.indd 31 12/19/2013 11:41:55 AM
32
(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 fnes of GP cement
dust will enter the EFC geopolymer mix in enough quantity to cause
variable set times.
Another benefcial aspect of geopolymer concrete is its natural
of-white fnish, is considered a desirable architectural feature. Te
fnished 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
verifcation and testing is undertaken. Te term geopolymer is
very broad and encompasses a range of diferent concretes which
may have quite diferent structural properties. Te 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.
Te 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 technologys ft 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 foor beams
help to make the Global Change Institute building an
outward expression of its inner purpose.
Figure 7: EFC geopolymer concrete being vibrated
into the beam molds, at Precast Concrete Pty Ltd
factory, Brisbane.
Concrete fnishing in the precast factory. Courtesy of Wagners.
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.
Figure 6: Proto-Type EFC geopolymer beam load test.
F-GlobalInst-Jan14.indd 32 12/19/2013 4:40:59 PM
IES, Inc.
800.707.0816
info@iesweb.com
www.iesweb.com
IES VisualAnalysis
Frame and finite element analysis.
Simple. Productive. Versatile.
Accurate results. Excellent value.
Model Courtesy of:
Morrison Maierle, Inc.
Intuitive Software for
Structural Engineers
Stctral desig is the core
of our business. IES allows
us to accomplish that in a
quick, productive manner.

January 2014
34
issues affecting the structural
engineering profession
PROFESSIONAL
ISSUES
STRUCTURE magazine
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).
By Timothy M. Gilbert, P.E.,
S.E., SECB
Opposition to
Structural Licensure
S
upport for structural licensure led
NCSEA, SECB, ASCE-SEI and ACECs
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. Tis
article examines the reasons for such opposition.
Structural engineers eforts 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. Te NCSEA and ASCE Codes of Ethics
place protection of the public as their highest
priority. ASCEs frst 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 qualifcations.
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
scientifc understanding of physical phenomena,
the performance expectations of structures have
increased. Tis 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 frst
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 frst licensed structural engineers in 1915,
followed by California in 1931. Currently, ffteen
states hold the practice of structural engineer-
ing signifcant enough to have specifc licensing
provisions for the discipline. Seven California,
Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and
Washington require a licensed structural
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. Te ANSI-accredited Model Law
Structural Engineer (MLSE) standard provides the
recommended criteria for structural licensure. Te
MLSE is a guide framework that may be used in
the individual jurisdictions.
Te concept of structural licensure and impos-
ing limitations on who may practice structural
engineering has opponents with reasoned per-
spectives on the issue. Tis 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. Tese points do
not encompass all positions held by opponents;
for example, in some cases opposition is based on
the specifc circumstances within a jurisdiction, a
situation that is outside the scope of this article.
Te frst point in opposition, citing a lack of
structural failures, may be viewed as a request for
evidence. Engineers professional practice is based
on scientifc principles supported by evidence, and
it is rational to expect evidence in support of any
engineering-related proposition. Tis 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.
Specifc 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. Te 1987
LAmbiance Plaza collapse during construction
led to the death of 28 workers. Legal settlements by
the afected parties closed the investigation before a
defnitive cause could be established. Te engineer-
ing lessons which could have come from this failure
C-ProfIssues-Gilbert-Jan14.indd 34 12/19/2013 11:44:25 AM
35
A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T
F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

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

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
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 efects of poor
design impacts on the public, and draw the
conclusion that no change is needed.
Two points can be ofered for consideration
relative to this perspective. One is that many
structures have not been subjected to design-
level loads. Potentially defcient 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.
Te 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. Tis implic-
itly recognizes that engineering is a diverse
practice, and practitioners are unlikely to be
competent in all felds 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 felds with-
out obvious objective standards. Tis has
come to be known as the Dunning-Kruger
efect. 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 signifcant structures are
designed by professionals who inadvertently
overestimate their own capability.
Te third common point in opposition
makes a case that the profession is best served
by one regulatory agency in each jurisdiction
ofering generic licensure to all engineers.
NSPE is a prominent proponent of this
perspective, and has ofcially endorsed it in
Position Statement No. 1737 Licensure and
Qualifcations for Practice. Te following is
included within this document:
Professional engineering licensure is the
only qualifcation 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 certifcation in lieu of or beyond
licensure as a legal requirement for the
performance of engineering services.
NSPE members have ofered the medical
profession as a guide for licensing profes-
sionals in a highly varied feld. Doctors may
practice in a specifc specialty or as a general-
ist. Te state licenses the practice of medicine,
and specialists are recognized by nongovern-
mental certifcation boards. Te 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.
Te fourth point of opposition relates
to structural licensures efect 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
artifcially increase fees. Tis viewpoint
inherently includes a contention that cur-
rent regulations are sufcient, 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 afect business, both
by limiting who may participate and by pro-
viding buyers with confdence in the quality
of the marketplace. Structural licensure would
have the same efect by restricting practice to
qualifed 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 qualifcation.
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
professions ethical obligations, a perspective
for regulating engineers, or possible efects
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.
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
StruWare, Inc
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
C-ProfIssues-Gilbert-Jan14.indd 35 12/19/2013 11:44:25 AM
January 2014
36
issues and advances related
to structural testing
STRUCTURAL
TESTING
STRUCTURE magazine
Brian J. Parsons, former graduate
student, Civil and Environmental
Engineering.
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.
By Brian J. Parsons,
J. Daniel Dolan, P.E. and
Frank E. Woeste, P.E.
Lateral Loads Generated by
Occupants on Exterior Decks
Te online version contains
detailed references. Please visit
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). Te
problem is not confned 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. Tis
information is vital for registered design profes-
sionals to create safe and efcient 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. Tey 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 diferent sizes
and aspect ratios.
Te 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. Tis 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. Te 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 signifcant, and in many cases
greater than wind or seismic forces. Te objec-
tive of this study was to quantify lateral loads
caused by dynamic actions from the occupants.
Two deck confgurations and two dynamic load
cases were investigated:
Deck Confguration 1: Deck boards
oriented parallel to the ledger
Deck Confguration 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 diferent
stifnesses 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 stifness. Te two
dynamic load cases were chosen to represent the
types of occupant behavior that might result in
the greatest lateral loads. Te full details of the
research reported herein can be found in Parsons
et al. (2013b).
Background
Te 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. Te 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 foor confgurations were 12 feet square
using similar materials, with the orientation of
deck boards being the only factor that difered.
Decks were built according to Design for Code
Acceptance 6 (DCA 6) (AWC, 2010), which is
based on the 2009 International Residential Code
(IRC). Te 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-fr. Te PPT for-
mulation was Alkaline Copper Quaternary Type
D (ACQ-D) with a retention level of 0.40 pcf.
Te 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. Tis
hanger was selected because the fastener pattern
C-StrucTesting-Bender-Jan14.indd 36 12/19/2013 11:45:40 AM
37
(all fasteners installed perpendicular to the
member faces) performed well when joists
were loaded in tension (pulling away from the
hanger). Te manufacturers 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 satisfed.
Te joist hanger manufacturer permits their
hangers to be installed with either nails or
screws as specifed 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.
Tese 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. Te joist hanger screws
were #9 (0.131 inch diameter, 1-inch long)
Simpson Strong-Tie Structural-Connector
Screws (Model No. SD9112). Tese 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. Te 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
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 confgurations that pro-
vide resistance to lateral movement. Lateral
stifness of decks difers substantially when
loaded parallel versus perpendicular to the
ledger; hence, loadings in both directions
were conducted for all cases.
Te frst 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.
Te 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 foor with steel brack-
ets (simulating the building). In an actual
building, the load path would difer from
this test set-up since deck ledger boards
are typically connected to the house along
the entire length. Te 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 foor 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. Tese values
were determined by dividing the total force
generated by the surface area of the deck foor.
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 confgurations
are shown in Table 1 for the perpendicular
and the parallel to ledger load cases. All tests
were recorded with high-defnition 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 confgurations since
deck stifness was primarily controlled by axial
stifness of the joists rather than the decking
orientation. Te stifness of the deck resulted
in many short duration pulses as each person
landed, but was not fexible 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 stifness of the system.
Table 1 shows that the less stif 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
of to accelerate. Te greatest loads were
observed for diagonal decking. Apparently
this scenario hit the sweet spot of a deck
with just enough fexibility 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.
Figure 1: Impulse loading caused by occupants
leaping/stopping in unison.
Table 1: Forces generated by occupants from impulse loading.
Occupant Load
Level, (psf )
Deck Board
Orientation to Ledger
Total Force,
(lbs)
Uniform Lateral Load,
(psf )
Impulse loading perpendicular to ledger
10 Parallel 384 2.7
10 45 Degrees 443 3.1
Impulse loading parallel to ledger
10 Parallel 428 3.0
10 45 Degrees (East) 1,297 9.0
10 45 Degrees (West) 1,351 9.4 continued on next page
38
Te 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 fexible deck that swayed back
and forth approximately 7 inches each way at a
frequency of approximately 1 Hz. Tese large
displacements caused signifcant 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
upper body nearly motionless. At this point, it
could be argued that the majority of the force
generated is coming from deck inertial forces
rather than from the occupants. Tis would
imply that if lateral sway/acceleration of a deck is
adequately restrained, these inertial forces could
be reduced or eliminated. For example, when
the cyclic motion was perpendicular to the deck
ledger (the stifest orientation), the maximum
traction load was 4.5 psf. In summary, it could
be argued for design that 12 psf would provide
a reasonable upper estimate of lateral loads from
occupants for fexible decks.
Conclusions
When deck boards were oriented parallel to
the ledger and occupant loading was applied
parallel to the ledger, large side-to-side dis-
placements were observed when a cyclic action
was performed by the occupants. Tese large
displacements produced signifcant inertial
forces with a maximum equivalent uniform
lateral surface traction load of 12.1 psf. When
cyclic actions were perpendicular to the ledger
(i.e. the stifest lateral direction), it was dif-
fcult for the occupants to synchronize their
movements and the resulting maximum uni-
form surface traction load was 4.5 psf. Te
maximum recorded impulse load resulted in
a uniform lateral surface traction load of 9.4
psf as compared to 12.1 psf.
A design lateral load of 12 psf of plan
area is recommended, which conservatively
includes inertial forces from a fexible deck.
Te 12 psf observed in the laboratory is
similar to the lateral load specifed in Table
4-1, Footnote k (ASCE/SEI 7-2010) for
reviewing stands, grandstands and bleach-
ers, which call for 24 lb/linear feet of seating
(assuming seats are 2 feet apart, the resulting
load would also be 12 psf ). One surprising
outcome of this research is that measured
lateral loads from occupancy exceeded the
calculated worst-case lateral loads from wind
or seismic events (Lyman and Bender, 2013;
Lyman et al., 2013). Furthermore, extreme
occupant loading can occur anywhere in the
US, while extreme wind and seismic events
are limited to smaller geographic regions.
Te testing protocol and conclusions
reported herein are based on the assumption
that the proposed deck or porch sub-struc-
ture has no auxiliary lateral support to resist
occupant loading. Te design professional is
encouraged to include lateral support struc-
tures to resist all or part of the lateral loads
produced by occupant loads (as well as other
design loads such as wind or seismic).
It should be noted that the weak link in the
load path might be the fasteners used in the
joist hangers. Test assemblies were fabricated
with screws to prevent premature withdrawal
of nails in the joist hangers. Te frst step
in any lateral load analysis, when required,
should be to address the lateral design capacity
of the joist connections (hang-
ers) as nails would likely not be
adequate in resisting lateral loads
produced by occupants.
Acknowledgement: Donation of
construction hardware from Simpson
Strong-Tie is gratefully acknowledged.
Tis article, which originally appeared in
Wood Design Focus, contains minor edits
and additions and is used with permission.
Wood Design Focus is a quarterly
publication available through the Forest
Products Society at www.forestprod.org.
Figure 2: Cyclic loading caused by occupants swaying side-to-side in unison.
Table 2: Forces generated by occupants from cyclic loading.
Occupant Load
Level, (psf )
Deck Board
Orientation to Ledger
Total Force,
(lbs)
Uniform Lateral Load,
(psf )
Cyclic loading perpendicular to ledger (stifest direction)
10 Parallel 224 1.6
10 45 Degrees 226 1.6
20 Parallel 398 2.8
20 45 Degrees 543 3.8
30 Parallel 411 2.9
30 45 Degrees 482 3.3
40 Parallel 651 4.5
40 45 Degrees 502 3.5
Cyclic loading parallel to ledger
10 Parallel 320 2.2
10 45 Degrees 567 3.9
20 Parallel 983 6.8
20 45 Degrees 862 6.0
30 Parallel 1,431 9.9
30 45 Degrees 995 6.9
40 Parallel 1,747 12.1
40 45 Degrees 1,020 7.1
Powerful
calculations,
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
congurations simplify input, and calculation results are output for verication 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.
Concrete solutions
Visit us at The World of Concrete for product and software demos Booth #S10507 and #O31746
SAS-ADESIGN13_WOC_8_3-8x10_7-8.indd 1 12/5/13 2:04 PM Full-page template.indd 1 12/5/2013 5:00:35 PM
January 2014
40
aids for the structural
engineers toolbox
ENGINEERS
NOTEBOOK
STRUCTURE magazine
Jerod G. Johnson, Ph.D., S.E.
(jjohnson@reaveley.com), is a
principal with Reaveley Engineers
+ Associates in Salt Lake City, Utah.
By Jerod G. Johnson, Ph.D., S.E.
Back to the Basics
Concrete Column Design
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.
Te methodology outlined below
refects the provisions of ACI 318, but
it is not the only viable method. In fact,
ACI 318 does not explicitly require an
interaction diagram for column design. However,
most structural engineers understand that such a
tool is the most convenient form of expressing the
nominal axial and fexural capacities, as well as the
best tool for helping us know how axial loads and
bending loads infuence and afect one another.
Assume, just for the sake of argument, that the
factored load efect for the design of a tied con-
crete column is a trivial
matter, and that we have
the results for M
u
and
P
u
. Te next step that we
might follow would be
to examine a generated
interaction diagram and see whether our inter-
active load (represented by M
u
and P
u
) falls within
the capacity boundary of our trial column.
Let us further assume that we do not have the
beneft of an interaction diagram and thus are
starting from scratch. You may recall that an
interaction diagram for a reinforced concrete
column may be developed by examining a
series of strain conditions at one surface of the
column. Tese strain conditions are arbitrary, and
are selected on the basis of providing the most
descriptive capacity boundary that can conve-
niently be determined. At the opposing surface,
an ultimate concrete compressive strain of 0.003
is assigned. Tis is meant to represent the strain in
the concrete at ultimate compressive failure and is
assigned this value regardless of concrete strength.
Figure 1 illustrates the establishment of the fxed
0.003 strain value at the compression edge while
the layer of reinforcement at the opposite surface
is subject to a series of strain conditions.
Te 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. Tis 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
school math.
Te result is a strain for each and every bar in the
column as it correlates to the level of strain that
was arbitrarily assigned to the layer of reinforce-
ment opposite the compression surface. Tis also
helps us know where the theoretical neutral axis
for the column is for this strain condition, which
occurs where the aforementioned line intersects
the vertical axis of the strain diagram. Once the
strain levels and the neutral axis are known, the
design may proceed to the next step.
By Hookes Law, stress is equal to strain
multiplied by the materials elastic modulus.
Multiplying the strain for each layer of reinforce-
ment by 29,000 ksi yields the corresponding
stress. Tis must be truncated to the yield stress
for any results lying outside of the elastic range
of behavior for the reinforcement (typically 60
ksi). For the concrete acting in compression, the
depth of the compression zone is related to the
neutral axis by the
1
value, which is a function
of f '
c
and ranges from 0.65 to 0.85 (0.85 for f '
c
of
4000 psi or less). Te stress in the concrete has
a default value of 0.85f '
c
and is assumed to be
distributed uniformly over the entire compres-
sion region. Figure 2 illustrates the relationship
between the strain and stress diagrams for one
iteration of interaction diagram development.
Once the stress in each layer of reinforcement
is known, as well as the dimensions of the
concrete compressive stress region, the resul-
tant forces in each are calculated simply by
multiplying the stresses by the respective areas.
Summing the result yields a total force P
n
,
the nominal axial capacity of the column as it
A similar article was published
in the Structural Engineers
Association-Utah (SEAU)
Monthly Newsletter (April 2007).
It is reprinted with permission.
Figure 1: Superimposed series of strain diagrams.
Figure 2: Assumed strain and stress diagrams for
reinforced concrete.
C-EngineersNB-Johnson-Jan14.indd 40 12/19/2013 11:47:01 AM
41
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 M
n
.
Te fnal step for this one iteration of design
is to determine the strength reduction factor
that is appropriate for the level of strain under
consideration. Tis 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. Te strength reduction
factor is then multiplied by each of the M
n
and
P
n
values calculated previously to determine
the resulting M
n
and P
n
that defne this one
point on the interaction diagram.
Te entire process is repeated several times,
with varying levels of strain assigned to
produce a series of points that defne 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
can plot M
u
, P
u
and assess whether
the column is suf cient.
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
linear interpolation, similar
triangles, etc.).
2) Using the ultimate compressive
stress in the concrete (0.85f '
c
) and
the dimensions of the compression
stress zone, calculate the resultant
compressive force in the concrete.
Using the strains in each layer of
reinforcement, calculate the stresses
and the resultant forces in each layer
by multiplying the stress in each layer
by the area in each layer.
3) Add the resultant concrete force
and the forces in all of the layers
of reinforcement to determine the
nominal axial capacity (P
n
). Multiply
these same forces by their distances
from the center of the section and
add the results to yield the nominal
fexural capacity (M
n
). Determine
the strength reduction factor and
multiply it by M
n
, P
n
. Plot the point
M
n
, P
n
on the interaction diagram.
4) Repeat steps 1-3 at least a dozen
times, with strain values typically
ranging from 0.5 to -6, to create
enough points to draw the
interaction curve. Ten, simply
connect the points.
Figure 3: Typical interaction diagram.
C-EngineersNB-Johnson-Jan14.indd 41 12/19/2013 11:47:02 AM
STR_7-13
Analysis, design
& investigation of
reinforced concrete
beams & slab systems
Finite element analysis &
design of reinforced, precast
ICF & tilt-up concrete walls
Analysis, design
& investigation of
reinforced concrete
beams & one-way
slab systems
Design & investigation
of rectangular, round
& irregularly shaped
concrete column sections
Work quickly.
Work simply.
Work accurately.
Finite element analysis & design of reinforced concrete
foundations, combined footings or slabs on grade
StructurePoints Productivity Suite of powerful software tools
for reinforced concrete analysis & design
StructurePoints suite of productivity tools are so easy to
learn and simple to use that youll be able to start saving
time and money almost immediately. And when you use
StructurePoint software, youre also taking advantage of
the Portland Cement Associations more than 90 years of
experience, expertise, and technical support in concrete
design and construction.
Visit StructurePoint.org to download your trial copy
of our software products.
For more information on licensing and pricing
options please call 847.966.4357 or e-mail
info@StructurePoint.org.
StrPt Ad June09 STR:SRTPT AD Nov08-STR 7/6/13 3:25 PM Page 1
Blank.indd 1 7/10/2013 10:24:45 AM
43
INSIGHTS new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
ASTM A1085
An Update to a Classic Material Specication
By Kim Olson, P.E.
A
STM A500 has been the preferred
material specifcation 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 specifcation,
ASTM A1085, was released for steel tubes
used in structural applications.
Te development of A1085 took approxi-
mately six years and was led by the American
Institute of Steel Constructions (AISCs)
HSS Marketing Committee. Te goal of the
Committee, which also included HSS pro-
ducers, was to improve the efciency 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-
fed. Hence, manufacturers have produced
tubes with a design thickness of up to 10%
less than the nominal thickness required by
the standard. Tis reduction in material led
to recommendations made jointly between
AISC and the Steel Tube Institute (STI), lead-
ing to provisions (AISC 2010 Specifcation 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%. Tese 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 efcient designs
when utilizing HSS.
Designers are aware A500 includes four dis-
tinct grades of steel for diferent HSS section
shapes, each having diferent yield and ten-
sile strengths. A1085 greatly simplifes these
values for the designer. Te specifcation has
one grade and one yield strength (of 50 ksi)
for all HSS shapes. Tis value represents an
increase over A500 Grade B, ofering another
potential savings.
Bending a fat plate of steel into a square or
rectangle shape requires careful attention to
the radius of the corners. Too tight of a bend
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 specifes 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 diference in the workable
fat 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 R
y
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
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 Ofcials (AASHTO),
sufcient fracture toughness is a requirement
for primary bridge members. Accordingly,
A1085 includes a Charpy V-notch test
requirement of 25 ft-lb at 40F. Tis 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 specifed. Hence,
A1085 allows for the usage of HSS shapes
in the transportation feld 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 specifcation. 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 STIs
website (www.steeltubeinstitute.org/hss/
tech-brochures), and any questions on A1085
may be submitted in the Contact section to
be answered by STIs 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.
D-InSights-Olson-Jan14.indd 43 12/19/2013 11:49:13 AM
44
ANCHOR UPDATES news and information from anchor companies
Bentley Systems, Inc.
Phone: 610-458-1491
Email: francisco.diego@bentley.com
Web: www.bentley.com/structural
Product: RAM Connection
Description: Te software includes base plates for
almost any kind of column support. Choose between
uniaxial or biaxial analysis, design the base plate per
AISC 360-05 (additional seismic check per AISC
341-05 included), design the anchor bolts per
ACI 318 Appendix D in seconds.
Cintec Reinforcement Systems
Phone: 800-363-6066
Email: solutions@cintec.com
Web: www.cintec.com
Product: Cintec Reiforcement Anchors
Description: Te patented Cintec anchoring
system is straightforward: injecting a proprietary
cementitious fuid grout into an anchor surrounded
by a fabric sock, which has already been placed in an
oversized drilled hole. Te systems ingenuity lies in
its versatility. Cintec designers can customize it to
any specifcation.
Devco Software, Inc.
Phone: 541-426-5713
Email: rob@devcosoftware.com
Web: www.devcosoftware.com
Product: LGBEAMER v8
Description: Analyze and design cold-formed cee,
channel and zee sections. Uniform, concentrated,
partial span and axial loads. Single and multi-member
designs. 2007 NASPEC (2009 IBC) compliant.
Pro-Tools include shearwalls, framed openings,
X-braces, joists and rafters.
Grip-Tite Mfg. Co., LLC
Phone: 515-462-1313
Email: nfarkas@griptite.com
Web: www.griptite.com
Product: Anchors and Piles
Description: Grip-Tite provides a complete line of
anchors and piles for general construction and retroft
applications. Tis includes Push Piers, Helical Piles
and Anchors and Wall Anchor retention systems.
Grip-Tite has been continually manufacturing high-
quality anchoring products since 1921.
HALFEN USA
Phone: 800-423-9140
Email: pschmidt@halfenusa.com
Web: www.halfenusa.com
Product: Anchor Channels
Description: Halfen is a global leader in design and
manufacturing of anchor systems for concrete. Hot
rolled anchor channels for edge or top of slab transfer
high loads while also providing feld adjustability.
Custom anchors are available for special corners and
thin slab conditions.
Heckmann Building Products, Inc.
Phone: 800-621-4140
Email: david@heckmannanchors.com
Web: www.heckmannanchors.com
Product: Pos-I-Tie TermalClip
Description: Tis new break-through in masonry
construction adds thermal-break technology to all
of the advantages of the Original Pos-I-Tie Veneer
Anchoring System! Te TermalClip decreases thermal
transfer and has over 100 times less conductivity than
metals such as steel. Te snap-on design provides for
easy installation.
Hilti, Inc.
Phone: 800-879-8000
Email: us-sales@hilti.com
Web: www.us.hilti.com
Product: Hilti HIT-HY 200 Adhesive Anchor System
Description: Te industrys most revolutionary system
to date. Inadequately cleaning holes during installation
can reduce the performance of conventional adhesive
anchor systems. Hilti Safe Set Technology eliminates
this almost entirely, and improves reliability and
productivity because no manual hole cleaning is
required to obtain optimum performance.
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. CHANCE
Phone: 855-477-2121
Email: civilconstruction@hubbell.com
Web: www.abchance.com
Product: Helical Anchors
Description: A helical anchor/pile is a segmented
deep foundation system with helical bearing plates
welded to a central steel shaft. Load is transferred from
the shaft to the soil through these bearing plates.
IES, Inc.
Phone: 800-707-0816
Email: sales@iesweb.com
Web: www.iesweb.com
Product: IES VisualAnalysis
Description: VisualAnalysis ofers ACI Anchor
Design checks with the base plate design feature
included in VAConnect. Use VisualAnalysis for a wide
variety of analysis and design projects. It is simple,
productive and versatile.
Kelken Construction Systems
Phone: 732-416-6730
Email: dick@kelken.com
Web: www.kelken.com
Product: Keligrout Anchor Systems
Description: Structural high strength polyester
anchoring system.
Powers Fasteners
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 ofer
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.
Timberlinx
Phone: 877-900-3111
Email: timberlinx@rogers.com
Web: www.timberlinx.com
Product: Timberlinx
Description: A connection tube, inserted equally
in both members of the joint and linked by two
expanding cross pins. Wood/wood, wood/concrete,
wood/steel connectors.
A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T

F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

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

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
All Resource Guides and Updates for the 2014
Editorial Calendar are now available on the website,
www.STRUCTUREmag.org. STRUCTURE

magazine is not responsible for errors.
PPORTUNITY
T H E S O
C
I E T
Y
O
F
N
AVAL ARCHITECTS & M
A
R
IN
E
E
N
G
I N E E R S
Te Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers F www.sname.org
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.
c
o
lla
b
o
r
a
t
e
e
x
p
e
r
ie
n
c
e
d
e
v
e
lo
p
a
t
t
e
n
d
le
a
r
n
s
h
a
r
e
m
e
e
t
j
o
in
D-AnchorUpdates-Jan13.indd 44 12/19/2013 11:50:36 AM
Blank.indd 1 2/7/2013 1:28:42 PM
46
STRUCTURE magazine
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. Were not
seeing that winter slowdown that weve sometimes seen in the past.
Rather than have a seasonal lull, we have a lot of work carrying on
into the frst months of the year.
Jim Hussin, Director at Hayward Baker, Inc. (www.haywardbaker.com)
in Tampa, Florida agrees. Tere 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
oferings 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
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. Te company specializes
in providing a wide variety of cost-efective 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.
Te Geopier Densipact system afords 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.
Wissmann adds: Historically, the industry has focused on liquefac-
tion mitigation using soil densifcation techniques. Tis remains the
case on many projects. Tere is also a growing trend towards the use
of more cost-efective approaches by reducing liquefaction triggering
while simultaneously addressing dynamic settlement particularly
diferential settlement. Geopier uses many of its systems, for example,
its Impact pier technology, to reduce liquefaction-induced settlements
while providing cost-efective foundation support. (See ad on page 48.)
Hayward Bakers Hussin notes that soil mixing is a relatively new
product ofering. Te process improves weak soils by mechanically
mixing them with a cementitious binder, and it continues to gain
popularity. Te 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. Te 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. Te 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 frm operating out of Toronto, Ontario. Tis dem-
onstrates Hayward Bakers commitment to the Canadian market,
especially when combined with our parent company Kellers recent
acquisition of the assets of North American Energy Partners piling
division, known as North American Caisson (NAC). Te company
F-Advertorial-Found-Jan14.indd 46 12/19/2013 11:54:16 AM
47
Wissmann adds: Historically, the industry has focused on liquefac-
tion mitigation using soil densifcation techniques. Tis remains the
case on many projects. Tere is also a growing trend towards the use
of more cost-efective approaches by reducing liquefaction triggering
while simultaneously addressing dynamic settlement particularly
diferential settlement. Geopier uses many of its systems, for example,
its Impact pier technology, to reduce liquefaction-induced settlements
while providing cost-efective foundation support. (See ad on page 48.)
Hayward Bakers Hussin notes that soil mixing is a relatively new
product ofering. Te process improves weak soils by mechanically
mixing them with a cementitious binder, and it continues to gain
popularity. Te 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. Te 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. Te 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 frm operating out of Toronto, Ontario. Tis dem-
onstrates Hayward Bakers commitment to the Canadian market,
especially when combined with our parent company Kellers recent
acquisition of the assets of North American Energy Partners piling
division, known as North American Caisson (NAC). Te company
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 its led
to work even further away from our traditional Midwestern base, he
says. Were doing a lot of work in the Northeast, the New England
area weve 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 were a smaller, Midwestern company, that
theres no way we could cost-efectively travel to the Northeast and
be competitive. And yet, weve done about four or fve 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. Tings 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.
Te 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 ofer a
complete way to repair, resurface and renew interior and exterior foors.
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
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.
WE HELP YOU FIX BAD GROUND.
Practical. Adaptive. Economical.
Sand. Clay. Fill. Organics. Liquefaction. Slides.
ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS FOR VIRTUALLY ALL SOIL TYPES & GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
GEOPIER IS GROUND IMPROVEMENT
49
provides triple-protection against corrosion. It increases corrosion resis-
tance when used in areas susceptible to corrosion and chloride. It repels
water, thereby preventing an unsightly appearance to concrete. It reduces
chloride permeability, thereby increasing the life expectancy of metals,
steel and rebar, Zimmerman says. (See ad on page 3.)
John Somers, Vice President of Sales/General Manager at Polyguard
Products (www.polyguardproducts.com), Architectural Division
in Ennis, Texas announced that his company is celebrating its 60
th

anniversary. Our Architectural Division provides high quality water-
proofng membranes for both pre and post pour concrete applications
as well as drainage boards, thru wall fashings and the best sealants
and transition products in the industry. In addition we manufacture
a complete line of fuid applied air barrier and waterproofngs.
He says that for some SEs, Polyguard may be a new name but their
products, such as Underseal and 650, are likely to be familiar. In
2013, we launched a new balcony product called Balconyguard. Tis
is a membrane product and system specifcally designed for balcony
applications. We also introduced a series of pre-fabricated boot prod-
ucts for waterproofng around columns and penetrations. Tey save
time and are easy to install, Somers says.
Te boots were a result of customer requests. Job-site fabricated
boots are time consuming and cumbersome, particularly in harsh job
site and poor weather conditions. Having the boots prefabricated in
advance saves time, and results in a high quality job in the end, says
Somers. (See ad on page 50.)
Another company celebrating longevity is Te QUIKRETE
Companies (www.quikrete.com) of Alpharetta, Georgia, says Frank
Owens, Vice President Marketing. We were founded nearly 75 years
ago, and we manufacture more than 200 professional-grade products
including mortar mixes, cements, concrete repair products, stucco,
waterproofng, tile setting, blacktop products, foor underlayments,
sand and aggregates from more than 100 facilities in the U.S., Canada,
Puerto Rico and South America.
Owens says that the company has a state-of-the-art technical center
where research and development is constantly driving product enhance-
ments. Our FastSet line, which features fve products designed for
rapid strength gain while providing contractors with adequate time
for mixing, pouring and fnishing projects, is a great example of
QUIKRETE product innovation.
He also wants SEs to know about three
FastSet products that are designed specif-
cally with engineering job requirements
in mind.
QUIKRETE FastSet Repair Mortar
uses a special low-sag formula
to make vertical and overhead
structural repairs to any concrete,
masonry or stucco surface. It
delivers 20-30 minutes of working
time and allows sculpting of the
material during placement.
QUIKRETE FastSet Non-Shrink
Grout is designed for structural
concrete repairs from to 24
inches deep, and can be mixed
to a plastic, fowable or fuid
consistency. It delivers 30 minutes
of working time.
QUIKRETE FastSet Concrete
Mix is a blend of cement with
specifcally graded fne and coarse
aggregates that is used at any thickness from 1 to 24 inches.
It delivers 20-30 minutes of working time.
Owens notes that hes seeing an interest in turning plain, grey con-
crete into attractive surfaces. With this growing interest in designer
concrete, weve introduced a new suite of advanced formula concrete
dcor products including stains, sealers, coatings and cleaners.
On the testing side of the foundations sector, Senior Consulting
Engineer, Marketing Director Gina Beim of Pile Dynamics, Inc.
(www.pile.com) of Cleveland, Ohio, says that her company has wit-
nessed an explosion of popularity of the Termal Integrity Profle (TIP).
Te interest in evaluating the shape of drilled foundations using TIP
with either data collection method thermal probes or thermal wire
cables is increasing, and the industry recognizes that. Te TIP received
two innovation awards in 2013 one from the Deep Foundations
institute and the prestigious NOVA Award for Innovation from CURT/
CIF (Construction Innovation Forum). In 2013 some testers branched
out to try the thermal profling on jet grouting columns, soil nails and
micropiles. Its exciting to see these new applications tried out, and PDI
thinks most of them will open new markets for the TIP.
Te company also increased the number of options available for its
Pile Integrity Tester. Tats PDIs instrument for pulse echo testing
of concrete foundations. Te PIT, as its known, now comes in two
sizes (some people favor a compact size, others prefer a larger screen
to visualize results), with either wireless or traditional (cabled) sensors,
and with either one or two channels of data acquisition.
PDI hasnt stopped there, Beim says. We have developed another device,
an instrument for independent inspectors of ACIP / CFA piling jobs. It
streamlines and standardizes the entire process of recording the installation,
something that inspectors still tend to do with pencil and paper. PDI will
start marketing it to inspectors soon, she says. Speaking about 2014, Beim
predicts that the U.S. market will remain steady. Outside the U.S., some
countries are seeing increased interest in foundation quality control, either
just as a natural evolution of construction practices or because new codes
have been enacted that require or incentivize deep foundation testing.
One example is Sweden, which now requires pile driving
monitoring in virtually all construction sites. Brazil requires
a signifcant amount of pile load testing, too. PDIs repre-
sentatives are, therefore, cautiously optimistic, says Beim.
A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T
F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

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

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
www.foundations.cc
engineering@foundations.cc
www.pile.com/tip
sales@pile.com
Shape, quality, cage alignment
and concrete cover of drilled
shafts. Shape and quality of
jet grouting columns.
Data acquisition with Probes
or Thermal Wire
cables.
TIP: test fast and soon after
casting, so construction can
move on.
Thermal Integrity Profiler
The Heat Is On.
Winner of
the DFI 2013
C. William
Bermingham
Award for
Innovation
Winner of
the 2013
CIF/CURT NOVA
Award for
Innovation
Architectural Products Division

Phone: 214-515-5000 Fax: 972-875-9425
www.polyguardproducts.com archdivision@polyguardproducts.com
Innovation based. Employee owned. Expect more.
Polyguard celebrates our 60
th
year in business this year! For
years on thousands of projects across the U.S. and globally,
Polyguards high quality engineered products have been
protecting structures from Moisture and Air intrusion.
Our complete line of commercial grade Waterproofng,
Air Barrier, and Drainage products help designers and
contractors protect their projects. Polyguards below
grade waterproofng 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 frst! Moisture and Air Stop with us!
51
SPOTLIGHT award winners and outstanding projects
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/Retroft/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. Te 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 Techs 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. Te original
bowl was demolished and a new cast-in-place
concrete bowl installed at grade. Te 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. Te upper deck uti-
lizes elevated fooring supported on structural
steel raker beams which are in turn supported
on curved structural steel struts.
Traditional materials for elevated arena seat-
ing foors include precast concrete and folded
steel plate, but neither of these materials was
optimal due to the capacity of the existing
structure. Te precast concrete option was
simply too heavy and overstressed the existing
steel dome ribs. Te 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-
nifcant secondary framing. A new material,
the Sandwich Plate System, SPS, was inves-
tigated and selected for the fooring system.
Tis composite fooring system was originally
developed for the ofshore and shipbuilding
industry. Te SPS system includes
two -inch steel plates at the
top and bottom of the assembly
inflled with a polymer resin layer
on the order of 1-inch thick. Te
McCamish Pavilion installation is
the frst onshore use of the SPS material in
the western hemisphere.
Te SPS system cannot be feld cut or
welded; it has to ft perfectly the frst 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. Te method was so precise that
all pieces ft without shimming, trimming or
other modifcation upon installation.
Te 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.
Te location of the facility over an abandoned
landfll, and thrust loads from the new upper
deck, required the use of battered deep foun-
dations. Tese 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.
Te addition of the other fan amenities
also posed structural challenges for the proj-
ect. Te audio visual, lighting, and HVAC
components all added signifcant load to
the Schwedler dome. A three dimensional
analytical model of the facility was devel-
oped to study the efects of added loads
from new audio, visual, lighting and HVAC
components. Te added load signifcantly
overstressed the existing building ribs. To
mitigate the efects, connections of existing
secondary roof members were modifed 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. Te 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. Te layout of the concourse framing was
developed to achieve these goals.
Te look and feel of the arena was completely
changed by the renovation, transforming an
aging facility from the 1950s into a twenty-
frst century arena. Te 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.
D-Spotlight-Jan14.indd 51 12/19/2013 11:57:07 AM
52
STRUCTURE magazine
N
C
S
E
A

N
e
w
s
N
e
w
s

f
o
r
m

t
h
e

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

o
f

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
NATIONAL COUNCI L
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
E
N
GINEERS
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
I
O
N
S
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
Dr. William Tornton, P.E.
February 6, 2014
Understanding ASCE-7 Requirements for
Seismic Design of Nonstructural Components
Maryann Phipps, S.E.
Tese 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 Pacifc, 11:00 AM Mountain, 12:00 PM Central, 1:00
PM Eastern. Register at www.ncsea.com.
Presidents Message
Keeping Up
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
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 afects 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. Tis
highlights how important it is to make sure that all engineers
who are practicing structural engineering are qualifed to do
so and are keeping up with the changes. NCSEA supports the
following three eforts that I feel speak directly to this need and
serve to raise the bar in our profession.
Te frst is an ongoing efort by NCSEAs Basic Education
committee to determine and promote the core curriculum that
should be ofered to, and required of, structural engineering
students. Integral parts of this committees mission include
working with the Structural Engineering Certifcation 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 ofer
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
providing a framework for individuals to take
courses outside of the traditional setting and
to recognizing those individuals who do so. Tis is an important
endeavor and a joint efort with SECB and NCSEAs Young
Member Group Support Committee. I look forward to seeing
what their eforts produce.
Second is an ongoing efort to promote Structural Licensure.
All felds 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 qualifed 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. Te mission of the Structural
Licensure committee reads Te NCSEA Structural Licensure
Committee works with the Member Organizations to infu-
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 eforts in this endeavor.
I am hopeful that we will have a new structural licensing act in
several states over the next few years.
Te third efort 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 ffteen hours per year, which
calculates to only 75 minutes per month. Opportunities for good
continuing education are plentiful. Most of NCSEAs member
organizations ofer monthly meetings that include a continuing
education ofering. Also, quite a few of the member organiza-
tions have day-long conferences with continuing education
presentations. Tis 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 ofered locally,
NCSEA ofers webinars each month that have been thoughtfully
discussed and reviewed for content by NCSEAs Continuing
Education committee. Te NCSEA conference each Fall also
ofers two full days of continuing education opportunities.
I would be remiss if I didnt say that Im also very excited about
the upcoming Winter Leadership Forum (WLF), focusing on
tools for business success, which is another critical aspect of
our practices. Te 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.
NEW! Webinar Subscription Option!
NCSEA is ofering a Webinar Subscription Plan. For an annual
fee of $750, an individual can access all NCSEA live webinars
over a one-year period. Tis option is only open to NCSEA
members, i.e., members of NCSEA MOs. Enrollment form
available at www.ncsea.com.
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.
N-NCSEAnews-Jan14.indd 52 12/19/2013 12:01:31 PM
53
N
C
S
E
A

N
e
w
s
N
e
w
s

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

o
f

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
NATIONAL COUNCI L
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
E
N
GINEERS
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
I
O
N
S
Last year I gained some
valuable insights into
how to diferentiate our
frm from our competi-
tors in a challenging
economy. Te 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.
Bart Miller, P.E.
Principal
Walter P Moore
While in college, engineers
typically have no courses
in business management
and typically learn man-
agement skills by trial and
error while on the job.
Te 2013 Winter Leadership Forum
was a great experience providing useful
fundamental management insights for
individuals running an engineering of ce
or thinking of starting their own frms.
Te structural engineering profession is
evolving, just as are business manage-
ment practices. I highly recommend the
Winter Leadership Forum to anyone to
help keep them abreast of currently devel-
oping management practices.
Michael Cochran, S.E., SECB
Associate Principal
Weidlinger Associates Inc.
Get the Value You Deserve
Without Ruining the
Relationship Steven Isaacs
This interactive session
includes a new approach to negotiations
and will ofer a variety of feld-tested ways
to get the value and compensation you
deserve, from current and future clients.
Steven Isaacs, P.E., Division Manager, FMI
Corporation, assists frms in strategic plan-
ning, fnancial controls, project performance/
proftability, negotiation, ownership transi-
tion, joint ventures and partnering.
Baby Boomers Delay Retirements:
Career Bottleneck at the Top
Steven Isaacs
Professionals enjoy and count on on
their work, salaries, and benefts, and,
especially today, are less willing or able to
retire. Determine how your frm should
react to retain talented employees.
Ownership Transition Case Studies
How does a frm transition ownership?
Leaders of three engineering frms that
have confronted these issues will tell how
they did it.
Robert L. Miller Associates
& Sound Structures, Inc.
Brian Dekker, President
7 staf
PCS Structural Solutions
Brian Phair, CEO
40 staf
DCI Engineers
Mark Aden, President
185 staf
W:N1vn Lvnovnsn:v Foncm
March 20 21,

2014
Te Meritage Resort & Spa, Napa, California
Leadership is a Full-Contact
Sport: Dealing with Conict
in the Workplace
Jennifer Morrow
Tis session will focus on efectively
dealing with confict in the workplace
and beyond.
Jennifer Morrow is the Executive Director
of Commercial Services at ADR (Alternative
Dispute Resolution) Systems of America, LLC,
and consults with law frms and companies
on the efective use of mediation, arbitration
and all types of dispute resolution processes.
Managing the Cost of Conict:
Mediation, Arbitration or Litigation?
Jennifer Morrow and Kevin Sido
Tis session will explore the full spectrum
of dispute resolution processes available
and provide tools for evaluating when
to use which process. Learn the nomen-
clature, know your options and make
more informed decisions to minimize the
impact on your time, your business and
your reputation.
Youve Been Sued Now What?
What Engineers Need to Know to
Structure Their Defense Kevin Sido
Realizing that claims will inevi-
tably be fled against Structural
Engineers regardless of merit,
what should the Structural
Engineer do when the summons
is served and in the months that follow?
Kevin Sido, attorney, is a senior partner in
the Chicago of ce of Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLC. He has represented design profession-
als for more than 38 years, is an author and
speaker on construction law issues, and is the
editor of Architects and Engineers Liability,
Claims Against Design Professionals.
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 rm survival and success. Sessions include:
Thursday Friday
Te Winter Leadership Forum will take place at the beautiful Meritage Resort &
Spa in Napa, California. Te Resort is centrally located in idyllic Wine Country at
the southern tip of Napa Valley and has an evening shuttle for guest transportation
to Downtown Napas restaurants and tasting rooms.
Register at www.ncsea.com
Take Your Seat at the Table
Discuss and develop new
strategies, and learn what other
principals are doing and thinking.
Major Corporate Platinum Sponsor:
N-NCSEAnews-Jan14.indd 53 12/19/2013 12:01:34 PM
54

T
h
e

N
e
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r

o
f

t
h
e

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

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

C
o
l
u
m
n
s
STRUCTURE magazine
For more information about the Structures Congress 2014,
including Registration and Housing, visit our website at www.structurescongress.org.
Structures Congress 2014 Technical Sessions April 35, 2014 Boston, Massachusetts www.structurescongress.org
Thursday April 3, 2014
TRACK STEEL TOPICS
BUILDING
CASE STUDIES SEISMIC
DISPROPORTIONATE
COLLAPSE
BRIDGES
CURRENT PRACTICE
BRIDGES
EMERGING TRENDS
STRUCTURAL
OPTIMIZATION AND
MONITORING
NON BUILDING
AND SPECIAL
STRUCTURES
NATURAL DISASTER
MITIGATION
EMERGING TRENDS
IN STRUCTURAL
ENG. EDUCATION
PROFESSIONAL
PRACTICE
SUSTAINABLE
BUSINESS
Track Chair Cynthia Duncan Brian McElhatten Mustafa Mahamid Shalva Marjanishvili Bruce Peterson Cheng Lok Caleb Hing Colby Swan J. Gregory Soules John F. Silva Paul Mlakar John Tawresey Jeremy Isenberg
8:00 AM
9:30 AM
ST100 New AISC Design
Guides: 26-Design of
Blast Resistant Structures
and 28-Stability Design of
Steel Buildings
BB100 Integrated
Design of Tall
Buildings
SE100 Seismic
Design in New
England
DC100 Disproportionate
Collapse Resistance of Floor
Systems
BP100 Expediting Project
Delivery in the MassDOT
Accelerated Bridge
Program
BT100 Dynamic Efects SM100 Integration of
Construction Practice into
Structural Optimization
NB100 Design of Termal
Power Generating Facilities
ND100 Modeling Coastal
Hazards
ED100 Emerging Trends in
Education
PP100 Codes After Failures:
Changes in Structural Codes
and Standards
SB100 Exploding the
Myth Successful
International Working is
not just the Preserve of the
Largest Businesses
10:00 AM
11:30 AM
ST110 Steel Connection
Innovations
BB110 Te Boston
School of Tall
Buildings
SE110 Low-Ductility
Braced Frames in
Moderate Seismic
Regions
DC110 Multi-Hazard
Robustness Assessment of
Building Structural Systems
BP110 Te MassDOT
Accelerated Bridge
Program
BT110 Seismic Efects SM110 Advanced
Sensing for Infrastructure
Monitoring
NB110 Design and Analysis
of Power Plants
ND110 Hurricane Risk
Assessment and Mitigation
ED110 New Direction in
Structural Eng. Education
PP110 Professional Practice
Topics
SB110 Te International
Market: Te Opportunities
and the Challenges
2:00 PM
3:30 PM
ST120 Steel Braced
Frame Innovations
BB120 Museum
Projects in Boston
SE120 Practical
Considerations for
Implementation
of Self-Centering
Seismic Systems
DC120 Designing for
Robustness to Resist
Disproportionate Collapse
BP120 Bridge Design BT120 Blast Protection
for Bridges
SM120 Case Studies of
Sensing for Structural
Health Monitoring: Other
Structures
of Tanks and Silos
ND120 Advancing Multi-
Hazard Analysis to Improve
Emergency Response
ED120 Student Structural
Design Competition
PP120 Practicing Engineers
Trial Design Problems
SB120 How to Leverage
Various Alternative Delivery
Methods to Solve our
Infrastructure Problem
in US
4:00 PM
5:30 PM
ST130 Cold-Formed
Steel Design: Advances
through Industry-
Academic Collaboration
BB130 Impact of
Boston Geology
on Foundation
Development
SE130 Seismic
Analysis in Regions
of Moderate
Seismicity
DC130 International
Design Requirements and
Research
BP130 Construction and
Performance
BT130 Damage Detection
and Evaluation
SM130 Instrumentation for
Monitoring and Assessment
of Structures
NB130 Modular Design of
Petrochemical Structures
ND130 Modeling Earth-
quake Risk and Damage
ED130 Classical Methods
of Analysis Te Art
and Feel of Structural
Engineering Work &
Energy Methods of Analysis
PP130 Te Structural
Engineering License Exam-1
SB130 Te Philosophy of
Sustainability
Friday April 4, 2014
7:00 AM 8:15 AM CASE Breakfast CASE Breakfast
TRACK
SPECIAL BUILDING
TOPICS
MASONRY AND
WOOD TOPICS
CODES AND
STANDARDS BLAST AND IMPACT
BRIDGES
CURRENT PRACTICE
BRIDGES
EMERGING TRENDS
RISK RESILIENCE
AND RELIABILITY
NON STRUCTURAL
COMPONENTS
NATURAL DISASTER
MITIGATION
CAREER
DEVELOPMENT
APPLIED BUSINESS
MECHANICS CASE
Track Chair Cynthia Duncan Brian McElhatten William Jacobs, V Shalva Marjanishvili Bruce Peterson Cheng Lok Caleb Hing Colby Swan John F. Silva John F. Silva Paul Mlakar John Tawresey Jeremy Isenberg
8:30 AM
10:00 AM
BD200 Structural
System Innovations
MW200 Design
and Construction
of Masonry A
Look towards New
Requirements and
Recommendations
CO200 Te State of
Design Loads
A discussion of
changes in the new
ASCE 7, ASCE 24,
& ASCE 37
BL200 Boston Marathon
Bombing and West Fertilizer
Explosion
BP200 Rehabilitation of
Historic Bridges
BT200 Case Studies of
Health Monitoring:
Bridges
RR200 Panel Discussion:
From LRFD to Risk-based
Design and Beyond
NS200 Analytical
Modeling of Nonstructural
Components for Seismic
Loading
ND200 Lessons Learned
from Recent Tornadoes
CD200 Te Cycle of a
Structural Engineering
Career: Learning and
Leading
AB200 How Technology is
Changing our Business
CS200 Mobile Technology
for the Field
10:30 AM
12:00 PM
BD210 Vibration
Serviceability
MW210 Evaluation
and Repair of
Masonry
CO210 Using the
New ASCE 41
Seismic Evaluation
and Retroft of
Existing Buildings
BL210 Blast Load
Predictions
BP210 Recent Advances
in Bridge Inspection
Practices
BT210 Steel Orthotropic
Bridge Decks Recent
Developments and
Implementation
RR210 Incorporating
Life-Cycle Concepts into
Structural Design and
Assessment
NS210 Experimental
Investigations of
Nonstructural Components
for Seismic Loading
ND210 Extreme Load
Design: Tornado-Generated
Missile Protection
CD210 Life in Academia,
Life in the Profession
AB210 Productivity Tools
for the Structural Engineer
CS210 Developing an
Internal Culture to Manage
a Firms Risk
1:30 PM
3:00 PM
BD220 Optimization in
Tall Buildings
MW220 Timber
Structures and
Bridges
CO220 Te
2014 NEHRP
Recommended
Seismic Provisions
An Overview
BL220 Blast Environment
and Hazard Predictions
BP220 Bridge Evaluation BT220 Evaluation and
Assessment of Bridges
Subject to Fire
RR220 Operationalizing
Risk-informed Decisions for
Sustainable and Resilient
Civil Infrastructure
NS220 Wind Loads on
Solar Panels
ND220 ASCE Response
to Natural Disasters
Hurricane Sandy and
Moore, OK Tornado
CD220 Mentoring and the
Young Professional
AB220 Te Case of
Inadequate Factors of
Safety What Engineers
Should Know
CS220 SE Agreements and
Lessons Learned
3:30 PM
5:00 PM
BD230 Composite
Construction
MW230 Investigation
and Repair of Existing
Wood and Timber
Framed Buildings
CO230 Snow Loads
and Rain Loads
Whats New and
Diferent
BL230 Blast Protection:
From R&D to Design/
Retroft
BP230 Rehabilitation
and Strengthening
BT230 Next-Generation
Multihazard Resilient
Bridge Systems
RR230 Applications of
Resilience Design Concepts
in Structures
NS230 Access Granted:
Design and Evaluation
of Exterior Building
Maintenance Equipment
ND230 Addressing
Tornados and Hurricanes
CD230 Changing the
Paradigm for Engineering
Ethics
AB230 Meet the Press CS230 Key Components
to Starting Your Own
Successful Engineering
Practice
Saturday April 5, 2014
TRACK CONCRETE TOPICS WOOD TOPICS
PROGRESSIVE
COLLAPSE BLAST AND IMPACT
BRIDGES
CURRENT PRACTICE
BRIDGES
EMERGING TRENDS
DURABILITY AND
MATERIALS
NON BUILDING
AND SPECIAL
STRUCTURES
NATURAL DISASTER
MITIGATION
INNOVATIONS
IN STRUCTURAL
TESTING
APPLIED BUSINESS
MECHANICS FIRE
Track Chair Mustafa Mahamid Brian McElhatten William Jacobs, V Shalva Marjanishvili Bruce Peterson Cheng Lok Caleb Hing Colby Swan J. Gregory Soules John F. Silva Paul Mlakar John Tawresey Cynthia Duncan
8:30 AM
10:00 AM
CT300 Modeling Shear
and Bond in PCC
WW300 Experimental
and Modeling Studies
on Wood Frame
Buildings
PC300 Dispro-
portionate Collapse
Considerations
BL300 Analysis Methods for
Blast Loads
BP300 Designing
Concrete Bridges for
Increased Durability and
Resiliency
BT300 High-Performance
Materials
DM300 Understanding
Steel Corrosion in Civil
Infrastructure
NB300 Ofshore Wind in
the Northeast
ND300 Security, Resiliency,
and Sustainability
IT300 Seismic Experiments
for Structures with Rate-
dependent Behavior
AB300 SEI BPC-Financial
Monitoring
FF300 Multi-Hazard
Design of Structures
Considering Earthquake
and Fire
10:30 AM
12:00 PM
CT310 Concrete:
Code Revisions and
Innovations
WW310 Application
of Wood Frame
Research to Design
Practice
PC310 Design and
Detailing of Bearing
Wall Systems to Resist
Disproportionate
Collapse
BL310 Exterior Envelope BP310 Vehicle Impact
and Barriers
BT310 Recent
Developments in
Improving the Fatigue
Life of Infrastructure
DM310 Novel Structural
Materials
of Wind Turbine Support
Towers
ND310 Resilient and
Sustainable Structures and
Infrastructures
IT310 Innovative Structures
Testing Concepts
AB310 Structural
Defciencies and Failure
Investigations
FF310 Innovations and
Advances in Test Methods
for Structural-Fire Safety
To view the interactive Technical Program, including all presenters
and abstracts visit www.structurescongress.org
N-SEInews-Jan14.indd 54 12/19/2013 12:03:49 PM
55

T
h
e

N
e
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r

o
f

t
h
e

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

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

C
o
l
u
m
n
s
For more information about the Structures Congress 2014,
including Registration and Housing, visit our website at www.structurescongress.org.
Structures Congress 2014 Technical Sessions April 35, 2014 Boston, Massachusetts www.structurescongress.org
Thursday April 3, 2014
TRACK STEEL TOPICS
BUILDING
CASE STUDIES SEISMIC
DISPROPORTIONATE
COLLAPSE
BRIDGES
CURRENT PRACTICE
BRIDGES
EMERGING TRENDS
STRUCTURAL
OPTIMIZATION AND
MONITORING
NON BUILDING
AND SPECIAL
STRUCTURES
NATURAL DISASTER
MITIGATION
EMERGING TRENDS
IN STRUCTURAL
ENG. EDUCATION
PROFESSIONAL
PRACTICE
SUSTAINABLE
BUSINESS
Track Chair Cynthia Duncan Brian McElhatten Mustafa Mahamid Shalva Marjanishvili Bruce Peterson Cheng Lok Caleb Hing Colby Swan J. Gregory Soules John F. Silva Paul Mlakar John Tawresey Jeremy Isenberg
8:00 AM
9:30 AM
ST100 New AISC Design
Guides: 26-Design of
Blast Resistant Structures
and 28-Stability Design of
Steel Buildings
BB100 Integrated
Design of Tall
Buildings
SE100 Seismic
Design in New
England
DC100 Disproportionate
Collapse Resistance of Floor
Systems
BP100 Expediting Project
Delivery in the MassDOT
Accelerated Bridge
Program
BT100 Dynamic Efects SM100 Integration of
Construction Practice into
Structural Optimization
NB100 Design of Termal
Power Generating Facilities
ND100 Modeling Coastal
Hazards
ED100 Emerging Trends in
Education
PP100 Codes After Failures:
Changes in Structural Codes
and Standards
SB100 Exploding the
Myth Successful
International Working is
not just the Preserve of the
Largest Businesses
10:00 AM
11:30 AM
ST110 Steel Connection
Innovations
BB110 Te Boston
School of Tall
Buildings
SE110 Low-Ductility
Braced Frames in
Moderate Seismic
Regions
DC110 Multi-Hazard
Robustness Assessment of
Building Structural Systems
BP110 Te MassDOT
Accelerated Bridge
Program
BT110 Seismic Efects SM110 Advanced
Sensing for Infrastructure
Monitoring
of Power Plants
ND110 Hurricane Risk
Assessment and Mitigation
ED110 New Direction in
Structural Eng. Education
PP110 Professional Practice
Topics
SB110 Te International
Market: Te Opportunities
and the Challenges
2:00 PM
3:30 PM
ST120 Steel Braced
Frame Innovations
BB120 Museum
Projects in Boston
SE120 Practical
Considerations for
Implementation
of Self-Centering
Seismic Systems
DC120 Designing for
Robustness to Resist
BP120 Bridge Design BT120 Blast Protection
for Bridges
SM120 Case Studies of
Health Monitoring: Other
Structures
of Tanks and Silos
ND120 Advancing Multi-
Hazard Analysis to Improve
Emergency Response
ED120 Student Structural
Design Competition
PP120 Practicing Engineers
Trial Design Problems
SB120 How to Leverage
Various Alternative Delivery
Methods to Solve our
Infrastructure Problem
in US
4:00 PM
5:30 PM
ST130 Cold-Formed
Steel Design: Advances
through Industry-
Academic Collaboration
BB130 Impact of
Boston Geology
on Foundation
Development
SE130 Seismic
Analysis in Regions
of Moderate
Seismicity
DC130 International
Design Requirements and
Research
BP130 Construction and
Performance
BT130 Damage Detection
and Evaluation
SM130 Instrumentation for
Monitoring and Assessment
of Structures
NB130 Modular Design of
Petrochemical Structures
ND130 Modeling Earth-
quake Risk and Damage
ED130 Classical Methods
of Analysis Te Art
and Feel of Structural
Engineering Work &
Energy Methods of Analysis
PP130 Te Structural
Engineering License Exam-1
SB130 Te Philosophy of
Sustainability
Friday April 4, 2014
7:00 AM 8:15 AM CASE Breakfast CASE Breakfast
TRACK
SPECIAL BUILDING
TOPICS
MASONRY AND
WOOD TOPICS
CODES AND
STANDARDS BLAST AND IMPACT
BRIDGES
CURRENT PRACTICE
BRIDGES
EMERGING TRENDS
RISK RESILIENCE
AND RELIABILITY
NON STRUCTURAL
COMPONENTS
NATURAL DISASTER
MITIGATION
CAREER
DEVELOPMENT
APPLIED BUSINESS
MECHANICS CASE
Track Chair Cynthia Duncan Brian McElhatten William Jacobs, V Shalva Marjanishvili Bruce Peterson Cheng Lok Caleb Hing Colby Swan John F. Silva John F. Silva Paul Mlakar John Tawresey Jeremy Isenberg
8:30 AM
10:00 AM
BD200 Structural
System Innovations
MW200 Design
and Construction
of Masonry A
Look towards New
Requirements and
Recommendations
CO200 Te State of
Design Loads
A discussion of
changes in the new
ASCE 7, ASCE 24,
& ASCE 37
BL200 Boston Marathon
Bombing and West Fertilizer
Explosion
BP200 Rehabilitation of
Historic Bridges
BT200 Case Studies of
Health Monitoring:
Bridges
RR200 Panel Discussion:
From LRFD to Risk-based
Design and Beyond
NS200 Analytical
Modeling of Nonstructural
Components for Seismic
Loading
ND200 Lessons Learned
from Recent Tornadoes
CD200 Te Cycle of a
Structural Engineering
Career: Learning and
Leading
AB200 How Technology is
Changing our Business
CS200 Mobile Technology
for the Field
10:30 AM
12:00 PM
BD210 Vibration
Serviceability
MW210 Evaluation
and Repair of
Masonry
CO210 Using the
New ASCE 41
Seismic Evaluation
and Retroft of
Existing Buildings
BL210 Blast Load
Predictions
BP210 Recent Advances
in Bridge Inspection
Practices
BT210 Steel Orthotropic
Bridge Decks Recent
Developments and
Implementation
RR210 Incorporating
Life-Cycle Concepts into
Structural Design and
Assessment
NS210 Experimental
Investigations of
Nonstructural Components
for Seismic Loading
ND210 Extreme Load
Design: Tornado-Generated
Missile Protection
CD210 Life in Academia,
Life in the Profession
AB210 Productivity Tools
for the Structural Engineer
CS210 Developing an
Internal Culture to Manage
a Firms Risk
1:30 PM
3:00 PM
BD220 Optimization in
Tall Buildings
MW220 Timber
Structures and
Bridges
CO220 Te
2014 NEHRP
Recommended
Seismic Provisions
An Overview
BL220 Blast Environment
and Hazard Predictions
BP220 Bridge Evaluation BT220 Evaluation and
Assessment of Bridges
Subject to Fire
RR220 Operationalizing
Risk-informed Decisions for
Sustainable and Resilient
Civil Infrastructure
NS220 Wind Loads on
Solar Panels
ND220 ASCE Response
to Natural Disasters
Hurricane Sandy and
Moore, OK Tornado
CD220 Mentoring and the
Young Professional
AB220 Te Case of
Inadequate Factors of
Safety What Engineers
Should Know
CS220 SE Agreements and
Lessons Learned
3:30 PM
5:00 PM
BD230 Composite
Construction
MW230 Investigation
and Repair of Existing
Wood and Timber
Framed Buildings
CO230 Snow Loads
and Rain Loads
Whats New and
Diferent
BL230 Blast Protection:
From R&D to Design/
Retroft
BP230 Rehabilitation
and Strengthening
BT230 Next-Generation
Multihazard Resilient
Bridge Systems
RR230 Applications of
Resilience Design Concepts
in Structures
NS230 Access Granted:
Design and Evaluation
of Exterior Building
Maintenance Equipment
ND230 Addressing
Tornados and Hurricanes
CD230 Changing the
Paradigm for Engineering
Ethics
AB230 Meet the Press CS230 Key Components
to Starting Your Own
Successful Engineering
Practice
Saturday April 5, 2014
TRACK CONCRETE TOPICS WOOD TOPICS
PROGRESSIVE
COLLAPSE BLAST AND IMPACT
BRIDGES
CURRENT PRACTICE
BRIDGES
EMERGING TRENDS
DURABILITY AND
MATERIALS
NON BUILDING
AND SPECIAL
STRUCTURES
NATURAL DISASTER
MITIGATION
INNOVATIONS
IN STRUCTURAL
TESTING
APPLIED BUSINESS
MECHANICS FIRE
Track Chair Mustafa Mahamid Brian McElhatten William Jacobs, V Shalva Marjanishvili Bruce Peterson Cheng Lok Caleb Hing Colby Swan J. Gregory Soules John F. Silva Paul Mlakar John Tawresey Cynthia Duncan
8:30 AM
10:00 AM
CT300 Modeling Shear
and Bond in PCC
WW300 Experimental
and Modeling Studies
on Wood Frame
Buildings
PC300 Dispro-
portionate Collapse
Considerations
BL300 Analysis Methods for
Blast Loads
BP300 Designing
Concrete Bridges for
Increased Durability and
Resiliency
BT300 High-Performance
Materials
DM300 Understanding
Steel Corrosion in Civil
Infrastructure
NB300 Ofshore Wind in
the Northeast
ND300 Security, Resiliency,
and Sustainability
IT300 Seismic Experiments
for Structures with Rate-
dependent Behavior
AB300 SEI BPC-Financial
Monitoring
FF300 Multi-Hazard
Design of Structures
Considering Earthquake
and Fire
10:30 AM
12:00 PM
CT310 Concrete:
Code Revisions and
Innovations
WW310 Application
of Wood Frame
Research to Design
Practice
PC310 Design and
Detailing of Bearing
Wall Systems to Resist
Disproportionate
Collapse
BL310 Exterior Envelope BP310 Vehicle Impact
and Barriers
BT310 Recent
Developments in
Improving the Fatigue
Life of Infrastructure
DM310 Novel Structural
Materials
of Wind Turbine Support
Towers
ND310 Resilient and
Sustainable Structures and
Infrastructures
IT310 Innovative Structures
Testing Concepts
AB310 Structural
Defciencies and Failure
Investigations
FF310 Innovations and
Advances in Test Methods
for Structural-Fire Safety
To view the interactive Technical Program, including all presenters
and abstracts visit www.structurescongress.org
N-SEInews-Jan14.indd 55 12/19/2013 12:03:49 PM
56
T
h
e

N
e
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r

o
f

t
h
e

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

o
f

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

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

i
n

P
o
i
n
t
STRUCTURE magazine
Updated in 2013 CASE 962-D
A Guideline Addressing Coordination and Completeness of Structural Construction Documents
CASE Risk Management Convocation in Boston
Te 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.
Te following CASE Convocation sessions are scheduled to take place on Friday, April 4:
Follow ACEC Coalitions on
Twitter @ACECCoalitions.
Te 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. Teir intent is to help the practicing
structural engineer understand the importance of preparing
coordinated and complete construction documents, and to
provide guidance and direction toward achieving that goal.
Tese guidelines focus on the degree of completeness required
in the structural construction documents (Documents) to
achieve a successfully completed project, and on the com-
munication and coordination required to reach that goal. Tey
do not attempt to encompass the details of engineering design;
rather, they provide a framework for the SER to develop a qual-
ity management process.
**New for 2013 was a top to bottom comprehensive update
that incorporated important added insights on coordina-
tion and completeness, including issues involving BIM and
alternative project delivery.**
Tis update is available for purchase at
www.booksforengineers.com.
Tool 3-1: A Risk Management Program Planning
Structure (Updated in 2013)
Tis tool is designed to help a Firm Principal design a Risk
Management Program for his or her frm. Te tool consists of
a grid template that will help focus ones 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-
fed, then a policy and procedure for how to respond to that
risk is developed. Tis tool contains 10 sample risk factors with
accompanying policies and procedures to illustrate how one
might get started. Te tool is designed to insert custom risks
and policies and tailor it to individual frms.
Tool 3-2: Stafng and Revenue Projection
Firms are provided a simple to use and easy to manipulate
spreadsheet-based tool for predicting the staf that will be neces-
sary to complete both booked and potential projects. Te
spreadsheet can be further utilized to track historical stafng
demand to assist with future stafng and revenue projections.
7:00 AM 8:15 AM
CASE Breakfast: Te Storms are Coming, the Storms
are Coming: Te Need for a Revolution in Engineering
Approaches to Climate and Disaster Risk
Stephen Long, Te Nature Conservancy
8:30 AM10:00 AM
Mobile Technology for the Field
Speaker Teron Peacock, Woods Peacock
10:30 AM 12 Noon
Developing an Internal Culture to Managing a Firms Risks
Speaker Michael Strogof, Strogof Consulting
1:30 PM 3:00 PM
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
Creating a Culture of Accountability within a Small Firm
Te new normal is here, and even frms thriving in growing
markets have been forced to adjust strategies as large or out of
town competitors sweep in. For most frms, 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 frm leaders need employees to step up. But they
know that accountability is an attitude, and it cant be forced.
Tis will be the main topic of discussion when ACECs 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.
Tis program will ofer ways for frms 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 frms within ACEC. Its winter meeting provides an
exclusive forum for small frm principals to attend seminars,
network with peers, address key issues afecting their frms,
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 ACECs Coalitions, please contact Heather Talbert,
202-682-4377 or htalbert@acec.org.
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
Proper delegation techniques will get you out of the fre-
fghting syndrome. For more information and to register,
Enabling Social Collaboration and
Engagement in the Workplace
Social collaboration allows for one common space for
individuals to get together, share ideas, share tasks,
manage tasks, share fles, share calendars and col-
laborate with the entire group to move your project
to completion. For more information and to register,
N-CASEnews-Jan14.indd 56 12/19/2013 12:04:51 PM
57

C
A
S
E

i
s

a

p
a
r
t

o
f

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

o
f

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

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

i
n

P
o
i
n
t
CASE Risk Management Convocation in Boston
Te 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.
Te following CASE Convocation sessions are scheduled to take place on Friday, April 4:
Foundation 3 Planning
Plan to be Claims Free
Tool 3-1: A Risk Management Program Planning
Structure (Updated in 2013)
Tis tool is designed to help a Firm Principal design a Risk
Management Program for his or her frm. Te tool consists of
a grid template that will help focus ones 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-
fed, then a policy and procedure for how to respond to that
risk is developed. Tis tool contains 10 sample risk factors with
accompanying policies and procedures to illustrate how one
might get started. Te tool is designed to insert custom risks
and policies and tailor it to individual frms.
Tool 3-2: Stafng and Revenue Projection
Firms are provided a simple to use and easy to manipulate
spreadsheet-based tool for predicting the staf that will be neces-
sary to complete both booked and potential projects. Te
spreadsheet can be further utilized to track historical stafng
demand to assist with future stafng and revenue projections.
Tool 3-3: Website Resource Tool
Tis 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 States 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
project documents.
All of these tools and more are available
at www.booksforengineers.com.
1:30 PM 3:00 PM
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
Donate to the CASE
Scholarship Fund!
Te ACEC Council of American
Structural Engineers (CASE) is
currently seeking contributions to
help make the structural engineer-
ing scholarship program a success.
Te CASE scholarship, adminis-
tered by the ACEC College of
Fellows, is awarded to a student
seeking a Bachelors degree, at
minimum, in an ABET-accredited
engineering program.
We have all witnessed the stif
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 ofer incentives in educational support.
In addition, the CASE scholarship ofers an excellent oppor-
tunity for your frm to recommend eligible candidates for our
scholarship. If your frm 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 dont have to be an ACEC member to
donate! Contact Heather Talbert at htalbert@acec.org to donate.
Creating a Culture of Accountability within a Small Firm
Tis program will ofer ways for frms 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 frms within ACEC. Its winter meeting provides an
exclusive forum for small frm principals to attend seminars,
network with peers, address key issues afecting their frms,
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 ACECs Coalitions, please contact Heather Talbert,
202-682-4377 or htalbert@acec.org.
ACEC Business Insights
Upcoming ACEC Online Seminars
Ownership Transition 2.0
Learn how to establish value, design an ownership transi-
tion program, choose appropriate transfer mechanisms,
and identify leaders. For more information and to register:
Are You Fighting Fires Instead of
Managing Your Employees 2014
Proper delegation techniques will get you out of the fre-
fghting syndrome. For more information and to register,
Enabling Social Collaboration and
Engagement in the Workplace
Social collaboration allows for one common space for
individuals to get together, share ideas, share tasks,
manage tasks, share fles, share calendars and col-
laborate with the entire group to move your project
to completion. For more information and to register,
N-CASEnews-Jan14.indd 57 12/19/2013 12:04:53 PM
58
STRUCTURAL FORUM opinions on topics of current importance to structural engineers
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 refect the views of NCSEA,
CASE, SEI, C
3
Ink, or the STRUCTURE
magazine Editorial Board.

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 fve
days; teach it to me in fve 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. Te human operat-
ing system, regardless of the beliefs of popular
culture and the amazing digital efects that
are now routine, is still working on version
1.0. Te 10-year-olds of today have the same
brain capacity that our founding fathers had.
We certainly have diferent tools available to
us, and we have been trained to learn through
diferent media, but we constantly face the
fact that the human mind processes cognitive
learning in certain ways.
According to the most common model
(Blooms 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. Troughout the article, he
has great ideas on how to make knowledge
or, perhaps more appropriately, informa-
tion more accessible and more mobile for
engineers. Tese are excellent points! We need
to better prepare our engineers for constantly
evolving sciences and environment by making
them more information-profcient.
However, returning to our cognitive learn-
ing model, analysis and synthesis learning is
much more difcult 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
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. Tese
are not skills that you can explain to someone
and they simply repeat; students must prac-
tice, experience, and develop them.
Tis skill set is the defnition 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 fnd a
teeter-totter or a rolling pin. Te 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
foor fastening system. Te fve seasoned pro-
fessional engineers were not standing around
scratching their heads over how to use model-
ing software. Instead, they were deliberating
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 bachelors
degree plus 30 hours for future professional
engineers, I am not sure what Mr. Frodshams
point is. I do not see us being able to make it
an associates degree plus 15 YouTube videos.
Te issue is that the BS, as important as it
is, only provides the beginning of any pro-
fessional engineers skill set. We must set
standards for profciency, 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. Frodshams 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! Te pro-
fession can certainly gain efciencies 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. Tere are
many high-quality, big-name masters 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.
Te skill set of the engineer is to explore the real
world and to determine how to apply the tools
that we have learned.
Tom Glardon, P.E., is an instructor at
Te 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@aft.edu.
D-StrucForum-Glardon-Jan14.indd 58 12/19/2013 11:58:59 AM
C
M
Y
CM
MY
CY
CMY
K
4633_WhatUDoBestCampaign_StructuralMagAd_8.375x10.875_1213_F.pdf 1 12/4/2013 10:54:04 AM

2014-01 Jan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2014-01 Jan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A

has passed creep

magazine does not constitute endorsement

(Volume 21, Number 1). ISSN 1536-4283.

is a registered trademark of National Council of

(Volume 21, Number 1). ISSN 1536-4283.

is a registered trademark of National Council of

PRE-FABRICATED SHEAR WALL SYSTEMS

Special Moment Frame

Full-page template.indd 1 11/18/2013 4:43:37 PM

Architectural Products Division

magazine Editorial Board.

You might also like