®

Design
Multihazard
March 2010
STRUCTURE
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI
Powers can help you
make the change efficiently.
Keep on top of the latest building code changes now
requiring code listed and compliant anchors in all states.
Powers has the products, the tools and the information you
need to help you specify compliant anchors.

Powers currently has the most code compliant anchors on the market*,
satisfying a range of needs including mechanical and adhesive anchors.

Our FREE PDA software is an anchor design interface

that puts technical data into a real-time environment
to help you visualize, consider
and specify anchors with our tabbed Design
feature, pull-down menu options, interactive
3-D graphics and anchor information bar.

Understanding the new code is vital. Powers

makes information about compliancy a
priority, offering informational pieces,
and a hotline to connect you one-to-one with an expert who can help
answer your questions.

Get Compliant with Powers.

* AS OF DECEMBER 2009, 46 STATES IN THE USA HAVE ADOPTED EITHER THE 2003 OR 2006
INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE.

Powers Fasteners, Inc. www.powers.com

2 Powers Lane P: (914) 235-6300
Brewster, NY 10509 F: (914) 576-6483
 BUILDING AMERICA…
SINCE 1926.

It’s been nearly 70 years since America last took on the kind of large-scale commercial infrastructure

investments that are being made now. And now – just as then – W. R. MEADOWS is a source you can

trust for quality building materials for all your airport, bridge, highway and water treatment plant projects.

Our product line includes:

• Concrete curing and sealing compounds for highways

• Epoxies and repair mortars for restoring and strengthening existing concrete

• Expansion joint materials for easing the expansion and contraction of concrete slabs

• Waterproofing for bridge decks and foundations

• Joint sealants for asphalt and concrete surfaces ®

W. R. MEADOWS: Founded and Flourishing in America for over 80 years.

Visit www.wrmeadows.com or call 1-800-342-5976 for more information.

QUALITY...INTEGRITY...
SERVICE...SINCE 1926
© W. R. MEADOWS, INC. 2009
 CONTENTS
FEATURES
22 Second Opinion Leads to Substantial Savings in Evaluation
and Repair of Marble Façade
By William D. Bast, P.E., S.E., SECB, Scott G. Nacheman, M.Sc.Eng, AIA, R.A.,
Rachel L. Michelin, EIT, LEED® AP and Dziugas Reneckis, Ph.D., P.E. 10
When it comes to considering a costly and disruptive façade replacement, it always
pays to get a second opinion. That’s what owners at Water Tower Place in Chicago
decided when faced with ongoing façade deterioration. In early 2006, it was
determined that the entire façade would require replacement in the near future. This
prospect led the owners to seek that second opinion. Confronted with two analyses
with broadly differing ramifications for the façade, the owners turned to a structural
engineering firm to develop a preservation program for the marble façade.

COLUMNS
7 Editorial 26 Technology
Life-Cycle Performance, Safety, Tips for Selecting Wood-Frame
Reliability and Risk of Structural Systems Structure Single-Member 22
By Dan M. Frangopol, Sc.D, P.E., Sizing Software
F. ASCE and Bruce R. Ellingwood, By Ross Theilen, P.E.
Ph.D., P.E., F. ASCE
42 Structural Forum
9 InFocus The Tidal Wave
Engineering as Willing By Robert Mote, P.Eng
By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
10 Structural Sustainability
Achieving Sustainability though
Durability, Adaptability, and
DEPARTMENTS
Deconstructibility 28 Risk Management
By Dirk M. Kestner, P.E., LEED AP and Total Recall
Mark D. Webster, P.E., LEED AP By Terrence M. Lindsay, P.E., S.E.,
SECB, Eric L. Singer, and Karen Erger 28
14 Structural Design
The Rational Design of Anchored 30 Legal Perspectivies
Masonry Veneer RFIs and Shop Drawings
By W. Mark McGinley, Ph.D., P.E. By David J. Hatem, PC and
Peter C. Lenart, Esq. IN EVERY ISSUE
19 Codes & Standards
2008 Special Design Provisions 32 InSights 8 Advertiser Index
for Wind and Seismic Controlling Digital Documents with 17 Resource Guide
By Philip Line, P.E., Project Information Management (Software Updates)
Bradford K. Douglas, P.E., and (PIM) Software 34 NCSEA News
Peter Mazikins, M.Eng, P.Eng By Bob Batcheler
36 SEI Structural Columns
38 CASE in Point
The entire magazine O N L I N E

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,

See it now! www.STRUCTUREmag.org

and advertisers retain sole responsibility
for the content of their submissions.

STRUCTURE magazine 5 March 2010

 Model image courtesy of USC School of Cinema
and Gregory P Luth & Associates

FROM DESIGN TO
CONSTRUCTION

Greg, Kristen, and John of Gregory P. Luth & Associates (GPLA) know how to ensure the best end result
to their projects. With Tekla, GPLA has moved from design to construction-driven engineering, adding
value to clients by delivering models that are used downstream. Sharing the Tekla model allows all of
the project team members to stay in the building information loop in real-time.

Tekla Structures BIM (Building Information Modeling) software provides

a data-rich 3D environment that can be shared by contractors, structural
engineers, steel detailers and fabricators, and concrete detailers and
manufacturers. Choose Tekla for the highest level of constructability and
integration in project management and delivery.
 Editorial
Life-Cycle Performance, Safety, Reliability
and Risk of Structural Systems
A Framework for New Challenges
By Dan M. Frangopol, Sc.D, P.E., F. ASCE and Bruce R. Ellingwood, Ph.D., P.E., F. ASCE
In recent years, life-cycle performance, safety, reliability and risk
have become emergent and key issues of civil infrastructure systems LIFE-CYCLE INTEGRATED
due to recurring natural and man-made disasters, the infrastructure MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
crisis, sustainability issues and global warming. In dealing with these
problems, uncertainties are unavoidable. Modern society can no
O p tim al D ecisio n
longer afford to ignore congested roads, deficient bridges, aging dams,
broken levees and water mains, among others. Management of aging
O p tim u m M ain tenan ce-
civil infrastructure involves significant expenditures and, at a time of M o n ito rin g -M an agem ent

constrained public resources, requires difficult decisions to establish TOOLS Strateg ies

priorities for maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement. Decisions Im p ro ved

regarding requirements for design, continued service, rehabilitation
or replacement should be based on multi-criteria optimization under
uncertainty, in order to balance conflicting requirements such as cost
and performance. This can only be achieved through proper integrated
risk management planning in a life-cycle comprehensive framework.
Such a framework is shown in Figure 1.
The development of practical methods for modeling, analyzing,
designing, maintaining, monitoring, managing, predicting and opti-
mizing the life-cycle performance of civil infrastructure systems under
uncertainty has become one of the most fertile and important areas in
structural engineering research. At the same time, a recent ASCE report,
Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century: Preparing the
Civil Engineer for the Future, has identified risk and uncertainty as one
of the desired technical educational outcomes for the future practice of
civil engineering.
In recognition of the need for such methods and models, the SEI-
ASCE Technical Activities Division approved, on October 1, 2008, the
creation of the Technical Council on Life-Cycle Performance, Safety,
Reliability and Risk of Structural Systems (http://content.seinstitute.
org/committees/strucsafety.html). This is the only Technical Council
within SEI.
The Technical Council provides a forum for reviewing, developing,
and promoting the principles and methods of life-cycle perfor-
mance, safety, reliability, and risk of structural systems in the analysis,
design, construction, assessment, inspection, maintenance, operation,
monitoring, repair, rehabilitation, and optimal management of civil
infrastructure systems under uncertainty. To achieve these objectives,
three Task Groups have been formed within the Technical Council,
with the following purposes:
Task Group 1: Life-Cycle Performance of Structural Systems Under
Uncertainty; to promote the study, research, and applications of scientific
principles of safety and reliability in the assessment, prediction, and
optimal management of life-cycle performance of structural systems
under uncertainty.
Task Group 2: Reliability-Based Structural System Performance Indica-
tors; to promote the study, research, and applications of reliability-based
system performance indicators including structural system reliability,
robustness, and redundancy.
Stru ctu ral Perfo rm an ce
A ssessm en t & Pred ictio n
In fo rm atio n fro m Stru ctu ral
H ealth M o n ito rin g &
U n certain ty A n alysis AP P L IC AT IO N S
Existin g an d N ew C ivil
In frastru ctu re System s :
B rid g es, B u ild in g s,
Stru ctu ral Perfo rm an ce
N etw o rks,…
A ssessm en t & Pred ictio n
Figure 1: Life-cycle integrated management framework.
Task Group 3: Assessment of Structural Infrastructure Facilities and
Risk-Based Decision Making; to promote the study, research and appli-
cations of scientific principles of risk assessment and risk-based decision
making in structural engineering.
The newly created Technical Council on Life-Cycle Performance,
Safety, Reliability and Risk of Structural Systems will be the central
forum within the Structural Engineering Institute to highlight the
challenges and promote some of the important directions for research and
applications of scientific principles related to this important and highly
significant area of structural engineering. The success of this forum
depends much on the cooperation between industry and academia.
We encourage you to actively participate in this Technical Council by
joining one of its Task Groups and contributing to its success.▪
Dan M. Frangopol is a Professor of Civil Engineering and The
Fazlur Rahman Khan Endowed Chair of Structural Engineering and
Architecture at Lehigh University, and the current chair of the SEI-
ASCE Technical Council on Life-Cycle Performance, Safety, Reliability
and Risk of Structural Systems.
Bruce R. Ellingwood is a College of Engineering Distinguished Professor
and The Raymond Allen Jones Chair in Civil Engineering at Georgia
Institute of Technology, and the current vice-chair of the SEI-ASCE
Technical Council on Life-Cycle Performance, Safety, Reliability and
Risk of Structural Systems.

STRUCTURE magazine 7 March 2010

 SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
National Council of Structural
Engineers Associations
Jeanne M. Vogelzang, JD, CAE
Executive Director
312-649-4600
execdir@ncsea.com
ADVERTISEMENT – For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

Council of American Structural Engineers

David Bixby
Director, Coalitions
202-347-7474
case@STRUCTUREmag.org

Structural Engineering Institute

John E. Durrant, P.E.
STRUCTURAL
Manager
ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE ASCE Engineering Programs
703-295-6360
sei@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

Advertiser Index
execdir@ncsea.com
free information from advertisers Editor Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
ADVERTISER PAGE # publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org

Computers & Structures, Inc. Page 44 Associate Editor Nikki Alger

publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
CTP Inc. Page 25
Graphic Designer Rob Fullmer
CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp. Page 21 graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org
Devco Software, Inc. Page 16 Web Developer William Radig
webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org
Fyfe Co. LLC Page 32
GT Strudl Page 29 STRUCTURE® (Volume 17, Number 3). ISSN 1536-4283.
Publications Agreement No. 40675118. Owned by the
Integrated Engineering Software, Inc. Page 31 National Council of Structural Engineers Associations and
Irvine Institute of Technology Page 11 published in cooperation with CASE and SEI monthly by C3
Ink. The publication is distributed free of charge to members
KPFF Consulting Engineers Page 8 of NCSEA, CASE and SEI; the non-member subscription rate is
$65/yr domestic; $35/yr student; $125/yr foreign (including
National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) Page 41 Canada). For change of address or duplicate copies, contact
Powers Fasteners, Inc. Page 2 your member organization(s). Any opinions expressed in
STRUCTURE magazine are those of the author(s) and do not
QuakeWrap, Inc. Page 20 necessarily reflect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C3 Ink, or the
STRUCTURE Editorial Board.
RISA Technologies Page 43
STRUCTURE® is a registered trademark of National Council of
SidePlate Systems, Inc. Page 33 Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA). Articles may not be
reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission
Simpson Strong-Tie Pages 13 & 27 of the publisher.
StrucSoft Solutions, Ltd. Page 3
Published By:
StructurePoint Page 18
C3 Ink
Struware, Inc. Page 41 C3 Ink A Division of Copper Creek Companies, Inc.
148 Vine St., Reedsburg WI 53959
Subsurface Constructors, Inc. Page 40 P-608-524-1397 F-608-524-4432
publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
TEKLA, Inc. Page 6
Visit STRUCTURE magazine on-line at
W.R. Meadows, Inc. Page 4 Visit
Visit
STRUCTURE
STRUCTURE
magazine
magazine
on-line
online
www.structuremag.org at at
www.structuremag.org
www.STRUCTUREmag.org

STRUCTURE magazine 8 March 2010

 InFocus thoughts from a member of the Editorial Board

Engineering as Willing
By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
In October, I had the privilege of speaking on the topic of “Philosophy
and Structural Engineering” at the NCSEA 17th Annual Conference
in Scottsdale, Arizona. While preparing that presentation, I compiled
and reflected on all that I have been reading, thinking, and writing
over the last few years regarding the relationship between the two fields.
The overall thesis that emerged was this: Science is widely perceived
as an especially systematic approach to knowing; engineering could be
conceived as an especially systematic approach to willing.
My adaptation of Bernard Lonergan’s transcendental precepts provides
the backdrop for this assessment (“Engineers Are Persons, Too,” January
2010). Attentive experience, intelligent understanding, and reasonable
judgment lead us to adopt beliefs about how the world was in the past
and is now; considerate deliberation and responsible decision lead us to
make choices about how the world will be in the future. This framework
recognizes the interactions between knowing and willing, as well as
their distinctions, which become evident when comparing the scientific
and engineering methods.
Scientists observe natural phenomena, propose hypotheses in an effort
to explain them, and conduct careful experiments to test their theories.
Although the will is implicitly involved, the intellect is primary, because
the goal is ideal - additional “objective” knowledge. According to Billy
Koen, engineers use heuristics to cause the best change in a poorly
understood situation within the available resources (“The Engineering
Method,” March 2006). Although the intellect is implicitly involved,
the will is primary, because the goal is pragmatic – some “subjective”
outcome; knowledge serves mainly as a necessary but insufficient means
to that contingent end (“Engineering Knowledge,” November 2007).
Koen suggests that a heuristic is any plausible aid or direction in the
solution of a problem that is in the final analysis unjustified, incapable
of justification, and potentially fallible (“Heuristics and Judgment,”
May 2006). This formulation reflects how engineering is at odds with
the dominant tradition in Western culture, which – as Steven Goldman
points out – favors certainty and universality over probability and
particularity; i.e., abstract knowledge over concrete know-how (“The
Principle of Insufficient Reason,” May 2008). While heuristics cannot
be “proven” in the absolute sense, their utilization is legitimately
warranted, frequently on the grounds of successful past implementation.
Each individual engineer has a unique collection of relevant heuristics
at his or her disposal, along with “meta-heuristics” for selecting which
heuristics are most appropriate in a given set of circumstances. When
these are combined to facilitate translating a client’s technical and non-
technical requirements into a viable solution that adequately accounts
for uncertainty and satisfies all applicable constraints, they constitute
what William Addis calls a design procedure (“The Nature of Theory
and Design,” May 2009). This is analogous to a
scientific hypothesis; however, seemingly identical
design procedures can have diverse outcomes, and
different ones can produce quite similar results.
Most design procedures include the development
of mathematical models that are supposed to capture the important as-
pects of reality. The engineer’s challenge is to ascertain what those features
are and what assumptions and simplifications can safely be incorporated
in order to keep everything manageable, while still yielding a meaningful
assessment of likely performance. Although analysis of a model is usually
straightforward, conforming to fundamental principles derived from
science, its initial construction and subsequent adjustment require “the
conscious use of skill and creative imagination” – the dictionary definition
of art (“Philosophy and Engineering,” September 2008).
The bottom line is that engineering is not deterministic; it routinely
involves selecting a way forward from among multiple options when
there is no one “right” answer. Consequently, the concept of engineering
rationality is a bit of a misnomer; engineering intentionality is a more
appropriate term. Design – in fact, all human behavior – is ultimately
governed by motives, rather than reasons. Although common usage treats
these two terms as virtually synonymous, the prevalence of the latter in
both ordinary and philosophical discourse reflects an ancient prejudice
that subordinates practice to theory and action to contemplation; i.e.,
willing to knowing. Since engineers exemplify willing, we should strive
to resist and reverse this tendency.▪
How do knowing and willing interact in your own practice
Your of engineering? Do you agree that the will is primary,
Turn rather than the intellect? Is it legitimate to distinguish
between rationality and intentionality? between reasons and motives?
Please submit your responses and see what others have had to say by
clicking on the “Your Turn” button at www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB (chair@STRUCTUREmag.org), is an
associate structural engineer at Burns & McDonnell in Kansas City,
Missouri. He chairs the STRUCTURE magazine Editorial Board and
the SEI Engineering Philosophy Committee.
References to articles/issues in this essay are to STRUCTURE magazine.
Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org/archives for full text of these
referenced articles.
Upcoming Event
The 2010 Forum on Philosophy, Engineering & Technology
(fPET-2010) will take place May 9-10 at the Colorado School of
Mines in Golden, Colorado. For more information, please visit
www.philengtech.org.

Editorial Board
Chair Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECB Brian J. Leshko, P.E. Mike C. Mota, P.E. Greg Schindler, P.E., S.E.
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB CBI Consulting, Inc. HDR Engineering, Inc. CRSI KPFF Consulting Engineers
Burns & McDonnell Boston, MA Pittsburgh, PA Williamstown, NJ Seattle, WA
Kansas City, MO
chair@structuremag.org Richard Hess, S.E., SECB John A. Mercer, P.E. Evans Mountzouris, P.E. Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
Hess Engineering Inc. Mercer Engineering, PC The DiSalvo Ericson Group Kramer Gehlen & Associates, Inc.
Executive Editor Los Alamitos, CA Minot, ND Ridgefield, CT Vancouver, WA
Jeanne M. Vogelzang, JD, CAE Brian W. Miller Matthew Salveson, Ph.D., P.E. John “Buddy” Showalter, P.E.
NCSEA
Mark W. Holmberg, P.E.
Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc. AISC Dokken Engineering AF & PA/American Wood Council
Chicago, IL
Marietta, GA Davis, CA Folsom, CA Washington, DC
execdir@ncsea.com

STRUCTURE magazine 9 March 2010

 Achieving Sustainability through Durability,
Adaptability, and Deconstructibility
By Dirk M. Kestner, P.E., LEED AP and Mark D. Webster, P.E., LEED AP
A building’s life-cycle environmental
impact includes both operational and em-
bodied components. Operational impacts
are those such as energy consumption
that occur during use, while embodied
impacts are mostly due to the production
and installation of the building’s materials.
An example of an embodied impact is the
pollution released during the extraction,
manufacture, and installation of a build-
ing component. The longer a building
remains in service, the smaller the em-
bodied impacts are per year of service.
Therefore, efforts to minimize embodied
impacts must also include strategies to
increase service life. This article discusses
the validity of common service life assump-
tions, and challenges design professionals
to achieve greater sustainability by incor-
STRUCTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
porating durability, adaptability, and
deconstructibility in their designs.
A 50-year lifespan is often assumed for
common building types such as com-
mercial buildings and schools. However,
many buildings are demolished when they
are well short of 50 years of age, often for
reasons other than material degradation.
Premature demolition and replacement
of buildings impacts our environment in
many ways, from the disposal of demo-
lition waste to the need to manufacture
and install new materials. While many
designers have started to specify recycled
sustainability and preservation as they pertain to structural engineering
content materials, this is only a first step.
Recycled materials, even those that contain
100% recycled content, still may have
significant embodied impacts. In an at-
tempt to increase longevity, some may be
tempted to specify more robust or “durable”
materials, but durability may not be the
best strategy to increase building life.
Figure 1: The Chartwell School, Seaside, CA, designed by EHDD Architecture with Tipping + Mar
Associates as structural engineer. Courtesy of Michael David Rose / MDRP.NET.
STRUCTURE magazine
A 2004 study by The Athena Institute
surveyed buildings demolished in St.
Paul, Minnesota from the period of 2000
to 2003. While the study was partially
motivated by a desire to understand the
relationship between structural materials
and building longevity, it revealed that
the three most common reasons for a
building to be demolished were: area re-
development (34%), lack of maintenance
(24%), and building no longer suitable
for intended use (22%). These findings
show that most of the buildings were de-
molished not due to durability problems,
but rather due to poor adaptability.
The study also found that the building
longevity was not highly dependent on
the structural material used to construct
the structural frame. Some of the oldest
demolished commercial buildings were
wood-framed and most of the younger
buildings were steel or concrete. Over
60 percent of the concrete buildings de-
molished were less than 50 years old, with
roughly 10% being less than 25 years old.
The results were more striking for steel
buildings; 80% of those buildings were
less than 50 years old, with 40% being
less than 25 years old.
This limited survey shows that there are
a number of reasons why a building may
be demolished, with many reasons com-
pletely unrelated to material durability. For
modern buildings, the building’s lifespan
may be considerably shorter than an as-
sumed 50-year span. Furthermore, since
in most instances the structural system does
not “wear out,” it can have considerable re-
sidual value at the end of a building’s life.
The application of Design for Decon-
struction, Design for Durability, and
10 March 2010
Design for Adaptability can help extend
the life of structural materials, both within
a current project, and as salvaged materials
in future projects
Design for
Adaptability (DfA)
Adaptability is the ability of a structure to
accommodate varied and often unknown
future uses and changes with minimum
of cost and effort. DfA can extend the
life of a building by making it easier to
adapt it to new uses. The Athena study
found that 22% of the buildings were
demolished because they were no longer
suitable for their needs.
Many strategies for adaptability are the
same as the strategies for deconstruction,
which is discussed later. These strategies
focus on simplicity, repetition, transparency,
and so on. Those who have worked on ex-
isting buildings know how important an
easily comprehensible structural system is
to the success of adaptive reuse projects.
Complex structural systems with con-
cealed conditions increase the adaptation
costs because the structural investigation
is more expensive and uncertainties about
component capacities lead the engineer
to take a more conservative approach.
When the building code prescribes a
minimum lateral load capacity for reuse
projects, uncertainty about the existing
lateral-load-resisting system could lead to
extensive investigation or unnecessarily
costly upgrades to the system.
DfA is most important for buildings
that are likely to undergo changes in use
over their lives. Good candidates are:
• office buildings, where tenants
frequently change;
• schools, where changing
demographics and educational
requirements often lead to school
building decommissioning;
• industrial buildings; and
• churches (other than elaborate
cathedrals), where congregations
come and go.
Iconic buildings such as certain museums
and cathedrals are likely to remain more
static over their lives and are less likely to
benefit from DfA.
Some building types are likely to be short-
lived and are inherently difficult to adapt,
such as commercial strip malls in growing
suburbs. These types of structures are best
designed simply for deconstruction and
material reuse, with sufficient durability
to protect the materials through their pro-
jected short life.

Figure 2: Rinker Hall, The University of Florida, designed by Croxton Collaborative Architects and Gould
Evans Associates with Walter P Moore as structural engineer. Courtesy of Chroma, Inc.
A sampling of DfA strategies for building
structures includes:
• Designing using higher-than-code-
minimum live loads when future uses
may require them;
• Providing redundancy and resiliency
in the lateral system in case future
adaptations require changes such as new
openings in shear walls; the Chartwell
School (Figure 1) used shear walls with
extra capacity along the main corridor
in case new doorways to reconfigured
classrooms are needed in the future;
• Consideration of how the building may
be expanded in the future, such as sizing
foundations and columns for vertical
additions; and
• Coordination of the structural system
with other building systems to ease future
renovation; Rinker Hall (Figure 2) routed
all basic mechanical and electrical systems
along a “highway,” coordinated with
Design for Durability (DfDr)
Should we always design our buildings for
maximum durability? Or are there cases where
lesser durability would suffice? Actual build-
ing life is often much less than predicted life.
Many buildings also survive much longer than
predicted, although this scenario appears to
be less common, at least for non-residential
buildings. Given the difficulty of forecast-
ing building life and the permanency of the
Irvine Institute
of Technology
8659 Research Drive, Irvine, CA 92618
Director: C.V. Chelapati, Ph.D., P.E
Join us in our 37th year of providing outstanding License Review Seminars!
structural system, it makes the most sense to
design the structure for enough durability to
ensure that it is not the weak link that results
in a building’s demise. The 2004 Athena
demolition survey suggests we are typically
meeting this objective already. Buildings in
this small study were for the most part not
demolished as a result of deterioration of the
structural system. Nevertheless, we should
strive to ensure that deterioration of the struc-
tural system is never the cause of a building’s
demise. Since the building envelope often
protects the structural system, the structural
engineer should understand envelope systems
and work with the envelope designer to de-
velop an integrated structure-envelope design
that will ensure the long life of the structural
system. Where envelope systems have a shorter
predicted service life than the structural system,
the envelope system should be designed to be
easily removed from the building structure
and replaced.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Stan-
dard S478, Guideline on Durability in Buildings,
defines the concepts of “design service life”
and “predicted service life.” The design service
life is “specified by the designer in accordance
with the expectations (or requirements) of the
owners of the building.” The predicted service
life is the service life “forecast from recorded

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

and running parallel to the north-south
structural system.
Just as mechanical systems become obsolete
over time due to changes in technology,
structural engineers confront the potential for
obsolescence as new technologies arise to resist
seismic forces, and older systems are found to
be inadequate. Buildings with obsolete and
unsafe lateral-load-resisting systems may be
retrofitted with new technologies to improve
their performance. In many retrofit strategies,
the gravity-load-resisting system remains
in service, while the lateral-load-resisting
system is strengthened, supplemented, or
even replaced. As such, one DfA approach
to structural systems would be to plan for
future changes to the lateral system. Possible
strategies include making the lateral system
independent of the gravity load system and
using components such as braces that can be
easily swapped out.
Pre-Registration
2010 SE (Structural) License Seminars
Thursdays – 6:30 to 9:30 pm (PST)
8 evenings (24 hours) per module
All seminars also broadcast live online and archived for 24/7 access
SE 515 Seismic Design SE 511 Concrete and Tilt-Up Design
SE 512 Steel Design SE 514 Timber and Masonry Design
Classes are held in our state-of-the-art auditorium in Irvine, California.
Lectures are presented in the above sequence by practicing experts and supported by
ASCE 7, ICC, and CBC books with new codes and our outstanding PEDP SE Manuals
Pre-register by enrolling using the ‘pay by check’ option.
Seminars will begin once the minimum number of enrollments is reached.
Payments will be processed at that time.
Guaranteed pass or students receive 1 year of free archives.
For a complete schedule, virtual brochure, and pre-registration,
visit us online at www.irvine-institute.org
or call 949-585-9137 for more information.

STRUCTURE magazine 11 March 2010

performance, previous experience, tests, or
modeling.” The design goal outlined in the
standard is for the predicted service life of the
building, and its components and systems, to
meet or exceed the design service life.
Using the DfDr approach outlined by the
CSA standard, one might attempt to match
the predicted life of the structural system
to the design life of the building. However,
designing the structural system of a building
with a short predicted life for less durability
than the system for a building with a longer
predicted life carries risks:
• The building may actually last longer
than predicted, risking deterioration of
the structural system before the building
reaches the end of its life; and
• Even if the building life matches the
predicted life, the structural materials
may have begun to deteriorate and may
no longer be suitable for reuse.
Once one accepts that closing the materials
loop calls for deconstruction of buildings at
end-of-life and reuse of materials, DfDr of the
structural system becomes paramount for all
buildings, whether they are predicted to have
a short or long life.
Design for Deconstruction (DfD)
Materials sustainability depends upon “clos-
ing the materials loop,” meaning the material
life-cycle is circular (use  collect  process
 reuse) rather than linear (extract manu-
facture  use  discard). Deconstruction, a
demolition method where a structure is care-
fully and methodically disassembled so as to
salvage as many components as possible, is a
key step in this circular life-cycle. DfD is
a design strategy intended to facilitate future
deconstruction. Though rarely used today, DfD
is arguably the most important green design
strategy for achieving material sustainability
through closing the materials loop. Durability
and adaptability may never be required for
buildings that, due to factors such as neigh-
borhood changes, have a short life; however
virtually all buildings will eventually be replaced
or removed, so facilitating deconstruction and
material reuse will almost certainly be useful.
Most of the buildings presently under
construction will likely be gone in less than
50 years. In some cases, such as The Discovery
Center at Lake Union, Seattle, WA (Figure
3), a structure may be constructed with the
understanding that its service life will be as
short as a few years. Monumental buildings,
on the other hand, such as elaborate cathedrals,
museums, and other important public and
institutional buildings, likely will survive
much longer. The environmental benefit of
reusing materials from common short-life
The committee website is www.seinstitute.org/committees/sustainable.cfm.
STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 3: The Discovery Center, South Lake Union,
Seattle, WA designed by The Miller|Hull Partnership
with Magnusson Klemencic Associates as structural
engineer. Courtesy of Magnusson Klemencic Associates.
buildings is greater than the benefit from less
common long-life buildings, both due to the
relative numbers of these building types, but
also because the impact of the wasted materials
averaged over the life of the building is less for
the long-life buildings. Nevertheless, DfD is
good practice for all buildings, because actual
building life is highly unpredictable.
The structural system, as the bones of a
building, is generally the most permanent
part of the building system. As such, when a
structural system is deconstructed, it is typi-
cally at the end of the building’s life, which is
a consideration when designing the structure
for deconstruction. Other building systems
will typically already be removed before
work begins on deconstructing the structural
system. A thorough designer for deconstruction
will consider how the structure will be disas-
sembled. What type of equipment will be
utilized? Where will the workers be situated
during the work? Could the initial structural
design be tailored to improve safety and stability
during disassembly?
Little incentive exists in today’s construction
market to design for deconstruction. LEED®,
the most popular green building rating system,
does not reward DfD in its standard credits.
LEED Innovation Credits may be applied to-
wards DfD, but to the authors’ knowledge no
team has successfully obtained LEED credit
for DfD. Green Globes™, another green build-
ing rating system, offers up to three points for
designs allowing the removal of reusable materi-
als without damaging the surrounding materials,
but this rating system is not widely used.
DfD should increase the value of a building
for two reasons: the building will be easier
to modify and improve during its useful life;
and, at the end of its life the salvage value of
its constituent materials will be higher. The
materials will have been selected for their
reusability and connected together so as to be
12 March 2010
easily separable for reuse. For this reason, the
building will be valued not just for its location,
functionality, and aesthetics; it also will have
inherent value in its constituent parts.
A combination of green building rating sys-
tem incentives, price increases for new materials,
and possibly tax or regulatory incentives could
drive the demand for DfD. Market forces
alone are not sufficient at this time. It is diffi-
cult to convince building owners to implement
design features when the return on investment
is perceived to be realized only at the end of
the building’s life. Changes are also needed in
materials handling. For example, suppliers will
need to start stocking used materials in addi-
tion to new materials. Deconstruction specialists
will need to develop efficient techniques for
dismantling buildings, and will need markets
for the used materials. Materials labeling, per-
haps following the model of wood grading,
will help designers and consumers identify
the strength and quality of used materials.
Higher demand for used materials will drive
the development of markets, which is where
green building rating systems and government
incentives could help, until future scarcity of
resources and increased energy prices drive up
the cost of new materials.
Conclusion
The Athena demolition study is an impor-
tant start to developing a better understanding
of the types of buildings that are likely to have
long lives and why. More studies of this type
are required for structural engineers and other
building design practitioners to create effective
strategies to increase building life and facilitate
reuse of building materials.
While the concepts discussed here are not
currently rewarded in LEED, projects embrac-
ing these strategies have been recognized by
other green building organizations such as
the American Institute of Architects Commit-
tee on the Environment (AIA COTE) Top Ten
Green Projects and the EPA’s Lifecycle Build-
ing Challenge (www.lifecyclebuilding.org).
More details on each project, as well as other
winners, can be found at www.aiatopten.org.▪
Dirk M. Kestner, P.E., LEED AP, leads
Walter P Moore’s Sustainable Design
Community of Practice, and is also chairman
of the SEI Sustainability Committee. He can
be reached at dkestner@walterpmoore.com.
Mark D. Webster, P.E., LEED AP, a project
manager at Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
Inc., is a founding member and the Secretary
of the SEI Sustainability Committee. He can
be reached at mdwebster@sgh.com.
We’re stacked
in your corner.

If you’re planning to stack prefabricated shearwalls, make sure they’re Steel Strong-Wall® shearwalls.
The Simpson Strong-Tie two-story solution is not only code listed, but can be installed right at the corner
to save wall space. And since our engineered shearwalls are available in widths as narrow as 15 inches
for stacked applications, you can design multistory homes with larger windows, doors and open spaces
without sacrificing the high load values required for the project.
To ensure your walls stack up, look to Simpson Strong-Tie for the widest selection of shearwalls code listed
to the 2006 IBC (see ICC-ES ESR-1679). Visit www.strongtie.com/strongwall or call (800) 999-5099.

© 2010 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. SSW10-S

 The Rational Design of Anchored Masonry Veneer
By W. Mark McGinley, Ph.D., P.E.
Anchored masonry veneer wall systems
are commonly used in residential, com-
mercial and institutional construction.
As shown in Figure 1, these exterior
wall systems include an outer wythe
(layer) of masonry veneer attached
across an air space to a backing wall by
anchors. These backing wall systems
may be sheathed wood and steel stud
walls, concrete masonry walls or poured
concrete walls. The veneer wythe is
typically constructed with units of clay
or concrete masonry with a nominal
thickness of 2⅝ to 4 inches.
By definition, the exterior masonry
portion of this system is nonload-bearing
and is usually considered only an exterior
finish for the building envelope.
For masonry design, model building
codes reference the Masonry Standards
Joint Committees’ Building Code Require-
ments for Masonry Structures, TMS402/
ACI530/ASCE5 (MSJC). Chapter 6 of this
document (2008 edition) describes two
methods for veneer design, the prescriptive
and rational methods. The prescriptive
method requires that the backing wall be
designed to resist the entire out-of-plane
wind loading, and provides prescriptive
thickness, tie spacing, and tributary area
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
details for the veneer. Almost all masonry
veneer wall systems are designed pre-
scriptively. However, that method does
not extend to wind zones in excess of 130
Masonry Veneer
Anchors (ties)
design issues for structural engineers
Backing Wall
Flashing
Figure 1: Schematic of Anchored Masonry Veneer.
STRUCTURE magazine
MPH, cavity widths in excess of 4½ inches,
new tie systems, and is costly to apply in
rehabilitation designs.
The rational design method is more
time-consuming to design, and the code
provisions give very little guidance. Rational
veneer design requires that:
1) The forces applied to the veneer
are distributed using the principles
of mechanics.
2) The backing deflection is limited.
3) Veneer is not subjected to either
the flexural stress limits defined
in the allowable stress provisions
in Chapter 2 of the Code, or the
modulus of rupture values in
Chapter 3.
4) Designers comply with the
general provisions (Chapter 1),
with the exception that a specified
compression strength (f 'm)
is not required.
5) Meet the prescriptive requirements
for stack bonded masonry and
higher seismic zones.
Implicit in any veneer design is that it
can accommodate differential movement
and resist moisture penetration.
For design, the wall behavior under in-
plane and out-of-plane loading must be
addressed. Under in-plane loads, little load
will be transferred between the veneer
and backing if the wall is detailed properly
and the in-plane deformations are con-
trolled. To ensure the backing wall carries
all in-plane loads, it is suggested that the
veneer contain horizontal and vertical
movement joints and that vertical defor-
mation and inter-story drift be limited.
For out-of-plane loads, an under-
standing of the wall system behavior is
necessary. A good overview is available in
Masonry Veneer Wall Systems (Structural
Engineering Report #156, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, by McGinley et al.), Brick
Veneer/Steel Stud Walls, Technical Note 28B
(2005 by the Brick Industry Association),
and the Design Guide For Anchored Brick
Veneer Over Steel Stud Systems (Western
States Clay Products Association).
Figure 2 shows a schematic of the out-of-
plane load distribution within the wall
system. Under these loads, the veneer spans
over a variable anchor support locations
where the loading is transferred to the
backing wall. The anchor load distribution
14 March 2010
Wind or Seismic Loads on
the Masonry Veneer
Variable
Backing Wall
Anchor (tie)
Loads
Figure 2: Out-of-Plane Load Distribution of
Uncracked Wall System.
and veneer support depends on the rela-
tive stiffness of the veneer, anchors and
backing system. This distribution is fur-
ther complicated by variation in anchor
configuration (especially free play and
stiffness). However, analysis and tests data
suggest that, for stud backing walls,
the veneer generally spans between the
anchors near the top and bottom of the
wall until the veneer cracks. This induces
larger anchor loads near the veneer top
and bottom, if the backing is flexible rela-
tive to the veneer. As load on the veneer is
increased, it usually cracks in a bed joint
near mid-height at a loading well below
the peak design levels.
After the veneer cracks, it acts as two
separate pin connected sections over a
variable support and the anchor loading
near mid-span is greater than elsewhere.
However, non-linear analyses suggest that
if anchor/backing stiffness is relatively
low, and/or if the anchors are reasonably
ductile, the anchor loads will be approx-
imately uniform at ultimate loading.
Reasonably ductile or flexible anchor sys-
tems allow redistribution of anchor loads.
In light of the variability of the anchor
stiffness and thus the load distribution,
approximating the anchor load as uni-
form is reasonable.
Out-of-plane cyclic load tests of these
systems also suggest that the critical
anchor loading will always be tension;
under compression, there are sufficient
mortar droppings in the cavity to support
the anchors and veneer and transfer the
loads to the backing wall.
The above behavior suggests the follow-
ing design methodology:
 Example
A rational veneer design of the wall system The backing wall design was performed and
shown in Figure 3 follows. This reinforced, the 8-inch CMU wall, reinforced with a # 5
8-inch, concrete masonry (CMU) with a rebar (60 ksi steel) at 16 inches on center, can
4-inch clay brick veneer wall system is in a resist the uniform wind 38.4 psf over a 20-
Brick Veneer warehouse located in a 140-mph wind zone. foot span.
Based on the simplified procedures in ASCE For the veneer design, the maximum anchor
7 for component and cladding wind loads, spacing must be set to preclude additional
peak wind service level wind loads of 38.4 psf veneer cracking at ultimate load levels. To
can be expected for the corner regions of this ensure this behavior, the stresses in the clay
Ties
20-foot tall building. Wind loads govern for masonry veneer will be limited to the modulus
out-of-plane loads since the building is in a of rupture values listed in Table 3.1.8.2.1 of
Seismic Design Category B. Only the corner the MSJC.
design is given. Using Type S masonry cement mortar, MSJC
Because the wind speed exceeds 130 MPH, a Table 3.1.8.2.1 defines a flexural tensile stress
rational design must be conducted. Based on limit of 60 psi for stresses normal to bed joints
the proposed design methodology, the CMU (vertical span) and 120 psi for stress parallel
Figure 3: Brick Veneer and Masonry. to bed joints (horizontal span). If simple
wall is designed to resist the entire out-of-
plane wind load, and the veneer be designed to supports are conservatively assumed in both
1) Assume the veneer cracks in a bed joint
span between the anchors. A relatively ductile the horizontal and vertical directions, and the
near mid-span of the wall. A bed joint
anchor (tie) system will be chosen so there will factored wind load, Wu is equal to 1.6 × 38.4 =
can be raked at mid-height to ensure
be adequate redistribution of forces to ensure 61.4 psf, the maximum vertical and horizontal
this happens.
a uniform loading assumption. veneer spans can be determined as follows:
2) Design the backing system to resist the
resulting out-of-plane loading. For unreinforced masonry the resistance factor, φ = 0.60
3) Design the anchors to resist out-of- Vertical Span:
plane loads in proportion to the load 61.4 psf × (Lv)2
distribution and tributary area. M × 12 in./ft.
φƒtv = 0.60×0.60 psi = u = 8 ⇒ Lv = 3.21 ft = 38 inches
a) For stud-backed systems with stiff S 12 in. (3.63 in.)2
and brittle anchors, it might be
6
assumed that the anchors near mid
Horizontal Span:
span resist reactions produced by
the two sections of veneer spanning 61.4 psf × (Lh)2
× 12 in./ft.
from the top and bottom to mid- φƒtv = 0.60×120 psi = Mu = 8 ⇒ Lh = 4.53 ft = 54 inches
height. Although anchor loads are S 12 in. (3.63 in.)2
best determined by finite element 6
analysis, they might be approximated Note that the nominal 4-inch clay units have a specified thickness of 3.63 inches.
by assuming the anchors within one These distances define the limits of the anchor spacing that are possible without further
anchor spacing of the mid-height veneer cracking being likely. However, it is possible that a bed joint containing a line of ties
and the top and bottom of the wall may crack. If this occurs, a section of veneer would have to span as a cantilever from the
resist the veneer reactions. tie line, either above or below the cracked joint. However, there is usually enough keying
b) For flexible/ductile anchor between the unit cores and the mortar to at least approximate a pinned connection at this
systems, and for stiff backing location. There is, however, a section of veneer that typically must act as a cantilever. That is
walls, it appears that a reasonable the section of veneer at the top of the wall above the last set of ties. To ensure that the veneer
approximation can be obtained by will not crack off in this area, the flexural tension stress on the cantilever section must be
assuming that all anchors are loaded kept below the Code-prescribed maximums. This limits section cantilevering from the top
uniformly based on tributary area. anchors to:
4) Design the masonry veneer to span 61.4 psf × (Lv top)2
× 12 in./ft.
between anchor supports without φƒtv = 2 = 0.60×60 psi ⇒ Lv top = 1.60 ft = 19 inches
further cracking by limiting the veneer 12 in. (3.63 in.)2
moments to those predicted by the 6
stress limits in either Chapter 2 or This same crack isolation is not likely in the horizontal direction. Thus, the highest level
Chapter 3 of the MSJC. Although of anchors must be placed within 19 inches of the top of the veneer. If the designer was
MSJC provisions specifically exempt concerned about the load transfer at a cracked bed joint, this vertical spacing limit can also be
veneers from having to meet these applied to the rest of the anchors, but this may be overly conservative.
limits, they are a good means to limit The anchors must now be designed, but there is little guidance on how to do this in the
the crack isolation of veneer sections. MSJC. The MSJC commentary does reference the Canadian CSA A 370 (Connectors for
Masonry) Standard. This document provides limit state design provisions for masonry anchors
Read this issue
®

and ties, and requires that the nominal capacities of the ties (determined based on tests or
CTUR

analysis) be reduced by a capacity-reduction factor of 0.9 for material failures and 0.6 for
online at anchorage or buckling failures. The factored capacities then must meet or exceed the anchor
STRU
| SEI
A | CASE

loading produced by factored design loads. continued on next page

www.STRUCTUREmag.org
n of NCSE
Publicatio
A Joint

STRUCTURE magazine 15 March 2010

 Double Print Tie 2.94 square feet. Veneer stresses also limited
the anchor vertical spacing to 38 inches and
54 inches horizontally, and there must be a

e
e row of anchors within 19 inches from the top
of the wall.
The anchor system pictured in Figure 4 is
prefabricated so that the horizontal spacing of
the eyes is 16 inches. Standard practice would
then have the eyes and joint reinforcing placed
in every other block course, or 16 inches
vertically, even though the vertical spacing
VERTICAL SECTION
of the ties could be increased to 24 inches
Figure 4: An Adjustable Pintle and Eye Anchor System. without violating the vertical spacing limits or
the maximum tributary limits.
A number of manufactures provide ultimate The average eccentricity of the ties at the
In this example, a spacing of 16 inches
strength test data for design, usually on the peak loading location is not likely to be at the
vertically, along with the predefined 16-inch
web. A brief web search identified an anchor code allowed maximum (an average of 0.75
horizontal spacing was used. This allowed a
system shown in Figure 4. This adjustable inches was assumed). Also, the pintle capacity
larger average eccentricity to be present in the
pintle and eye system is used commonly in is limited by a ductile bending failure of the
pintle legs and matched common practice.
multi-wythe masonry construction, and allows legs, allowing significant load redistribution.
It should be noted that additional anchors
for differential vertical movements between Thus, the factored capacity of the anchor is
should be provided at larger openings as
the veneer and the backing wall. It also accom- the smallest of:
described in the Code Section 6.2.2.11(c),
modates coursing variations between the two φTie = 0.9 × 200 = 180 pounds ⇐ governs
with anchors within 12 inches of the opening
wythes of masonry. or = 0.6 × 800 = 480 pounds
and at a maximum spacing of 24 inches or the
The ultimate resistance for this tie system This calculation suggests that the critical tie
minimums described above (which control
(tension or compression) is 980 pounds for capacity is 180 pounds. Assuming that the tie
for this wall).
a zero pintle eccentricity, 200 pounds for a forces are uniformly distributed, then the
Finally, the rational veneer design provisions
0.75 inch pintle eccentricity and 100 pounds
for a pintle eccentricity of the code allowed Maximum tie tributary area = 180 lblb = 2.93 ft2 would require the system deflections be limited
61.4 /ft 2
to ensure veneer stability. The concrete ma-
maximum of 1.25 inches. Note that the tie
sonry backing wall is so stiff this is not going
flexibility varies over 400% over this same The above calculations indicate that ties with
to be an issue for this design. If a stud backing
range. The maximum pull-out strength of the a capacity of 180 pounds can be spaced so that
wall was used in the design, deflections should
pintle from a mortar joint is 800 pounds. their individual tributary areas do not exceed
be limited. Some documents suggest limiting
the stud deflections to a maximum of the stud
span divided by 360 (L/360), and some sug-
gest that this limit should be L/600. The less
stringent L/360 limit is likely to be more than
sufficient to limit veneer instability. Propo-
nents of the more stringent limit argue that
it will reduce the amount of moisture that
penetrates the veneer. However, the veneer is
assumed to be cracked, and limiting the crack
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

width at one location under transient wind

loads will not appreciably change the amount
of water penetrating the wall system once the
crack is present.
The previous discussion presents the author’s
interpretation of the current code rational de-
sign provisions for veneer. Although these
interpretations are based on a significant
experience with this type of wall system, both
research and in the field, readers are encouraged
to review these recommendations and make
there own judgments.▪

Dr. McGinley is a Professor of Engineering

and Endowed Chair of Infrastructure
Research at the University of Louisville.
He has extensive research and practical
experience in the evaluation and design of
masonry building systems. Dr. McGinley may
be reached at m.mcginley@louisville.edu.

STRUCTURE magazine 16 March 2010

 All Resource Guides and Updates for the 2010 Editorial Calendar, including the 2010
Trade Show in Print, are now available on the website, www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
Your information is posted for an entire year on our website! Listings are provided as a
SOFTWARE UPDATES
courtesy. STRUCTURE® magazine is not responsible for errors. news and information from software vendors

Company Product Description

ADAPT Corporation ADAPT’s Structural Concrete Design Suite provides practical and reliable solutions for the design of concrete
Phone: 650-306-2400 slabs systems, beams, beam frames and foundations. ADAPT-Floor Pro now features integrated vibration analysis,
ADAPT 2010 Solutions
Email: info@adaptsoft.com enhanced capabilities for forensic analysis, and retrofit design. ADAPT-RC offers up-to-date US and Canadian
Web: www.adaptsoft.com codes with new 3D graphical input.

Bentley Systems, Inc. The industry’s first comprehensive interoperability methodology for structural information called Integrated Structural
Phone: 800-236-8539 Bentley’s Structural Modeling (ISM). To begin ISM, download-at no cost. Bentley’s Structural Synchronizer v8i which works behind
Email: structural@bentley.com Synchronizer v8i the scenes to provide engineers with a shared and dynamic repository for all of their structural content – including
Web: www.bentley.com visualization and revision history.

Design Data
Phone: 800-443-0782 Design Data’s SDS/2 steel detailing software is the only product on the market with the built-in intelligence to
SDS/2 and EAD/2 automatically design connections using a 3D model. The EAD/2 engineering and analysis software – integrated
Email: Info@sds2.com with SDS/2 – allows users to design, analyze and detail steel structures, all within the same software platform.
Web: www.sds2.com

Devco Software, Inc.

Phone: 541-426-5713 Design Cold-formed Cee, channel and zee shapes per the 2004 NASPEC. Uniform, concentrated, partial span
LGBEAMER v7 Pro
Email: rob@devcosoftware.com and axial loads. Standard or custom sections. Includes Shearwalls, X-braces and framed openings and more.
Web: www.devcosoftware.com
Dimensional Solutions, Inc. Dimensional Solutions’ Foundation Design Suite components are integrated, single-program solutions that
Phone: 281-497-5991 complete soil/pile supported foundation design from concept to construction drawings to modeling in just
Foundation Design Suite
Email: info@dimsoln.com minutes. To find out more about how you can experience significant time savings and increased productivity in
Web: www.dimsoln.com your foundation design, please visit our website.

GT STRUDL GT STRUDL Version 30, from the Georgia Tech CASE Center, provides NEW and IMPROVED Static and
Phone: 404-894-2260 GT STRUDL Dynamic Solvers (including 64 bit solvers); a new Base Plate Module; and new Steel Design Codes. GT STRUDL
Email: casec@ce.gatech.edu is widely used in the Nuclear Industry as a result of the CASE Center’s QA program.
Web: www.gtstrudl.gatech.edu

IES, Inc.
Phone: 800-707-0816 VA offers engineer a simple, friendly way to build structural models, and solve analysis and design problems they
IES VisualAnalysis
Email: info@iesweb.com face every day. The software lets the engineer stay in full control, while it automates most mundane tasks.
Web: www.iesweb.com
MIDASoft Inc.
Phone: 800-584-5541 midas Civil 2010 (Bridges) provides 3-D analysis and design for curved/straight girder, composite, segmental
Civil 2010 – Bridges
Email: midasoft@midasuser.com post-tensioning, suspension, cable-stayed, skewed slab, frame, arch, and culvert bridges with live load optimizers.
Web: www.midasuser.com

Powers Fasteners
Phone: 985-807-6666 Powers Design Assist Software: Free downloadable Post-Installed and Cast-in-Place anchoring software to assist
Anchor Design Software
Email: jzenor@powers.com in designing to the IBC 2006 & ACI 318 Appendix D.
Web: www.powers.com

RISA Technologies RISA-3D designs and optimizes steel, concrete, masonry, wood and cold-formed steel with a fast, intuitive
Phone: 949-951-5815 interface. State of the art solution algorithms, customizable reporting options and robust integration with
RISA-3D
Email: info@risatech.com other products such as RISAFloor, RISAFoundation and Revit Structure make RISA-3D the premier choice
Web: www.risa.com for general purpose structural analysis and design.

StrucSoft Solutions Ltd. New version of MWF now with: MEP clash detection with automatic opening, Reverse stud propagation,
Phone: 514-731-0008 Parallel beams and walls detection, Automated openings, Simpson connector insertion, Filtering engine, Link
MWF Professional
Email: d.deschamps@strucsoftsolutions.com to Sizer WoodWorks interface, Panel joint creation interface, Vertical and horizontal Panel breakup markers
Web: www.strucsoftsolutions.com and much more.

StructurePoint StructurePoint, formerly the PCA Engineering Software Group, offers a suite of engineering programs that
Phone: 847-966-4357 Reinforced Concrete Analysis
are easy to learn and simple to use. Updated to ACI 318-08 the programs include spColumn, spSlab, spMats,
Email: info@structurepoint.org and Design Software
spBeam, spWall and spFrame and are used for design or investigation. Pricing is offered separately or bundled.
Web: www.StructurePoint.org

Struware, Inc. Struware announces a new version of its Code Search program. The software has been simplified, expanded and
Phone: 904-302-6724 Struware Code Search updated to the 2009 IBC. The program will provide you with all pertinent wind, seismic, snow, live and dead
Email: email@struware.com loads in just minutes. Struware also offers other structural software. Demos at the website.
Web: www.struware.com

Tekla, Inc. Tekla Structures is the BIM solution for structural engineers that can take any building project, no matter how
Phone: 877-835-5265 Tekla Structures large or complex, from conceptual design to detailing and construction. You can exchange model data with
Email: info.us@tekla.com architects and other designers, work with popular A&D programs, and much more!
Web: www.tekla.com/us
The Steel Network
Phone: 888-474-4876 The Steel Smart System® (SSS) provides construction professionals with an essential tool engineered for both fast
Steel Smart System 6 and accurate design, as well as presenting the budgeting necessary for light steel framing. Available as a complete
Email: technicalsupport@steelnetwork.com suite, SSS6 will streamline production through design and detailing of members, connections, and fasteners.
Web: www.steelnetwork.com

WoodWorks Software
Phone: 800-844-1275 WoodWorks® – produced by the Canadian Wood Council with technical guidance from the American Wood
WoodWorks® Software Council of the American Forest & Paper Association. Quickly design light-frame or heavy timber structures
Email: sales@woodworks-software.com based on 2005 edition of the AF&PA’s National Design Specification® (NDS®) for Wood Construction.
Web: www.woodworks-software.com

STRUCTURE magazine 17 March 2010

 Work quickly.
Work simply.
Work accurately.

StructurePoint’s Productivity Suite of powerful software tools

for reinforced concrete analysis & design

Finite element analysis & de- Analysis, design

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

Design & investigation Analysis, design

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

Finite element analysis & design of reinforced concrete

foundations, combined footings or slabs on grade

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

STR 6-09
2008 Special Design Provisions
for Wind and Seismic
By Philip Line, P.E., Bradford K. Douglas, P.E., and Peter Mazikins, M.Eng, P.Eng
The 2008 Edition of the Special De-
sign Provisions for Wind and Seismic
was approved as an American National
Standard on August 4, 2008, with a des-
ignation ANSI / AF&PA SDPWS-2008.
The 2008 SDPWS was developed by
AF&PA’s Wood Design Standards Com-
mittee (WDSC) and contains provisions
for design of wood members, fasteners,
and assemblies to resist wind and seismic
forces. Several additions and revisions to
the specification have been incorporated
in this latest edition.
High Load Diaphragms
Provisions for wood structural panel
blocked diaphragms with multiple rows
of fasteners, also known as “high load dia-
phragms”, have been added consistent with
provisions in the 2006 International Build-
ing Code (IBC) and the 2003 National
Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program
(NEHRP) Provisions. A distinguishing
feature of high load diaphragms, rela-
tive to typical blocked wood structural
panel diaphragms, is use of nominal 3x
or 4x framing at adjoining panel edges
and boundaries and presence of multiple
rows of fasteners at these locations (Figure
1). Apparent shear stiffness values are tab-
ulated for each combination of nailing and
sheathing thickness as is done for typi-
cal blocked and unblocked diaphragms
in the SDPWS to simplify calculation of
diaphragm deflection.
Shear Walls
Wood Structural Panels Installed
Over Gypsum Wallboard or
Gypsum Sheathing Board
Provisions for wood structural panels
applied over gypsum wallboard or gypsum
sheathing have been added consistent
with provisions in IBC and NEHRP.
Adjoining panel edge
Adjoining panel
edges staggered
a. Adjoining panel edges staggered
Figure 2: Wood structural panel sheathing on two-sides.
STRUCTURE magazine
A djo ining panel edge
1/2"
2 1/2"
3/8" m in.
3/8" m in.
1/2"
F astene r spacing
3" nom inal - tw o lines of fa steners
Figure 1: Excerpt from SDPWS Figure 4C – High load diaphragm.
Unit shear strength and apparent shear
stiffness values are provided in Table
4.3B for each combination of nailing
and sheathing thickness.
Shear Strength
Reduction Equation
For Perforated Shear Wall
Equation 4.3-5 has been added to
SDPWS to provide more accurate results
for perforated shear walls having open-
ings of different heights within the wall
length. Equation 4.3-5 was the basis for
tabulated shear capacity adjustment fac-
tors in the current SDPWS; however,
for tabulation purposes, all openings in
the perforated shear wall were assumed
to have a height equal to the maximum
opening height. Use of the equation will
always provide values of the shear capacity
adjustment factor that are equal to or
greater than obtained from the table.
Framing and Nailing
For Shear Walls Sheathed
On Two Sides
New provisions for staggering of ad-
joining panel edges and minimum
nominal framing width for two-sided
wood structural panel shear walls (Figure
2) with nail spacing less than 6 inches on
3x framing
Adjoining
or blocking panel edge
Adjoining
panel edge
b. Adjoining panel edges not staggered
19
CODES AND STANDARDS
updates and discussions related to codes and standartds
P anel edge
2 1 /2 " - 3 1/2"
5 or 7 Equal
S paces
B oundary fastening (tw o lines staggered is show n)
center are consistent with similar provi-
sions in the 2006 IBC. Staggered nailing
at adjoining panel edges where 3 inches
nominal or wider framing is used is also
added. This new provision appears under
footnote 6 of Table 4.3A and footnote 5
of Table 4.3B.
Shear Wall Construction
Two 2x Members as an Alternative
to a Single 3x Member
Use of two 2x framing members ad-
equately fastened together in place of a
single 3x member required at adjoining
panel edges in shear wall construction
is consistent with guidance in the 2005
SDPWS Commentary, as well as a similar
provision in the 2006 IBC. To address
proper fabrication where nail spacing
in the “stitched” members at adjoining
panel edges is close, staggered nailing is
required where fastener spacing is closer
than 4 inches on center.
Unblocked Shear Walls
New provisions for unblocked wood
structural panel shear walls are applicable
only to wood structural panel shear walls
16 feet in height or less, aspect ratio of
2:1 or less, and panel edge nail spacing
of 6 inches on center. Unblocked shear
wall adjustment factors, ranging in value
from 0.4 to 1.0, reduce the strength of
the reference blocked shear wall with
studs at 24 inches on center to account
for presence of unblocked panel edges.
Unblocked shear walls exhibit load-
deflection behavior similar to that of the
blocked shear wall reference condition
but with reduced values of strength
based on application of Cub. To account
for reduction in unblocked shear wall
March 2010
 N ail sp acing at interm ediate
fram ing, 12" o.c.
S hea r w all de sig n n ail spacing
S h e ath in g e d g e at b o tto m p late
(sin g le ro w a n d d o u b le ro w o f fas te n e rs )
S h e ath in g e d g e at to p p late
(sin g le ro w a n d d o u b le ro w o f fas te n e rs ) where vertical joints in the gypsum lath are
3 /4 " P anel edge
staggered. Unit shear values are based on
cyclic testing and consistent with a similar
revision accepted in the 2007 Supplement to
S pacing

the 2006 IBC.

3 /4 " S pacing

P anel edge Foundation Anchorage

S ingle row of fa steners S ingle row of fa steners
1 /2 "1 /2 "
S pacing
1 /2 " S pacing
1 /2 "
P anel edge S pacing
A lte rna ite na il spacing D ouble ro w of fasteners D ouble ro w of fasteners
p e r T ab le 4 .4 .1 o r 4 .4 .2
Figure 3: Excerpt from SDPWS Figure 4G – Panel Attachment.
stiffness, which is proportional to reduc- calculations in accordance with the National
tion in strength, SDPWS 4.3.2.2 specifies Design Specification® (NDS®) for Wood Con-
that deflection of unblocked shear walls is struction, 2005 and conditions verified by
to be calculated from standard deflection full-scale testing. Allowable values of up-
equations using an amplified value of in- lift capacity are determined by dividing the
duced unit shear. nominal values by the allowable stress design
(ASD) reduction factor of 2.0.
Combined Uplift and Detailing options for use of wood structural
Shear Resistance panels to transfer tension forces within a
Wood Structural Panels story or between stories are provided. Figure
Resisting Wind Loads 3 provides minimum distance from top and
bottom edges of wood structural panels used
Provisions for wood structural panels de-
to resist tension and spanning from the top
signed to resist combined shear and uplift
plate to the bottom plate within a single story.
from wind have been added in Section 4.4
and update similar provisions first recog-
nized in the Standard for Hurricane Resistant Gypsum Lath and Plaster Walls
Construction, SSTD-10 in 1999. Tabulated A new category of shear walls using gypsum
values of nominal uplift capacity for various lath, plain or perforated, has been added
combinations of nailing schedules and panel in Table 4.3C to recognize increased unit
type and thickness establish limits based on shear capacity and stiffness of this wall type
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
S pacing
Revised provisions for plate washer size and
P anel edge
location are specified for anchoring of wall
bottom plates. Increase in washer size, from
2½-inch square in the 2005 SDPWS to
3-inch square in the 2008 SDPWS, makes
washer size consistent with 2006 IBC and
2006 International Residential Code (IRC)
and provides specific allowance for the slot to
facilitate washer placement.
The ½-inch distance from the washer edge
to the sheathed edge (Figure 4) limits po-
tential for cross grain bending, but is not
required for low strength sheathing materials
because bottom plate failure is not the failure
limit state. For low strength materials, failure
mechanisms include tear-out and slotting
(e.g. gypsum wallboard) of the sheathing, as
well as fastener head pull-through. An exception
to the plate washer requirement is provided
based on testing and is applicable for walls
having an aspect ratio less than 2:1, nomi-
nal shear for seismic not exceeding 980 plf
(comparable to 7/16-inch OSB with 8d nails at
3 inches o.c. at panel edges) and where hold
downs are sized to resist total overturning ne-
glecting dead load stabilizing moment.
Fiberboard Aspect Ratio
An increased aspect ratio for structural fi-
berboard shear walls has been incorporated
in Table 4.3.4 based on strength and stiffness
determined from cyclic testing. A maximum
aspect ratio of 3.5:1 is permitted but adjust-
ment factors accounting for reduced strength
and stiffness are applicable where the aspect
ratio is greater than 1.0. For seismic design,
the aspect ratio reduction factor is based on

SuperLaminate™ - Not Your Ordinary Fiber Wrap System analysis of reduced stiffness of high aspect ra-
Introducing the Next Generation of FRP tio walls relative to the reference case (aspect
ratio 1:1) and results in a maximum reduc-
Advantages of SuperLaminate™
Blast retrot of structures Strengthening of concrete & masonry walls
tion factor of 0.36 at a 3.5:1 aspect ratio. For
• One size ts all wind design, the strength reduction factor
• Stronger than ber wrap
• ISO-9000 cerƟed plant Retrot of accounts for observed reduction in peak unit
• Up to 80% faster construcƟon Ɵme beams, slabs & shear strength as aspect ratio increases relative
• Material properƟes known before columns
installaƟon Repair of columns to the reference case and results in a reduction
You can learn more about these below grade without factor of 0.78 at a 3.5:1 aspect ratio.
the need for costly Field-manufac-
products by visiƟng
excavaƟon tured cylindrical Related revisions based on the testing pro-
www.SuperLaminate.com
shell around gram include an increase in the required panel
www.QuakeWrap.com (PileMedic.com) square columns
www.PipeMedic.com edge distance for nailing at top and bottom
www.PileMedic.com plates and removal of 8d common nails as a
Repair of under-
PLEASE CALL US FOR AN EVALUATION BY Trenchless repair of water piles with- permitted fastener for attachment of struc-
ONE OF OUR STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS pipes and culverts, out the need for tural fiberboard sheathing.
(520) 791-7000 OR costly divers
(866) QuakeWrap [782-5397]
including spot repair
(PipeMedic.com) (PileMedic.com)

STRUCTURE magazine 20 March 2010

 Format of Diaphragm and
Shear Wall Tables
Wood Structural Panels
(OSB and Plywood)
A revised format of diaphragm and shear
wall tables incorporates apparent shear stiff-
ness, Ga, for OSB and plywood in the same
tables. Previously, Appendix tables were used
to provide tabulated values of apparent shear
stiffness for plywood.
Reference Documents
References to product standards have been
updated. Addition and update of product
standards are as follows:
Product standards added:
ANSI / CPA A135.6, Hardboard
Siding, Composite Panel Association,
Gaithersburg, MD, 2006. (Replaces AHA
A135.4-95 and AHA A135.5-95)
ASTM C 1396 / C 1396M-06a, Standard
Specification for Gypsum Board, ASTM,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2006. (Replaces
ASTM C 36 / C 36M-01, ASTM C
37 / C 37M-01, ASTM C 79 / C 79M-01,
ASTM C 588 / C 588M-01, ASTM C
630 / C 630M-01)
Product standards updated:
ANSI A208.1-99, Particleboard, ANSI,
New York, NY, 1999.
PS 1-07 Structural Plywood, United States
Department of Commerce, National
Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, MD, 2007.
PS 2-04 Performance Standard for Wood-
Based Structural Use Panels, United States
Department of Commerce, National
Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, MD, 2004.
2008 SDPWS Commentary
Updates to the SDPWS Commentary based
on input from users and new information
considered in development of the 2008 SD-
PWS are also incorporated in the document.
Building Codes and Standards
The 2008 SDPWS has been approved as a
reference document in the 2009 International
Building Code and has been submitted for
adoption as a reference document in ASCE
7-10 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
and Other Structures.
STRUCTURE magazine
1/2" maximum
Plate washer edge
Sheathed edge
of bottom plate
Figure 4: Distance for plate washer edge to
sheathed edge.
Conclusion
AWC’s 2008 SDPWS was approved August
4, 2008 as an American National Standard.
SDPWS covers materials, design, and con-
struction of wood members, fasteners, and
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
assemblies to resist wind and seismic forces.
As an update to the 2005 SDPWS standard,
several notable new provisions of the 2008
SDPWS standard provide new design options
for wood construction to resist forces from
wind or seismic coupled with limitations on
the use of new design options. Examples in-
clude new criteria for wood structural panels
designed to resist combined shear and uplift
from wind, addition of provisions for un-
blocked shear walls, and an increased aspect
ratio for structural fiberboard shear walls.
The 2008 SDPWS standard is available to
view free at www.awc.org.▪
Philip Line, P.E. is a Senior Structural
Engineer with URS Corporation.
Mr. Line can be reached at
Philip_Line@URSCorp.com.
Bradford K. Douglas, P.E. is a Senior
Director, Engineering at AF&PA.
Mr. Douglas can be reached at
Brad_Douglas@afandpa.org.
Peter Mazikins, M.Eng, P.Eng is a Senior
Manager, Engineering Standards at
AF&PA. Mr. Mazikins can be reached at
Peter_Mazikins@afandpa.org.
A more in-depth version of this article
originally appeared in the Fall 2008 issue
of Wood Design Focus (FPS).
21 March 2010
Second Opinion Leads to Substantial Savings
in Evaluation and Repair of Marble Façade
By William D. Bast, P.E., S.E., SECB, Scott G. Nacheman, M.Sc.Eng, AIA, R.A.,
Rachel L. Michelin, EIT, LEED® AP and Dziugas Reneckis, Ph.D., P.E.
When it comes to considering a costly and disruptive façade
replacement, it always pays to get a second opinion. That’s what the
condominium association at Water Tower Place in Chicago found
when faced with ongoing façade deterioration.
Water Tower Place is a 74-story, 859-foot tall reinforced concrete
building, constructed between the years of 1973 and 1976 (Figure 1).
Georgia Cherokee Solar Gray marble panels (1½-inch thick) and flush
aluminum-framed windows envelop the tower exterior (Figure 2). The
veneer panels on this portion of the high-rise are anchored to the rein-
forced concrete structure spandrel beams and columns. Approximately
16,000 marble panels clad the building, and 6,240 of those (39%)
cover the condominium portion of the building.
In 1979, several marble panels fell from the lower commercial portion
of the building during a severe windstorm. As a result of the damage
and what was believed to be a kerf anchor failure, the entire building
façade was investigated by a local engineering firm which concluded
that the kerfs had insufficient outward load strength capacity. In 1980,
at the conclusion of the review, mechanical repair anchors were post-
installed at the lower half of the spandrel panels to supplement the kerf
outward strength resistance.
Over the years, regular inspections and repairs were performed and
additional anchors installed on many of the façade panels. In early
2006, helical anchors were installed in panels at the corners of the tower
(designated higher wind zones). The engineering consultant involved
in this work determined that the marble would continue to lose 3% of
its original strength or more per year, and that the entire façade would
require replacement in the near future.
The prospect of such a costly and disruptive undertaking led the
Condominium Association and the building’s other two ownership
entities to seek a second opinion. The Owners retained a consortium
of European experts who were completing a European Union-sponsored
five-year study on thin-stone marble failures in Europe. These engineering
Figure 1: The condominium portion of Water Tower Place is from floors 33 to 72;
the balance of the building is owned by commercial and hotel entities.
STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 2: Overview of the metal-framed windows and marble panels.
and scientist professionals conducted a peer review of the prior inves-
tigations, and performed independent laboratory and field tests on the
marble veneer and its connections. In general, the group determined that
although the marble was losing strength, and would continue to do
so, the loss was approximately 1% per year, or less.
Confronted with two analyses with broadly differing ramifications
for the serviceable life of the façade, the Condominium Association
hired Thornton Tomasetti in 2006 to be the engineering consultant for
the condominium portion of the tower and to develop a preservation
program for the marble façade.
Marble Façade Design and Construction
Four sizes, or types, of marble veneer panels clad the high-rise portion
of the building (Figure 3). The structural frame here is comprised of
upturned reinforced concrete spandrel beams, typically 12.5 inches
wide by 32 inches deep, which are covered with four 33 inch tall panels
per scaffold bay (Type F panels), as well as a smaller panel at the corners
of the building (Type B panels). The columns are typically 10 inches
or 14 inches deep by 48 inches wide, covered by 49-inch wide marble
panels at the center of each bay (Type C panels). At each end of the
bays, adjacent to where the building scaffold tracks are located, two
vertical panels were utilized to cover the columns (Type E panels). All
panels are typically separated from one another, and from the window
framing, by ⅜-inch thick sealant joints.
When the building was constructed, marble panels on the high-
rise portion were anchored to the reinforced concrete structure only
around the panel edges, using stainless steel relieving angles as kerfs
at the bottom, and straps with stainless steel dowel pins at the top
and sides. A nominal 3-inch cavity, which is partially filled with urea
formaldehyde foam insulation, separates the marble veneer from the
reinforced concrete backup and concrete masonry infill.
The marble panels and connections appeared to be originally designed
to resist 33 pounds per square foot (psf ) wind pressure loads, per the
1973 Chicago Building Code. Due to the possibility of new wind
dynamics caused by more recently constructed neighboring build-
ings, Thornton Tomasetti, together with the consulting engineer for
the other two owners, suggested that an updated wind tunnel analysis
test be performed for the entire building. The results from the test,
which was completed in May 2007, indicated maximum pressures of
up to 90 psf for the building’s exterior cladding.
22 March 2010
 Furthermore, it was determined that any modifications to the mar-
ble anchorage needed to account for other environmental conditions,
such as moisture and temperature cycles. SCAFFOLD TRACKS
BAY BAY
Existing Repairs:
Post-Installed Anchors B F F F F
Prior repair programs included the installation of numerous
supplemental anchors in the façade panels. The first repair program
was conducted in 1980, following the severe windstorm in 1979. As E E C E
part of these repairs, mechanical restoration anchors were post-installed
in all of the spandrel panels. The majority of the corner panels were B F F F F
also pinned with this type of anchor in 1980. One drawback of this
type of anchor is its ability to resist outward (suction) wind loading Figure 3: Partial elevation indicating panel types.
only. Thornton Tomasetti’s review of the façade noted that several of
the mechanical anchor heads appeared to have loosened over time. 1% per year. The rate of the stone strength loss is expected to decrease
Moreover, Thornton Tomasetti observed that the helical anchors with time. If the initial flexural rupture strength of approximately
installed in early 2006 provided little out-of-plane support for the 1,100 psi to 1,200 psi for newly quarried marble is compared to the
marble panels because they engage only a relatively small contact area of recently identified strength of approximately 700 psi for the stone
the stone. The lack of ability of the anchor to engage the stone material on the building, the loss in strength over the past 30 years appears
was evident in the slippage observed in test specimens. to be slightly more than 1% per year. Therefore, the Condominium
Association was advised that an assumed strength degradation of 1%
Deterioration of the Marble Panels per year could be used to identify the serviceable life of the façade. The
reduced strengths, over time, of the stone and connections have been
As part of the initial review of the building, it was observed that a
summarized in Table 2 (page 24).
number of the veneer panels were displaying signs of inward or outward
The results of the wind tunnel study, dated May 2007 by The
bowing. Other consultants previously reported that the degree of bowing
Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory, were used for the analysis of
and the amount of strength loss have a direct correlation. However,
the marble façade panels. The outward (suction) wind pressures ranged
after testing of the marble strength was completed, this correlation was
from 30 psf to 90 psf for the condominium portion, depending on the
proven to be inconclusive, as none of the consultants for the façade
panel location.
were able to correlate the magnitude of panel bow with the magnitude
Structural finite element models were utilized to represent the marble
of strength loss in the material on this building. Additionally, while
façade panels, their existing support conditions (steel dowel pins, kerfs,
many panels are bowed, especially on the West side of the building,
and post-installed anchors), as well as the proposed repair anchors.
most of the panels located in the condominium portion of the building
For the structural review of the panels, Thornton Tomasetti used the
are within the allowable tolerance for thin marble veneer panels (⅛-inch
projected flexural rupture stresses, as well as pin and kerf support force
bow displacement over a 4-foot length), as established by the Marble
capacities, with an applied factor of safety of two. The capacities were
Institute of America (MIA) in the Dimension Stone Manual v.6 (2007).
determined from testing results by others between 2004 and 2005,
As part of the analysis, the experimental results from material strength
reduced by the estimated strength loss of 1% per year. Capacities were
testing performed previously by others were studied, and then the
determined for the estimated strength loss up to the year 2025.
results most appropriate for the structural review of the marble façade
The marble panel and support geometries were modeled with
panels were selected.
SAP2000® structural analysis software. The marble panels were
During the analysis of the testing performed by others, it was assumed
represented by shell elements, with a modulus of elasticity of 8,000
that the panels utilized for experimental testing were selected randomly
ksi and coefficient of thermal expansion of 8.3 x10-6 in./in./ºF, based
and evenly from the façade to represent the overall condition of the
upon the typical published values of these properties. The steel pin,
marble on the building. To utilize the experimental strength values for the
kerf, and previous repair anchors were represented in the model with
structural review of the panels, Thornton Tomasetti used ASTM E122
frame elements.
to identify more reliable “true” strength averages ( μ ) from the measured
strength averages (x), by taking into account the specimen sample sizes
(n) and the measured average strength variations (s≈σ). As shown in Table Structural Analysis Results and Discussion
1, this typically resulted in corrections of the average measured strengths. The analysis of the façade resulted in a determination that the distress
After review of all the available data and testing results, the rate of in the existing panels is a result of two load-deformation mechanisms:
strength loss of the stone was determined to be close to an average of in-plane and out-of-plane.
continued on next page
Table 1: Summary of the marble and connection strength test results.
Exp. Avg. Std. Dev. No. of Tests “True” Avg.
Marble Panel Component and Load Type x s ( ) n μ
10" Kerf Strength (lbs) 655 292 55 537
Pin Strength (lbs) 295 77 52 263
Pin Strength (lbs) 382 121 18 296
Helifix Anchor Strength (lbs) 918 236 8 668
Flexural Rupture Stress – Flexure w/Shear (psi) 1204 195 18 1066
Flexural Rupture Stress – Pure Flexure (psi) 718 137 492 699

STRUCTURE magazine 23 March 2010

Table 2: Summary of the projected strength of the marble and connections.
Strength Test Results Projected Strength at 1% per Year Reduction
Marble Panel Component and Years 2004 – 2005 Year 2010 Year 2012 Year 2025
Load Type  /2 /5*  /2  /2  /2
10" Kerf Strength (lbs) 537 269 107 505 252 494 247 424 212
Pin Strength (lbs) 263 132 53 247 124 242 121 208 104
Helifix Anchor Strength (lbs) 668 334 134 628 314 615 307 528 264
Flexural Rupture Stress – Flexure
1066 533 213 996 498 968 484 786 393
w/Shear (psi)
Flexural Rupture Stress – Pure
699 350 140 627 314 603 302 447 224
Flexure (psi)
* – Factor of safety recommended by MIA for new marble construction.

In recent years, the majority of the “new” small cracks located along
the top of the spandrel panels (at or near the dowel pin supports)
appear on the south elevation of the building. These vertical cracks can
largely be attributed to thermal contraction and expansion of the façade
panels. This mechanism was further confirmed by the finite element
analysis of the panels subjected to in-plane thermal loading; the analysis
results indicated relatively high tensile stress concentrations at or near
the dowel pin locations.
The analysis considered both wind pressures and suctions applied to
the marble panels, as updated by the wind tunnel test results, which
resulted in out-of-plane moments, shears, reactions, and deflections.
As noted in the literature, bowing of marble panels can be attributed
to anisotropic thermal and moisture expansion/contraction cycles, which
cause permanent strain in the stone microstructure. The panel bow is
generally a result of movement at the marble grain boundaries which is
independent of mechanical stresses in the material.
Some of the results of the June 2007 analysis are included in Figure
4, which displays results incorporating Dead, Thermal (+90°F), and
Wind (55 psf ) Loading. The following cases are compared:
• Case A: the original design and installation of the marble panels
• Case B: the marble panels with mechanical restoration anchors
installed in the 1980s
• Case C: recommended repairs,with installation of 4 restoration
anchors (missing one original pin)
• Case D: recommended repairs, with installation of 4 restoration
anchors (missing two original pins)
The stress concentrations in the stone are visible at the kerfs, pins, and
anchors. Based on these results, Thornton Tomasetti determined that
the installation of repair anchors that have capacity to resist both wind
suction and wind pressure loads would provide adequate support for
the marble panels.

Repair Strategies
After demonstrating to the Condominium Association’s Façade
Committee that the strength of the marble panels would be adequate
for wind loads provided supplemental anchorage was installed, the
search commenced for a repair anchor with the unique anchor qualities
required for this project.
Because no anchor was found to have all the required design and
installation properties, the possibility of working with a manufacturer
to customize an anchor with the necessary characteristics was explored.
The structural analysis of the stone panel behavior concluded that a
rigid out-of-plane connection is favorable for wind pressure resistance.
A flexible repair anchor, previously suggested by others, would not
attract enough of the load relative to the existing pins/kerf, which

Figure 5: Expansion sleeve anchor designed by CTP and Thornton Tomasetti for
panel support against wind pressure and suction.
Figure 4: Analysis results for Panel Type F.

STRUCTURE magazine 24 March 2010

 Thornton Tomasetti directed CTP to develop a testing assembly that
would represent the interaction of the anchor and the stone (similar
to ASTM C1354 testing). The anchor was tested in the stone with
the reaction base spacing set at three times the anchorage depth (in
this case it was 4½ inches from the test specimen), which generated an
“anchorage load“ value (Figure 6).
The anchors were loaded up to approximately 1,100 pounds without
failure, and they exhibited an average axial stiffness of approximately
37 kips/inch.
The Condominium Association and Thornton Tomasetti have been able
to increase the durability and longevity of the façade by the implementation
of a repair and maintenance program. The additional years of prolonged
service life will be utilized to increase the reserve fund of the Condominium
Association in the event of a future need to replace the façade.▪

William D. Bast, P.E., S.E., SECB is a senior vice president

and principal with Thornton Tomasetti. Bill may be reached at
WBast@ThorntonTomasetti.com.
Scott G. Nacheman, M.Sc.Eng, AIA, R.A., is a Vice President
Figure 6: Anchor testing apparatus. with Thornton Tomasetti. Scott may be reached at
would result in overstresses and further cracking at the panel mid-spans, SNacheman@ThorntonTomasetti.com.
as well as at the pin and kerf supports. Thornton Tomasetti proposed Rachel L. Michelin (née Lannan), EIT, LEED® AP, is a Senior
using a mechanical anchor with an expansion sleeve, which was co- Engineer with Thornton Tomasetti. Rachel may be reached at
developed with Construction Tie Products (CTP), for resisting inward RMichelin@ThorntonTomasetti.com.
and outward wind loading (Figure 5).
Due to the low axial stiffness of the helical anchors and their sus- Dziugas Reneckis, Ph.D., P.E., is a Senior Engineer with
ceptibility of slipping through the stone, all of the panels with helical Thornton Tomasetti. Dziugas may be reached at
anchors, post-installed in 2006, were presumed to be unreliable. DReneckis@ThorntonTomasetti.com.

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

Restoration Team Experience Since 1978

Masonry Façade Re-Anchoring Solutions

SAVE THE WALL! Don’t Tear it Down or Cover it with Insulation and Stucco
Strengthen and stabilize masonry façades while adding veneer stiffness for added decades of protection and comfort.
CTP has engineered anchor performance solutions for claddings of brick and stone. A selection of corrosion resistant
products are available to re-anchor brick to wood, concrete, steel, block, brick, metal stud, or tile back-ups.
CTP Stitch-Tie CTP Grip-Max CTP CT-16 Construction Tie Products, Inc.
Helical Wall Tie System for Stabilizing Mechanical Anchors for Stabilizing Stone Panel Veneers For Brick Additions or Replacement; and for is committed to supplying the highest quality
Veneers and Crack Repair Brick Veneer Stud Cavity Wall Construction. masonry tie and construction systems
Veneer Anchoring System That Keeps the in North America and satisfying
Air Barrier Intact and the Veneer in Place. all stringent national codes and standards
for today's building structures.
CTP, Inc. promises to be a reliable product
source along with on-time business integrity
for all demanding builders.

Shown
ANOTHER
CTP Here With:
ORIGINAL!
CTP Wall Tie
NEW! a Multifunctional Triangle Wall Tie That
CTP GRIP-MAX* Can be Used in Standard or Seismic 7974 W. Orchard Drive
Veneer Anchoring Applications
* Patent Pending
Michigan City, Indiana
CTP Grip-Tie Contact our 46360-9390 • USA
Mechanical Repair Anchors for Stabilizing Veneers Technical Services Team with Phone: (219) 878-1427
your repair application needs Contact: Steve Getz, BSCE
for a cost effective and www.ctpanchors.com
performance targeted
Engineered Anchoring Solutions Provider
veneer stabilizing solution.
Proudly Made In the USA!

STRUCTURE magazine 25 March 2010

 Tips for Selecting Wood-Frame Structure
Single-Member Sizing Software
By Ross Theilen, P.E.

When it comes to appropriately sizing wood beams, joists, and other

structural framing members, engineers (unless they’ve developed their own
tools) have two choices: use software developed by a third-party company
or use software provided by a building product manufacturer. In some
cases, engineers prefer third-party programs because of concerns that
manufacturers’ software may limit the range of materials they can specify.
On the other hand, some engineers favor software from manufacturers due
to the tools’ more detailed performance specifications for their branded
structural framing products.
Below are several factors to consider when evaluating general-purpose
sizing tools and proprietary software developed by manufacturers, including Manufacturers’ sizing software offers greater
some key features to look for in those tools. details on their specific products’ capabilities
than general purpose tools do.

Proprietary vs. General
Purpose Tools
While a building product manufacturers’
sizing software targets their own products,
the tools don’t necessarily restrict engi-
neers from specifying equivalent materials,
if desired. As such, advantages in cost
savings, ease of use, and the ability to
maximize framing member performance
are among the reasons proprietary tools
may fit a designer’s needs better than
general purpose tools.
One advantage of manufacturer-specific
software is that it is often free. Companies
information and updates on the impact of technology on structural engineering
a generic material class such as laminated
strand lumber (LSL) or laminated veneer
lumber (LVL). But since performance
capabilities of specific products vary by
manufacturer, the tool may not maximize
the design capabilities of a specific brand.
For firms that plan to specify a given
company’s products, the generic tool may
even underestimate the capabilities of the
desired LSL or LVL brand.
Using a manufacturer’s software can
boost framing performance and thereby
help ensure efficient material usage, and
potentially reduce project costs if fewer
members are needed. For example, holes
Range of Structural
Products and Applications
When using manufacturers’ software,
engineers can limit the number of differ-
ent single-member sizing tools needed by
using software from companies that offer
numerous types and sizes of wood prod-
ucts. Consider tools that can evaluate a full
range of materials and member types, such
as I-joists, LSL, LVL, and Parallel Strand
Lumber (PSL) for headers, joists, beams,
etc. Tools that guide the user in sorting out
the best product for a given application can
really help navigate the variety of product

anticipate that engineers will use the tools
to specify their products, of course, but if
the brand is trusted and often used, the
benefits of synchronizing the software and
framing materials can be substantial.
For example, using manufacturers’ soft-
ware often eliminates the need for engineers
to recall usage guidelines specific to a
brand’s framing materials. The software
will typically have the products’ unique
TECHNOLOGY
in I-joist webs allow trades to run plumb-
ing and HVAC without dropping the
ceiling. I-joist cantilever reinforcement
augments joist strength on loaded canti-
levers allowing the builder to stick with a
consistent joist series for an entire framing
area and avoid upsizing select joists. These
kinds of options depend significantly on
methods developed by manufacturers and
technologies available today.
In addition, look for a tool that fits
the types of projects your firm typically
designs, whether single-family homes,
multi-family, or other light commercial
construction. Tools that allow the user
ultimate flexibility to model unique condi-
tions often lack efficiencies attained from
focused tools that provide support condi-

are therefore typically not found in general tions typical in wood frame construction,
capabilities and limitations built in – purpose sizing tools. common loading scenarios, etc.
including compliance with building codes.
General purpose sizing tools are typically
more generic. In addition, manufacturer-
developed software is usually updated
more frequently than general-purpose
software to reflect changes in product
lines. In many cases, general-purpose
software packages leave it to the user to
enter and maintain product properties or
require additional fees for upgrades and rel-
evant information.
Manufacturers’ sizing software also offers
greater levels of detail on their specific
products than do general-purpose tools. For
example, general-purpose sizing software
Single-member sizing software with a graphic interface helps make design simple and intuitive.
will typically provide analysis results for

STRUCTURE magazine 26 March 2010

 Also important is a tool’s ability to size members
within the range of applications encountered in
many modern wood-framed buildings, such as
drop beams, sloped roofs, and cantilevers.
Capabilities Beyond
Code Compliance
Some single-member sizing tools allow for
evaluation of structural performance beyond
code compliance. For example, the traditional
approach to designing floors based on live load
deflection criteria provides a sound structure
that meets codes, but may fall short of the
owner’s desired comfort level or expectations if it
bounces, feels soft, or vibrates when walked on.
To address this, sizing tools are available
that can predict how occupants will perceive
the floor based on specified materials and
installation methods. Such tools provide
a floor performance rating based on those
specifications, enabling the engineer to quickly
and easily alter products and specifications
to balance anticipated performance with the
available building project budget.
Ease-of-Use Features
As with other software, it is important to
select single-member sizing tools that are intui-
tive. Software applications that utilize graphical
© 2009 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. SDSCREW10
STRUCTURE magazine
illustrations (e.g. pictures and layouts) can coordinating with outside design professionals,
make member and connector selection sim- tools that seamlessly tie-in with 3D modeling
pler than applications that rely solely upon and architectural software can streamline the
written descriptions. Some software also offers overall building design process and reduce time
customizable interfaces that enable firms or working on a project within or between firms.
individual users to alter the tool to their pre- Many sizing tools – whether for purchase
ferred way of working. or provided free of charge – are available for
Other features to look for include the ability download from the Internet. Consult the
to rapidly evaluate alternative member sizes third-party developer or framing product
and types, and organize multiple member manufacturer’s Web site for details.▪
calculations in a single file. These attributes
help speed design of a given project and enable
transfer of key data to similar future projects. Ross Theilen, P.E., is the general manager
Depending on the firm’s needs, it is also of structural frame software for iLevel by
important to consider other tools with which Weyerhaeuser. Ross can be reached at
the single-member sizing software can inte- ross.theilen@weyerhaeuser.com.
grate. For full-service design firms and for
ERRATUM
JANUARY 2010, PART 10 OF ANTIQUATED STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS
A discerning reader has noted that the photo in the lower right corner of page 24 of the article
is the Wainwright Building, erected in 1890-91 as Missouri’s first steel-framed building. Mr.
Stuart (author) notes that this type of construction, along with other similar variations that
co-existed during the same period, is described in the last paragraph of the Masonry section
of the article. In addition, the photo on page 27 of the article is of the Reading Terminal,
Philadelphia, not the 30th Street Station as noted. Mr. Stuart and STRUCTURE magazine
regret any confusion arising from these errors.
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
A new twist on fastening
connectors. Introducing
Strong-Drive® (SD)
structural-connector
screws. Our SD screws
are specifically designed
to perform with some of
our most popular connectors.
Why screws instead of nails? In tight
spaces and overhead applications, screws are
easier to install than nails and in some cases,
achieve higher load ratings than 10d and 16d
common nails. So we say, go ahead and mix
our SD screws with our top-selling connectors.
Simpson Strong-Tie is expanding its line of
fasteners. For a complete list of approved
Simpson Strong-Tie® connectors for use with
Who says screws SD screws, visit www.strongtie.com/fasten
or call (800) 999-5099.
and connectors
don’t mix?
27 March 2010
 RISK MANAGEMENT
risk management topics for structural engineers
Total Recall
Written Communication, Documentation and Retention
By Terrence M. Lindsay, P.E., S.E., SECB, Eric L. Singer, and Karen Erger
Storing and retaining paper documents used
to be easier. Project files were easily divided
up in boxes with labels, project numbers
and dates. As long as they were kept long
enough to deal with tax audits or claims,
all was right with the world. Electronic data
changed everything, particularly as we moved
to an email and attachment practice. How to
organize and retain electronic documents is
too frequently left to the uncertainties of hard
drive longevity and email programs. Having
a written document and data retention policy
is crucial for all paper and electronic files in
your practice.
Document retention is governed by a number
of authorities, laws and regulations, as well as
philosophies about defense of claims and the
practical realities of available and affordable
storage space. There are tax rules, litigation
rules, statutes of limitation, criminal laws and,
ultimately, common sense weighed against the
cost of storing work product of an engineering
practice that adds new projects, paper and
electronic data every year. In addition, the
rules governing litigation in Federal courts now
impose severe penalties for even inadvertent
destruction of data in pending claims. Do we
really have to save everything?
A Matter of Trust
Claims can be made for a very long time
after completion of a project, making memories
an unreliable source of facts. In addition, rec-
ollection of events are colored, magnified or
erased by one’s perceived importance at the
time. Engineers remember issues differently
than architects and contractors. Recollections
also fade with time, particularly when employees
move on to new phases in their careers. For
all of these reasons, documentation created at
the time of an event is much more likely to
be accurate and more persuasive evidence to a
judge or juror.
Consider a site visit during which nothing
particularly noteworthy was observed, but
later that day a steel worker is injured. Four
years later you are in a deposition and asked
what you remember about that particular
NOTE: This article is intended for general discussion of the subject, and should not be mistaken for legal advice. Readers are cautioned to
consult appropriate advisors for advice applicable to their individual circumstances.
STRUCTURE magazine
day. Without any written report, you will be
at the mercy of whomever is questioning you
and what other witnesses remember about
your presence there. With a written observa-
tion report from that day, you could confirm
without doubt that steel erection appeared to
be proceeding, was approximately 50% com-
plete, that the steel erector had 10 workers on
site and, maybe most important for liability,
that you were on site for less than one hour
and gone before the accident.
Proof that you acted within the standard of
care comes from evidence of what you did and
when. If you specify a new product and only
have read the product literature in a magazine,
or never set foot on site, you will have a
difficult time proving that you did what others
would have done in the same circumstances.
On the other hand, keeping file materials or
electronic data to reflect what you did and
when – dated printouts of calculations, plots
and photographs, or physical records of your
visit to the manufacturing facility – you can
easily demonstrate the genesis of your work
and the homework you did to get there.
Documents serve two purposes. First, they
may jog your memory to help place the
time of the accident in context. Second, the
documents, printouts or pieces of paper are
inherently more trustworthy than any witness’
recollection. Showing a piece of paper or an
email to a jury makes your facts reliable and
your testimony credible.
I Heard It Through
the Grape Vine
An engineer’s primary goal is to avoid dis-
putes altogether. Documenting client or design
team decisions is frequently seen as covering
one’s rear end. Documentation, though,
serves the more important purpose of clarity
and avoidance of confusion. By sending a
memo, you may clear up an issue on which
there is some confusion and generate action
to clear it up. The memo serves two impor-
tant purposes: It prevented the problem and
it documented the decision process for use
later, if necessary.
28 March 2010
Mr. Postman: Email Policies,
Written and Otherwise
Interpersonal communication is not per-
fect. Despite clear thought, one might still
be imprecise. Design professionals, clients
and contractors used to speak to each other
in person or on the telephone, where one’s
voice, facial expression, volume, inflection,
tact, politeness and other attributes could be
interpreted and contribute to understanding.
Email, texts and “tweets” remove a number
of features of interpersonal communication
and can leave intent unclear – jokes do not
always appear humorous when printed in
email. With the sheer volume of electronic
mail, documents and data increasing with every
project, the opportunity for miscommunica-
tions increase every day.
Sticks and Stones
Email is typically written less formally
than letters and memoranda. It can be sent
quickly from a PDA without the safeguards
one might employ with a more formal let-
ter, like carefully reading a draft or calming
down before hitting ‘send.’ All documents
and email are fair game in litigation and you
can expect any embarrassing or threatening
email to be blown out of proportion for a
jury. Every business should have a written
policy about email use, starting with appro-
priate contents.
Some companies insist that any commu-
nications be sent on letterhead and not by
email. Others communicate almost exclu-
sively by electronic mail. At either extreme or
something in the middle, consider the types
of communications that should not be sent
in a company email – jokes, insults, personal
information, confidential information or
other material that could easily be forwarded,
cut and pasted or otherwise disseminated in
a manner other than as originally intended.
Then assemble a policy to be part of your
other written employment policies (sick days,
vacation, moonlighting – you do have written
policies, don’t you?).
Hooked on a Feeling
It is relatively easy to attach the wrong docu-
ment to an email, particularly if done quickly
and without opening the attachment before
sending it. The recipient may receive it, file
it and not open it until much later, or never
realize that it is the wrong document. Previ-
ous CAD backgrounds can be difficult to
distinguish, particularly if they are sent and
not opened right away by the sender or the re-
cipient. This arises even more frequently with
projects that have been delayed for some period
of time. It may be safest to print everything
that you send and receive. Reality of volume,
however, suggests that very few of us can do
so. If you are not going to print what you send
or receive, at least open it to make certain that
burns, floods or is robbed, the archives will
be gone along with the computers. Take the
archives home or to a safety deposit box at the
bank every week.
Backup drives and software have become so
inexpensive that even the smallest offices have
access to backup methods. Whatever the size of
your office, your office information technology
is a valuable asset both for continuing work
and for protection from claims. Map out a
strategy for managing the increasing volume
of electronic data, paper records and other
materials and document your practice with a
written policy.▪
Terrence M. Lindsay, P.E., S.E., SECB is a
structural engineer and President of Lindsay
& Associates, Inc. in Aurora, Illinois. He may
be reached at t.lindsay@lindsay-se.com.
Eric Singer is Senior Counsel of Ice Miller
LLP in Lisle, Illinois. Eric concentrates
his practice in representation of design and
construction professionals. He may be reached
at Eric.Singer@icemiller.com.
Karen Erger is an attorney and Account
Executive with Holmes Murphy & Associates,
Inc. in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. She may be
reached at KErger@holmesmurphy.com.

GT STRUDL
it is what you think it is.

Disorder in the House

Some firms leave email organization to in-
dividuals while others rigidly enforce project- Structural Analysis & Design Software
by-project electronic filing. Email volume can
be overwhelming while a project is proceeding.
In the short term, it is very important to be
able to sort email by date, project, sender and
recipient and to have a procedure in place to
do so. Also consider what would happen if any
one computer were stolen, lost or damaged
during the project. If you use software that
overwrites the backups on computers or you
decommission computers as employees leave
the company, you may be destroying data

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

that should have been preserved for pending
claims. If a claim is brewing, err on the side of
caution and preserve everything. Overall, you
should have a written policy and stick to it.

The Best Choice

Paper or Plastic?
Retention of paper documents allows you

for
to access drawings or data even if your com-
puter crashes. Consider what paper records
to keep and for how long. Some firms save
only electronic data, which is only as good as
the electronic medium on which it is stored. Infrastructure & Nuclear
If you stored your music on 8-Track Tapes,
would you still be able to listen to it? The
same is already true of floppy disks and will NEW
Base Plate Module
eventually be true of CD-Roms. Whenever
possible, keep electronic backups on trustwor-
thy media but also keep some basic documents
on paper – your contract, your final drawings
and specifications and any documents that
could be useful in the future dispute are good
candidates for the paper trail. it
64-B r
NEW l Solve
Keep in mind that claims can roll in for a Para
lle

long time after completion of your work. If

you are using archival software, be careful
about how and where you store the backups. Georgia Tech - CASE Center
Phone: 404-894-2260
Many companies keep their archived backups Email: casec@ce.gatech.edu
right next to their computers. If the building www.gtstrudl.gatech.edu

STRUCTURE magazine 29 March 2010

 LEGAL PERSPECTIVES
discussion of legal issues of interest to structural engineers
RFIs and Shop Drawings
How to Manage Risk and Reduce Liability
By David J. Hatem, PC and Peter C. Lenart, Esq.
We are all aware of today’s challenging econom-
ic times. Projects are suffering and companies
that design and engineer projects are finding
that clients want more for less. Contractors
are similarly squeezed and taking on projects
with slimmer and sometimes nonexistent
profit margins. These factors, in combination
with the increasingly aggressive construction
claims environment, make it more important
than ever for engineers and design teams to
manage potential risk in every aspect of a proj-
ect’s development. Two notable areas where
such enhanced management is warranted are
Shop Drawings and Requests for Information
(RFIs). These components of a project are
already a frequent source of tension between
contractors and those on the design and en-
gineering side of projects. There is every reason
to believe that this tension will increase as Proj-
ects showing signs of difficulty cause parties
to manufacture a document trail in a thinly
veiled effort to shift blame. It is thus important
to remember exactly what RFI’s and Shop
Drawings are, and for what exactly each partici-
pant in the building process is responsible.
Shop Drawings
Shop Drawings are defined by the Engi-
neers’ Joint Contract Documents Committee
(EJCDC) in its Form No. 1910-8, Standard
General Conditions, for the construction contract
as: All drawings, diagrams, illustrations, sched-
ules, and other data or information, which are
specifically prepared or assembled by or for
contractor and submitted by contractor to
illustrate some portion of the work.
The AIA view is similar with AIA Document
General Conditions of the contract for construc-
tion, which refers to Shop Drawings as “graphic
or written descriptions of the work which the
contractor intends to perform to meet its
contractual obligations for the project, subject
to the architect’s or engineer’s approval.”
The major risk management issue regarding
shop drawings is not how they are defined,
but rather who actually produces them, who
is responsible for the content, and what is the
scope and significance of review comments.
While design professionals and engineers know
that shop drawing production is the contractor’s
responsibility, design professionals often windup
generating some portion of the shop drawings.
Unless this task is specifically delineated in a
governing agreement, design professionals and
STRUCTURE magazine
engineers should not generate shop drawings,
especially in areas relating to the means and
methods of construction. Doing so creates
additional liability, as the contractor and subs
then have even more reason to say, “We did it
this way because the design team or engineer
told us to.” A more simple reason to avoid doing
shop drawings is to avoid doing the contractor’s
work for free. Members of a project’s design
team and its engineers sometimes permit their
commitment and their exuberance for a project
to blur the lines of those items for which they
are responsible. A better way to be helpful is to
set a schedule for the submission of shop draw-
ings and making certain that it is adhered to.
A time honored and practical, albeit pre-BIM,
shop drawing management technique involves
color coding. The contributions, changes, and
comments by the contractor and each sub-
contractor are added in a unique pre-assigned
color, which makes it easy to see where each
change or notation on a shop drawing origi-
nated. It also allows the architect or engineer
to assess quite easily who on the building team
has reviewed and contributed to the shop draw-
ings. This system gives the reviewer a low-tech
way to check up on the contractor and the subs,
and permits him an easy way to follow up with
a particular discipline’s changes or notations.
This system also allows the reviewer to return
shop drawings after only a quick glance when it
is apparent that they are not ready for the design
professional’s review.
Contract documents should define roles and
responsibilities as shop drawings process and
define the scope of the design professional’s
review. It is also important to note that just
because an architect or engineer approves or
stamped shop drawings does not make him or
her responsible for their content. A reviewer’s
obligation is a practical one, such as to make
certain that multiple fixtures are not occupying
the same space. A reviewer’s approval merely
indicates that the contractor and sub-disciplines
have crafted what appear to be jointly coor-
dinated and workable drawings. The scope,
meaning and limitations of that review should
be spelled out in the construction contract’s
general conditions. It is a good practice to
reiterate the essence of these limitations on the
design professional’s shop drawing review stamp.
Perhaps the most useful tool in facilitating an
adequate shop drawing process relates to proper
communication. Preconstruction meetings are
30 March 2010
exceptionally useful in agreeing to schedules
and in defining responsibilities. Such meetings
give design professionals and engineers the
opportunity to reinforce the contractors’ and
subcontractors’ responsibilities pertaining to
the shop drawing process. By emphasizing the
contractors’ dominant role in producing shop
drawings at preconstruction meetings, a project
can avoid the often frequent occurrence mid-
project of a contractor at odds with a design
professional or engineer by claiming that
“everybody thought” that the architect or engi-
neer would create the shop drawings. Design
professionals and engineers should use these
meetings to make clear that they will review
shop drawings, but not generate them. These
meetings are also a good opportunity to assign
the various colored markers described above,
and maybe even hand out a box of Sharpies
in various colors to the contractor and each
subcontractor in attendance. This planning
function is effective, it establishes expectations,
and it significantly reduces disagreements and
claims down the line. It is also essential that
shop drawings always be reviewed in a time-
ly fashion in order to minimize and avoid
delay claims.
Requests for Information (RFIs)
RFIs are the mechanism which allows con-
tractors and sub-contractors to raise questions
and receive answers regarding drawings and
specifications provided by the design profes-
sional. RFIs are contractor generated. The
contractor’s need to clarify or resolve any
ambiguity in certain elements of the design is
an important part of the design process. While
this process can be abused by contractors who
are attempting to bring about change orders
– and thus additional revenue – design profes-
sionals should encourage the RFI process, and
make every effort to see that it is run in an
organized and efficient manner.
It is essential that the design professional
or engineer maintain a log of RFIs. The log
should indicate the date the RFI was received,
the subject, the identity of the requestor, the
date the RFI was responded to, and a description
or code detailing how the RFI was resolved.
Frequently, the RFI raises a question about
something which is addressed clearly in the
design professional’s or engineer’s drawings. In
this circumstance, the RFI can be responded to
quickly with a reference to the appropriate sche-
matic. If a more detailed response is required, the
design professional or engineer should conduct
a type of RFI triage so that the RFI with the
greatest potential to stop work, and thus result
in a delay claim, is addressed first. Also, with
detailed RFI issues, it often helps to meet with
the requestor to make certain that the issues in
question are properly understood. A formal reso-
lution can then be issued following a hopefully
productive meeting on the subject.
Design professionals and engineers should
maintain a spreadsheet or database of a project’s
RFIs which permits the compiled information
to show not only actual response time for each
RFI, but the average response time for all RFIs
on a given project. It is also helpful to be able
to show, from each RFI’s resolution code, what
percentage of RFIs were resolved by references
to the drawings, as opposed to the necessity
for a change order. Construction lawyers like
to emphasize the number of RFIs on a project
in order to insinuate that the drawings were
flawed. By organizing RFI information as sug-
gested above, a design professional or engineer
can have ready access to information which
may show that over 60% of a project’s RFIs
were resolved by virtue of the answer appearing
on the original drawings. Organizing RFI in-
formation is thus a useful tool in managing risk,
as it has the potential to defeat claims in their
earliest stages in addition to being an effective
tool in defending a formal claim or litigation.
There is a recent trend which suggests that
RFIs should be defined narrowly in project
STRUCTURE magazine
contracts, and that design professionals and
engineers should return, unanswered, any RFI
which does not meet that narrow contract
definition. This method of addressing RFIs is
highly inadvisable. Design professionals and en-
gineers should encourage questions and should
be available to lend their expertise as needed
to offer guidance on a project. By returning a
Request For Information as somehow noncon-
forming, relations with the contractor or sub
will suffer, the question does not get answered,
and delay may result. The contractor or sub will
then blame the design professional or engineer
for being uncooperative and non-responsive.
It is a far better risk management approach to
refine and ultimately answer an imperfectly
phrased RFI than it is to let a likely small issue
grow into a much larger disagreement.
Conclusion
As the above examples demonstrate, design
professionals and engineers can assist in having
projects run more smoothly while at the same
time managing their potential risk on a project.
It is well worth the effort to define procedures
and responsibilities at preconstruction meetings,
and enforce them consistently throughout
the course of a project. Design professionals
should be fair, but firm, in their handling of
shop drawings and they should not hesitate
to return shop drawings which do not appear
ready to be reviewed.
ADVERTISEMENT – For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
31 March 2010
With RFIs, the design professional must
welcome questions and resolve quickly those
items where the issue is resolved clearly in the
drawings. Maintaining a log and spreadsheet
as you go is effective in organizing and managing
data, and is much easier than trying to recreate
this information after a project is completed
and when a claim or litigation arises.
Design professionals and engineers have the
knowledge, experience, and tools at their dis-
posal to manage project risk effectively. It is
good business to focus on using these skills on
every project in a proactive manner in order
to reduce claims and lawsuits. Adopting the
small changes and suggestions appearing in
this article could have a significant positive
impact on a project’s claim or delay landscape,
and thus are worth implementing.▪
David J. Hatem, PC, is the founding Partner
of the multi-practice law firm Donovan
Hatem LLP. He leads the firm’s Professional
Practice Group, which represents engineers,
architects, and construction management
professionals. Mr. Hatem can be reached via
email at dhatem@donovanhatem.com.
Peter C. Lenart, Esq. is a Senior Litigation
Associate in the Professional Practices
Group at Donovan Hatem LLP. Mr.
Lenart can be reached via email at
plenart@donovanhatem.com.
 INSIGHTS
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
Controlling Digital Documents with Project
Information Management (PIM) Software
By Bob Batcheler
Project information management (PIM) soft-
ware is a new category of technology designed
to tackle the growing challenge of managing
electronic documents and digital workflow by
architects, engineers and contractors.
Managing electronic documents and team
communications, including project email, offers
much more than simple efficiency in day-to-
day operations. It also mitigates risks.
Searching for Information
One way PIM software reduces risk is by mak-
ing project information, including information
in email and attachments, easier to find, hence
making it easier to resolve disputes. Industry-
leading PIM software indexes all the text in
over 200 file types common in AEC projects,
permitting searches of a firm’s project informa-
tion in much the same way that major search
engines browse the Internet.
This is a good example of how PIM software
offers benefits not found in other document
control technologies. For example, document
management systems generally require you to
move files into a database, forcing changes in
work process. In traditional document manage-
ment solutions, searching is only as good as the
metadata you applied when filing the document,
and project extranets do not help you search or
manage internal project information at all.
FYFE Co.
LLC
Ty fo Fibr wrap Systems
® ®
ADVERTISEMENT – For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
Structural Strengthening
• FRP Installation
• Seismic Upgrade
• Blast Mitigation
• Concrete Retrot
• Specialty Gunite
• Underwater & Coastal Repairs
• Expansion & Seismic Joints
Pipe Repair and Renewal
• Large and Small Diameter
• PCCP, RCP, Steel Structural Repairs
• Carbon Fiber Structural Liners
Concrete Restoration
• Epoxy Crack Injection
• Spall Repair
• Corrosion Protection
Advanced Fire Protection
NSF
F R
Certified to NSF/ANSI 61
Managing Shop Drawings,
RFIs and Action Items
A particular firm offers a good example of
how PIM software can be used to manage
submittals, shop drawings, RFIs and action
items. One person logs everything that comes
into the office. She now uses the submittals
management component of a PIM solution to
make her job easier and give everyone in the
office access to the status of all submittals.
For shop drawings, she sets due dates in
the software. The technology automatically
emails project directors with alerts about
what has been received. If the shop draw-
ings are not returned by their due dates, the
PIM software automatically emails an alert
to the project director. RFIs follow a simi-
lar workflow, ensuring timely responses to all
outstanding requests.
Sharing Large Files
BIM files easily run 20 MB and up – too
large to email. But leading PIM software
includes information exchange capabilities
that replace FTP sites. The PIM software is
easier to set up and use, and is more secure.
It also automatically maintains a complete
audit log of who downloaded or uploaded
what, and when they did it, which is all part
Over 20 years ago we created the industry...
today we set the standard
8380 Miralani Drive, San Diego, CA 92126
Tel: 858.642.0694 Fax: 858.444.2982

www.fyfeco.com
STRUCTURE magazine 32 March 2010
of good project information management.
No special software is required on the
receiving end.
Controlling Digital
Construction Documents
PIM software also provides substantial ben-
efits in issuing and tracking construction
documents without forcing wholesale changes
in internal work processes. Construction doc-
uments can be assembled, facilitating review
of the coordinated set. When it comes time for
the documents to be released, the set is easily
published through the PIM software’s unique
information exchange feature.
The software notifies recipients that the pub-
lished documents are available for download,
and offers the option of emailing periodic
reminders to team members who have not yet
accessed the published documents. In addition
to recording an audit trail of what was sent to
whom, the software maintains record copies
of complete sets of documents whenever they
are issued.
Reducing Risk and
Increasing Accountability
An effective PIM solution enables the design
team to share information internally during
the rapid, iterative process of design, and to
publish it to external project team members,
without changing the internal team’s work
process. These actions take place from within
one software environment and function across
all projects. Standardizing those processes re-
duces risk, and increases accountability and
predictability of performance.
A structural engineer uses PIM software to
manage the markup process, thus reducing the
risks that changes would fail to make their way
into construction documents and BIM files.▪
Bob Batcheler (bbatcheler@newforma.com)
is Newforma’s vice president of industry
marketing and product management. Bob
and his team work directly with AEC
firms to incorporate project information
management requirements into the
development of Newforma’s PIM software.
 Structural Engineering Practice Acts –
A Review of Existing Regulations
Some states have statutory and administrative requirements
News form the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
governing the practice of structural engineering. Other states are
contemplating the adoption of similar regulations. The basis
for these regulations is to distinguish the practice of structural
engineering from professional engineering (generally civil engi-
neering) in the interest of public safety.
The purpose of this article is to explore the language of the
various rules that govern professional structural engineering in
the United States.
Currently, there are title acts, full practice acts and partial practice
acts. Title acts permit the use of the title “structural engineer” as a
profession but do not have detailed requirements for engaging in
the work. They do not limit the practice of structural engineering
only to licensed structural engineers. Idaho, New Mexico, and
Nebraska have title acts for structural engineers.
Partial practice acts restrict certain types of structural engineering
work only to licensed structural engineers. For example, Oregon
requires only structural engineers to work on buildings that are
more than four stories. Nevada, Utah, Oregon, California, and
Washington are states that have partial practice acts.
Full practice acts restrict all but licensed structural engineers
to work on structural projects. Illinois and Hawaii have full
practice acts.
For those states contemplating the initiation of a practice act,
adopting language from existing statues is a good way to start, as
the text of these documents has been reviewed and approved by
many interested parties.
Partial Practice Act
The following excerpts demonstrate useful language to begin
crafting a partial practice act:
1) An engineer may not provide engineering services for
significant structures unless the engineer possesses a valid
professional structural engineer certificate of registration
issued by the board. (Oregon 672.107)
2) “Professional structural engineer” means a person
licensed under this chapter as a professional structural
engineer. (Utah 58-22-102)
3) An engineer must be registered as a structural engineer
NCSEA News
in order to provide structural engineering services for
significant structures. (WA RCW 18.43.040)
4) Structural engineering is recognized as a specialized
branch of professional engineering. To receive a
certificate of registration in structural engineering, an
applicant must hold a current registration in this state
in engineering and have at least two years of structural
engineering experience, of a character satisfactory to the
board, in addition to the eight years’ experience required
for registration as a professional engineer. An applicant
for registration as a structural engineer must also pass an
additional examination as prescribed by the board.
(WA RCW 18.43.040)
5) Only engineers licensed as structural engineers pursuant
to this chapter may structurally design:
STRUCTURE magazine 34
1. A structure requiring special expertise, including, but
not limited to, a radio tower and a sign over 100 feet.
Dynamic machinery and related equipment within the
scope of mechanical engineering are not included.
2. A building more than three stories in height.
3. A building more than 45 feet in height, using the
bottom of the lowest footing as the point of reference.
(Nevada – NAC 625.260).
Full Practice Act
Here are the two excerpts from full practice acts:
1) The practice of Structural Engineering in the State of
Illinois is hereby declared to affect the public health,
safety and welfare and to be subject to regulation and
control in the public interest. It is further declared to be a
matter of public interest and concern that the practice of
Structural Engineering as defined in this Act, merit and
receive the confidence of the public, that only qualified
persons be authorized to practice Structural Engineering
in the State of Illinois. (225 ILCS 340/1)
2) No official of the State nor of any political subdivision
thereof, charged with the enforcement of laws or
ordinances relating to the construction or alteration of
buildings or structures, shall accept or approve any plans
or specifications that are not stamped with the seal of a
licensed architect or with the seal of a licensed engineer
who has qualified in the structural engineering branch….
(Hawaii §464-11)
The adoption of a partial practice act is likely to be more popular
for the stakeholders involved because it does not restrict many
professional engineers from engaging in that area of structural
engineering deemed not to be “significant structures”.
Also, the process of transitioning from a current regulation to
a new practice act will likely require the adoption of some sort
of grandfathering clause, to avoid the disruption and loss of
work for those engineers actively engaged in structural work as a
licensed professional but without a structural license.
Robert Bourdages, P.E, S.E.
robert.bourdages@genivar.com
NCSEA Webinars – March/April
March 23
Architecturally Exposed Structural Steel
Presented by Jack Peterson
April 20
Wind Design Using the 2009 IBC
Presented by Don Scott
Register and/or purchase a webinar flex-plan
at www.ncsea.com
March 2010
 NCSEA News
NCSEA Membership
NCSEA recognizes and thanks its Partnering Organizations
Partnering Organizations and the following companies, organizations, and individual
SEI CASE structural engineers, for their Associate, Affiliate, and
Reston, VA Washington, DC Sustaining Memberships in 2009-2010.

Associate Members
AISC Georgia Pacific Metal Building Manufacturers
Chicago, IL Atlanta, GA Association
American Forest & Paper Association Institute for Business & Home Safety Cleveland, OH
Washington, DC Tampa, FL QuakeWrap, Inc.
Bentley Systems, Inc International Code Council Tucson, AZ
Carlsbad, CA Birmingham, AL Schuff Steel Company
Construction Tie Products, Inc. ITW Red Head Phoenix, AZ
Michigan City, IN Addison, IL USP Structural Connectors
Burnsville, MN
Affiliate Members
CETCO Building Materials Group Fibrwrap Construction, Inc. RISA Technologies

News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

Hoffman Estates, IL Lombard, IL Foothill Ranch, CA
Cold-Formed Steel Engineers Institute Hardy Frames, Inc. SE Solutions, LLC
Washington, DC Ventura, CA Holland, MI
CSC Inc. Helical Anchors, Inc. SidePlate Systems, Inc.
Chicago, IL Minneapolis, MN Laguna Hills, CA
DECON USA, Inc. Hilti, Inc. Steel Joist Institute
Beaufort, SC Tulsa, OK Myrtle Beach, SC
Dwyer Companies Powers Fasteners
West Chester, OH Brewster, NY

Sustaining Members
Barrish, Pelham & Associates, Inc. DiBlasi Associates, P.C. Structural Engineers Group, Inc.
Sacramento, CA Monroe, CT Jacksonville, FL
Barter & Associates, Inc. Dominick R. Pilla Associates TGRWA, LLC
Mobile, AL Nyack, NY Chicago, IL
Burns & McDonnell Dunbar, Milby, Williams, Pittman The Harman Group, Inc.
Kansas City, MO & Vaughan King of Prussia, PA
Cartwright Engineers Richmond, VA Thornton Tomasetti
Logan, UT Engineering Solutions, LLC Chicago, IL
CBI Consulting, Inc. Oklahoma City, OK United Structural Systems Ltd., Inc.
South Boston, MA Florida Structural Engineering, Inc. Lancaster, KY
Construction Technology Laboratories Tampa, FL
Skokie, IL Gilsanz Murray Steficek, LLP
Cowen Associates Consulting New York, NY Seismic Design
Structural Engineers LBYD, Inc.
Natick, MA Birmingham, AL 7 experts on 7 topics,
Criser Troutman Tanner Ruby & Associates, Inc. a shake table and
Consulting Engineers Farmington Hills, MI a blast simulator!
Wilmington, NC Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger, Inc. NCSEA Winter Institute
Degenkolb Engineers San Francisco, CA
Marriott Coronado Island Resort
San Francisco, CA
Register at www.ncsea.com

STRUCTURE magazine 35 March 2010

 2010 Structures Congress Technical Sessions
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Business and
Track Tall Buildings Buildings-Seismic Building Design Professional Practice
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE

Track Chair William Baker Cynthia Duncan Jeremy Isenberg John Tawresey
1:15 PM – Developing Innovative Solutions New Provisions for Composite Workshop on Direct Strength Trial Design
2:15 PM for Design of Precast/Prestressed Construction in the 2010 AISC Method Design of Cold-formed
Concrete Structures Specification for Structural Steel Steel Members
Buildings and the 2010 AISC
Seismic Provisions
3:00 PM – Corrosion in Buildings Transforming Seismic Design Evaluating Existing Wood Integrated Steel Design and
4:00 PM in Low to Moderate Seismic Structures Delivery – Challenges, Pitfalls,
Regions I and Opportunities

4:15 PM – Optimizing Tall Building Design Structures and Energy-Efficient Lateral Bracing of Steel Frames Legal Claims
5:15 PM Using Wind Load Reduction Building Envelopes Using Hybrid Masonry
Strategies

Friday, May 14, 2010

Business and
Track Tall Buildings Buildings-Seismic Building Design Professional Practice
Track Chair William Baker Cynthia Duncan Jeremy Isenberg John Tawresey
6:45 AM – CASE Breakfast - Changes to AISC Code of Standard Practice - What Structural Engineers Need to Know
8:00 AM
8:00 AM – Wind Effects on Tall Buildings Seismic Design: Efficient Retrofit Structural Integrity Structural Engineer (S.E.)
9:30 AM Licensure

1:45 PM – Organic and Natural Forms in Seismic Design: Damage Control Wind Effects on Low-Rise Educating Structural Engineers
3:15 PM Building Design Buildings in Sustainability: Professional and
Academic Perspectives

3:30 PM – Engineering Iconic Towers Seismic Design: Dampers and Floor Vibration Serviceability Structures in Coastal Zones
5:00 PM Base Isolation
Structural Columns

Saturday, May 15, 2010

Buildings- Business and Pro-
Track Tall Buildings Seismic Building Design fessional Practice Bridges I Bridges II
Track Chair William Baker Cynthia Duncan Jeremy Isenberg John Tawresey Dennis Mertz Andrew Herrmann
8:30 AM – Twisting Tall Towers Hot Topics in Challenges and BIM Standards: The Fatigue Design of Advanced Bridge
10:00 AM Structural Fire Recent Developments Current State of the High Level Lighting Technology
Engineering (I) in Structural Industry and Sign Structures
Connections
10:30 AM – Damping Systems for Hot Topics in Evaluation and BIM and the Inspection and Research at Florida
12:00 PM Tall Buildings Structural Fire Repair of Existing Standard of Care, Monitoring of Aging Universities –
Engineering (II) Structures What Are You Going Bridge Infrastructure Structures
To Do About It?
12:00 PM – SEI Awards Lunch and Plenary Session
2:00 PM
2:15 PM – Monitoring of Tall Limit State Evaluation Recent Advances Building Information Consideration of Soil- Structural
3:45 PM Buildings of Steel Framed in Light Framed Modeling and Structure Interaction Identification;
Structures Using ATC Construction Management in Design and Assess- Fundamentals and
63 Methodology ment of Structures Case Studies
4:00 PM – Performance Based Building Risk and Pre-Standard for Load Building Information Innovative Bridge Structural
Seismic Design in Failures Resistance Factor Design Modeling in Design and Identification;
5:30 PM (LRFD) of Pultruded
China Fiber Reinforced Polymer Academia and Construction Fundamentals and
(FRP) Structures Practice Case Studies – Part 2
To view the full program of the entire NASCC Conference or to register, please visit www.aisc.org/nascc.

STRUCTURE magazine 36 March 2010

 Structural Columns
May 13 – 15, 2010 – Gaylord Palms Convention Center, Orlando, Florida

Concrete and Non Building Extreme Loads and Analysis and

Bridges I Bridges II Masonry Structures Structures Educational Reform Computation
Dennis Mertz Andrew Herrmann Julio Ramirez Robert Bachman James Dolan Chris Foley
Innovative Bridge New Perspectives on Assessment, Repair Structural Glass in Research on Learning State of the Art Research
Design Timber Bridges and Rehabilitation of Architecture and Education Reform in Structural Control
Concrete Structures Session 1

Movable Bridges Bridge Analysis Design and Behavior
of Prestressed Concrete
Subjected to Blast and
Impact Loading
Segmental Bridge Bridge Strenthening Recent Developments in
Design and Failures Seismic Performance of
Concrete Columns
Glass & ETFE Research on Learning State of the Art and
Elements – Innovative and Education Reform Future Challenges in
Transparency Session 2 Structural Optimization
– Part 1
Fun in the Sun - Space Design and Analysis State of the Art and
and Entertainment issues for Structural Future Challenges in
Projects in Florida Response to Fire Structural Optimization
– Part 2

Concrete and Non Building Analysis and

Bridges I Bridges II Masonry Structures Structures CASE Convocation Computation
Dennis Mertz Andrew Herrmann Julio Ramirez Robert Bachman David Bixby Chris Foley

The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE

Bridge Design Highway Bridge Curtain Wall and Blast Design Aspects of Wind Steel Design Do’s and Emerging Trends in
Structure Health Cubicle Design Energy Structures Don’ts – A Construction Structural Engineering
Monitoring Friendly Perspective Education and Practice
Highway Bridge Codes Distortion Induced Design Analysis and Design & Analysis of A Day in the Life of a Advanced Structural
and Standards Fatigue in Steel Bridges Testing of Blast Resistant Large Non Buildings Project Manager Analysis Methodologies
Curtain Walls – Non- Strucutres
Structural – Session 1
Seismic Bridge Design Design of Steel Design, Analysis, and Seismic Performance Managing Expectations Key Findings From
and Analysis Orthotropic Bridge Field Testing of Blast- of Suspended Ceilings: and Risks During the the Structural Control
Decks Resistant Curtain Walls – Code Requirements, Steel Detailing Process Benchmark Problems
Session II Field Surveys, and
Experimentation

Concrete and Non Building Extreme Loads and Analysis and Education and
Masonry Structures Structures Educational Reform Computation Loading Research
Julio Ramirez Robert Bachman James Dolan Chris Foley Ahsan Kareem A Emin Aktan
Reinforced Concrete Design of Anchorage in New Maps in ASCE 7 Nonlinear Analysis Advances in Research Student Structural
Slabs and Deep Beams Petrochemical Facilities – Wind and Seismic Methods for Earthquake and Education Design Competition
Engineering

Performance-Based Estimation of Seismic New Seismic Provisions Methods and Tools Cable Supported Panel Session on
Engineering Demands and Capacities in ASCE/SEI 7-10 for Performance-Based Bridges Multiple Dimensions
of Nonstructural Com- Earthquake Engineering of Risk
ponents and Subsystems

Fracture Toughness Seismic Evaluation New Developments in Multi-functional International Wind Life-Cycle Performance
Testing of Concrete of Electrical Power Seismic Analysis, Materials, Sensing for Structural Standards and the of Structures and Infra-
Equipment Retrofit, Experimentation, Health Monitoring Design of Steel structures: Current Status
and Modeling Structures and Research Needs
Tanks and Towers Research - Hurricane System Reliability, Examples and Training Integrated Project
Loads Stability and Behavior Materials for ASCE 7-10 Delivery: Next
of Bridges Seismic Design Generation BIM for
Structural Engineering

STRUCTURE magazine 37 March 2010

 Successful Structural Industry Issues Roundtable
SEA of Texas – Houston Dinner/Meeting
On the evening of Wednesday, January 27, CASE conducted
a highly successful structural industry issues roundtable in
conjunction with the SEAoT-Houston’s dinner/meeting. The
roundtable enjoyed a good turnout from local structural engi-
neers and was held at the HESS Club (Houston Engineering
and Scientific Society). Topics included:
The Newsletter of the Council of American Structural Engineers
• Risk vs. Reward in Integrated Project Delivery Projects
• The Risks Associated with BIM and Certified Models
• The Risks Associated with LEED Ratings and Managing
Owner Expectations
• How to Collect Your Fees Without Getting Sued
The above event was so well received that CASE is planning
to hold a similar roundtable in conjunction with an SEA local
dinner/meeting in another part of the country this summer. The
Boston area is being explored.
ACEC Survey Finds Engineering
Firms Are Weathering Recession
Despite the severe economic downturn, engineering firms more
than held their own in 2009, according to the just published
2010 Design & Construction Industry Trends Survey Report.
Firms responding to the survey actually reported an increase in
revenues last year, with the median firm grossing $4.4 million in
2009, up from $4.3 million in 2008. The median pre-tax profit
fell, however, from 10 percent in 2008 to 8.4 percent in 2009.
More than half the firms did not meet their financial goals
in 2009, which marked a significant change from 2008 when
nearly 60 percent of the respondents met or exceeded their goals.
Among the respondents, more than one-third of their pre-tax
profit came from planning and studies work and 22 percent
came from management consulting. Other key profit centers
were design engineering (18 percent), program management (14
percent), and construction engineering/inspection (5 percent).
This and other pertinent industry data are now available in the
just-released 2010 Design & Construction Industry Trends Survey
– a comprehensive statistical analysis of current engineering firm
operations, including projections on the future marketplace. To
purchase a copy go to www.acec.org.
CASE in Point
ACEC Course Updates Functional A/E Business Know-How
The Business of Design Consulting: Managing for Success in a Climate of Change
March 10 -13, Salt Lake City, UT
ACEC’s highly regarded A/E industry business management
course is a comprehensive update on the elements and functions
of the successful firm – focusing on “things they don’t teach in
engineering school.”
The course, which will be presented March 10-13, Salt Lake
City, UT, will update practices in critical operational areas of fi-
nance, marketing, risk management, contracts, leadership, business
management, human resources, and information technology.
Presenting the marketing & business development segment
of the agenda, David Stone, Stone & Company, notes that in
today’s marketplace, “while work is slower, there’s more than
STRUCTURE magazine 38
Following the above dinner/meeting, CASE held its winter
meeting on January 28-29 at the Westin Oaks, Houston,
which included meetings of the CASE committees on National
Guidelines, Programs & Communications, Toolkit, and the
Executive Committee, respectively.
CASE Committees have been the reason for CASE’s success
for over 20 years and are vital to CASE’s future. As part of the
Committees’ ongoing activities, face-to-face meetings and
informal discussions are held twice a year to explore current issues
and work on projects like new and revised Risk Management
Tools, Guidelines and Contracts, as well as Publications and
Risk Management Convocations. These meetings also allow
the various CASE committees to interact across all of CASE’s
activities. For more information on the CASE committees and
CASE in general visit their website at www.acec.org/CASE.
ACEC Works With USAID on Haiti
Relief and Reconstruction Assistance
ACEC is assisting the U.S. Agency for International Develop-
ment (USAID) in its Haiti relief and reconstruction effort by
assembling a group of Member Firms willing to volunteer their
services in the earthquake-ravaged nation.
Immediately following the earthquake, ACEC President Dave
Raymond contacted USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah to offer
the engineering industry’s assistance in addressing the island
nation’s relief and recovery needs.
“Many ACEC Member Firms have called our office in
Washington, D.C. volunteering their services, and USAID has
asked us to organize these offers and work closely with federal
officials,” said Raymond.
Principals of all ACEC Member Firms have been solicited by
email to join this effort.
enough out there for your firm… and we’ll show you how to
win it.” Stone will identify and talk through the key elements
of the “win business” equation in our fast-moving electronic
communications age by integrating the fundamentals of
marketing outreach with the realistic brand-building potential
of email and the Internet.
Created for firm owners, principals, executives, and managers,
this on-target update of management priorities is a solid
investment for success.
For details and to register contact LaCreshea Makonnen at
ACEC at education@acec.org or 202-347-7474.
March 2010
 CASE in Point
Registration Open for Structures Congress and the
CASE Risk Management Convocation in Orlando This May
The CASE Risk Management Convocation will be held in conjunction with the first-ever combined Structures Congress/North
American Steel Construction Conference at the Gaylord Palms Convention Center in Orlando, Florida, May 12–15, 2010. The
Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE (SEI) and the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) are joining forces in 2010
to host this first-ever combined event. Registration will open very soon and will be handled at AISC’s website: www.aisc.org. A

CASE is a part of the American Council of Engineering Companies

preliminary program is available for viewing at SEI’s website www.seinstitute.org.
The following CASE Convocation sessions are scheduled to take place on Friday, May 14:

6:45 am – 8:00 am CASE Breakfast: Changes to AISC Code of Standard Practice –

What SE’s Need to Know
Speaker: David B. Ratterman, Secretary and General Counsel, AISC
The AISC Code of Standard Practice has served as a specification guideline and statement of custom and usage in the
fabricated structural steel industry since approximately 1921. The Code is regularly updated and maintained by a balanced
committee of industry professionals; approximately one-third of the Code Committee is comprised of practicing structural
engineers. Mr. Ratterman is a graduate engineer and counsel to the Code Committee. He will discuss the relationship of
the Code to the practice of structural engineering.

8:00 am – 9:30 am Steel Design Dos & Don’ts – A Construction Friendly Perspective
Speakers: Carol Drucker, Drucker Zaidel; Other Speakers TBA
This session will be led by a licensed structural engineer specializing in connection design who will comment on the
document quality as it relates to potential risk management issues for the structural engineer of record. Often, problems
in steel design are not so apparent until after the job has been awarded and is in detailing, fabrication or erection. Small
oversights can have big impact and may cause delays or additional costs. Potential issues are avoidable by understanding
structural steel systems and their connections. This seminar will address different aspects of lateral system design, main
member design, connection design and avoidable problems. Actual examples from real projects will be highlighted and
discussed. The session will include discussion from a steel detailer and a steel fabricator related to the associated construction
costs and/or change orders resulting from document quality and clarity.

1:45 pm – 3:15 pm A Day in the Life of a Project Manager

Speakers: John Aniol, Walter P Moore; Corey Matsuoka, SSFM International
Follow a structural project manager as he struggles through a day filled with risk and discovers tools to help him mitigate
those risks. Some of the tools he will discover will cover communication, corporate culture, planning and prevention,
education, scope and contracts, construction documents and construction.

3:30 pm – 5:00 pm Managing Expectations and Risks During the Steel Detailing Process
Speakers: Glenn Bishop, LBYD, Birmingham AL; Will Ikerd, RLG Engineers, Dallas, TX
The AISC Code of Standard Practice provides two options for structural steel connections, either fully detailed by the
engineer or selected and completed by the detailer. After much discussion, AISC is considering adding a third option
for connection: design by a specialty structural engineer retained by the fabricator. This session will explore the needs
and expectations of both the engineer and the fabricator for each of these three options. Also discussed will be how these
expectations might change in the BIM world.

STRUCTURE magazine 39 March 2010

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

continued from page 42

value, yet you would ask for your money back their productivity. We have a lot of work to congratulation. In other countries, they are
if your bestselling paperback had three spell- do to reclaim our dynamic status. This is why rising to the challenge of the economy and
ing mistakes in it! The calculations have value I train engineers to produce quality calcula- the future. They are willing to learn, improve
in the time that it takes to prepare them such tions. It may seem like a tiny contribution, team-building cohesion and gather confidence
that they are readable, actively useful within but as the prism explodes the focused beam for whatever lies ahead. I see great potential
the team, checkable and educational for grad- of light into the colors of the rainbow, so do for dynamic engineers in emerging economies
uates and the client. quality calculations expand the horizon of the to become a tidal wave. What are we going to
These mediocre calculations are produced engineer’s skill set positively. If engineers ac- do about it?▪
by highly qualified and trained engineers, cept this ‘value’ in their work, the change is
but the product is hardly the stuff of profound – far beyond merely producing cal- Robert Mote, P.Eng (rmote@motagg.com), is
dynamic engineers. In a business where 80% culations. They are working with the team to the author of two books, The Engineer’s Word
of engineers spend 80% of their time doing lead and becoming dynamic. and The Engineer’s Tables. More information
calculations and 80% hate it, I cannot see the Dynamic engineers ask hard questions and is available at www.motagg.com.
source of pride, innovation and dynamism find answers within the team. Transactional
for the future. Engineers should not simply engineers shrug their shoulders and say, “What
complain about the situation in which they can we do?” Dynamic engineers are capable
find themselves, because they can change it of profound changes in the way they work; ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
– if only they will recognize that it is time transactional engineers simply follow the
for change. leader. In a world economy that is currently
Innovative processes are available for engi- changing the landscape as at no other time in The easiest to use software for calculating
neers to expand their perception of their work, modern history, the reality of the workface is wind, seismic, snow and other loadings for
improve their roles and more than double far removed from the academic vision of self- IBC, ASCE7, and all state codes based on
these codes ($195.00).
Tilt-up Concrete Wall Panels ($95.00).
Got Two Cents? Floor Vibration for Steel Beams and Joists
STRUCTURE magazine is always interested in printing relevant opinion ($100.00).
pieces written by our readers. If there is a particular view that you would like
piec
to share with practicing structural engineers throughout the United States, please Concrete beams with torsion ($45.00).
send an abstract to chair@STRUCTUREmag.org. Demos at: www.struware.com

STRUCTURE magazine 41 March 2010

 The Tidal Wave
By Robert Mote, P.Eng
A few years ago, a study carried out by
Duke University researchers tried to de-
fine two terms that are crucial to their
interpretation of market conditions and
the United States’ unique advantage
in science and engineering innovation.
Consistent reporting of problematic en-
gineering graduation data has been used
to fuel fears that America is losing this
technological edge. Typical articles have
stated that, in 2004, the number of un-
dergraduate engineers was 70,000 in the
U.S. vs. 350,000 in India and 600,000
in China. The big headline was that the
combined number of graduates from India
and China was running five to eight
times greater. This has been going on year
after year.
Some tried to argue that engineers from
different countries could not be compared
as “apples to apples”. The rational case was
presented using the terms “transactional
engineers” and “dynamic engineers.” This
is an interesting defensive position. Let
me explain.
Transactional Engineers:
• May possess engineering
fundamentals, but not
adequate experience.
• Lack the expertise necessary to apply
this knowledge to larger problems.
STRUCTURAL FORUM
• Are typically responsible for rote and
repetitive tasks in the workforce.
• Often receive associate, technician
or diploma awards, rather than a
bachelor’s degree.
Dynamic Engineers:
opinions on topics of current importance to structural engineers
• Are capable of abstract thinking and
high-level problem solving.
• Thrive in teams.
• Work well across
international borders.
• Have strong interpersonal skills.
• Can translate technical engineering
jargon into common diction.
• Have four-year engineering degrees
from nationally accredited or highly
regarded institutions.
The overarching conclusion was that
dynamic engineers lead innovations, and
all will be well because the U.S. produc-
es dynamic engineers by virtue of their
training and education.
Given the definitions above, based on my
experience within the oil and gas sector, I
Structural Forum is intended to stimulate thoughtful dialogue and debate among structural engineers and other participants in the design
and construction process. Any opinions expressed in Structural Forum are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of
NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C 3 Ink, or the STRUCTURE ® magazine Editorial Board.
STRUCTURE magazine
would say that we are all transactional en-
gineers in reality! True dynamic engineers
work in teams and use them to create the
innovations that result from the interaction.
Think of Steve Jobs and his Apple® iPod.
He did not do it all by himself, did he?
He needs the team to push and respond to
the highest standard. He gave his team the
command to do their best and go beyond
the minimum. I do not see that happening
in our profession, generally. I see opti-
mized or innovative solutions shelved to
preserve and maximize corporate profits.
Innovation is born of inspiration more
than education. Invention is born of
perspiration and adversity more than
interpersonal skills. The quality of educa-
tion is not a paramount condition, but
rather the opportunity of the mind. It
does not matter whether you are American,
Indian, Chinese or from Mars. It knows
no boundaries.
Let us re-examine the numbers and try
to find a reasonable method to determine
the approximate number of dynamic engi-
neers from our large pool. I recall reading
somewhere a biological equation where
the square root of one percent of the pop-
ulation has the power to produce systemic
changes. Applying this rule suggests that
there are perhaps 26 dynamic engineers
produced every year in the U.S. vs. 59 in
India and 77 in China.
Every year, year after year, we see the
potential for new ideas multiplying out-
side the U.S. The U.S. has an advantage
in the implementation of funds, resources,
marketing and developing ideas; but
for how long? The Indian steel giants
turned car makers, Tata, have released
the world’s least expensive car. Daewoo
and Hyundai build their own submarines;
Japanese industry is a world-class model
of quality. The Chinese have their own
space program.
Perhaps you think that I am an alarmist;
I am not. We are in a global economy; we
relocate engineers from India to do work
in Canada and the U.S. because we do not
have enough engineers available locally,
and in some cases they are also more cost-
effective. It is a wake-up call for American
businesses, politicians and engineers. I
believe that there is plenty of engineering
talent to drive innovation and economic
42 March 2010
growth for a long time in the U.S., but we
can and must do better.
What will it take for American industry
and engineers to lead in traditional engineer-
ing amidst our crumbling infrastructure?
Any number of options exist; here are a few:
• Go metric. Imperial measurement
has no future. The world is
trending towards globalization,
which will lead to better
innovation and cross-pollination
of experiences.
• Go green. The drive to change the
biggest inertial system in the world
is impressive and wonderful news for
the globe.
• Improve recognition of engineers’
role in society. Increase pay and
showcase their contributions. It
does not need to be the space
program; the recent infrastructure
spending is long overdue, and new
projects should be executed with
much fanfare.
• Improve work processes for
engineers. Increase their
productivity, and lead in education
and quality presentations.
As an example, in the oil and gas sector,
calculations are the bedrock of the civil
and structural engineering disciplines.
Depending on the project size, calcula-
tions can take from days to months to
prepare. Typical quality assurance pro-
cesses require key project calculations to
be easily presented and understood during
subsequent reviews and approvals by senior
engineers, project leads and clients. What
is commonly produced is specialized,
exclusive, voluminous and hard to read.
This is typical from an American consul-
tancy, and the workshare companies borrow
these practices as their go-by without
questioning it. I believe that this moribund
state of affairs is inspired by the imperial
system, poor reporting facility and a lack
of personal responsibility for the quality
of the calculations.
As I point out to engineers who express
indifference, if we cannot produce mag-
azine-quality calculations that inspire the
team to do better, how can we call our-
selves dynamic? In a multi-billion-dollar
job, these calculations have incredible
continued on page 41