®

STRUCTURE A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

EXCELLENCE IN STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING AWARDS

December 2018 Soils & Foundations

Inside:
Lincoln Avenue
Pedestrian Bridge,
Colorado
Geotechnical Engineer: Chung & Vander Doelen Engineering Ltd
Structural Engineer: Stephenson Engineering Ltd
General Contractor: Reid & DeLeye Contractors Ltd

GEOPIER
Geopier Installer: GeoSolv Design/Build Inc.

IS GROUND
IMPROVEMENT ®

Geopier rigid inclusions

were installed in soft,
compressible soils to
support a 12-story condo
with 2-levels of below
grade parking.

Geopier rigid inclusion systems enable

you to:

• Improve variable fill soils in place

• Replace deep foundations
• Control settlement
• Increase soil bearing capacities

REQUEST FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT

800-371-7470 • info@geopier.com
www.geopier.com/feasibilityrequest
 LeMessurier Calls on Tekla Structural
Designer for Complex Projects
For over 55 years,
LeMessurier has
provided struc-
tural engineering
services to architects, owners, contractors, developers
and artists. Led by the example of legendary structural
engineer and founder William LeMessurier, LeMessuri-
er provides the expertise for some of the world’s most
elegant and sophisticated designs while remaining
true to the enduring laws of science and engineering.
Known for pushing the envelope of the latest tech-
nologies and even inventing new ones, LeMessurier
engineers solutions responsive to their clients’ visions
and reflective of their experience.
An early adopter of technology to improve their de-
signs and workflow, LeMessurier put its own talent to
work in the eighties to develop a software solution that
did not exist commercially at the time. Their early appli-
cation adopted the concept of Building Information
Modeling (BIM) long before it emerged decades later.
While LeMessurier’s proprietary tool had evolved over
three decades into a powerhouse of capability, the
decision to evaluate commercial structural design
tools was predicated on the looming effort required to
modernize its software to leverage emerging
platforms, support normalized data structure integra-
tion and keep up with code changes.
After a lengthy and thorough comparison of commer-
cial tools that would “fill the shoes” and stack up to the
company’s proprietary tool, LeMessurier chose Tekla
Structural Designer for its rich capabilities that ad-
dressed all of their workflow needs. According to Derek
Barnes, Associate at LeMessurier, ” Tekla Structural
Designer offered the most features and the best inte-
gration of all the products we tested. They also offered
us the ability to work closely with their development
group to ensure we were getting the most out of the
software.”
One Model for Structural Analysis & Design
From Schematic Design through Construction Docu-
ments, Tekla Structural Designer allows LeMessurier
engineers to work from one single model for structural
analysis and design, improving efficiency, workflow,
and ultimately saving time. “Our engineers are working
more efficiently because they don’t need to switch
between multiple software packages for concrete and
steel design. Tekla Structural Designer offers better
integration of multiple materials than we have seen in
any other product,” said Barnes.
LeMessurier engineers use Tekla Structural
Designer to create physical, information-rich models
that contain the intelligence they need to automate the
design of significant portions of their structures and
efficiently manage project changes.
TRANSFORMING THE WAY THE WORLD WORKS
“Tekla Structural Designer has streamlined our
design process,” said Craig Blanchet, P.E., Vice Presi-
dent of LeMessurier. “Because some of our engineers
are no longer doubling as software developers, it allows
us to focus their talents on leveraging the features of
the software to our advantage. Had we not chosen
to adopt Tekla Structural Designer, we would have
needed to bring on new staff to update and maintain
our in-house software. So Tekla Structural Designer is
not just saving us time on projects, it is also saving us
overhead.
Efficient, Accurate Loading and Analysis
Tekla Structural Designer automatically generates an
underlying and highly sophisticated analytical model
from the physical model, allowing LeMessurier engi-
neers to focus more on design than on analytical model
management. Regardless of a model’s size or com-
plexity, Tekla Structural Designer’s analytical engine
accurately computes forces and displacements for use
in design and the assessment of building performance.
“Tekla Structural Designer offers better
integration of multiple materials than
we have seen in any other product.”
“Tekla Structural Designer gives us multiple analysis
sets to pull from, which gives us lots of control. Most
programs don’t have the capability to do FE and
grillage chase-down. For the design of beam supported
concrete slabs, Tekla Structural Designer allows us to
separate the slab stiffness from the beam stiffness, so
if we choose to we can design the beams without con-
sidering the influence of the slab. In the same model
we can use a separate analysis set to review the floor
system with the beams and slab engaged,” said Barnes.
Barnes also shared similar benefits with concrete
column design. “Tekla Structural Designer does
grillage take-downs floor-by-floor, finds the reactions
and applies them to the next floor. This allows us
to view column results both for the 3-dimensional
effects of the structure as a whole and from the more
traditional floor-by-floor load take-down point of view.
Doing both has always required significant manual
intervention, but Tekla Structural Designer puts it all in
one place.” “We reduce the possibility for human error
because with Tekla Structural Designer less user input
is required,” said Barnes. “Tekla Structural Designer
automatically computes many of the design parame-
ters, such as column unbraced lengths. The assump-
tions made by the software are typically correct, but we
can easily review and override them when necessary.”
Interoperability and Time Saving Tools
Tekla Structural Designer was developed specifically
to maximize collaboration with other project parties,
including technicians, fabricators and architects. Its
unique functionality enables engineers to integrate the
physical design model seamlessly with Tekla Structures
or Autodesk Revit, and to round-trip without compro-
mising vital design data.
“We’re able to import geometry from Revit, design in
Tekla Structural Designer and export that information
for import back into Revit. If an architect makes
geometry updates or changes a slab edge, we’ll send
those changes back into Tekla Structural Designer, re-
run the analysis and design, and push updated design
information back into Revit.”
Tekla Structural Design at Work:
The Hub on Causeway
Positioning a large scale mixed-use development next
to an active arena, a below grade parking garage, and
an interstate highway, and bridging it over two active
subway tunnels makes planning, phasing and
engineering paramount. Currently under construction,
The Hub on Causeway Project will be the final piece in
the puzzle that is the site of the original Boston Garden.
Despite being new to the software, LeMessurier
decided to use Tekla Structural Designer for significant
portions of the project. “Relying on a new program for
such a big project was obviously a risk for us, but with
the potential for time savings and other efficiencies, we
jumped right in with Tekla Structural Designer. It forced
us to get familiar the software very quickly.”
“Tekla Structural Designer allowed us to design the
bulk of Phase 1 in a single model,” said Barnes. The proj-
ect incorporates both concrete flat slabs and compos-
ite concrete and steel floor framing. “Tekla Structural
Designer has the ability to calculate effective widths
based on the physical model which is a big time saver,”
said Barnes. “On this project, the integration with Revit,
along with the composite steel design features enabled
us to work more efficiently. Adding the ability to do con-
crete design in the same model was a bonus because
we had both construction types in the same building.”
“Tekla Structural Designer helped this project run more
efficiently, and in the end it was a positive experience,”
said Blanchet.
“Tekla Structural Designer provided the best fit
for our workflow compared to other commercially
available software.”
Want to Evaluate
Tekla Structural Designer?
tekla.com/TryTekla
 STRUCTURE
®

ADVERTISER INDEX PLEASE SUPPORT THESE ADVERTISERS

American Concrete Institute ....................30 Post-Tensioning Institute..........................12

Anthony Forest Products Co. ...................37
Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute .........21
GeoDesign, Inc. .......................................20
Geopier Foundation Company...................2
Hayward Baker Inc...................................35
RISA ........................................................44 MARKETING & ADVERTISING SALES
sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
Severud Associates ....................................16
Joe Murphy
Simpson Strong-Tie....................................9 jmurphy@STRUCTUREmag.org; Tel: 203-254-9595
StructurePoint ............................................6 Denis O’Malley
Structural Engineering Institute ...............33 domalley@STRUCTUREmag.org; Tel: 203-356-9694, ext. 13

Integrated Engineering Software, Inc........36 Structural Engineers, Inc. ...........................4

EDITORIAL STAFF
Integrity Software, Inc. ...............................4 Subsurface Constructors, Inc ....................18
Executive Editor Alfred Spada
KPFF .......................................................15 Trimble ......................................................3 aspada@ncsea.com

Publisher Christine M. Sloat, P.E.

csloat@STRUCTUREmag.org

Associate Publisher Nikki Alger

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

nalger@STRUCTUREmag.org

FloorVibe v3.0 Creative Director Tara Smith

Software based on the AISC Design Guide 11 2nd Ed. Not listed? graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org
Vibrations of Steel-Framed Structural Systems Due to Human Activity
It’s like having an in-house floor vibration expert! FloorVibe v3.0 helps solve problems Visit our website to EDITORIAL BOARD
with structure vibration due to human activity in offices, residencies, health clubs, con- Chair Barry K. Arnold, P.E., S.E., SECB
vention centers, and buildings housing sensitive equipment and occupancies. Plus, linear see what advertising ARW Engineers, Ogden, UT
stairs and footbridges. chair@STRUCTUREmag.org
• Expert Advice such as what live loads to use, how to estimate damping, opportunities are
recommended acceleration or velocity limits, and more. Jeremy L. Achter, S.E., LEED AP
• Makes use of the new complex analysis procedures for sensitive equipment ARW Engineers, Ogden, UT
and occupancies in DG11 2nd Ed. easy. right for you!
Erin Conaway, P.E.
• Has Databases for hot-rolled sections and castellated beams.
AISC, Littleton, CO
• Supports all types of Joists & Joist-Girders and User Defined sections.
• Automatically generates Notes and Warnings. USC and SI units. STRUCTUREmag.org John A. Dal Pino, S.E.
Order or upgrade at FloorVibe.com. E-mail FloorVibe@gmail.com FTF Engineering, Inc., San Francisco, CA

Linda M. Kaplan, P.E.

Pennoni, Pittsburgh, PA

Timothy M. Gilbert, P.E., S.E., SECB

TimkenSteel, Canton, OH

Bentley spending
Jessica Mandrick, P.E., S.E., LEED AP
®
Gilsanz Murray Steficek, LLP, New York, NY

Brian W. Miller

out of control?
Davis, CA

Emily B. Lorenz, P.E.

Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago, IL

Evans Mountzouris, P.E.

• Prevent Quarterly and Monthly Overages
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

The DiSalvo Engineering Group, Ridgefield, CT

• Whitelist allowed applications, block all others „ SofTrack controls Greg Schindler, P.E., S.E.
Bentley® usage by Sammamish, WA
• Control all Bentley® usage, prevent overages Product ID code and Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
• Block use of all un-owned Bentley® applications counts (pipe, inlet, BergerABAM, Vancouver, WA
pond, and all others)
• Automatically queue users when access is John “Buddy” Showalter, P.E.
and can actively American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA
blocked, notify when license ready block unwanted
• Give users visibility of who is using licenses now product usage STRUCTURE® magazine (ISSN 1536 4283) is published monthly by

• Warn and optionally terminate idle usage
• Historical Usage Reporting of all applications
• Introducing: Bentley CONNECTIONS Visa
®
(desktop) per-user control
CALL US TODAY:
(866) 372 8991 (USA/Canada)
The National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (a nonprofit
Association), 645 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 540, Chicago, IL 60611
312.649.4600. Application to Mail at Periodicals Postage Prices is
„ SofTrack reports and Pending at Chicago, IL and additional mailing offices. STRUCTURE
optionally controls magazine, Volume 25, Number 12, C 2018 by The National Council
usage of all Autodesk®
of Structural Engineers Associations, all rights reserved. Subscription
services, back issues and subscription information tel: 312-649-4600,
products by Version, or write to STRUCTURE magazine Circulation, 645 N. Michigan
Avenue, Suite 540, Chicago, IL 60611. The publication is distributed
Feature Code, and to members of The National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
Serial Number! through a resolution to its bylaws, and to members of CASE and SEI
paid by each organization as nominal price subscription for its members
as a benefit of their membership. Yearly Subscription in USA $75;
$40 For Students; Canada $90; $60 for Canadian Students; Foreign

„ SofTrack reports and
(512) 372 8991 (Worldwide) ©
controls ESRI® ArcMap
www.softwaremetering.com concurrent and single
use license activity
© 2018 Integrity Software, Inc. Bentley is a registered trademark of Bentley Systems, Incorporated
$135, $90 for foreign students. Editorial Office: Send editorial mail
to: STRUCTURE magazine, Attn: Editorial, 645 N. Michigan Avenue,
Suite 540, Chicago, IL 60611. POSTMASTER: Send Address changes
to STRUCTURE magazine, 645 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 540,
Chicago, IL 60611.
STRUCTURE is a registered trademark of the National Council of Structural
Engineers Associations (NCSEA). Articles may not be reproduced in
whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher.

STRUCTURE magazine 4 December 2018

 CONTENTS Columns and
Departments
Features EDITORIAL
7 SEI Futures Fund
19 A BRIDGE IN THE FUTURE By Glenn R. Bell, P.E., S.E., SECB
By Bob Niccoli, P.E. S.E., Sean-Philip H. Bolduc, P.E., and Peter Chou, P.E.
Unique challenges for the Town Center Parkway Rail Support Structure led to the development of an INFOCUS
unconventional solution, a structure that later would be unearthed to become a bridge. The structure will begin 8 The Northridge Earthquake
its life as a slab on grade but will become a two-span rigid frame bridge at an undefined time in the future. By John Dal Pino, S.E.

STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE
10 Geoseismic Design Challenges
in Mexico City
By Sissy Nikolaou, Ph.D., P.E.,
George Gazetas, Ph.D.,
Evangelia Garini, Ph.D.,
Guillermo Diaz-Fanas, P.E.,
and Olga-Joan Ktenidou, Ph.D.

STRUCTURAL FORENSICS
14 Structural Engineers
in Fire Investigations
By Dan Eschenasy, P.E., SECB

22 EXCELLENCE ENGINEER’S NOTEBOOK

28 Design of Tall Walls
IN STRUCTURAL in Wood Structures

ENGINEERING AWARDS By John “Buddy” Showalter, P.E.,

Bradford Douglas, P.E.,
The National Council of Structural Engineers Associations and David Low, P.E.
(NCSEA) announced the winners of the 2018 Excellence in
Structural Engineering Awards in October. Read highlights on STRUCTURAL DESIGN
each of the award-winning projects in this issue. 31 Variable Modulus of Subgrade
Reaction – Part 2
By Apurba Tribedi

CASE BUSINESS PRACTICES

34 Developing the Next Generation
of Structural Engineers
By Michael A. Stubbs, P.E., S.E.,
and David V. Jáuregui, Ph.D., P.E.

ON THE COVER The Lincoln Avenue Pedestrian Bridge, Lone Tree, CO, was an Award winning
project in the New Bridges or Transportation Structures category of this year’s Excellence in Structural IN EVERY ISSUE
Engineering Awards program. 4 Advertiser Index
37 Resource Guide – Earth Retention
38 NCSEA News
Publication of any article, image, or advertisement in STRUCTURE® magazine does not constitute endorsement by NCSEA,
CASE, SEI, the Publisher, or the Editorial Board. Authors, contributors, and advertisers retain sole responsibility for the 40 SEI Update
content of their submissions. 42 CASE in Point

STRUCTURE magazine 5 December 2018

Editorial
SEI Futures Fund
Pursuing Our Vision for Structural Engineering
By Glenn R. Bell, P.E., S.E., SECB, F.SEI, F.ASCE, 2019 Chair, SEI Futures Fund Board of Directors

I n 2013, the Structural Engineering Institute published A Vision for Examples of activities that SEIFF has supported in the last few
the Future of Structural Engineering and Structural Engineers: A case years include:
for change (the SEI Vision – www.asce.org/SEI). The SEI Vision lays • Scholarships for students and young professionals to attend
out an inspiring view of what the structural engineering profession Structures Congress
could be by the year 2033, and it • Support to launch the new SEI
makes a number of recommenda- Global Activities Division
tions for SEI Board of Governors’ • Beta testing to live stream ses-
action to lead us to that vision. sions at Structures Congress
The recommendations include • Creation of an SEI Global
bold initiatives involving (1) Practices Guideline document
education for innovation and (to be published early 2019)
leadership and (2) professional • Research in support of SE
practice for innovation and lead- licensure
ership. Recognizing the massive • Support for ASCE Continuing
need for professional volun- Education Webinars for SEI
teerism and financial resources Chapters and SEI Graduate
necessary to bring about the SEI Student Chapters
Vision, SEI established, in 2013, 2018 SEI Futures Fund Student and Young Professional Scholarship Recipients. • Stakeholder workshops for
the SEI Futures Fund (SEIFF). Continuing Education
Every dollar contributed to the SEI Futures Fund goes directly to Initiatives that the SEIFF Board has funded for 2019 include more
profession-building initiatives identified and approved by the SEIFF than $100,000 for:
Board. The SEI Futures Fund operates in collaboration with the ASCE • Investigating the Future of SE Licensure: This will provide a com-
Foundation for administrative and professional fundraising expertise. prehensive view of SE Licensure and the various options for a
The goals of the SEI Futures Fund are unique: to advance the art, path to 2033.
science, and practice of structural engineering for a brighter future • SEI Standards lecture for SEI Chapters: This initiative seeks a
for our profession. It does this by funding strategic initiatives outside win-win by increasing knowledge of SEI standards and provid-
the normal bounds of the SEI operating budget. It does not support ing resources for increasing attendance at SEI Chapter meetings.
scientific research. The four strategic priorities for funding are to: • SE 2050 Sustainability Commitment Initiative Workshop: This
• Invest in the future of the profession, will support a planning workshop for the SE 2050 Initiative
• Promote student interest in structural engineering, for structural engineers to meet embodied carbon benchmarks.
• Support younger members involvement in SEI, and • SEI Codes & Standards Young Professional Program: This is an
• Provide opportunities for professional development. extension of a highly effective initiative to involve young profes-
Fundraising is driven primarily by the Futures Fund Board members. sionals in various SEI codes and standards activities.
Donors may be individuals, companies, or organizations. The Board’s • SEI Student & Young Professional Scholarships to Structures Congress:
strategy for individuals has been top-down, ensuring we have the sup- These scholarships are intended to draw more students and young
port and commitment of the SEI Board, the SEIFF Board, and the professionals into SEI activities by supporting scholarships to
many SEI committees, chapters, and members. Progress along this attend Structures Congress.
route has been excellent. Presently, about 65% of all donations come • SEI Local Leadership Conference Facilitation Training: This
from individuals, 20% from corporations, and 15% from ticket sales follows the SEI Vision goal of leadership development for
at the annual gala held at Structures Congress (more on this below.) structural engineers.
However, we have far more to go. Only a small fraction of SEI’s more So, how can you help? First, if you are not already a regular donor,
than 30,000 members contribute. Imagine what we could do for please consider becoming one. This is our future at stake! If you are
the profession if everyone was engaged! a donor and are comfortable recruiting others, let us know. We need
A tremendous supporter of SEI and the Futures Fund (and the to leverage our voice. And, finally, if you have an idea for a proposed
structural engineering profession in general) has been Ashraf SEI Futures Fund activity to advance the profession, let us know,
Habibullah, founder and CEO of Computers and Structures Inc. regardless of whether you or someone you know are interested in
Since 2016, Ashraf has hosted a gala at Structures Congress cel- advancing the idea.
ebrating the structural engineering profession and promoting its This year’s SEI Futures Fund Board is Ed DePaola, Anne Ellis, Jon
future. The pinnacle social event at Congress, it is always great fun Magnusson, John Tawresey, and myself. We would be pleased
and profoundly inspiring. We invite you to join us next April at to talk with you about getting involved.
Structures Congress in Orlando. Learn more and give at www.asce.org/SEIFuturesFund.■
STRUCTURE magazine 7 December 2018
InFocus
The Northridge Earthquake
25 Years On
By John A. Dal Pino, S.E.
I n the early morning of January 17, 1994,
the ground shook hard in the northern
San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles.
The structural engineering profession was
shaken hard too. That was 25 years ago,
and how have things changed!
The death toll was thankfully small (less than
75 people). Monetary damage, however, was
considerable (estimated at between $15 and
$40 billion). However, Los Angeles is a large
place; after the earthquake, if you had just
dropped into town and had not heard the
news on the television or radio, you could
have driven around much of the city and
outlying areas and not have noticed that an
earthquake had occurred. But, if you had
a keen eye as any good structural engineer
does, you would have noticed the telltale
signs of an earthquake here and there (the
usual toppled CMU walls, broken glass, brick
parapets lying on the sidewalks, etc.). But
you would have also stumbled upon a few
severely damaged buildings nestled amongst
otherwise unscathed structures. Occasionally
you would have discovered a building tightly
wrapped in yellow caution tape showing no
apparent damage and asked yourself, “Hmm,
what happened there?”
Looking back on the Northridge earth-
quake today, it was a truly once-in-a-lifetime
event and, taken as a whole, the damage,
both observable and hidden, changed the
course of structural engineering. It changed
the course of structural engineering for the
second time, but more on that later. The
earthquake occurred in a relatively young,
western city full of mostly modern build-
ings. This made it the perfect laboratory for
structural engineers to learn, albeit at society’s
expense. Earthquakes occur all over the world
every year but, for the most part, few yield
data applicable to U.S. practice because the
buildings and construction techniques are
too different. Now, twenty-five years later,
it is important to reflect on what happened
in Northridge, what the profession learned,
and how life changed for a large segment of
society, not just structural engineers.
Before Northridge, there was another
Los Angeles earthquake that also “changed
STRUCTURE magazine
engineering,” the 1971 San Fernando earth-
quake, located roughly in the same area as
Northridge. For many engineers, this earth-
quake produced the first visual evidence of
what a damaged but life-safe building looked
like. The resulting damage led to significant
changes in the building code (1976 UBC vs.
the 1973 UBC) as engineers came to appreci-
ate that design base shear levels were too low
and detailing provisions, particularly for con-
crete tilt-up warehouses and concrete frames
(buildings and highway structures), needed
significant improvements. The earthquake
also led to the creation of California’s Office of
Statewide Health Planning and Development
(OSPHD) as a result of the near-collapse of
the new Olive View Hospital in Sylmar.
Back to the Northridge earthquake. The
most noticeable and significant damage
consisted of wood apartment buildings
“pancaked” onto cars, massive highway struc-
tures collapsed, toppled parking garages,
and non-ductile concrete frames cracked
and sometimes collapsed. The occasional
heavily damaged building in a largely undam-
aged area signaled ground motion focusing
in the bowl that is the San Fernando Valley.
Yellow tape was drawn around buildings that
sustained some unique damage, unexpected
by a vast number of engineer practitioners.
Behind the tape, stiff diagonal braces had
torn apart like aluminum beer cans, welded
steel moment resisting connections had
cracked even in lightweight buildings with
wood floors, the roofs of tilt-up buildings
had collapsed (again), and one hospital
designed to high seismic standards was dam-
aged and out of commission.
In retrospect, it appeared that the profes-
sion was caught largely unaware by the 1994
Northridge earthquake and did not expect
the kinds of damage that occurred, particu-
larly in the newer buildings, since the code
had been modified significantly just 20 years
before, along with other improvements in the
intervening years. Since the types of damage
were generally unexpected, the structural
engineering profession was again shaken from
its status quo, and things changed again. The
pressures of schedule and fee just do not allow
8 December 2018
engineers too much time for theorizing about
how every aspect of a building will perform
in an extreme event. The code also provided
a life-safety banner that could be used as a
protective shield.
Historians argue that, rather than smooth
transitions, it is unexpected jolts to the system
that change society. So it goes with earthquakes
too. As the details about the damage emerged,
it became apparent that many aspects of the
building code were based on other than histori-
cal experience and test data, and that buildings
designed to minimum code levels experienced
a lot more damage than society was willing to
accept. The results of a few tests on a small
number of prototypes had been extrapolated
to permit construction of large buildings that
bore little resemblance to the original concept.
A limited set of data had become codified,
and buildings were built with little knowledge
about their probable performance. To be fair,
there are always a few visionaries who anticipate
everything and knew this was going to happen
someday. The author has had the pleasure to
work for and with many such people but, in
general, these are rare individuals.
For the 25th anniversary year of the
Northridge Earthquake, STRUCTURE will
publish a series of articles on what was learned
from the Northridge Earthquake and how it
changed structural engineering. The authors
were carefully chosen from the most knowl-
edgeable people in our profession. The articles
will describe how the profession designed
buildings before and how things changed.
For younger engineers, the articles can serve
as a history lesson and, for older engineers, a
way to reminisce about the past and hopefully
start a conversation with their staffs about
engineering into the future.
Please share your thoughts about
these articles with us as the year
goes on.■
John A. Dal Pino is a Principal with FTF
Engineering located in San Francisco,
California. He serves as a member of
the STRUCTURE Editorial Board.
(jdalpino@ftfengineering.com)
 Don’t replace.
Repair in place.

With 40+ years of proven performance, our FX-70® Structural Repair and Protection
System repairs concrete, steel and wood piles in service without dewatering while
protecting against further deterioration. From custom-manufactured fiberglass
jackets to underwater epoxies and cementitious grouts, we have cost-effective,
practical, long-term solutions for your repair projects.

Since 1956, Simpson Strong-Tie has brought innovative solutions to customers’

construction challenges. To learn more about our products that repair, protect and
strengthen, visit go.strongtie.com/rps or call us at (800) 999-5099.

Watch How to Install FX-70® Jackets in Water at strongtie.com/videolibrary and

subscribe to our YouTube Channel at youtube.com/strongtie.

©2018 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. RPSUW16

structural
PERFORMANCE
Geoseismic Design Challenges
in Mexico City
Part 1: A 32-year Déjà-vu
By Sissy Nikolaou, Ph.D., P.E., DGE,
George Gazetas, Ph.D.,
Evangelia Garini, Ph.D.,
Guillermo Diaz-Fanas, P.E.,
and Olga-Joan Ktenidou, Ph.D.
Figure 2. Continuing sinking of the Mexico City lake bed
causing visible differential settlements in buildings.
STRUCTURE magazine
M exico City’s geoseismic
design challenges arise from
its unique local geology combined
with high tectonic activity. This
article discusses the challenges that
continue to grow, as the center of the
ruins of the Aztec capital has turned
into the most prominent modern
metropolis of Latin America, with
economic growth that demands
taller buildings. The response of Figure 1. Evolution of the lake system at Mexico City Valley
the regional soils has repeatedly and (Ovando-Shelley et al., 2013).
destructively materialized in the form
of soil basin amplification phenomena (one- and original water area of 700 km2 (270 mi2) except
two-dimensional) that manifested as seismic waves for a small lake near Xochimilco.
propagating through the natural valley’s topogra- New human settlements between the 16th and
phy. This topography is filled with 18th centuries by the conquering Spaniards caused
soft, high-plasticity elastic clays the biggest impacts on the built environment due
that were a part of the drained to further deforestation, agriculture, pasture lands,
lake that once existed below the construction, and land reclamation. The Spaniards
City. A vivid recent reminder was tried to control the water by replacing the Aztec
the 2017 Mw7.1 Puebla-Morelos system of dikes and canals with streets and squares,
Earthquake, a déjà-vu precisely on draining the lakes and removing forestland. These
the 32nd anniversary of the September 19th, 1985, actions resulted in severe floods, some of which
Michoacán Ms8.0 Earthquake, with an epicenter drowned the city for months and even years on end.
400 kilometers (km) (~250 miles) away from the Moreover, the Valley of Mexico is mainly
city center. The 1985 toll of more than 39,000 formed by volcanic materials, while the surface
deaths and nearly 10,000 building collapses was layers consist of alluvial deposits, mostly lacus-
attributed to a multi-resonance of seismic incident trine clays. A large part of Mexico City is built
waves, soil deposits, and structures. In 2017, the on top of highly plastic soft clay sediments inter-
soil amplification repeated from a different type layered with thin silt and sand layers. The clayey
of earthquake that was 120 km (~78 mi) away, deposits of Mexico City are fairly unique, con-
with only slightly different recorded motions than taining volcanic ash, and are characterized by an
those in 1985. This article provides an evalua- unusually high plasticity index (PI ≈ 200-300), a
tion of selected recorded motions within the City natural water content (wn ≈ 200 - 600), and low
that correlates with observed differences in the shear wave velocity, Vs, within the 40 to 90 m/s
level and distribution of damage between the two (~130 - 300 ft/s) range. This saturated deposit
events that occurred 32 years apart. The evaluation is extremely compressible and has caused settle-
is a combined result of experiences and studies ments of 9 m (~30 ft) since the beginning of the
performed over more than 2 decades by the co- 20th century (Tapia et al., 2000) which, in turn,
authors – designers at WSP and researchers at have induced damaging differential settlements in
NTUA, and the recent findings many monuments, structures, and infrastructure
by the ATC reconnaissance team built in the former lake area (Figure 2).
that traveled to Mexico City, In the past few decades, the City has grown from
which is gratefully recognized about 78 km2 (30 mi2) to a metropolis about 100
for contributions to this article. times larger, as shown in Figure 3. The lakebed
This is Part One of two articles continues to sink by up to 30 cm/year (~12 in/
that focus on the geotechnical year), as groundwater is extracted to support its
and structural design challenges more than 20 million inhabitants. Development
of Mexico City. of tall buildings with deeper basements over the
past two decades has increased exponentially to
Geology and accommodate the rapid growth.
The problematic soil conditions, continuous
Tectonics water extraction, and frequent strong seismic
Mexico City is mostly built on a activity have presented unique challenges in
basin formerly occupied by the the design and construction of Mexico City.
ancient Lake Texcoco that has The Spanish settlers identified these difficulties
evolved since the Aztec arrival since the mid-16th century after observing their
in the 13th century, as shown buildings sinking. In 1550, Cervantes de Salazar,
in Figure 1. Currently, the lake author and rector in Mexico, concerned about
is completely drained from its the continuous settlements and seismic activity,
10 December 2018
Figure 3. Mexico’s Colonia Federal harmonic and
radiant geometry from above. Courtesy of Digital
Globe, 2015.
introduced a height limit of two stories
(Cervantes de Salazar, 1978). Per Rosenblueth
& Ovando (1991), this was probably the
first rule for earthquake-resistant design in
the Americas.
Currently, a Performance-Based Design
(PBD) approach has been followed in the
seismic design of new tall buildings. PBD
also presents challenges, many of which are a
result of the behavior of the unique soft soils
that seem to have similar behavior over past
strong earthquakes.
A 32-year Earthquake Déjà-vu
A vivid and destructive manifestation of such
amplification was observed in Mexico City
during both the 1985 Ms8.0 Michoacán and
2017 Mw7.1 Puebla-Morelos earthquakes.
The 1985 event occurred in the subduction
zone offshore of western Mexico, nearly 400
km (~250 mi) from the city. Yet, it caused
enormous damage with tens of thousands
of deaths mostly concentrated in the north-
western part of the Mexico City lake region.
It became abundantly clear that the soft clay
layers were the main culprit of the disaster,
having amplified the ±2 seconds period of
the motion of the incoming waves. As shown
in Figure 4, the 2017 event occurred as the
result of normal faulting in Central Mexico
at a depth of approximately 50 km (~30 mi),
approximately 120 km (75 mi) away from
Mexico City. The damage was significant
in the City, with 40 building collapses and
at least 400 deaths, but lower than those in
1985 thanks to mainly the improved local
seismic code. Although the two events had
different seismological characteristics of
magnitude, distance from the epicenter, and
orientation, they generated quite similar soil
amplification effects.
STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 4. Mechanisms of 1985 Michoacán and 2017 Puebla-Morelos earthquakes (USGS, 2017).
The incident waves that constitute the seis-
mic motion, propagating from the bedrock
through the soil, undergo changes in both
their amplitude and frequency characteristics.
Since the amplitude usually increases, the
term “soil amplification” is used to describe
the phenomenon, as discussed in a previous
article (STRUCTURE, Nikolaou, February
2008). The effects of soil amplification on
a structure depend on its location with
respect to the lake area, as shown in Figure 5
(Nikolaou et al., 2018), that is largely
described by the three zones defined in the
Mexican Building Code (OGDF, 2017): Hilly
(I), Transition (II), and Lake (III). More spe-
cifically, a typical geotechnical profile within
the lakebed varies in thickness H and, as
shown in Figure 6, consists of an upper fill
deposit, a regional soft plastic clay, and dense
layers of silty sand and dense clay that reach a
stiff deposit referred to as “bedrock.”
However, soil amplification in the lakebed
is controlled primarily by the thickness of the
upper soft clay that varies within the lakebed,
as shown in Figure 5. Past events have docu-
mented striking soil amplification effects
(Romo & Auvinet, 1992) attributed to the
behavior of the soft clay deposit and particu-
larly its high plasticity, PI, that controls the
non-linear effects in soils. Vucetic & Dobry
(1991) showed that the Mexico City clay
behaves practically within the linear elastic
Zone I Zone II
Figure 5. East-West section and code-specified seismic zones: Hilly (I), Transition (II), and Lake (III).
11 December 2018
range even for high shear strain amplitudes,
γ, on the order of 10-3. This is accompanied by
low damping, which means that the straining
of the soil does not absorb the seismic energy
and that it keeps being amplified as the waves
propagate upwards within this layer.
Taking advantage of this unique character-
istic offers the opportunity to understand the
cause and the selective spatial distribution of
damage by examining the soil amplification
using simplified engineering approximations.
Mexico City profiles may be generalized
simply as a soil column of soft clay with Vs
= 80 m/s (260 ft/s) and PI = 200 overlying
the assumed bedrock at a depth H from the
ground surface. Extensive analytical studies
have validated this simplified approach, by
Gazetas (1988) and the ATC reconnaissance
geotechnical study for the Puebla-Morelos
earthquake (Gilsanz & Nikolaou, 2018). The
fundamental period of vibration for this soil
column, Ts, equals 4 H / Vs. Using contour
maps of the estimated Mexico City Ts offered
in the local building code from micro-zona-
tion (Ordaz & Perez-Rocha, 1992), engineers
can estimate H and the primary vibration
characteristics of the soil.
For example, the SCT site (Figure 5) is
within the area of concentrated severe damage
in 1985 and can be used to compare record-
ings and analytical predictions from the 2017
earthquake. The site has an H of 40 m (~130 ft)
Zone III

Figure 6. Acceleration response spectra from recordings at the rock (UNAM)
and surface (SCT) stations in the 2017 (teal) and 1985 (pink) events.
with an actual soil layering shown in Figure 6.
However, this model is simplified with a
uniform soft clay layer excited by motions
recorded at a rock outcrop at the UNAM
(National Autonomous University of Mexico)
recording station for both the 1985 and the
2017 events. The relative similarity of the
UNAM rock spectra, with a distinct high-
period content, could be attributed to the
roles of the large-scale geometry of the wider
(≈ 10 km or 6 mi) and deeper (≈ 500 m or
1600 ft) lake basin (Singh et al., 1993) and
the dense built environment of Mexico City
that may cause building-to-building effects
and elongation of the recorded motions.
To estimate the peak Spectral Acceleration
(SA) at the surface, the known UNAM rock
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
PTI 2019 Convention
May 5-8, 2019
Seattle, Washington, USA
www.post-tensioning.org
STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 7. Concentrated damage in buildings highlighted in red in the 1985 disaster,
due strong motions affected by soil resonance at T = 2 seconds and rich excitation
between 1.5 and 2 seconds. Green-shaded buildings did not suffer significant damage.
peak ground acceleration, PGA, is multiplied
by an amplification factor, A. The fundamen-
tal soil period is Ts = 4 H / Vs = 2 seconds,
and an approximate theoretical resonance
amplification at that same period is A ≈ 11,
assuming soil damping of 4%. The predicted
peak SA at the SCT station site for this period
would be SASCT(1995) ≈ A × SAUNAM(1995) ≈ 11 ×
0.08 = 0.9 g, a value close to the maximum of
the average spectrum from the two horizontal
records of the 1985 earthquake (Figure 6 ).
The agreement between observations and
simple analysis is excellent, confirming the
claim that it is the resonance of the soil
deposit at T ≈ 2 seconds that is subjected to a
high-period excitation and is rich at the period
range 1.5 < T < 2 seconds. This produced
Technical Sessions
Committee Meetings
Networking Events
Exhibit Hall
12 December 2018
the strong destructive ground motions of the
1985 disaster which targeted only buildings
at this period range, as shown in Figure 5.
In 2017, the upper clay soil was probably
slightly stiffer as the continuing consolidation
increased its density and stiffness, validating
the assumption that a smaller soil period of
Ts ≈1.8 seconds is a reasonable approxima-
tion for this event. This produced the same
amplification at the resonance of A ≈ 11 and
a peak SA at the resonance at the SCT site,
equal to SASCT(2017) ≈ A × SAUNAM(2017) ≈ 11
× 0.05 = 0.55 g, which is, again, in excel-
lent agreement with the record. The response
of the simplified soft clay profile with H =
40 m to the excitation of the 2017 UNAM
record is also shown in Figure 6. While the
soil amplification effects at the reso-
nance period of the soil column of Ts
≈ 1.7 seconds are evident, the overall
shape of the response spectrum deviates
from the 2017 SCT record. This can be
attributed to the limitations of the one-
dimensional approach to a problem that
is clearly three-dimensional due to the
geometry of the lake. Overall, the records
at the SCT site from both events have
similar shapes, with the peaks shifted
to lower periods and amplitudes in the
2017 event, which is to be expected due
to the smaller amplitude and stiffer soil
properties.
The analytical predictions support the
2017 observation of minor damage at
sites with a clay thickness of around 40 m
(~130 ft), as shown in the buildings map
of Figure 8 developed by the Geotechnical
Extreme Events Reconnaissance (GEER)
Association. This map shows collapsed
buildings for the 1985 event in blue
and the 2017 event in red, with the soil
zoning of the Mexico City Building Code
(OGDF, 2004) in the background. This
demonstrates that the higher period and
higher level of damage in 1985 was within
Zone (III) of the city center, shown in Figure 5,
concentrated at the northwestern part with
H = 20 to 40 m (65 to 130 ft). The 2017
collapses were also within Zone III, but at
the western part with H = 10 to 35 m (33 to
115 ft). The estimated peak SA design value
for the post-1985 buildings was 0.4 g, almost
double the 1985 design values of 0.25 g.
This contributed to the improved structural
behavior in 2017, with practically no collapses
of post-1985 buildings.

Observations and Conclusions

A very similar resonance phenomenon
between the ground shaking and cer-
tain buildings occurred in both the 1985
Michoacán and 2017 Puebla-Morelos Mexico
earthquakes. This was driven by soil ampli-
fication of the seismic waves due to the soft
clay conditions, even though the two events
had fundamental differences in magnitude,
epicentral distance, and genesis mechanisms.
However, the level of damage of the 1985
disaster was concentrated in the lakebed
SCT recording station region with a funda-
mental vibration period of about 2 seconds,
affecting buildings of periods between 1.5
and 2 seconds. The damage was substan-
tially less in 2017, which can be explained
by the smaller recorded accelerations that
Figure 8. Collapsed buildings in 1985 (blue symbols) and 2017 (red symbols) on the contour map of soil
zoning and vibration period (GEER, Mayoral, et al., 2017).
peaked in relatively shorter soil periods due buildings in the 2017 event. The second part
to densification during the 32 years since of this article will present: (i) geotechnical
1985. Distinct high-period content of the and structural design and building code evo-
rock motions could be due to the lake basin lution of Mexico City towards performance
geometry and the dense construction that may and resilient-based seismic designs of high-
have caused building-to-building effects. Both rise buildings over the last 20 years, and (ii)
the lake and the density of construction may overcoming the challenges of going higher
also have contributed to a longer duration of and digging deeper in this unique environ-
the seismic motions. ment (Rahimian, 2017).■
Overall, the lower ground motions, com-
bined with the updates and enforcement of
higher seismic design standards since 1985, The online version of this article
played a significant role in the decrease of contains references. Please visit
damage and the lack of collapses of post-1985 www.STRUCTUREmag.org.

Lexicon Sissy Nikolaou, Ph.D., P.E., DGE, is an Assistant

Vice President and Principal Engineer of WSP
ATC – Applied Technology Council USA’s Geotechnical & Tunneling Technical
cm – centimeter Excellence. (sissy.nikolaou@wsp.com)
g – acceleration at the Earth's surface due to gravity, equal to 9.81 m/s2
George Gazetas, Ph.D., is a Professor of
ft – feet; ft/s – feet per second
Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Dynamics at
km – kilometers; km2 – square kilometers
the Civil Engineering Department of the National
m – meters; m/s – meters per second
Technical University of Athens, Greece.
mi – miles; mi2 – square miles
(gazetas@central.ntua.gr)
M – magnitude is a number that characterizes the relative size of an earthquake
and is based on measurements of the maximum motion recorded by instruments. Evangelia Garini, Ph.D., is a Researcher of
In addition to the well-known Richter scale, which measures local magnitude, two Geotechnical and Earthquake Engineering at
commonly used scales are (i) surface-wave magnitude (Ms) that reflects the amplitude the Civil Engineering Department of the National
of surface seismic waves and (ii) moment magnitude (Mw) that reflects the energy Technical University of Athens, Greece.
released. The two scales yield similar values for the same event. (geocvemp@yahoo.gr)
NTUA – National Technical University of Athens Guillermo Diaz-Fanas, P.E., is a Senior Engineer at
in – inches the Geotechnical & Tunneling Technical Excellence
OGDF – Órgano del Gobierno del Distrito Federal of WSP USA. (guillermo.diazfanas@wsp.com)
SCT – Ministry of Communications and Transportation. One of the strong motion
accelerometers is installed at the ground surface of the parking lot of the SCT building Olga-Joan Ktenidou, Ph.D., is an Associate
wn – natural water or moisture content, equal to the ratio of the weight of water to Researcher at the Institute of Geodynamics of the
the weight of the solids within the mass of soil National Observatory of Athens, Greece.
(olga.ktenidou@oq.gr)

STRUCTURE magazine 13 December 2018

structural
FORENSICS
Structural Engineers in Fire Investigations
By Dan Eschenasy, P.E., F.SEI, SECB
Dan Eschenasy is the New York City
Buildings Department Chief Structural
Engineer. He is an Honorary Member
of SEAoNY and a member of the SEI
Structural Design for Fire Conditions
Standard Committee.
Figure 1. Debris field – roof charred joists cover collapsed first floor. establish the presence of “fire
STRUCTURE magazine
T he usual investigation of a fire incident
consists of an effort to establish the origin
and causes of the fire. More detailed investigations
may be expanded to estimate the fuel quantity,
the heat developed, and its duration. Building
re-occupancy may take place only after a structural
engineering assessment of the effect of the fire on
the existing structural system.
Even in cases where a significant structural
collapse occurred during the fire incident,
the investigation remains focused on issues of
evaluating potential arson, negligence, or fire
code compliance. Typically, the fire is deemed
the primary cause of the collapse and, as a
result, the scope of the investigation remains
limited to fire issues and does not include the
totality of the incident.
Fire has a relatively limited effect on masonry
and concrete structures but can dramatically
change the capacity and stability of steel
structures and can consume wood structures.
Published cases of collapse incidents involving
steel buildings have described an assessment
of the condition of code prescribed fire pro-
tection of the steel. For several World Trade
Center (WTC) buildings, structural engineers
partnered with fire experts for the evaluation
of how changes in the stability or capacity of
steel members led to the structure’s collapse.
Collapses of Wood
Floors or Roofs
For wood-framed buildings, because of the
capacity of the fire to spread quickly and con-
sume wood, a collapse is considered a likely
outcome and structural engineers may not
be called to participate in the
evaluation of the incident.
Buildings with bearing
masonry walls and wood floors
resist fires somewhat better
– combustible floors might col-
lapse, but this collapse is not
expected to engage the walls.
Since the mid-1800s, succes-
sive New York City (NYC)
building codes have required
the ends of wood joists be “fire
cut” to allow the burning floor
to collapse without inducing
torsional effects in the sup-
porting masonry walls, thus
preventing the walls’ collapse.
Since fire investigators can
14 December 2018
cuts,” structural engineers may not be called
to join the investigation.
Structural engineers can bring valuable input
as fire might not have been the only trigger of
the collapse. For example, they can determine
the building loads that existed at the location of
the collapse. Even if the fire caused the collapse,
the structural engineer’s participation can bring
additional technical context and information,
and lead to a more complete understanding
of the incident.
There may be cases where the fire is the
immediate cause of the incident but not the
primary or essential cause of the collapse. One
could argue that the National Fire Protection
Association’s NFPA 921 – Guide for Fire and
Explosion Investigations also should recommend
expanding forensic investigations to include
hypotheses beyond fire. An investigation in
The Bronx illustrates such a case where the
collaboration between fire and structural spe-
cialists led to the determination that the cause
of the collapse was due to structural defects
rather than fire.
Bronx Fire and Floor Collapse
The author was called to participate in the
New York City Fire Department’s (FDNY)
investigation of a fire incident that occurred
at a “99 Cents” store in the Bronx. The fire
completely destroyed the wood roof framing
of this one-story plus basement structure
(Figure 1). During the firefighting opera-
tions, the ground floor collapsed, taking
the life of two firemen that were fighting in
the basement. Several years prior, the store
had suffered another roof fire. Subsequently,
the roof had been rebuilt. The ground floor,
including the supporting wood columns,
were built as mill construction (slow-burning
construction) using sturdy elements. Along
the perimeter, the ground floor was supported
by masonry bearing basement walls. Typical
of mill construction, the center-heavy timber
girders were supported by bolsters set on top
of 8-inch by 8-inch timber posts. Almost all
the roof joists burned and were lying on top
of the collapsed first floor.
As the piece-by-piece removal and examina-
tion of the debris progressed, the probability
of the fire causing the ground floor collapse
decreased – the ground floor supporting
structure only had a few joists that displayed
charring. The areas of wood breakage were
away from the char. One seriously consid-
ered hypothesis of causation was the load that
existed on the floor – the store was full of
merchandise with very narrow space between
shelves. The original carrying capacity of the
floor was 100 pounds per square foot (psf ).

Figure 2. Failure of connection and collapse of
timber girder supporting first floor.
All the debris content of the first floor was
trucked away and weighed; merchandise and
floor load amounted to about 70 psf.
The debris field indicated that the collapse had
occurred by means of the failure of connections
of some timber girders to posts (Figure 2). There
was evidence of prior and repeated tinkering
with the support of the ground floor.
Ultimately, the cause of the collapse was
deemed to be rot existing at the base of the
timber columns (Figure 3). When erected,
these posts had their bottoms extended about
12 inches into the ground where they
rested on natural marble outcrops. Over
the years, the rot had led to a slowly pro-
gressing settlement of the center columns
(the perimeter masonry bearing brick
walls had not settled). The center columns
had lost much of their bearing function.
As the settlement had progressed slowly,
the owner was able to use shims, wood
cribbing, and other types of shoring to
mitigate the settlement’s effect. These
“fixes” did not include the repair of broken
beam-to-post connections. During the
fire, the sudden additional load of water
(from fire hoses) and firefighting person-
nel led to the abrupt settlement of one
of the supporting columns. The conclu-
sion was that the floor failure was due to
the disturbance imposed on the system
by the large, sudden movement caused
by the abrupt shortening of the column.
Only the collaboration between fire and
structural engineering professionals made
possible the determination that the fire
was the event that started a chain, but
the underlying cause of the collapse was
the presence of significant rot at the base
of the column.
One should note that, by the time this
store was erected (1928), there were
numerous publications and handbooks
STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 3. Rotten base of timber post.
warning about the dangers of embedding
wood columns (posts) in soil. As a result, the
established practice (which was not adhered
to in this case) was to set the bottom of wood
posts on pedestals raised 6 inches above the
finished floor.
Wood Bowstring Roof Trusses
The 1984 collapse of the roof of a
Waldbaum’s store and the resulting death
of seven firefighters is deeply embedded in
California State University Channel Islands
Santa Rosa Village, Camarillo, CA
Photo by Pablo Mason
LEED
GOLD
KPFF is an Equal Opportunity Employer
www.kpff.com
15 December 2018
the lore of the FDNY. The roof framing
consisted of a system of wood bowstring
trusses. Bowstring trusses consist of an
arched top chord (the bow) joined at each
end by a straight bottom chord (the string).
From a structural engineering perspective,
bowstring trusses differ from other types of
trusses in that the bottom chord essentially
has the same tension force over its entire
length. One available analysis of this col-
lapse describes it in terms of the difficulty
of fighting fires in tall attic spaces. This fatal
event is mentioned as a warning in many
books dedicated to firefighting. The primary
recommendation is the use of defensive
strategies for fighting fires in buildings with
roofs supported by wood bowstring trusses.
The typical firefighter’s concerns with wood
trusses include the high probability that the
failure of one single element might lead to
the collapse of an entire frame.
In 1988, five firefighters lost their lives
during a fire as a result of the collapse of a
bowstring truss roof in Hackensack, NJ. A
fire investigator observed that the collapse
might have been structural, as the section of
wood breakage did not show char.
Between 1930 and 1960, in many areas of
the country, wood bowstring roof trusses were
a common solution for hangars, warehouses,
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
Seattle San Francisco St. Louis
Tacoma Los Angeles Chicago
Lacey Long Beach Louisville
Portland Irvine New York
Eugene San Diego
Sacramento Boise
 and movie houses. They were sold and mar-
keted via catalogs and manufactured by
approved fabricators. Due to the lack of a
national system for reporting and issuing advi-
sories about structural failures, we lack a clear
count of how many bowstring collapses have
occurred. Fatalities of volunteer and profes-
sional firefighters are counted by the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH). Including the Waldbaum’s inci-
dent, there have been at least 15 firefighter
fatalities in fires of wood bowstring truss roofs.
Engineering of Wood
Bowstring Trusses
By 1996, the paper, “Investigating and
Repairing Wood Bowstring Trusses” by
Kristie and Johnson in the Practice Periodical
for Structural Design and Construction was
drawing attention to the structural design
deficiencies of wood bowstring trusses.
Kristie and Johnson indicated that, due
to heavy snows in 1979, there had been a
good number of collapses in the Chicago
area. These authors found that the main
deficiency was an overestimation of the wood
tensile capacity in the first half of the 20th
century when the allowable tensile stress
was considered equal to the tensile stress in
bending. Depending on the type of wood,
this overestimation might have reached
60%. Additionally, the older design practice
overestimated the capacity of bolted splice
connections by close to 30%. Around 2008,
several local chapters of Structural Engineers
Associations (Texas, Washington) re-
published an article by Gilham and
McKee of Western Wood Structures

Photo by Dan Howell

that described how bowstring trusses
failed to meet present day (2008) codes.
The report notes that, under heavy
snows, there are breaks in truss elements
but “the breaks seldom lead to a total
roof collapse.”
A review of a drawing of the Bowstring
Roof Truss in the 1944 Timber
Engineering Company’s (TECO)
Typical Design reference manual reveals,
with some approximation, the level
of noncompliance to the NYC code.
TECO analyzed two loading combina-
tions (Figure 4): (a) a total 40 psf dead
and live load over the entire span, and
(b) a 40 psf dead and live load for one
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

half of the span and a 10 psf dead load

for the balance of the span. As expected,
the entire length of the bottom truss
chord had to be designed for the same
tension force. The TECO notes refer
only to a minimum 1200 pounds per
square inch (psi) extreme fiber bending

Severud Associates stress. As an example, if the bottom

truss chord used allowable stresses,
Celebrates 90 Years of Engineering Excellence say 50% of what we accept today, it
would mean that, per code, the truss
Award-Winning Structural Engineers Continue to could carry a total load of about 20
Make Lasting Mark on Skyline and Profession psf. After subtracting the dead load, the
remaining 10 psf represent the weight
Severud Associates, founded in 1928 by Fred Severud, established itself by
engineering modest projects using simple methods. Nine decades later, its of about 5 to 6 inches of wet snow. The
projects are more ambitious and the tools used more sophisticated. But fact that many trusses still stand might
regardless of a project’s complexity or size, the staff’s expertise, experience, be explained by the high factor of safety
and client engagement have ensured the firm’s ongoing success. used for wood strength; since the 1920s,
Engineers are the primary asset at Severud Associates. Pioneers Fred the factor of safety for wood has varied
Severud, Eivind Elstad, and Max Krueger laid the foundation of the firm’s somewhere between 6 and 4, mainly
reputation for innovation and creativity while also training successive because of the large variability in the
generations of talented structural designers. The current principals maintain
that commitment to education and service to the engineering profession. strength of natural materials.
And throughout its 90-year history, Severud Associates has been fortunate to
work with many prominent architects, developers, corporations, government Inspection Program
agencies, and other institutions. Most are longstanding and repeat clients who
can attest to the quality of the firm’s service. All are appreciated for their Engineers at the NYC Buildings
contributions to the firm’s list of more than 16,000 successful projects. Department (DOB) became aware of
the structural design flaws in 2013 when
www.severud.com info@severud.com 212.986.3700
the FDNY Safety Chief flagged a series
of articles, including the NIOSH Report

STRUCTURE magazine 16 December 2018

Figure 4. Reproduction of loading combinations from TECO catalog (circa 1944).
F2012-08, Volunteer Lieutenant Killed and
Two Fire Fighters Injured Following Bowstring
Roof Collapse at Theatre Fire – Wisconsin,
(November 11, 2012). The report detailed
a wood bowstring truss fire that had resulted
in one firefighter fatality and two injuries.
The Report mentioned that “Bowstring truss
roof systems may suffer from a little-known
phenomenon related to inaccuracies in early
industry-accepted truss design.” A review of
NYC accident records revealed two prior
cases of bowstring truss roof collapses. Both
incidents had occurred in vacant buildings
and did not involve injuries (Figures 5 and 6 ).
The engineering reports observed that the
roofs were covered with several inches of
snow. One of the collapsed bowstring trusses
was of the “Belfast“ type (which used a lattice
system for webbing) and might have been
produced by several different manufacturers
(Figure 5). One should note that, in many
instances, design errors are latent; that is,
they are not evident in the absence of an
analysis of the original design and additional
material testing.
After receiving the FDNY information, a
number of facilities with wood bowstring
truss roofs were inspected to form an opinion
on their condition. In several cases, it was
discovered that the trusses had pushed the
supporting masonry piers outward – a clear
sign of weakening or excessive relaxation of
the bottom chords under tension. Other defi-
ciencies noted were related to wet conditions;
decay was most common, especially at the
areas of the truss end where water could have
penetrated through the walls or leaks around
the parapet flashing.
An additional incident involving a bow-
string truss collapse under snow load occurred
while the FDNY and DOB exploratory
investigation was underway. Consequently,
all owners of buildings with bowstring roofs
were ordered to engage a structural engi-
neering consultant to perform condition
assessments and structural analyses. The
STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 5. Collapsed “Belfast” bowstring truss. Wood failed at
department also issued a bul- bottom chord mid-span. Note relatively small snow cover.
letin clarifying what editions of
national standards were permit-
ted to be used for the assessment
of wood members. They iden-
tified close to 150 existing
buildings with bowstring roof
trusses. Only about 10% of the
buildings had trusses that did
not require repairs. The DOB’s
collaboration with the FDNY
led to repairs and an increase
in safety for occupants, and also
identified the structures where Figure 6. Bowstring truss failed at connection.
firefighting would need to use
special tactics. had a structural cause. One can only wonder
Black’s Law Dictionary defines a defect as if, in some of the incidents, that might have
an imperfection or shortcoming, especially in a been the case. Even if there had been no direct
part that is essential to the operation or safety correlation between the collapse in fire and the
of a product. Before the 1960s, the testing structural capacity, the original design defects
procedure for the tensile capacity of wood compromised the bowstring truss system’s
members was inaccurate and led to a design structural reliability and, therefore, reduced
defect that caused several collapses under the time available for firefighting from inside
snow loads. One can infer that this defect such burning buildings.
might have also been a contributing factor This article illustrates the benefits that can
to the collapse of wood bowstring trusses be brought about by the participation of
in fire conditions. For instance, the F2012 structural engineers in fire investigations to
NIOSH report notes an incident where the determine a structural root cause of a col-
roof was covered with snow. A picture in the lapse (The Bronx case) or to place in evidence
report displays about the same snow cover structural contributory factors to a collapse
as in Figure 5. A new tile ceiling had been (bowstring trusses). Structural engineers
installed, hanging from the truss and cover- can help identify and differentiate classes
ing the old ceiling. From the description, one of buildings that require special firefighting
can assume that the roof might not have been tactics (e.g., wood bowstring trusses vs. other
very far from its design capacity. In these truss types). The collaboration of fire and
conditions, a relatively small disturbance structural specialists also requires that struc-
of the structural system might have led to a tural engineers gain a better understanding
loss of stability. of firefighting operations and the effect of
fire on specific building assemblies.
For their work on bowstring trusses, the
Summary DOB forensic team (Jill Hrubecky, Timothy
It seems, in the aftermath, there was no spe- Lynch, and Yegal Shamash), in collabora-
cific structural analysis nor report regarding tion with Simon Ressner of FDNY, received
wood bowstring trusses that had collapsed in an SEAoNY Special Award For
fire conditions. As a result, no consideration Outstanding Contribution to
was given to hypothesize that the collapses Public Safety.▪
17 December 2018
A BRIDGE
IN THE
FUTURE
By Bob Niccoli, P.E. S.E., Sean-Philip H. Bolduc, P.E., and Peter Chou, P.E.
Figure 2. Completed structure in the interim phase.

H
ave you ever heard the phrase, “don’t judge a book by its cover”? The same quote can apply to the Town
Center Parkway Rail Support Structure in Reston, Virginia. At first look, the hidden structure appears to be a
reinforced barrier along a track. However, just like an iceberg, the true intricacies lie beneath.

WSP), determined that a traditional overpass structure was not feasible.

Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project – Phase 2 Constructing an underpass beneath an active Metrorail line would be
Capital Rail Constructors, a Joint-Venture between Clark Construction difficult to permit after the Metrorail line was operational. In 2013, a
Group, LLC and Kiewit Infrastructure South, won the Phase 2 Dulles resolution was approved between the MWAA, WMATA, VDOT, and
Corridor Metrorail Project in May of 2013. Parsons serves as Lead FCDOT that a structure carrying the rail lines would need to be built
Engineer for the Joint Venture. Phase 2 of the project consists of the during Phase 2 Metrorail Project work. The proposed schedule was to
remaining six stations, 11.4 miles of track and systems to connect eliminate or at least minimize the disruption of the rail service in the
Dulles International Airport to Washington D.C. future construction of the Town Center Parkway extension.
Like so many other projects before, there were many keys to the To move this feasibility study forward without impacting Phase 2,
success of this project: addressing the diverse needs of multiple stake- FCDOT developed preliminary engineering plans for the structure,
holders, developing a design approach that provided a robust but then MWAA and WMATA developed a cost for final design and
economical structure necessary for both current and future needs, construction with the help of Capital Rail Constructors. Once all
and, finally, incorporating the construction of the structure into the parties reviewed the cost estimate, Fairfax County determined the
total project without a significant delay to the overall schedule. change order to incorporate the rail structure was a betterment to
the area and recommended this project be incorporated into Phase 2.
Origin of the Town Center The successful early collaboration between all stakeholders was neces-
sary to include this new project into the Metrorail Project schedule.
Parkway Rail Support Structure
The Town Center Parkway Rail Support Structure was added into Phase
2 of the Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project after contract award. At this
Final Design and Analysis
location, the proposed Metrorail alignment runs within the median of The new structure presented unique challenges including stipulations
the International Airport Access Highway (DIAAH). In early 2012, from each stakeholder for the project to move forward. Stipulations
a study, led by the Fairfax County Department of Transportation included minimizing long-term maintenance costs, a maintenance-
(FCDOT) in collaboration with MWAA, free interim phase (prior to excavation for
WMATA, and VDOT, assessed the feasibility the Town Center Parkway), and flexibility
of extending the Town Center Parkway south for the future road alignment. This led to the
to Sunrise Valley Drive, passing either under or development of an unconventional solution,
over the Dulles Toll Road (DTR), DIAAH, and a structure that later would be unearthed to
the future Dulles Metrorail corridors. become a bridge, with an excavation depth
The origin of the Town Center Parkway extension not yet decisively defined. The structure will
project began after the planning and preliminary begin its life as a slab on grade supported by
design of the Metrorail Project. The anticipated three secant pile walls (“interim condition”)
start of construction of the Town Center Parkway but will become a two-span rigid frame bridge
extension is not until sometime after the com- when the Town Center Parkway extension is
pletion of the Metrorail Project. FCDOT, with constructed at an undefined time in the future
the help of Parsons-Brinckerhoff (now a part of Figure 1. Example 3-D FEM model. (“final condition”).
continued on next page
STRUCTURE magazine 19 December 2018
 The test for the design team was to detail a structure
based on a concept for a road whose layout would not
be finalized until after the structure was completed
while meeting the durability and resilience require-
ments in the interim and final phases. The complexity
of the design was in providing a flexible solution that
would not restrict the future Town Center Parkway
Extension alignment.
The strategy was to define an envelope for the future
road that all stakeholders would approve, then ana-
lyze and design the structure around the envelope.
The two-stage process in determining the envelope Figure 3a. Elevation view of the structure in the interim condition.
was first to outline the physical restraints involving
the minimum and maximum excavation depths and
roadway widths. The second was to define a series of
excavation approaches within which the future con-
struction team could work.
By embracing design techniques and innovative thinking
more commonly seen in tunnel construction, the design
and construction teams were able to deliver a structure
that met all stakeholder requirements and provided flex-
ibility for the future excavation of the structure.
Figure 3b. Elevation view of the structure in final condition.
Structural Modeling and Design Loading
Capturing the geometry and construction impacts required the use between the surrounding soil excavation. The SSI model simulated
of complex modeling techniques and post-processing solutions. The the non-linear, elastoplastic soil deformation behavior to provide
approach utilized Soil Structure Interaction (SSI) Modeling to deter- an accurate structure deformation prediction.
mine the soil responses and 3-Dimensional Finite Element Modeling Multiple excavation sequences were considered to determine the
(3-D FEM) to evaluate the concurrent loading created from the SSI worst case scenario force effects acting on the framed structure. This
models with loads such as track loading and other transient loading. information was used to capture how the future contractor may
Because future excavation will be performed within and below perform the unearthing of the structure. Examples of these variables
the structure, the actual ground forces and construction sequences are initial construction activities including “over-excavation” to lay
on the structure drive the system’s structural behavior (stiffness). down a subbase for the future Town Center Parkway and whether
For this structure, the SSI design approach was the appropriate the future contractor would unearth the structure one span at a
analysis rather than a traditional pre-determined force (strength time or in parallel. These different boundary conditions, including
limit) equilibrium design approach. The SSI approach captured the long-term soil effects, were combined to determine the control-
the stiffness of both structure and soils, as well as the interaction ling concurrent loading at critical locations within the structure.
The results of the SSI models provided
soil pressures and structure deformations
necessary to derive non-linear soil springs
for the 3-D FEM. The future at-rest pres-
sures were also evaluated by combining a
semi-SSI approach with the SSI derived
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

non-linear soil springs. The derived struc-

tural deflections and soil loading from
the SSI models created the basis for the
structural models.
The secant pile walls and deck slab
elements were then analyzed using 3-D
FEM. The walls and track slabs were
detailed as rigid frames to minimize
soil deflections in the walls and track
deflections in the slabs in the future
conditions. Significant moments and
torsional loads at the interface between
the walls and track slabs had to be con-
sidered due to the skews of the walls.
The surface loads, including the at-rest
soil pressure, pore pressure acting on
the faces of the walls, and the deck slab
loads from the ballast and tracks were
STRUCTURE magazine 20 December 2018
 develop a construction procedure including a reinforcement
arrangement that would maintain the necessary spacing to ensure
proper concrete placement. This included innovative construc-
tion techniques, such as the Contractor’s use of a custom in-field
reinforcement bending machine capable of bending bundled #14
secant pile rebars that provided the necessary development for the
moment connection between the secant pile walls and the track
slab (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Field bending of bundled #14 reinforcement.
applied as area loads along the surfaces of the solid members in
the 3-D FEM. The Project Directed Rail live loads were modeled
as moving loads along alignments to capture the influence of the
Inbound and Outbound track loads. Examples of other loads
within the 3-D FEM included train derailment force modeled as
a modified vehicle, temperature loads, wind loads, rolling forces,
seismic forces, concrete creep and shrinkage, longitudinal train
braking forces, and a future vehicle collision force against the center
wall from an impact along the future Town Center Parkway. The
output from the 3-D FEM models was combined through post-
processing techniques developed by Parsons, and the capacity of
the structure was determined using AREMA Reinforced Concrete
Specifications. Figure 1 (page 19) shows
an example 3-D FEM model of the
Conclusion
The Town Center Parkway Rail Support Structure presented many
challenges that required unconventional solutions. The ability to
incorporate changes in the design-build delivery method allowed
for increased coordination between team members and paved
the way for successful construction. By utilizing state-of-the-art
soil interaction and structural engineering analysis tools, tech-
niques, innovative construction procedures, and open collaboration
between all parties including Fairfax County, WMATA, MWAA,
and Capital Rail Contractors, a design was envisioned
and implemented that could meet the needs for the local
community for years to come.■
Bob Niccoli, P.E., S.E., is a Senior Structural Engineer at Parsons
Corporation in Boston, MA. (robert.niccoli@parsons.com)
Sean-Philip H. Bolduc, P.E., is a Senior Project Engineer at Parsons
Corporation in New York, NY. (sean-philip.bolduc@parsons.com)
Peter Chou, P.E., is an Engineering Manager at Parsons Corporation in
Oakland, CA. (peter.chou@parsons.com)

Comprehensive information on the

structure with soil loads applied based
on one of the excavation conditions.

Construction Planning design of foundation members.

and Implementation
Construction planning of this project

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

started early in the design process. How
the structure was built now would dictate
to a large degree how the future exca-
vation for the Town Center Parkway
extension would be accomplished. The
structure was constructed by first excavat-
ing to the bottom slab depth; then the
secant pile walls were installed. Once the
walls were finished, the slab and barriers
were completed and the ballast placed,
covering up the entire structure except for
the barriers. Figure 2 (page 19) is a photo
of the completed structure in the interim
condition. Figure 3a shows an elevation
view of the structure in the interim condi-
tion and Figure 3b an elevation view of Check out our Design Guide
suite on foundation members! NEW
the structure in final condition. TITLE!
The walls required heavy reinforce- Get them all and save!
ment to provide excavation flexibility.
The design and construction teams Available in print or PDF versions, shop CRSI
worked closely throughout the final at www.crsi.org for all our design guides!
design and construction phases to

STRUCTURE magazine 21 December 2018

 21 ANNUAL
ST
T he National Council of Structural Engineers
Associations (NCSEA) is pleased to announce
the winners of the 2018 Excellence in Structural

EXCELLENCE Engineering Awards. The awards were announced on the

evening of October 26 at NCSEA’s 26th Annual Structural
Engineering Summit in Chicago, Illinois. The awards have

STRUCTURAL
been given annually since 1998 and each year highlight
IN work from the best and brightest in our profession.
Awards were given in seven categories, with one project in

ENGINEERING each category named an Outstanding Project. The categories

for 2018 were:
• New Buildings under $20 Million

AWARDS • New Buildings $20 Million to $100 Million

Courtesy of Hariri Pontarini Architects
• New Buildings over $100 Million
• New Bridge and Transportation Structures
• Forensic/Renovation/Retrofit/Rehabilitation
Structures up to $20 Million
• Forensic/Renovation/Retrofit/Rehabilitation
Structures over $20 Million
• Other Structures
The 2018 Awards Committee was chaired by Carrie Johnson
(Wallace Engineering Structural Consultants, Inc., Tulsa,
OK). Ms. Johnson noted: “This year, we moved to an elec-
tronic form of submitting and reviewing the awards. We
had a 20% increase in the number of entries and revised
the judging process to include two rounds of judging. The
preliminary round was performed via electronic voting by
a group of NCSEA Past Presidents, and the final round was
done in person by individuals from the Structural Engineers
Association of Northern California. They had an enormous
task of trying to determine winners from an outstanding
group of submittals. The group of winning projects is truly
impressive.”
Please join NCSEA and STRUCTURE® magazine in
congratulating all of the winners. More in-depth articles
on several of the 2018 winners will appear in the Spotlight
section of the magazine throughout the 2019 editorial year.

Category 1: New Buildings under $20 Million

OUTSTANDING PROJECT
Ocosta Elementary School
and Tsunami Evacuation Tower
Westport, WA | Degenkolb Engineers

More than 100,000 people are at risk from a tsunami on the Pacific
Northwest coastline. Tsunami waves are expected to hit the coast within
30 minutes of an earthquake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone. For
locations like the Westport peninsula (Washington), this is insufficient
time for evacuation. Degenkolb Engineers designed the structural system
for Ocosta Elementary School and its 1,000-person capacity Tsunami
Vertical Evacuation Refuge, which is the first tsunami evacuation
structure in the United States. These structures represent a milestone
in improving tsunami safety for the Ocosta School District and the
neighboring community, and forge a path for others.
Category 2: New Buildings $20 Million to $100 Million

OUTSTANDING PROJECT
Bahá’í Temple of South America
Santiago, Chile | Simpson Gumpertz & Heger

High in the foothills of the Andes Mountains outside of Santiago,

Photos courtesy of Hariri Pontarini Architects
Chile, the Bahá’í Temple of South America is the stunning vision of
architect Siamak Hariri, of Hariri Pontarini Architects, who wanted to
create a temple of light for spiritual inspiration. The temple’s nine-leaf
motif celebrates the faith’s spiritual beliefs and evokes oneness with
nature. Despite significant challenges – including a high-seismic zone,
untested materials in thin structural applications, and high durabil-
ity and reliability requirements – a collaborative team of designers,
fabricators, and builders from three continents came together over
fourteen years to successfully bring the architect’s vision to life.

Category 3: New Buildings over $100 Million

OUTSTANDING PROJECT
University of Texas Engineering
Education and Research Center
Austin, TX | Datum Engineers/Datum Gojer Engineers

The University of Texas Engineering Education and Research Center

(EERC) is the showcase for structural engineering for the UT Cockrell
School of Engineering, which perennially ranks in the top 10 schools
in the country. Structural engineering creativity, ingenuity, and inno-
vation are on display throughout the 430,000-square-foot facility.
While the whole building is itself an achievement of engineering,
the numerous individual pieces display the beauty of creative and
innovative design solutions in various functional elements such as
bridges, shade structures, stairs, and roofs.

Category 4: New Bridges or Transportation Structures

OUTSTANDING PROJECT
Nigliq Bridge
Colville River, AK | PND Engineers Inc.

CD5 is the first commercial oil development on Alaska Native lands

STRUCTURE magazine
within the boundaries of the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska
(NPR-A). Ten years in the making, this project was a significant
milestone in oil development in Arctic Alaska, and crossing the Nigliq
Channel of the Colville River was one of the project’s greatest chal-
lenges. The Nigliq Bridge, completed in 2015, is 1,421 feet long and
consists of eight spans up to 200 feet in length. It provides access to
heavy oil field service vehicles weighing up to 175 tons and supports
six pipelines while surviving massive ice loads.
23 December 2018
Category 5: Forensic/Renovation/Retrofit/Rehabilitation Congregation Sherith
Structures under $20 Million Israel is a historic,
OUTSTANDING PROJECT unreinforced masonry
building with a naturally
Preservation and Seismic lighted dome that rises
Strengthening of Congregation over 100 feet above the
Sherith Israel floor of its ornately fin-
San Francisco, CA | Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. ished vaulted sanctuary.
Though damaged only
modestly by the 1906
earthquake, it was subject
to a local seismic upgrade
ordinance. Various inno-
vative surgically-installed
strengthening techniques – including the first known use in North
America of super-elastic nitinol for seismic resistance and an extensive
network of horizontal and vertical center cores – were implemented to
supplement the structure’s inherent strengths. The design was developed
to permit all historically significant features to remain virtually undis-
turbed by the work.

Category 6: Forensic/Renovation/Retrofit/Rehabilitation At the University of

Structures over $20 Million Connecticut’s new
OUTSTANDING PROJECT Hartford Campus, retain-
ing an essential piece
University of Connecticut of Connecticut history,
Downtown Hartford Campus the existing Hartford
Hartford, CT | Silman Times Building (Donn
Barber, 1920) façade pre-
sented unique structural
challenges. The façade
was repurposed as the
framework for a new state-
of-the-art facility built
around a public courtyard. Retaining the historic façade required
Silman to employ modern techniques to problem-solve, which resulted
in innovative solutions like detaching the north and south walls and
designing a reinforcing system for the west wall. The 5-story building
includes space for classrooms and offices for academic programs that
were previously located at UCONN’s West Hartford campus.

Category 7: Other Structures

OUTSTANDING PROJECT
Halo Board at
Mercedes-Benz Stadium
Atlanta, GA | HOK
The Video Halo Board at Mercedes-Benz Stadium is
a unique structure designed and built using innova-
tive technology at unprecedented speed. At 56 feet
tall and 1,100 feet in circumference, it is the largest
video scoreboard in the United States. The support
structure contains as much steel as a 150,000-square-
foot office building and is supported by a long span
roof structure that expands and contracts by several
inches under service load conditions. Through design
and construction, the structural team developed proj-
ect specific computational design tools to successfully
deliver Mercedes-Benz Stadium’s centerpiece on an
accelerated schedule.
STRUCTURE magazine 24 December 2018
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 1
A. Zahner Company
Kansas City, MO | Wallace Engineering –
Structural Consultants, Inc.
In 2015, Zahner commissioned a radical new
expansion to their Kansas City campus. Consisting
of 35-foot-tall vertical “pods” resembling truncated
cones, the engineering office is intended to act as a
showpiece of Zahner’s creativity and manufactur-
ing capabilities. Wallace designed custom-shaped
aluminum fins consisting of CNC waterjet-cut
aluminum with extruded flanges at each edge to
provide strength. Assembled using stainless steel
self-tapping screws, Zahner fabricated these fins
at their existing factory on site. Built by and for a
manufacturer of high-end architectural metalwork,
the office’s exposed aluminum structure and detail-
ing inspires both Zahner’s clients and employees.
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 2
Austin Central Library
Austin, TX | Datum Engineers
The Austin New Central Library is a wonder
of engineering, architectural, and construction
achievement, not to mention civic commit-
ment. Countless dramatic, breathtaking,
unique spaces and features are packed inside
the building, situated on a former brownfield
site on the north shore of Lady Bird Lake along
Austin’s beloved hike and bike trail at the south
edge of downtown. Structural engineering is on
display throughout, in both obvious and subtle
ways, including steel and glass skybridges, steel
and wood framed reading porches, zig-zagging
steel stairs, an exposed steel beam roof struc-
ture, a folded atrium roof and 10-foot wide
continuous skylight, and an immense mat
foundation.
STRUCTURE magazine
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 1
St. Luke’s School Expansion
New York, NY | Silman
To avoid a costly seismic retrofit and to reduce
the impact of construction on the existing struc-
ture below, the addition to the 1955 two-story
St. Luke’s School building was constructed as
a completely independent structure perched
above the existing one, supported on eight
40-foot-tall super columns strategically threaded
through the existing structure to new, inde-
pendent foundations. This allows for seamless
integration between the new and old spaces all
while providing necessary seismic isolation. The
19,000-square-foot addition, which provides
additional classrooms as well as a larger gym-
nasium, was erected without requiring any lost
school days or displacing any students.
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 3
King Abdulaziz
International Airport
Jeddah, Saudia Arabia | Arup
King Abdulaziz International Airport embarked
on a comprehensive redevelopment program in
2006. The project included a new 1.4-kilome-
ter-long (0.87-mile), 670,000-square-meter
(7.2-million-square-foot) international passen-
ger terminal, designed to handle over 30 million
passengers per year with 46 domestic and interna-
tional departure gates and 94 boarding bridges, an
international departures hub, internal automated
people mover, and the world’s tallest air traffic
control tower. Arup helped deliver a structural
design that met architectural expectations and a
stringent timeline, while significantly reducing
overall concrete and steel quantities in the build-
ing in comparison to the original design.
25 December 2018
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 2
Intuit
Mountain View, CA | Holmes Structures
Holmes Structures engineered a new four-story
office building with one level of below-grade
parking and a stand-alone five-story parking
lot. The post-tensioned concrete office build-
ing is unique in its trapezoidal shape (due to
site constraints and client goals). To meet the
client’s desire for an open all-hands meeting
forum without structural interruptions, Holmes
Structures implemented a 90-foot, concrete-
encased steel truss that supports the upper two
stories of the building and allows for a column-
free space in the atrium. The desired solution
overcame three significant site constraints: lim-
ited lot lines and trapezoidal cantilevers, high
water table, and anticipated uneven settlement.
Courtesy of Steve Proehl
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 3
Salesforce Tower
San Francisco, CA | Magnusson Klemencic Associates
Transforming San Francisco’s skyline, Salesforce
Tower is a slender, tapering, 61-story, 1.4-mil-
lion-square-foot performance-based seismic
design office tower, and the tallest building west
of the Mississippi (based on the highest occupied
floor). The developer’s goals include wide-open
office space with column-free leasing bays and
corners, without structural encumbrances. In
other words, no outriggers, belt trusses, buck-
ling-restrained seismic braces, or dampers of any
kind. Meeting these goals in a 1,070-foot-tall
tower sitting on complex soil strata, touching
the adjacent Transit Center, and approximately
8 miles from the San Andreas Fault, required
creative, complex, never-done-before innova-
tions and structural engineering “firsts.”
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 4
Lincoln Avenue
Pedestrian Bridge
Lone Tree, CO | Thornton Tomasetti
The new Lincoln Avenue Pedestrian Bridge
enables walkers, joggers, and bicyclists to cross a
busy roadway safely. The cable-stayed structure,
spanning 170 feet, features a large, leaf-shaped
mast on its south end that rises 78 feet. Six pairs
of cables extend from the leaf to support the
bridge. The bridge sizing was a balancing act
between the strength, stiffness, economy, and
close attention to aesthetic vision. The Thornton
Tomasetti project team worked closely with the
fabricator and developed local finite element
models of connections to optimize the configu-
ration and sizing of the pylon and to facilitate
an accelerated procurement process.
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 5
E. Claire Raley Studios for
the Performing Arts
Sacramento, CA | Buehler & Buehler Structural
Engineers, Inc.
The historic Fremont School is a two-story con-
crete frame with unreinforced masonry perimeter
walls. The Sacramento Ballet’s performance vision
required 50-foot clear spaces in the west wing.
So, all twelve existing interior 2-story concrete
columns were eliminated and the floor load redis-
tributed to 4 steel columns. The Buehler and
Buehler team developed a genuinely innovative
structural solution that utilized 36 post-tension-
ing strands squeezed between the existing 1923
corridor edge beams that are exposed to view
from the first floor studios. It was believed that
this approach is the first of its kind in the adaptive
reuse of a historic building.
STRUCTURE magazine
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 4
Gut Bridge Replacement
South Bristol, ME | Hardesty & Hanover
The 80-year-old Gut Bridge, a bobtail swing
bridge, had undergone multiple mechanical fail-
ures. The bridge provides the only route from
the mainland to Rutherford Island crossing the
narrow “Gut,” and requires over 8000 open-
ings per year. Working with the community and
Maine DOT, the firm designed an aesthetically
pleasing, innovative bascule bridge under budget.
The requirement of a small-scaled structure with
operational reliability and quick openings was
successfully delivered with a state-of-the-art
structure. The new superstructure utilized a
combination of details that formed a new type
of bascule span which includes cable-stays, steel
orthographic deck, and welded steel box girders.
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 6
Polynesian Cultural Center
Renovation
Laie, HI | J.M. Williams & Associates, Inc.
Hawaii’s number one attraction is the Polynesian
Cultural Center located in Laie, on the Island
of Oahu. The center was originally constructed
in 1963. The north shore of the island can be
subject to hurricane winds, torrential rains, and
termites. Although the center has been well
maintained, it was still in need of major repairs
and renovation work. This project includes con-
verting a 1989 IMAX theater into a themed
show attraction with the illusion of a volcano,
repairing and renovating the Gateway Building
into a fine dining hall, repairing village huts,
building a new wind-resistant Chief ’s Hut, and
ultimately replacing the marketplace with new
restaurants and shops.
26 December 2018
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 5
Hotel Nikko Pre-Northridge
PJP Column Splice Repair
San Francisco, CA | Degenkolb Engineers
Degenkolb Engineers evaluated Hotel Nikko, a
high-rise pre-Northridge moment frame structure,
using non-linear time-history procedures of ASCE
41-13 augmented with changes proposed for the
2017 update. Column splice weld demands had
consistently exceeded their fracture stress. Using
emerging research in fracture mechanics, a retrofit
scheme was developed that avoided the use of
intrusive supplemental damping or braces. The
project reaffirmed this empirical formulation
through finite element modeling. Applying the
process to a variety of column sizes and weld details
establishes a procedure to reveal susceptibility in
similar building construction types.
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 6
Aramark Headquarters
Renovation and Overbuild
Philadelphia, PA | The Harman Group
Adaptive re-use of buildings is commonplace.
What was uncommon was the challenge to the
Harman Group and the Varenhorst/Gensler
architectural design team to adapt a turn of the
century occupied five-story concrete, automobile
warehouse building with diagonal column grids
and 40-inch-diameter columns into functional
office/retail space. Additionally, while occupied,
complete a 6-story steel framed vertical expansion,
cut out the existing concrete core, rebuild two
lateral concrete cores supported on hundreds of
micro-piles, and insert a 6,000-square-foot atrium
and new full building-length promenade for an
incredible experience on the urban waterfront at
2400 Market Street.
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 6
Many Glacier Hotel
Babb, MT | JVA, Inc.
The Great Northern Railway built the iconic
Many Glacier Hotel in the 1910s. Less than a
century later, significant deficiencies in the build-
ing systems put the hotel at risk of closure. The
structural design focused on strengthening the
snow and seismic load resisting systems while
maintaining the building’s historic character. The
phased rehabilitation included the installation
of shear walls supported on micropiles, internal
reinforcing of the stone masonry chimneys, and
integration of the 4-story log columns into the
lateral system. Retrofitting elements are mostly
concealed, and visitors are rewarded by experienc-
ing the building’s original charm.
The judges for this year’s Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards were:
PRELIMINARY ROUND
NCSEA Past Presidents
Craig Barnes, P.E.
CBI Consuling, LLC
Sanjeev Shah, P.E., Esq.
Lea + Elliott
John Joyce, P.E.
Engineering Solutions, LLC
Ron Hamburger, S.E.
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
Vicki Arbitrio, P.E.
Gilsanz Murray Steficek
Bill Bast, S.E.
Thornton Tomasetti
Ben Nelson, P.E.
Martin/Martin
Carrie Johnson, P.E.
Wallace Engineering
Tom Grogan, P.E.
Haskell
STRUCTURE magazine
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 7
The Grant Street Pier
Vancouver, WA | Martin/Martin Consulting Engineers
The centerpiece for Vancouver, Washington’s
new waterfront district is the Larry Kirkland-
designed Grant Street Pier. The triangular deck,
cantilevered 100 feet over the river, is supported
by a lone, cable-stayed mast creating a signature
landmark for the new development. Voids in the
concrete and tapered edges make the pier light
and elegant, while tuned mass dampers and
custom connections ensure its structural integ-
rity. Floating columnless above the water, the
eye-catching pier preserves undisturbed native
fish migration. The final design exceeded the
expectations of the City of Vancouver; they are
overjoyed with the outcome.
2018 Panel of Judges
FINAL ROUND
Structural Engineers Association of
Northern California (SEANC)
Angie Sommer, S.E.
ZFA Structural Engineers
Darrick Hom, S.E.
Estructure
Emily Guglielmo, S.E.
Martin/Martin
Emily Setoudeh, EIT
Buehler&Buehler
Jack Moehle, P.E., Ph.D.
UC Berkeley
Jim Malley, S.E.
Degenkolb
Johnny Thibau, S.E.
GFDS Engineers
Jonathan Buckalew, S.E.
Nabih Youssef
27 December 2018
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 7
Wiikiaami
Columbus, IN | Pierce Engineers, Inc.
Wiikiaami is a 50-foot-tall artistic structure
located in Columbus, Indiana. Wiikiaami trans-
lates to “wigwam” in the native language. The
conical, wire-frame structure, inspired by the
homes of the Miyaamia people indigenous to
Indiana, consists of A706 reinforcement, welded
at the connections, with sizes ranging from #4
to #9 bars. Wiikiaami’s curved geometry, taper-
ing from 30 feet in diameter at the base to 5
feet at the peak, was fabricated using a CNC
cutwood framing system and rests on helical soil
anchors. Full 3D analysis was used to minimize
reinforcement that could be easily field bent to
accommodate the desired curvature.
Kevin Moore, S.E.
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
Marc Steyer, S.E.
Tipping Structural Engineers
Marko Schotaunus, S.E.
Rutherford + Chekene
Nick Sherrow-Groves, P.E.
Arup
Peter Lee, S.E.
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill
Richard Dreyer, S.E.
Holmes Structures
Tim Hart, S.E., Ph.D.
Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory
engineer's
NOTEBOOK
Design of Tall Walls in Wood Structures
By John “Buddy” Showalter, P.E.,
Bradford Douglas, P.E., and David Low, P.E.
John “Buddy” Showalter is Vice
President of Technology Transfer and
Bradford Douglas is Vice President of
Engineering for the American Wood
Council. David K. Low is President of
DK Low & Associates, a consulting firm
in Charlottesville, Virginia. Contact
Mr. Showalter with questions at
bshowalter@awc.org.
W ood studs designed to resist wind
loads in either loadbearing or non-
loadbearing tall wall applications are good examples
of resilient design. Tall walls can be defined as
those exceeding the International Residential Code
(IRC) prescriptive limit of 10 feet for loadbearing
walls. Proper design of wood structures to resist
such wind loads also requires correct use of wind
load provisions. Minimum design loads must be
in accordance with the governing building code
or, where applicable, other recognized minimum
design load standards such as American Society
of Civil Engineers’ ASCE 7 Minimum Design
Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Wind
load provisions have been developed for design of
major structural elements using “main wind-force
resisting system” (MWFRS) loads and secondary
cladding elements using “component and cladding”
(C&C) loads. Elements and subassemblies receiving
loads both directly
and as part of the
MWFRS – such as
wall studs – must be
checked for both the
MWFRS loads and C&C loads, independently.
Studs should be designed using MWFRS pressures
when considering the combined interactions of
axial and bending stresses; and designed using C&C
pressures when considering axial or bending stresses,
individually. This interpretation was developed
because only MWFRS pressures provide loads
which have been temporally and spatially averaged
for different surfaces (MWFRS loads are considered
to be time-dependent). Since C&C loads attempt
to address a “worst case” loading on a particular
element during the wind event, these loads are not
intended for use when considering the interaction
of loads from multiple surfaces (C&C loads are not
considered to be time-dependent).
This is not unusual. In most cases, it can be
considered the controlling limit in wind design of
loadbearing and non-loadbearing exterior studs.
However, until sufficient boundary conditions are
placed on this simplification, both MWFRS and
C&C load cases should be considered.
STRUCTURE magazine 28 December 2018
Resources
The American Wood Council (AWC) has
developed several code-referenced design standards
for wood construction, for a variety of building
types, to aid structural engineers in addressing the
challenges associated with high wind.
The National Design Specification for Wood
Construction (NDS®) includes necessary design
procedures and design value adjustment factors
for wood products. The design values for wood
studs and the beam and column buckling
formulas used to design studs for axial and lateral
loads are incorporated in the NDS.
The Special Design Provisions for Wind and
Seismic (SDPWS) provides specific design
procedures for wood members, fasteners, and
assemblies to resist wind and seismic forces. In
addition to shear wall and diaphragm design,
SDPWS offers design criteria for members
and connections subject to out-of-plane wind
loads. One very specific provision pertinent
to tall wall design is the wall stud bending
strength and stiffness design value increase,
where reference bending and bending stiffness
values are permitted to be increased based on
the presence of exterior wood structural panel
sheathing and interior gypsum wallboard with
specific attachment requirements.
The Wood Frame Construction Manual (WFCM)
is another AWC standard integral to wood
design, providing engineered and prescriptive
design requirements for one- and two-family
dwellings. However, it also serves as a useful
tool in the design of non-residential buildings
in Risk Category I or II that fit within the
WFCM scope of building size and assigned loads.
Examples include buildings where the bottom
floor is used for stores, offices, and restaurants.
For buildings within its scope, WFCM contains
both engineered and prescriptive solutions for
wind, seismic, and gravity loads. The engineered
provisions in WFCM Chapter 2 offer, for
example, tabulated wind loads and gravity loads
based on assumptions from ASCE 7 provisions.
 Prescriptive wood solutions in Chapter 3
tabulate both loadbearing and non-loadbearing
stud lengths for common lumber species
resisting wind loads for various deflection
limits and sheathing types. For the prescriptive
solutions in WFCM Chapter 3, loadbearing
walls are limited to a maximum of 10 feet, while
non-loadbearing walls can be 20 feet tall.
In Chapter 2, WFCM permits loadbearing
studs up to 20 feet tall. For C&C wind pressures,
the localized bending stresses are computed
independent of axial stresses. For MWFRS
pressures, bending stresses in combination with
axial stresses from wind and gravity loads are
analyzed. For buildings limited to the conditions
in WFCM, the C&C loads control the stud
design. A comprehensive WFCM Commentary
provides all the background assumptions and
example solutions for the tabulated values.
Design Example
The following loadbearing stud wall design
example demonstrates standard design checks
for limit states of strength and deflection based
on methods outlined in AWC’s 2015 NDS,
2015 SDPWS, and 2015 WFCM Workbook,
along with ASCE 7-10 (see end note).
The objective is to design a 19-foot tall load-
bearing wall stud in a two-story building with
a 25-foot mean roof height, 32-foot roof span,
and 2-foot overhangs. Wind loads are 160
mph Exposure B. Additionally, the following
gravity loads are assumed for the roof:
• dead load = 10 psf
• live load = 20 psf
• ground snow load = 30 psf
These loads are assumed for the attic and ceiling:
• dead load = 15 psf
• attic live load = 30 psf
The approach is to analyze wall framing as
part of the MWFRS exposed to in-plane and
out-of-plane load combinations specified by
ASCE 7-10. Studs are then analyzed with
out-of-plane C&C wind pressures only. The
analysis involves an iterative approach. Initial
values are selected for member properties
(depth, number of members, species, and
grade), and analyses completed. Then, stresses
and deflections are determined and compared
to allowable values. At this point, the member
properties are varied, with analyses repeated
until stress and deflection criteria are satisfied.
Southern pine No. 2 grade 2x8s are ana-
lyzed assuming 16-inch-on-center (o.c.)
spacing, wood structural panel exterior
sheathing, and ½-inch gypsum wallboard
interior sheathing with the following ref-
erence design values from the 2015 NDS
Supplement Table 4B:
• Fb = 925 psi
• Fc = 1,350 psi
STRUCTURE magazine
• E = 1,400,000 psi
• Emin = 510,000 psi
The wall stud bending strength and stiffness
design value adjustment factor from SDPWS
Table 3.1.1.1 for a 2x8 is equal to 1.25. Load
duration factors (CD) apply to the bending and
compression design values, but not modulus
of elasticity. CD also varies depending on the
shortest load duration in the load combination,
for load combinations including:
• wind, CD = 1.6
• roof live loads, CD = 1.25
• snow loads, CD = 1.15
Allowable Stress Design (ASD) load
combinations per ASCE 7-10 are evaluated
for this example (Figure 1). Both balanced and
unbalanced snow loads are analyzed. For this
example, an unbalanced snow load of 360 plf
provides the highest snow loads on the studs.
MWFRS wind pressures are calculated using
the “envelope procedure” contained in ASCE
7-10 Chapter 28. The velocity pressure exposure
coefficient for a building located in Exposure
B with a 25-foot MRH is 0.70 per ASCE 7-10
Table 28.3-1, and a factor of 0.6 adjusts the
pressures associated with a 700-year mean return
period wind to allowable stress design. The
velocity pressure calculates to 23.4 psf.
ASCE 7-10 Figure 28.4-1 shows the external
pressure coefficients for interior and end zones
for two cases – winds generally perpendicular
to the ridge and winds generally parallel to
the ridge. Wind perpendicular to the ridge
produces the highest external wall pressure
coefficients. Reactions at the top of the bearing
wall are determined by summing overturning
moments about the top of the leeward wall for
both load cases and determining the control-
ling reaction to use in the design. Horizontal
projections are used in the analysis. The out-of-
plane MWFRS pressure on the wall at interior
zones is calculated as 17.3 psf.
Load Combinations 1, 2, 3, and 4 model
gravity-only loads (dead load, live load, and/or
snow load). Load Combinations 5, 6a, and 7
include MWFRS loads. Load Combination 6a
controls for the load combinations that include
wind loads. The bearing walls must resist dis-
tributed loads from the attic floor and roof
and out-of-plane MWFRS loads proportional
to the width of their tributary areas. Using
NDS column, beam, and combined bending
and axial load provisions, the interaction value
calculated per NDS Equation 3.9-3 is 0.46.
ASCE 7-10 provisions for calculating C&C
loads are used assuming a minimum effective
wind area of (L)2⁄3. By observation, nega-
tive external pressure coefficients are greater
than positive external pressure coefficients.
Thus, negative external pressures and posi-
tive internal pressures (windward) create the
greatest C&C pressures. A C&C pressure
29 December 2018
1. D
2. D+L
3. D + (Lr or S or R)
4. D + 0.75L + 0.75(Lr or S or R)
5. D + (0.6W or 0.7E)
6a. D + 0.75L + 0.75(0.6W) +
0.75(Lr or S or R)
6b. D + 0.75L + 0.75(0.7E) + 0.75S
7. 0.6D + 0.6W
where:
D = dead load
L = live load
Lr = roof live load
W = wind load (note the 0.6 load factor
will be included in the velocity pressure
calculations)
S = snow load
Figure 1. Evaluation of ASD load combinations.
of -25.5 psf is calculated for this example.
Applying the C&C pressure as a bending load
on the studs leads to calculation of a bending
stress to bending strength ratio of 0.76 – even
larger than the combined bending and axial
interaction calculated with MWFRS loads.
Therefore, No. 2 grade southern pine 2x8
studs work from a strength standpoint.
A deflection check using C&C loads reveals
an H/Δ of 273 for No. 2 grade southern pine
2x8 studs. Assuming either a flexible finish
or gypsum-type finish, code deflection limits
are typically H/180 and H/240, respectively.
Therefore, the 2x8 studs are adequate for
deflection unless a brittle finish requiring a
tighter deflection limit is used.
Conclusion
Major structural elements should be designed
for MWFRS loads, and secondary cladding
elements should be designed for C&C loads.
Components and assemblies receiving loads
both directly and as part of the MWFRS
should be checked for MWFRS and C&C
loads independently. In cases where compo-
nents and assemblies must be designed for
lateral wind loads, the controlling design case
will often be wind acting alone. However,
each load combination should be
considered thoroughly before being
dismissed.▪
This article’s example is based on a webinar,
Design of Loadbearing Tall wood Studs
for Wind and Gravity Loads (DES230),
available for free at www.awc.org. Due to
space constraints, only highlights of the
example are presented here, but full details
can be found in the webinar materials.
 ACI University All-Access
ACI 212.3R-10
Digital Subscription
Report on Chemical
Admixtures for Concrete

Reported by ACI Committee 21

The American Concrete Institute

announces a new all-access subscription
to ACI University webinars and on-demand
courses. This 12-month subscription
includes all ACI monthly webinars and
ACI’s 175+ on-demand courses. Multi-user
options are also available. Visit
www.aciuniversity.com to subscribe

Prices as low as $99.00

175+ On Demand Courses | Monthly Webinars | Multi-User Options | 55+ Different Topics

www.ACIUniversity.com
I n Part 1 (STRUCTURE, November 2018) of
this 2-part series, the definition of the modu-
lus of subgrade reaction was presented and the
current state of design with regard to its use was
discussed. That article further described some
potential shortcomings of the simplified theory
of subgrade reaction. This article continues to
describe the settlement profile convergence
method and how it can be implemented into
a new design.
Distribution of Ks
As much as the value of Ks is important, distri-
bution of Ks and its effect on foundation design
is even more important. It is a complex subject
and often not used for routine foundation design
because of the non-availability of any simple
mechanism. For large scale projects, engineers
often collaborate and use sophisticated software
for soil-structure-interaction.
From the theory of subgrade reaction, we know
that the settlement profile of a uniformly loaded
flexible foundation takes the shape of a bowl
or trough. Does this hold for a supporting soil
medium having uniform Ks? We can begin with
a simple case study using a standard commercial
software package.
Modeling
Mat geometry: Square Mat 12 x 12 x 0.5 feet
Soil Bearing Capacity: 4 kip/ft²
Loading: 1 kip/ft²
Solution
Ks can be estimated as,
Iq 3 × 4⁄144
Ks = a = = 0.0833 kip/in2/in
δ 1
where, I = Safety factor = 3.0, qa (assumed) is
the allowable bearing capacity (given 4.0 kip/ft²),
δ is the allowable soil settlement = 1 inch (assumed)
As discussed earlier, the displacement pro-
file is expected to take the shape of a bowl or
trough. However, the foundation settled uni-
formly (Figure 5 ), which did not match our
expected behavior.
It is hardly a surprise. We know, for a uni-
formly loaded mat, subgrade reaction increases
from the center towards the edge and, as a result,
the foundation displacement profile takes the
shape of a bowl. For this solution, a constant
Ks value was used (which is often the practice
for its simplicity) and, as a result, the program
computed erroneous physical behavior.
Extending the Current Practice
Fortunately, it is not too difficult to manipulate
a computer program to get close to the expected
physical behavior. We can extend the model
to create varying soil medium from the center
STRUCTURE magazine
of the foundation towards the edge. In other
words, we can use a variable Ks to depict the
desired settlement profile of the supporting structural
DESIGN
soil medium.
Solution
As shown in Figure 6, divide the supporting soil
medium into several bands (five for this example).
Also, assume subgrade reaction increases as much
as 100% from the center towards the edge.
Ks1 = 0.0833 kip/in2/in
Ks2 = 0.09996 kip/in2/in
Ks3 = 0.119952 kip/in2/in
Ks4 = 0.143942 kip/in2/in
Ks5 = 0.172731 kip/in2/in
After running the analysis, the deflection profile
takes the shape of a bowl or trough and matches
the expected soil settlement profile (Figure 7 ,
page 32). Also, it is interesting to notice the soil
pressure contour. Unlike the case for a uniform
Variable Modulus of
Ks, the base pressure contour now shows vary-
ing pressure from the center towards the edge Subgrade Reaction
(Figure 8, page 32).
So, it is natural to conclude that a flexible mat
foundation should always be analyzed using vari-
Part 2: Settlement Profile
able moduli of subgrade reaction. It predicts more Convergence Method
accurate physical behavior and, hence, the results
should be more accurate.
By Apurba Tribedi
NCNB Corporate Center Apurba Tribedi is a Senior Director at
Variable Ks was used for the second NCNB Bentley Systems Inc. in Anaheim, CA
(Horvilleur and Patel) study, which varied from office. (apurba.tribedi@bentley.com)
the lowest value (181 psi/in) at the centroid to the
highest value (548 psi/in) at the edge. As expected,
the researchers observed a dishing phenomenon.
The two analyses were compared (uniform Ks at
290 psi/in and a variable Ks). Variation in soil
pressure was around 11%, which may
not be that significant. However, the
differences in moment was significant,
varying as much as 120%.
Figure 5. Vertical deflection diagram of the uniformly
Iterative Method loaded mat foundation.
It is evident that the use of a variable
Ks is better than using a uniform Ks.
However, the value of Ks depends on
many factors including rigidity of the
foundation, soil stiffness, and settlement.
As an example, initial estimated
values of Ks for a given zone were
derived based on a predicted settle-
ment. After finite element analysis,
calculated displacement for a given
zone (more precisely for a given node)
may not match with the predicted dis-
placement. So, a new Ks value should
be calculated and the analysis rerun.
This iterative process should continue Figure 6: Banded Ks distribution from lowest at the
until the solution converges. center to the highest towards the edge.
continued on next page
31 December 2018

Figure 7: Displacement profile of the mat foundation
when using distributed Ks.
Figure 8: Base pressure contour of the mat
foundation when using distributed Ks.
Discrete Area Method
The Discrete Area Method (Ulrich) is an
iterative method to achieve deflection com-
patibility between mat deflection and soil
settlement. The steps are described as:
1) Create a finite element model for a mat
foundation and analyze it using a geotech-
nical engineer’s best estimated uniform
Ks value.
2) Using base pressure from step 1, the
geotechnical engineer calculates soil set-
tlement at each node of the FEA model
and a new set of Ks values at correspond-
ing nodes.
3) Input a new set of subgrade moduli in
the structural finite element model and
obtain a new pressure distribution and
settlement.
4) Using the pressure profile from step 3,
the geotechnical engineer calculates settle-
ment at each node and a corresponding
Ks at each node.
Repeat step 3 and step 4 until conver-
gence is achieved. This happens when the
displacements predicted by the structural
engineer’s finite element analysis match
the settlements predicted by the geotech-
nical engineer. The resulting coefficient of
subgrade modulus may differ significantly
from the initial estimated values and, as
a result, will significantly influence mat
design. The convergence may require mul-
tiple iterations and, as the process cannot
be automated, use of this method demands
close collaboration between the structural
and geotechnical engineers.
STRUCTURE magazine
We can compare the example from the earlier
A New Approach section, Distribution of Ks, to the Settlement
Base pressure, settlement, stiffness, and Profile Convergence Method, studying the
modulus of subgrade reaction are all new method’s effectiveness. As expected, the
intertwined. Dependency among these displacement profile from both the methods
parameters adds to the complexity and takes the shape of a bowl (Figure 9). However,
makes it difficult to achieve a quick, defini- the shape produced by the Settlement Profile
tive solution. Convergence Method is smooth. It is even
A new computer-based approach has been more apparent from the resulting base pres-
developed and proposed by the author, the sure diagrams from each analysis. As discussed
Settlement Profile Convergence Method. It earlier, Ks is expected to vary radially from
is an iterative solution to converge esti- the center towards the corner. The resulting
mates of foundation displacement and soil contour diagram (Figure 10) correctly depicts
settlement. The most critical aspects of the that expected radial distribution. It is a signifi-
solution are the initial estimation of soil cant improvement over any existing method.
settlement and normalization of the settle-
ment profile. This minimizes the effect of
various factors used in different proposed
Conclusion
equations for soil stress calculation. A computer program can be developed to use
The steps are described as: the Settlement Profile Convergence Method
1) Generate a mesh to create a finite ele- effectively. It is an iterative solution; the
ment analytical model of the foundation total solution time will extend marginally.
slab. However, as it depicts the physical behavior
2) Use the standard Boussinesq’s equation, more closely, the final results are expected
or any other method, to calculate soil to be more accurate. Current practice is not
stress under each meshed node for a necessarily conservative. It is over-simplified
given loading. and can be erroneous. Soil-structure inter-
3) Normalize settlement values between 1 action is a complex subject, and this new
and the ratio between maximum over method is an additional tool at the engineer’s
minimum settlement. disposal for automating a foundation analy-
4) Calculate Ks for each node from allow- sis. It does not replace engineering judgment
able bearing capacity and the calculated or experience. Close collaboration among
soil settlement from step 3. structural and geotechnical engi-
5) Calculate nodal spring constants by mul- neers is highly recommended for
tiplying Ks with the nodal tributary area. the best possible outcome.■
Assign spring constants as compression-
only springs. The online version of this article
6) Run the finite element analysis. contains references. Please visit
7) Extract nodal displacement values from www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
the analysis.
8) Repeat step 3 through step 7.
9) Compare the new displacement profile
with the displacement profile from the
last analysis. Figure 9: Revised displacement diagram from
10) Repeat steps 8 and 9 until two consecu- Settlement Profile Convergence Method.
tive analyses converge or fall within a
reasonable tolerance limit.
Effectiveness of
the New Method
The new method is significant for several
reasons.
• It focuses on the shape and relative dis-
placements rather than the absolute
displacements, which minimizes the effect
of initially estimated soil settlement.
• The process is automated and comple-
mentary to the current FEA based mat
foundation analysis. Figure 10: Revised base pressure contour for 0.5-
• It considers structural rigidity. foot thick mat foundation.
32 December 2018
 STRUCTURES
CONGRESS 2019
Orlando,
OF
Florida
ESSIONA April 24–27
R
EARN UP TO

L
S
DEV

UR
The Premier Event
LO
P M E in HStructural Engineering

O
E
NT

Register by February 13
to Save

JOIN US TO: FESSIONA

RO
EARN UP TO
P

• Learn from the experts, including

L

those that develop ASCE/SEI

Standards
S
DEV

UR

• Enjoy fun social events with LO

O
E

friends old and new PMENT H

• View program detail and use

interactive planner online
• Students and Young Professionals: Apply for
SEI Futures Fund Scholarship

HYATT REGENCY ORLANDO

www.structurescongress.org | #Structures19

Developing the Next Generation of Structural Engineers
By Michael A. Stubbs, P.E., S.E., DBIA, and David V. Jáuregui, Ph.D., P.E.
T he world of Structural Engineering is in
one of the most significant transitions
we have seen in recent history. As we exit the
more recent Great Recession and establish
new normal economic conditions, we are also
dealing with rapidly changing technology,
the effects of a more global economy, and
ever-evolving contract structures and delivery
methods. The growth of the economy in the
last few years has provided new opportunities
and filled the backlog of most firms, but we
still see pricing pressures. BIM, finite element
modeling, and the growing sophistication of
computer programs are changing workflows.
Where we used to compete against a small
group of local firms that we knew, we are
now finding ourselves competing with firms
across the country and even internationally.
When you combine this with the retirement
of Baby Boomers, happening at a record rate,
it is easy to see why structural engineering
firms are so desperate for new talent. Finding
young, ambitious engineers is just the start.
You have to recruit them and then enhance
their education with experience to make them
productive as quickly as possible. Recruiting,
refining, and retaining new engineers is one of
the biggest challenges facing firm leaders today.
Young engineers are experiencing new
and bigger pressures than their predeces-
sors. Because of the shrinking Baby Boomer
workforce and the fact that Generation X
is one of the smallest generations in recent
history, Millennials are expected to fill the
ranks of firm leadership earlier in their career.
They also must become proficient in building
codes, design procedures, contract structures,
risk management, and technology in a more
complicated environment than we saw even
ten years ago. Staffing a firm with new leaders
is difficult for both the firm principals and
the young engineers.
We, as a profession, can help develop the
next generation of structural engineers by
getting involved in their collegiate education
as advisors, mentors, and teachers. Many col-
leges and universities throughout the U.S.
welcome input and assistance from profes-
sionals. By getting involved at the collegiate
level, professionals give student engineers a
real-world perspective that builds upon the
material covered in their classes. Also, it gives
STRUCTURE magazine
CASE BuSinESS PrACtiCES
firm leaders a chance to vet potential new hires
in an environment where you get a better
picture of their work ethic over a prolonged
period, rather than in a short interview.
Guest lecturing a class is an easy way to get
involved. Whether you lecture on a technical
topic or soft skill, the use of examples from
current projects will serve as a valuable lesson.
Giving students an opportunity to see how the
skills they are learning in college are applied
to real projects provides a perspective that
can make learning more exciting, thought-
provoking, and easier to connect practical
application to abstract concepts.
Professionals can also get involved in the
student chapters of professional organizations.
ASCE’s concrete canoe and AISC’s steel bridge
competition are examples of activities where
professionals can spend time with students
in a fun and educational environment. These
programs give professionals a means to share
design techniques while assisting students in
competitions against other universities, which
indirectly ties to today’s competitive market
for engineering services.
Co-ops and internships are also good ways
for firms to get involved in the education
of students. These opportunities can be
invaluable to a young engineer, and to
the firm. These soon-to-be engineers gain
valuable experience, and the firm can “test
drive” a potential new hire. This is a great
way to recruit young engineers before the
competition even knows they are entering
the job market.
Once you hire a new engineer, the task of
giving them the experience and mentoring
they need can be overwhelming for both
the senior engineer and the junior engineer.
One approach that works is to give the young
engineer a cycle of assignments with steep
learning curves that plateau periodically. This
can be done with a combination of projects
that expand the young engineer’s skills with
projects that are familiar. Giving a new engi-
neer a project that challenges them followed
by a project very similar helps the engineer
gain confidence as they perform tasks on
their own. It also gives the senior engineer
a chance to get out of the constant training
mode and progress with their daily work and
responsibilities.
34 December 2018
The senior engineer does have to provide the
young engineer opportunities for as broad
a skill base as possible. The experience and
skill set of the young engineer should be con-
tinuously reviewed, and projects and tasks
assigned that will continue their growth. As
they become proficient at technical skills, it
will be time to make them responsible for
more project management tasks like budget-
ing, scheduling, and communicating with
clients and team members.
It is also essential to give the young engineer
feedback and insights as to why certain things
are done. Routine trips to job sites should be
common, an excellent opportunity for senior
engineers to teach the “hows” and “whys” behind
the things we do. Senior engineers should also
take the time to debrief young engineers after
meetings. Continually teaching young engineers
the thought process that produces desired out-
comes is important to growing new firm leaders.
Ultimately, one goal should be to have the
young engineer become licensed. Licensure
allows up-and-coming engineers to expand
their job role and their responsibility in
the firm. This starts by teaching them the
importance of licensure while they are still
in college. It should be continued when they
enter the workforce. Senior engineers can
help by providing experiences that will aid in
passing exams. Young engineers should also
be trained in the responsibilities associated
with licensure and ethics involved with being
a professional engineer.
CASE has prepared a toolkit that assists in
training new engineers. Tool 5-2: Milestone
Checklist for Young Engineers can be down-
loaded from CASE’s website by members
and is for sale for non-members. This tool
provides a guide for the skills young
engineers should develop before
becoming licensed.■
Michael A. Stubbs is the President of Stubbs
Engineering, Inc., a full-service structural
engineering firm Headquartered in Las Cruces,
NM. (mstubbs@stubbseng.com)
David V. Jáuregui is the Department Head and a
Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering
at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces,
NM. (jauregui@nmsu.edu)
“Problem
Solve Your Next
with IES ”

Structural Software
Easy. Versatile. Productive.

12 Tools for analysis & design

25 Years of serving engineers
2 Minutes to YOUR free-trial!

Download your free trial today:

iesweb.com 800.707.0816
EArtH rEtEntiOn GuiDE
Chicago Clamp Company
Web: https://chicagoclampcompany.com
Product: 3-inch Tube Framing Clamp System
Description: Allows the Main Tube support to be
installed at the top of roof deck flutes. Rated for 250
pounds or a complete system load rating of up to
1,000 pounds in uplift or download conditions.
IES, Inc. S-FRAME Software
Web: www.iesweb.com Web: s-frame.com
Product: QuickRWall Product: S-FOUNDATION
Description: A tool for retaining wall or basement Description: With S-FOUNDATION, easily transfer
wall design. Try it free. See for yourself how the model data to and from S-FRAME, ETABS, Excel,
"Transparent Reporting" features lay out your design or other 3rd party software. Complete control to
just like you would if you calculated it all by hand. implement custom workflows.
No black box: just solid engineering.

Dlubal Software, Inc.
Web: www.dlubal.com
Product: RFEM
Description: RF-SOILIN includes an extendable
library of soil properties and consideration to
groundwater level, excavation effects, and bedrock.
Elastic foundation coefficients, stresses, and
settlements determined utilizing a non-linear
iterative method.
Gripple Inc.
Web: www.gripple.com
Product: Terra-Lock™ Stormwater & Erosion Control
Anchor Systems
Description: Reduce erosion and structural damage
due to extreme hydraulic forces and stresses.
Applications include: stormwater/drainage channels,
culverts/pipe inlets and outlets, levees and canals,
shorelines, and retained earth structures.
ReCon Wall Systems, Inc.
Web: www.reconwalls.com
Product: ReCon Retaining Wall Block
Description: RetainPro tools for analyzing and
designing nearly any type of earth retention
structure. Concrete and/or masonry, cantilevered
or restrained, gravity walls, segmental walls (SRWs)
with/without geogrids (MSE), soldier pile, gabion
and more.
RetainPro Software, div ENERCALC, Inc.
Web: http://retainpro.com
Product: RetainPro
Description: RetainPro tools for analyzing and
designing nearly any type of earth retention structure.
Concrete and/or masonry, cantilevered or restrained,
gravity walls, segmental walls (SRWs) with/without
geogrids (MSE), soldier pile, gabion and more.
Simpson Strong-Tie®
Web: www.strongtie.com
Product: Fabric-Reinforced Cementitious
Matrix (FRCM)
Description: Combines a high-performance sprayable
mortar with a carbon-fiber grid to create a thin structural
layer that doesn't add significant weight or volume to an
existing structure. Repair and strengthen concrete and
masonry structures for seismic retrofit or load upgrades.
Tensar International Corporation
Web: www.tensarcorp.com
Product: ARES, Mesa, and SierraScape Retaining
Wall Systems
Description: Retaining wall systems that are easier to
stage and install, reduce construction time and costs,
and provide long-term durability, performance, and
structural integrity. ARES for transportation projects,
Mesa for all sector, and SieraScape provides varying
curves and face angles.

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

CREATE STRONGER, LONGER

LASTING STRUCTURES
PO WER PRESERVED GLUL AM ® (PPG) BEAMS AND C OLUMNS
fEAtURES
• PPG beams and columns comply with AWPA U1-16 Standard
• Oil based wood preservatives dissolved in low odor mineral spirits
• Exterior use, above ground and ground contact retentions
• 2400Fb-1.8E Southern Yellow Pine Glulam
• Available in 2 7/16“, 3 1/2“ , 5 1/4“ widths, I-joist compatible and
framing lumber depths
• One piece installation. No nailing or bolting like multi-ply lumber
• 25 year warranty from treater
• Large stocking distribution network throughout U.S.
• Ideal for simple, multi and cantilever span applications including
deck beams, raised floor construction, coastal boardwalks and
pier and beam applications

Anthony Forest Products is part of the Canfor Group of Companies

w w w. c a n fo r . c o m | 8 0 0 .2 2 1 .2 3 2 6 | w w w. a n t h o n y fo r e s t. co m ©
Anthony Forest Products Company, LLC

AFP-StructureMagAd-.5Page-Final.indd 1 12/8/17 10:10 AM

STRUCTURE magazine 37 December 2018
 2018 Structural Engineering Summit Draws Record Attendance
The 2018 Structural Engineering Summit attracted more than 600 attendees
from across the country to Chicago, IL, to celebrate the profession. The event
featured over 45 education sessions for the practicing structural engineer, social
News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

and networking events, and a trade show with 68 exhibitors.

NCSEA was assisted by the local member organization, the Structural
Engineers Association of Illinois (SEAOI), to host a one-of-a-kind river cruise.
The Structural Engineering River Cruise was held on the new Odyssey that hit
Chicago’s shore line at the end of September. The glass-enclosed boat allowed
views of the skyline and provided a unique venue for SEAOI representatives
to present about select structures on the river.
The 2018 Summit featured a keynote by Ron Klemencic, P.E., S.E., Hon.
AIA, who described engineering as an ever-evolving discipline. Klemencic
reviewed how some of the most impactful innovations in recent years were
developed, and what areas are ripe for the next wave of advancements. NCSEA
also invited local mentor and influencer, Stacy Hanke, to inspire attendees
to build trust, project confidence, and stay accountable. The Summit held a
Friday luncheon with another keynote from Ashraf Habibullah, S.E., who
emphasized the importance that education plays for young engineers to enter
the professional world “to lead, influence, and inspire.”
The NCSEA Awards Banquet at the Summit featured the presentation of
NCSEA Special Awards, including:
• NCSEA Service Award to Barry Arnold, P.E., S.E., for work on behalf
of NCSEA that is beyond the norm of volunteerism
• James M. Delahay Award to Jonathan (Jon) C. Siu, P.E., S.E., for
outstanding contributions towards the development of building codes
and standards.
• Robert Cornforth Award to Ryan A. Kersting, S.E., for exceptional
dedication and exemplary service to an NCSEA Member Organization
and to the profession.
• Susan M. Frey NCSEA Educator Award to Ronald O. Hamburger,
S.E., for his genuine interest in, and extraordinary talent for, effective
instruction to practicing structural engineers.
In addition, the Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards were presented
for exceptional structural engineering projects in:
• New Buildings Under $20 Million
• New Buildings $20 Million to $100Million
• New Buildings over $100 Million
• New Bridges/Transportation Structures
• Forensic/Renovation/Retrofit/Rehabilitation Structures
up to $20 Million
• Forensic/Renovation/Retrofit/Rehabilitation Structures
NCSEA News

over $20 Million

• Other Structures
The Summit also marks the end for the 2017-2018 NCSEA Board of
Directors, and ushers in new members for 2018-2019. The Board welcomes
new directors Richard C. Boggs and Paul J. Rielly. Williston “Bill” Warren
IV shifted from President to Past President as former Vice President, Jon
Schmidt entered the President Position.
The board said goodbye to Past President, Tom Grogan, and Director, Chun
Lau. The complete 2018-2019 Board of Directors includes: Jon Schmidt, P.E.,
SECB, President; Susan Jorgensen, P.E., SECB, LEED, Vice President; Emily
Guglielmo, S.E., P.E., Secretary; Ed Quesenberry, S.E., Treasurer; Richard C.
Boggs, P.E., SECB, LEEP AP, Director; David Horos, Director; Paul J. Rielly,
P.E., S.E., SECB, Director; and Stephanie Young, Director.
Next year’s Structural Engineering Summit will be held November 12–15
at the Disneyland Hotel in Anaheim, CA. Information on attending and
exhibiting will be available soon at www.ncsea.com.

STRUCTURE magazine 38 December 2018

 NCSEA News
ICC and NCSEA SEER Create National Database
Last year, NCSEA’s Structural Engineering Emergency Response (SEER) Committee
and the International Code Council signed an agreement to join forces to improve
SEER’s 2nd Responder Roster by creating a single database of volunteers between
the two organizations.
As of October 2018, the two organizations have joined forces to create the
Disaster Response Alliance (DRA) to help communities get up and running as
quickly as possible after a major disaster. The DRA maintains a single, national
database of skilled volunteers willing to assist with response and recovery activities. These activities include post-disaster safety
assessments, rapid safety assessments, detailed safety assessments, other building damage assessments, inspections and other
code-related functions in the aftermath of a disaster. The DRA’s national database of volunteers is available to local and state
jurisdictions as well as federal government agencies for pre- and post-disaster assistance. To add your name to the database, visit
www.disasterresponse.org.

SEAMASS Uses NCSEA Grant Funding to Enhance Mentor Program

Over the past year, the Structural Engineers Association of Massachusetts Young Member Group (SEAMASS YMG) has made
an effort to follow NCSEA’s mission to “advance the practice of structural engineering by representing and strengthening its
Member Organizations” through their involvement in the Greater Boston ACE Mentoring Program. Their continued involve-
ment as mentors has provided students with the opportunity to gain valuable exposure to the Structural Engineering profession,
increasing their understanding of the occupation and inspiring them to pursue a career in the field.
This year’s program started in mid-October, and those involved with the program are eager to make use of the new teaching

News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

supplies. The addition of computers and structural design software to the ACE program will introduce the students to structural
design software early on and provide a stepping-stone to the profession’s modern workflow. The SEAMASS YMG acquired six
lightly used computers from a local engineering firm, and used the grant money to refurbish the computers as necessary. With
the grant funding SEAMASS purchased new batteries, power cords, and Microsoft office licenses (Word, Excel, and PowerPoint)
for the computers. The group was able to acquire free student versions of the structural design software to stretch their budget
further. With the additional funds, SEAMASS YMG purchased a K’Nex set and shake tables for the ACE program, which will
give the students a more hands on experience with structural engineering and help them understand the fundamentals of build-
ing frames and lateral design.
The group looks forward to using this equipment to encourage future students to pursue their passions through a career in
structural engineering.

NCSEA Webinars Register by visiting www.ncsea.com.

December 11, 2018
Understanding the AISC Direct Analysis Method of Design
Donald White, Ph.D.
This webinar lays out the key fundamental concepts associated with the Direct Analysis Method; various aspects
of the method’s practical application are discussed.
January 15, 2019
Making Money: Design Services, Budgeting, and Scope Management
Howard Birnberg
This webinar discusses what considerations need to be assessed before signing a design services contract, as well as the
design fee budget and why projects run over their design budgets.
January 22, 2019
Resilient Design & Risk Assessment Using the Quantitative & Building-Specific FEMA P-58 Analysis Method
Curt B. Haselton, Ph.D., P.E.
This course will cover how the FEMA P-58 analysis method is now being used in practice for both resilient design of new
buildings and risk assessment of existing buildings for earthquake hazards.
January 29, 2019
Ethics in the Practice of Engineering
Robert Kirkman, Ph.D.
This webinar will consider the function of engineers in their societal role as professionals, and the habits or dispositions of
character appropriate to that role.
Courses award 1.5 hours of continuing education after the completion of a quiz. Diamond Review approved in all 50 States.

STRUCTURE magazine 39 December 2018

 Learning / Networking
YOU ARE INVITED
On behalf of the Structural Engineering
Institute of ASCE, we invite you to
Structures Congress, April 24-27, 2019,
in Orlando, Florida. Join more than a thousand of your peers
from the U.S. and abroad for a great program of technical and
professional learning, networking, and fun social activities.
We provide the perfect blend of interactive presentations on
cutting-edge knowledge and practical application to advance
your career and the profession. The program includes presen-
tations on Blast, Bridges, Buildings, Business & Professional,
The News of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
Career Development, Codes & Standards, Education, Forensics,
Materials, Natural Disasters, Non-Building, Non-Structural,
Research, and more. You will learn from the experts including
those that develop ASCE/SEI standards, hear from stimulating
speakers and leaders, and pick up new tools and resources to
exceed in every stage of your career. View the full program
and register at www.structurescongress.org.
Be inspired to greater creativity and innovation by keynote
speakers: Anthony Atala, M.D., on Regenerative Medicine:
Building Tissues and Organs; Ashraf Habibullah, P.E., M.ASCE,
on Structural Engineering: Indispensable to Civilization; and Scott
Mallwitz with Walt Disney Imagineering.
Special Sessions are provided to strengthen skills on
Communication, Conceptual Design, and a report on the
Grenfell Tower Fire. The program also includes the Women in
NEW – Structural Fire Engineering
Structural Fire Engineering provides best
practices for performance-based structural
fire engineering design, the calculated
design of a structure to withstand the
thermal load effects of fire, which have the
potential to alter the integrity of a struc-
ture based on specific performance criteria.
When structural systems are heated by fire,
they experience thermal effects that are not
contemplated by conventional structural engineering design.
Traditionally, structural fire protection is prescribed for struc-
tures after they have been optimized for ambient design loads,
such as gravity, wind, and seismic, among others. This century-
old prescriptive framework endeavors to reduce the heating of
individual structural components with the intent of mitigating
SEI Update
the risk of structural failure under fire exposure. Accordingly,
Membership
Join or Renew SEI/ASCE
For innovative solutions and learning, to connect with leaders and colleagues, and to enjoy member benefits such as SEI
Member Update monthly e-news opportunities and resources – visit www.asce.org/myprofile or call ASCE Customer Service at
800-548-ASCE (2723).
Errata SEI Standards Supplements and Errata including ASCE 7. See www.asce.org/SEI-Errata.
If you would like to submit errata, contact Jon Esslinger at jesslinger@asce.org.
STRUCTURE magazine 40
Structural Engineering (WISE) Reception, new vendor sessions,
and the Civil Engineering Podcast with Anthony Fasano. And,
of course, there is the overall fun of being in Orlando, so we have
secured discounts for golf and Disney to round out your trip.
Earn PDHs and enjoy fun social events like the Friday Special
Evening Reception Celebrating the Future of SE, hosted by CSI.
Make sure you purchase this additional ticket! 100% of ticket
proceeds fund SEI strategic initiatives through the SEI Futures
Fund in partnership with the ASCE Foundation.
Come early on Wednesday to check out an SEI commit-
tee. Invest in your future and experience all SEI/ASCE offers
to prepare you to lead
and innovate in struc-
tural engineering.
Encourage a student
or young professional
to apply for an SEI
Futures Fund schol-
arship. Join us – and
Laura Champion David Cocke
bring your colleagues. P.E., M.ASCE, S.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE,
We look forward to Director, SEI of ASCE SEI President 2019,
seeing you in Orlando! Structural Focus
the vulnerability of buildings to structural failure from uncon-
trolled fire varies across jurisdictions – which have differing
structural design requirements for ambient loads – and as a
function of the building system and component configura-
tion. As an alternative approach, ASCE/SEI 7-16 permits
the application of performance-based structural fire design
(also termed structural fire engineering design) to evaluate
the performance of structural systems explicitly under fire
exposure in a similar manner as other design loads are treated
in structural engineering practice.
Manual of Practice (MOP) 138 addresses the current practice,
thermal and structural analysis methods, and available infor-
mation to support structural fire engineering design, and is a
valuable resource for structural engineers, architects, building
officials, and academics concerned with performance-based
design for structural fire safety.
December 2018
 SEI Update
Advancing the Profession

SEI Futures Fund in Collaboration with the ASCE Foundation

Give a year-end gift to:
• Invest in the future of structural engineering
• Support student and young professional involvement in SEI
• Provide opportunities for professional development
Learn more and give at www.asce.org/SEIFuturesFund.

Students and Young Professionals (35 and younger):

Invest in Your Future
Join SEI/ASCE for technical, professional, and leadership experience to advance your career and the profession. Apply by
January 4 for an SEI Futures Fund scholarship to participate and get involved in SEI at Structures Congress. www.asce.org/SEI

Congratulations to the 2018 Gene Wilhoite Innovations in

The News of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE

Transmission Line Engineering Awardee
At the recent SEI Electrical Transmission
and Substation (ETS) Structures Conference
in Atlanta, Archie D. Pugh, P.E., PMP,
M.ASCE, was presented with the 2018
Gene Wilhoite Award. Archie is a highly
regarded leader in transmission engineering
at AEP, with more than twelve years serving
in a critical role in the siting, permitting, design, and construc-
tion of the Wyoming-Jackson Ferry, 765kV Transmission Line
Project, the first 6 conductor bundle 765kV line in North
America. Archie is recognized with the Wilhoite Award for
his leadership skills, willingness to share his knowledge and
experience, and continuous education of his staff and peers in
the electric utility industry. These attributes were critical to the
success of the Wyoming-Jackson Ferry project and continue
to serve him well in his position overseeing operations of AEP
transmission systems in 7 states. Archie has also served on the
SEI ETS Conference planning committee since 2006 (Chair in
2012), is a past member of MOP 113, and an alum of Virginia
Tech with a B.S. and M.S. in Civil Engineering.

SEI Local Leaders Conference

Forty-five local SEI Chapter lead-
ers from across the U.S., including
several SEI Graduate Student
Chapter leaders, participated in
the SEI Local Leaders Conference
October 5-6, 2018, at ASCE in
Reston, VA. The meeting included an update on SEI initiatives,
exchange on best practices to serve local members, presentations
from SEI President David Cocke on Vision initiatives and from
ASCE staff on tools and resources for recruiting and retaining
members, K-12 outreach, engaging student and young profes-
sionals, etc. The program also included a tour of the U.S. Capitol
and visit to the House floor with former Congressman Swett
from NH, as well as ASCE Government Relations University and
training on Personality as it relates to Leadership. Connect with
your local Chapter or start one at www.asce.org/SEILocal. The
next SEI Local Leaders Conference will be October 24-26, 2019,
with a particular focus on Leadership/Facilitating Consensus
training, made possible by the SEI Futures Fund in collabora-
tion with the ASCE Foundation.

Bridges 2019 Calender

$13.95 | 2 for $20 + shipping/handling
Order today at: https://goo.gl/8d8uyj

SEI Online
Follow SEI SEI Standards SEI News
on Twitter Visit www.asce.org/SEIStandards to:
• View ASCE 7-22 Committee Meeting
Check out the latest news
schedule and archive
items at www.asce.org/SEI.
@ASCE_SEI
• Submit proposals to revise ASCE 7

STRUCTURE magazine 41 December 2018

 Did you know?
CASE has tools and practice guidelines to help firms deal with a wide variety of business scenarios that structural engineering
firms face daily. Whether your firm needs to establish a new Quality Assurance Program, update its risk management program,
keep track of the skills your young engineers are learning at each level of experience, or need a sample contract document – CASE
has the tools you need!

CASE has several tools available for firms to use to enhance their internal policies and procedures – from office policy guides
to employee reviews.
The News of the Council of American Structural Engineers

Tool 1-3 Sample Policy Guide Tool 4-3 Sample Correspondence Guidelines
Tool 2-2 Interview Guide and Template Tool 5-3 Managing the Use of Computers and
Tool 2-3 Employee Evaluation Templates Software

Tool 2-5 Insurance Management Tool 5-5 Project Management Training

You can purchase these and the other Risk Management Tools at www.acec.org/bookstore.

CASE 962 Practice Guidelines for Structural Engineer of Record

UPDATED: The purpose of this document is to give firms
and their employees a guide for establishing Consulting
Structural Engineering Services and to provide a basis for
dealing with Clients generally and negotiating Contracts in
particular. Since the Structural Engineer of Record (SER)
is usually a member of a multi-discipline design team, this
document describes the relationships that customarily exist
between the SER and the other team members, especially the
team leader. Further, this Guideline promotes an enhanced
Quality of Professional Consulting Structural Engineering
You can purchase this and the other Risk Management Tools at www.acec.org/bookstore.
Services while also providing a basis for negotiating a fair and
reasonable compensation. Additionally, it provides a basis
for Clients to better understand and determine the Scope
of Services that the Structural Engineer of Record should be
retained to provide.
The committee did an all-inclusive update to this document
plus added two new sections on the responsibilities for
drawing releases for steel mill orders and Guaranteed
Maximum Price releases.

CASE Winter Planning Meeting

Friday – February 8
7:30 am – 8:30 am Shared Breakfast
8:00 am – 12:00 pm CASE General / Toolkit Committee
Meeting
CASE Contracts Committee Meeting
CASE Guidelines Committee Meeting
CASE in Point

CASE Programs & Communications

The 2019 CASE Winter Planning Meeting is scheduled for Committee Meeting
February 7-8, 2019, in Tampa, FL. The agenda includes: 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm Lunch
1:00 pm – 4:30 pm CASE General / Toolkit Committee
Thursday – February 7 Meeting
1:00 pm – 5:30 pm CASE Executive Committee Meeting CASE Contracts Committee Meeting
6:00 pm – 8:00 pm CASE Roundtable CASE Guidelines Committee Meeting
Speakers: NCSEA SE3 Committee CASE Programs & Communications
Members Committee Meeting
4:30 pm – 5:00 pm Committee Wrap-up Session
If you are interested in attending the meeting or have any suggested topics/ideas from a firm perspective for the committees to
pursue, please contact Heather Talbert at htalbert@acec.org.

Follow ACEC Coalitions on Twitter – @ACECCoalitions.

STRUCTURE magazine 42 December 2018

 CASE in Point
CASE Practice Guidelines Currently Available
CASE 976-A – Commentary on Value-Based This document discusses the list of changes published in the
Compensation for Structural Engineers preface of the 2010 Edition and provides some commentary to
The importance of receiving adequate fees for structural services is these changes. This document also addresses areas of the COSP
vital for the engineering practice to thrive. If fees are not adequate, that may not be well understood by some SERs but will likely
the structural engineering professional becomes a commodity; librar- have an impact on the structural engineer’s practice of designing
ies are not maintained, computer software and equipment become and specifying structural steel.
outdated, and the quality of our product declines significantly.
Value-Based Compensation is founded on the concept that thereCASE 976-D – Commentary on 2010 & 2015 Code
are specific services, which may vary from project to project, that
of Standard Practice for Steel Joists and Joist Girders
provide valuable information to the client and whose impact on The specification of joists and Joist Girders can provide an
the success of the project is far more than the prevailing hourly
economical structural solution, but there are very specific require-
rates. Value-Based Compensation is based on the increased valuements that must be understood by all parties. The updated 2010
or savings these innovative structural services will contribute to the
SJI COSP provides a more practical approach to specifying joists,
project. As a result, the primary beneficiary of an innovative design
introduces new design terms for use by the structural engineer,
or a concept is the owner, but the innovative engineer is adequately
and identifies and clarifies topics that may have been subject to
compensated for his knowledge and expertise in lieu of his time.
varying interpretation in the past. The more recently released 2015
SJI COSP provides additional clarifications and minor revisions.
CASE 976-C – Commentary on Code of Standard This Commentary provides observations and analysis of the
Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges revisions and additions in both documents and discusses

CASE is a part of the American Council of Engineering Companies

The 2010 COSP addresses many recent changes in the practice specific aspects of the COSP that have a direct impact on
of designing, purchasing, fabricating, and erecting structural the structural engineer’s practice of specifying steel joists.
steel and is, therefore, a continuation of the trend of past Familiarity and understanding of the entire SJI COSP are
improvements and developments of this standard. It is impor- necessary to ensure the proper design and documentation
tant to note the Structural Engineer can change any of the of steel joists and Joist Girders. However, the Commentary’s
requirements of the Code of Standard Practice by specifying an discussion highlights sections of interest to the specifying
alternative in the Contract Documents. structural engineer.
You can purchase these and the other Risk Management Tools at www.acec.org/bookstore.

Manual for New Consulting Engineers

An HR Favorite for New Hires
ACEC’s best-seller, “Can I Borrow Your Watch?” A Beginner’s Guide to Succeeding in a Professional
Consulting Organization offers new engineers a head start in the business of professional consulting.
This essential guide is tailored to the unique needs of engineering firms, and the skills and experiences rookie
consultants need to be successful in a large organization, including:
• Proposal Preparation • Financial Management • Client Relationships
• Project Management • Staff Management
With over 140 pages of consulting expertise, this resource is the perfect addition to any new staffer’s
welcome pack or in-house orientation. It can even be a useful resource for more seasoned engineers look-
ing to refine their skills.
To order this book, go to www.acec.org/bookstore. Bulk ordering is available; for more information
contact Maureen Brown (mbrown@acec.org).

Fresh EJCDC Contracts to Meet Modern Market Demands

EJCDC’s newly released 2018 Construction (C-Series)
Documents are a significant modernization, revision, and
expansion of the 2013 C-series and now the state-of-the-art in
construction contract documents.
The updated edition comprises 25 integrated documents,
including:
• Fundamental contract documents such as the Standard
General Conditions, the Small Project Agreement,
and Supplementary Conditions
• Forms for gathering information needed to draft bid-
ding documents
• Instructions for bidders and a standard bid form
• Bonds including bid, performance, warranty (new for
2018), and payment bonds
• Administrative forms, such as change orders and a cer-
tificate of substantial completion
EJCDC C-700, Standard General Conditions of the Construction
Contract, has been extensively refreshed and updated, too.
The new EJCDC 2018 C-Series also includes expanded and
updated “Notes to Users” and “Guidelines for Use” to provide
more specific instructions, and it eliminates the need for notary
and corporate seals.
To purchase these and other EJCDC documents, go to
www.acec.org/bookstore.

STRUCTURE magazine 43 December 2018

 Project: Center for Naval Aviation Technical Training Complex | Engineer: SMR-ISD Consulting Structural Engineers
Photo by Pablo Mason, courtesy of Harper Construction Company

DESIGN OF COMPLEX STRUCTURES MADE EASY

RISA offers a comprehensive suite of design software that work together to simplify even the most complex projects.
As a result, engineers can work efficiently on a variety of structures in a mix of materials including steel, concrete, wood,
masonry and aluminum. With RISA, designing complex structures has never been easier. risa.com

Copyright © 2018 RISA Tech, Inc. All rights reserved. RISA is part of the Nemetschek Group. RISA and the RISA logo are registered trademarks of RISA Tech, Inc.

WHERE VISION
BECOMES STRUCTURE