STRUCTURE

February 2011 Steel NCSEA Winter Institute

Amelia Island, Florida February 25 26

A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

Now Includes Adhesive Anchoring

Version 2.0

The newly updated Powers Design Assist (PDA V2.0) anchor design interface puts technical data into a dynamic real-time environment to better help you visualize, consider and specify anchors in todays changing engineering climate. PDAs simple but unique dashboard allows for anchor design in just minutes using 5 easy steps. The user has the ability to create and modify a 3D model of the project combined with real-time calculation results in accordance with ACI 318 Appendix D. The software offers several choices of post-installed mechanical and adhesive anchors as well as cast-in-place anchor solutions. Supporting approvals, listings, datasheets, etc. are easily accessed in the software library and can be attached to detailed project results.
POWERS OFFERS THE MOST CODE LISTED PRODUCTS

POWERFUL NEW INTERFACE FOR REAL-TIME SOLUTIONS

PDA Improved and modernized dashboard features include: Design of adhesive anchors in addition to mechanical anchors and cast-in-place anchors (CIP) 3 new adhesive anchor systems and 3 new mechanical anchors now included, with additional systems to come User can design using 3 versions of ACI 318 Appendix D: 2008, 2005 or 2002 versions New library function allows user to access all needed documents without leaving PDA
REGISTER TODAY AT: www.powersdesignassist.com AND RECEIVE A FREE GYM BAG Powers Fasteners, Inc. www.powers.com 2 Powers Lane P: (914) 235-6300 Brewster, NY 10509 F: (914) 576-6483

UPDATED FREE PDA SOFTWARE!

Powers New 2011 A/E Manual Coming Soon!

woodworks.org

Learn Any Time at the Online Training Library

Visit woodworks.org to expand your knowledge of non-residential and multi-family wood design while earning valuable education creditswithout
WEBINARS Participate live or stream recorded webinars on subjects that range from panelized roof systems to designing wood buildings that last, to maximizing credits in green building rating systems CASE STUDIES AND INFORMATION SHEETS Earn credits for reading materials that help you design for earthquakes, buildings, or learn about multi-story podium design Topics cover the gamut, from wood-frame tall walls to modern heavy treated wood, and more And thats not all. Visit WoodWorks online to access a wide range of free resources such as workshops and Wood Solutions Fairs, one-on-one technical support, CAD/REVIT details, calculators and design guides. Its all at woodworks.org.

re protection and wind resistance, increase the durability of your wood WALL WH HERE OC CCURS ONLINE SEMINARS AS REQ QUIRED

T WEB FI ILLER leaving your desk.I-JOIST

3-16d d NAILS timber construction, life cycle assessment, how to use preservative

AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL

BSLC
I-JO OIST PE ER PLAN

WoodWorks is an initiative of the Wood Products Council, which includes all of the major North American wood associations.

N
WoodWorks is an approved AIA provider.

I-JOIS ST BLOCKING PAN NEL @ 16O.C.

Photos: (left) Ratna Ling Retreat Center Meditation Hall, Leif Calvin; (right) U.S. Port of Land Entry, Julie Snow Architects, Paul Crosby

FEATURES
26 Balancing Act
By Jeffrey Diephuis, P.E.

CONTENTS
February 2011

The newest building on the Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum campus in McMinnville, Oregon, sets a precedent in structural engineering. Visitors are amazed as it appears as though a massive 747 aircraft is sitting on top of the structure and, indeed, it is. Stairs will lead guests into the rooftop attraction where water slides will spill from the aircrafts fuselage and into the buildings wave pool 62 feet below.

COLUMNS
7 Editorial
Continuing Professional Competency
By Brad Moyes, P.E., S.E.

8 Codes and Standards

30

1.26: From Tsunami to Abstract Net Form

By Shane McCormick, P.E., S.E., Charles Keyes, P.E., S.E., and Peter Heppel

Cold-Formed Steel Special Bolted Moment Frames

By Chia-Ming Uang, Ph.D. and Atsushi Sato, Ph.D.

12 Structural Design
Designing a Cold-Formed Steel Special Bolted Moment Frame
By Ken Wood, P.E.

A monumental net sculpture was installed in Denver July, 2010, as a featured element of the Denver Biennial of the Americas. 1.26 was suspended 93 feet above the ground from a planer mesh tensioned between the Denver Civic Park Greek Theater and Denver Art Museum. The sculpture, fabricated of advanced lightweight materials, required the use of sophisticated non-linear structural analysis methods to accurately predict internal forces and deformations.

14 Building Blocks
Small Details, Big Consequences
By Gregg Melvin and Steven H. Miller, CDT

18 Structural Testing
Putting Mother Nature in a Box
By John Lyons, P.E., S.E., and Jason Meadows, P.E.

DEPARTMENTS
42 Quality Assurance Corner
Tips for Designing Constructible Concrete Structures
By Clifford W. Schwinger, P.E.

47 InSights
Creating an Alternative for Performance Concrete
By Jack Gibbons and Mark F. Chrzanowski, P.E.

22 Product Watch
New Horizons in Open Web Steel Joists and Joist Girders
By Tim Holtermann, P.E., S.E., Mark Godfrey, P.E., and Bruce F. Brothersen, P.E.

44 Great Achievements
Fazlur Rahman Khan
By Richard G. Weingardt, P.E.

51 Spotlight
Beauty and the Beast
By Bruce Gibbons, P.E., S.E. CEng

36 Code Updates
Snow & Rain Provisions in ASCE 7-10
By Michael ORourke, Ph.D., P.E.

58 Structural Forum
The Black Belt in Engineering
By David W. Hillery, P.E.

STRUCTURE

ON

THE

COVER

IN EVERY ISSUE
6 Advertiser Index 6 & 48 Noteworthy 48 Resource Guide (Bridge) 52 NCSEA News 54 SEI Structural Columns 56 CASE in Point

e Biennial of the Americas Sculpture in Denver, Colorado. is cover shows the sculpture illuminated at night. e sculpture is suspended between the Denver Art Museum and Greek eatre, located in Civic Park. See feature article on page 30.

February 2011 Steel NCSEA Winter Institute

Amelia Island, Florida February 25 26

Publication of any article, image, or advertisement in STRUCTURE magazine does not constitute endorsement by NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C 3 Ink, or the Editorial Board. Authors, contributors, and advertisers retain sole responsibility for the content of their submissions.

A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

STRUCTURE magazine

February 2011

Advertiser index
AZZ....................................................... 45 Computers.&.Structures,.Inc................. 60 CTS.Cement.Manufacturing.Corp........ 43 Design.Data........................................... 41 ESAB.Welding.and.Cutting.Products..... 25 Fyfe.Co..LLC......................................... 40 GT.STRUDL........................................ 23 The.IAPMO.Group. ............................... 46 ICC. ............................................... 34..35 Integrated.Engineering.Software,.Inc.. .... 31 KPFF.Consulting.Engineers................... 27 MIDASoft,.Inc.. ..................................... 33

PleAse suPPort these Advertisers

NCEES.................................................. 19 NCSEA/Kaplan.Engineering.Ed............ 11 Powers.Fasteners,.Inc................................ 2 RISA.Technologies................................. 59 SidePlate.Systems,.Inc............................ 29 Simpson.Strong-Tie......................... 17,.21 StrucSoft.Solutions,.Ltd........................... 3 Struware,.Inc............................................ 6 Taylor.Devices,.Inc................................. 37 Valmont.Tubing..................................... 39 Wheeling.Corrugating. ........................... 50 Wood.Products.Council........................... 4 The easiest to use software for calculating wind, seismic, snow and other loadings for IBC, ASCE7, and all state codes based on these codes ($195.00). Tilt-up Concrete Wall Panels ($95.00). Floor Vibration for Steel Beams and Joists ($100.00). Concrete beams with torsion ($45.00). Demos at: www.struware.com

ADVERTISEMENT For Advertiser Information, visit www.structuremag.org

editorial Board
Burns & McDonnell, Kansas City, MO chair@structuremag.org

Advertising Account MAnAger

Interactive Sales Associates Chuck Minor
Eastern Sales 847-854-1666

Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB

Chair

Dick Railton
Western Sales 951-587-2982

Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECB

CBI Consulting, Inc., Boston, MA

Brian W. Miller
Davis, CA

sales@StRuCtuREmag.org

Hess Engineering Inc., Los Alamitos, CA

Richard Hess, S.E., SECB

Mike C. Mota, P.E.

CRSI, Williamstown, NJ

editoriAL stAFF
Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE Editor Associate Editor Graphic Designer Web Developer Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
execdir@ncsea.com publisher@StRuCtuREmag.org publisher@StRuCtuREmag.org graphics@StRuCtuREmag.org

Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc., Marietta, GA

Mark W. Holmberg, P.E.

The DiSalvo Ericson Group, Ridgefield, CT

Evans Mountzouris, P.E.

Roger A. LaBoube, Ph.D., P .E.

CCFSS, Rolla, MO

KPFF Consulting Engineers, Seattle, WA

Greg Schindler, P.E., S.E.

HDR Engineering, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA

Brian J. Leshko, P.E.

Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.

BergerABAM, Vancouver, WA

Nikki Alger

Mercer Engineering, PC, Minot, ND

John A. Mercer, P.E.

John Buddy Showalter, P.E.

American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA

Rob Fullmer

Noteworthy

news and information

webmaster@StRuCtuREmag.org

William Radig

Seismic Design Parameters for Haiti and Other Countries

Following.the.Haiti.earthquake.in.January.2010,.many.structural.engineers.contributing.to. the.rebuilding.efforts.struggled.to.find.the.ground.motion.hazard.data.necessary.to.perform. seismic.design.calculations..Noting.the.shortcomings.of.previously.available.hazard.information. for.Haiti,.the.U.S..Geological.Survey.(USGS).constructed.new.seismic.hazard.maps.for.that. country.(http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1067/)..USGS.has.subsequently.developed.Maximum. Considered.Earthquake.(MCE).ground.motions.compatible.with.current.editions.of.the. International Building Code (IBC)..These.data.have.been.incorporated.into.the.USGS.Worldwide Seismic DesignMaps Web Application (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/ww/),. which.provides.IBC-compatible.spectral.response.acceleration.parameters.(Ss.and. S1).for. many.locations.around.the.world..Other.data.sources.currently.reflected.in.the. Worldwide DesignMaps.application.include.the.Department.of.Defense.Unified.Facilities.Criteria,.the. Global.Seismic.Hazard.Assessment.Program,.and.the.USGS.preliminary.earthquake.hazard. maps.for.Afghanistan.(http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1137/);.more.datasets.will.be.added. as.time.allows..As.it.already.has.for.Haiti,.USGS.hopes.that.Worldwide DesignMaps will.serve. as.a.valuable.tool.for.engineers.designing.structures.for.sites.in.other.seismically.active.areas. around.the.world. For.more.information,.please.contact.Nicolas.Luco,.Eric.Martinez,.Sean.McGowan,.or.Greg. Smoczyk.at.wwdesignmaps@usgs.gov. STRUCTURE magazine

STRUCTURE (Volume 18, Number 2). ISSN 1536-4283. Publications Agreement No. 40675118. Owned by the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations and published in cooperation with CASE and SEI monthly by C3 Ink. The publication is distributed free of charge to members of NCSEA, CASE and SEI; the non-member subscription rate is $65/yr domestic; $35/yr student; $90/yr Canada; $125/yr foreign. For change of address or duplicate copies, contact your member organization(s). Any opinions expressed in STRUCTURE magazine are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C3 Ink, or the STRUCTURE Editorial Board. STRUCTURE is a registered trademark of National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA). Articles may not be

reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher.

National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

www.ncsea.com

C3 Ink, Publishers

A Division of Copper Creek Companies, Inc. 148 Vine St., Reedsburg WI 53959 P-608-524-1397 F-608-524-4432 publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org

February 2011

editorial

new trends, new techniques and current industry issues Continuing Professional Competency By Brad Moyes, P.E., S.E., NCSEA Board Member

n last months Editorial, John Mercer touched on the importance of continuing education and the chance to fulfill some of those requirements by attending the CASE Winter Meeting and the NCSEA Winter Institute in Jacksonville, Florida in late February. CASE and NCSEA have joined together this year to have their winter meetings in the same location and during the same week, which allows attendees the opportunity to attend both events. NCSEAs Winter Institute is purposely held in a location to allow those in colder climes to escape winter for a few days. This year it will be held on February 25 and 26 and is entitled Deferred Submittals: What the EOR Needs to Know and Why, From Design to Construction. In addition to presentations and discussions on a broad range of topics regarding deferred submittals, tours of a steel joist facility and precast concrete plant are included. The topic of deferred submittals is one that affects practicing structural engineers on a regular basis and has important implications for acceptable performance of projects. If a serious problem occurs as a result of the performance of a deferred submittal item, the EOR will surely be involved in the resolution. Delegating design responsibility for certain project elements is a necessity. Many elements of structures are proprietary in nature and can vary substantially depending on the supplier. The EOR cannot be caught up with the minutia of specialty cladding elements or pieces of equipment that may be used. Some elements, such as steel stairs, can offer substantial savings to projects if design is left to suppliers who can utilize their standard components. While at times delegating design to others may seem to be an expedient way to shift the work to others, it includes an obligation for the EOR to follow through with review of the subsequent submittal with regard to its completeness and its impact on the remaining structure. There is also an obligation by the engineer designing the deferred submittal to keep in mind the parameters of the supporting structure. The interface between the supporting structure and the deferred submittal item is a particularly troublesome area. Our firm recently received a deferred submittal for an exhaust stack of a large piece of mechanical equipment. The engineering firm designing the stack utilized a very conservative design, which included much higher wind loads than required by code and wind load on the portion of the stack interior to the building. While a conservative design of the stack components made sense, the resultant forces on the existing structure were much higher than we originally assumed and could not be resisted without substantial building modification. After a number of conference calls and resubmissions of the calculations, as well as our own analysis, we were able to arrive at a reasonable result; however, it was a very time consuming and frustrating process. Attending the Winter Institute will STRUCTURAL help you understand the many pitENGINEERING INSTITUTE falls associated with deferred submittals and how to avoid them. Attendance

a member benefit

will also help you to fulfill continuing education requirements. Mr. Mercers comments about continuing education requirements piqued my interest in their status nationwide. Although continuing education has been required in my home state since 1997, requirements vary in many of the other states Im registered in. Having been chosen several times for random audits, I appreciate the importance of maintaining accurate records of those activities and making sure one complies with the requirements of each jurisdiction. The NCEES (National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying) is a non-profit organization that represents the licensing boards from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. NCEES has advocated for uniform licensing requirements for many years, as well as continuing education requirements. According to Wikipedia, the first state to require continuing education was Iowa in 1979. As of this date, not all states require continuing education; but according to the NCEES website, 36 states plus Puerto Rico now require continuing professional competency (CPC), as they term it. The NCEES website includes a manual entitled Continuing Professional Competency Guidelines, dated October 2010. This manual provides guidelines for jurisdictions that have, or are planning to have, CPC requirements for licensure renewal. The official position of NCEES with regard to CPC is summarized in the manual as follows: NCEES endorses the establishment of uniform continuing professional competency (CPC) requirements for licensed professional engineers and surveyors to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the public by requiring licensees to remain competent within their profession and to facilitate renewal. The manual includes a model law and model rules for jurisdictions to follow. The manual also includes a recommended form to use for record keeping that can be useful if your state doesnt provide one. The model rules require 15 PDHs per year. Most of the states with continuing education requirements follow the recommended number of hours, with the remaining states and Puerto Rico requiring somewhat fewer hours. NCEES should be commended for their work, as it seems that substantial progress has been made in achieving uniformity as a result of their efforts. We hope to see you in Jacksonville later this month to attend the NCSEA Winter Institute. The potential benefits of attending will go far beyond satisfying continuing education requirements. The information presented will broaden your understanding of the vital issues regarding deferred submittals. A side benefit of attending will be the contacts you will develop with your structural engineering colleagues and suppliers of structural elements. Brad Moyes, P.E., S.E. joined KPFF in 1974 and was named a Principal of the firm in 1991. He is a registered professional engineer in twenty-three states and a LEED Accredited Professional. Brad is past president of the Structural Engineers Association of Oregon and the American Concrete Institute Oregon Chapter.

structure

STRUCTURE magazine

February 2011

Codes and standards

updates and discussions related to codes and standards

Figure 1: A Type of CFS-SBMF.

Cold-Formed Steel Special Bolted Moment Frames

Now a Code-Recognized System
By Chia-Ming Uang, Ph.D. and Atsushi Sato, Ph.D.

he American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) recently issued a brand new standard S110, Standard for Seismic Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural SystemsSpecial Bolted Moment Frames, which covers cold-formed steel seismic force-resisting systems. While there are plans to include additional cold-formed steel seismic force-resisting systems in the future, the first system introduced in this standard is called the Cold-Formed Steel Special Bolted Moment Frame (CFS-SBMF). This type of one-story framing system is commonly used for free standing mezzanines (industrial platform), elevated office support platforms, equipment support platforms, and small buildings in all seismic areas (Figure 1). The frame is typically composed of cold-formed Hollow Structural Section (HSS) columns and C-section beams. Beams are connected to the column by using snug-tight high-strength bolts (Figure 2). If needed, bearing plates are welded to the web of the beams in the connection region to increase the bearing strength at bolt holes. The strong column-weak beam seismic design philosophy adopted in AISC 341, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, for Special Moment Frame is not applicable for a CFS-SBMF because cold-formed steel C-section beams usually do not satisfy the stringent
For double C-section beam only HSS Column C L

Chia-Ming Uang is a Professor in the Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA. Uang is a member of AISI Subcommittee 32 on Seismic Design. He can be contacted at cmu@ucsd.edu. Atsushi Sato is an Associate Professor in the Department of Scientific and Engineering Simulation, Nagoya Institute of Technology, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan. He can be contacted at sato.atsushi@nitech.ac.jp.

Channel Beam VIEW A-A A Bolt Bearing Plate (Optional) C L c a b a C-section Beam HSS Column C L ELEVATION B C L VIEW B-B C L A B Bolt Bearing Plate (Optional)

Channel Beam HSS Column

Figure 2: Typical CFS-SBMF Moment Connection.

February 2011

Table 1: Member Sizes and Bolted Connection Configuration.

Specimen No. 1, 2 3 4 5, 6, 7 8, 9

Beam 12CS3105 16CS3105 16CS3105 16CS3135 20CS3135

Column HSS88 HSS88 HSS88 HSS88 HSS1010

B e a r i n g Bolted Connection Plate, in. a (in) b (in) c (in) 0.135 N/A 0.135 N/A N/A 2.5 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 6 10 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 6.25

Analytical Modeling of Moment Connection

Figure 5(b) (page 10) shows the free-body diagram of a column with a beam framing into it. With the pin-based column resisting a shear force, the bolt group in the connection region is subjected to a load, VC, with a large eccentricity, h, which is the story height. The concept of instantaneous center (IC) of rotation can be used to compute the response of a bolted connection. The slip resistance, Rs, and bearing resistance, RB, of a single bolt are: RS = kT Equation 1 RB = Rult[1ebr] Equation 2 where k (slip coefficient) = 0.19 for a galvanized surface condition, T = bolt tension force, Rult (ultimate bearing strength) = 2.1dtFu, br = bearing deformation (in.), e = 2.718, and , = regression coefficients. With the values of T = 17.5 kips, = 5, and = 0.55, response predicted by the instantaneous center of rotation method envelopes very well the cyclic response of the test specimens with varying member sizes and bolt configurations (Figure 6, page 10). The analysis procedure was also generalized to model the cyclic response for subsequent nonlinear time-history analysis. continued on next page
15 10 Load (kips) 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -10 -5 0 5 Story Drift Ratio (%) (a) 10

a portion of an 8-foot, 3-inch high CFSSBMF with a bay width of 11 feet. Figure 3 shows the test setup; the column was oriented horizontally to facilitate testing. Having assumed that the beam inflection point was at the mid-span, the beam length on each side of the column was half the bay width. The beam was connected to the column by eight 1-inch diameter, bearing type high-strength bolts. ASTM A607 Class 1, Gr. 50 steel was specified for the beams and ASTM A500 Gr. B steel was specified for the columns. The beams were galvanized with zinc, while the columns were coated with a zinc-rich paint. The testing showed all specimens behaved in a very ductile manner, and the inter-story drift capacity was significantly higher than the 0.04 radian inter-story drift angle required by AISC 341 for Special Moment Frames (Figure 4). The cyclic behavior of all test specimens was dominated by the slip-bearing action in the bolted moment connection. The global response is characterized by three regions. Initially, the subassembly responded elastically with the bolted connection acting essenTest Program tially as a rigid joint. Bolt slip was observed A total of nine full-scale interior beam-column during the 0.75% through 2% drift cycles, subassemblies were tested; see Table 1 for the which corresponded to the flat plateaus in member sizes. The subassemblies simulated the global response. Then the bolts started to bear against the beam and 99 in. column webs at about 3% drift, which resulted in a significant 60 in. hardening in strength. Lateral The test matrix included some Bracing beam and column sizes with larger width-thickness ratios Column (w/t) to study the effect of local buckling. Specimens that experienced beam or column buckling still exhibited the same ductile Hydraulic hysteresis response as shown in Actuator Figure 4. Although local buckling occurred at a story drift beyond 4%, it is prudent to limit the w/t ratio to 6.18E/Fy in order to control web local buckling of Reaction the C-section beams. For HSS Floor columns, the limiting w/t ratio is 1.40E/Fy. Figure 3: Test Setup.
Reaction Wall Beam W14x99 W14x99

seismic compactness requirement. Instead, the ductility capacity is provided through bolt slippage and bearing in bolted beam-to-column moment connections, and beams and columns are designed to remain elastic at the design story drift to resist the maximum force that can be developed in the moment connections. A cyclic testing program that verifies this concept was conducted. To calculate the maximum seismic effect in the beams and columns, an analytical model for the yielding element was then developed based on the concept of instantaneous center of rotation of a bolt group. To facilitate design, this analytical model was used to develop equations and tables for inclusion in AISI S110. A study based on the FEMA P695 methodology was also conducted to verify that the proposed seismic performance factors (R and Cd factors) can provide a sufficient margin against collapse for the Maximum Considered Earthquake. AISI S110 has been adopted by ASCE 7-10, and this system will be recognized in the 2012 International Building Code.

1500 1000 Moment (kip-in) 500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 Slip-Bearing Rotation (rad) (b) 0.06

132 in.

Figure 4: Typical Hysteresis Response: (a) Overall Response; (b) Bolted Moment Connection Component.

STRUCTURE magazine

February 2011

Beam

freebody "A"

Column

(a)
IC CG

where h = story height, Rt = ratio of expected tensile strength to specified tensile strength. VS and VB represent the column shear components corresponding to the resistance of the eccentrically loaded bolt group due to bolt slip and bearing, respectively. Based on the analytical model presented earlier, equations and tables have been developed and provided in AISI 110 to calculate these two quantities.

1500 1000 Moment (kip-in) 500 0 -500 -1000 -1500

Analysis

Test

dmax

r0

Seismic Performance Factors

2000 Moment (kip-in)

-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 Slip-Bearing Rotation (rad) (a)

0.06

C-section Beam HSS Column

VC

(b)

Figure 5: Bolt Group in Eccentric Shear: (a) CFSSBMF; (b) Freebody A.

Seismic Design Concept

Figure 7 shows the expected response of a CFS-SBMF. The elastic seismic force corresponding to the Design Basis Earthquake (DBE, point e) is reduced by the R factor (= 3.5) to point d for sizing beams, columns, and bolted moment connections in accordance with the AISI S100. Unlike other steel seismic force-resisting systems where point d represents the first significant yielding event, CFS-SBMF actually would yield at a lower seismic force level (point a) due to slippage of the bolts in moment connections. A horizontal plateau (points a to b) would result due to the oversize of the bolt holes. As the story drift is increased, the lateral resistance of the frame starts to increase from point b once the oversized hole is overcome and the bearing action of the bolts starts to occur. The designer amplifies the story drift at point d by the Deflection Amplification Factor Cd to estimate the maximum inelastic story drift ( at point c) that is expected to occur in a Design Basis Earthquake event. To ensure that beams and columns will remain elastic, the challenge then is to evaluate the maximum seismic force corresponding to point c while considering the effect of significant hardening due to bolt bearing. This seismic force level, which is equivalent to the seismic load effect with overstrength, Emh , in ASCE 7, represents the required strength for the beams and columns. Specifically, the required moment for both beam and column at the connection location is: Me = h(VS + RtVB) Equation 3

Based on the large ductility capacity observed from the cyclic testing of beam-column sub1000 assemblies, a value of 3.5 for the Response Modification Coefficient, R, was proposed. 0 Recognizing that the hysteresis behavior of a CFS-SBMF exhibits a yield-like plateau -1000 that is followed by a significant hardening in the moment connection region, a statistical -2000 evaluation through nonlinear time-history -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 Slip-Bearing Rotation (rad) analysis showed that the Newmark-Hall (b) ductility reduction rule to account for the benefit of ductility is conservative. A revised Figure 6: Measured versus Predicted Responses: (a) rule was proposed, which was then used to Specimen 3; (b) Specimen 4. derive the Deflection Amplification Factor, Cd. The derivation gave Cd = R/1.2 ( 3.0). Conservatively, this value is adjusted up to within the configurations used in the ini3.5 for adoption by ASCE 7-10. tial research. AISI S110-07 with S1-09 was Once the designer calculates the design recently adopted as a reference in the 2012 story drift using the Cd factor, the AISI International Building Code and is available S110 design procedure then can be used for purchase online at AISIs Publications to compute the maximum seismic force in Bookstore at www.steel.org/shopaisi. the moment connection (point c in Figure 7). Although this Beam procedure eliminates the need ( V + R V ) S t B to specify an empirical System Overstrength Factor, 0, for Column consistency with the format of h other framing systems, a default value of 3.0 is adopted in ASCE 7-10. The adequacy of these VS+RtVB VS+RtVB VS+RtVB proposed seismic performance (a) factors to ensure a sufficient margin of safety against collapse under the Maximum Base Shear Corresponding linear system Considered Earthquake has e Actual Response also been verified by FEMA VDBE P695, Quantification of Building c Seismic Performance Factors. x1/R K In October 2009, AISI pubd lished Supplement No. 1 to Vd AISI S110-07. In Supplement a b No. 1, revisions were made nVS to the document adopting all o y d DBE Story Drift the modifications included in xCd ASCE 7-10, Chapter 14. The majority of these modifications (b) ensure that the application of the design provisions remains Figure 7: CBF-SBMF Expected Response: (a) Yield Mechanism
and Column Shear Distribution; (b) General Structural Response.

STRUCTURE magazine

10

February 2011

Structural DeSign
design issues for structural engineers

s the result of extensive testing and peer review, the first cold-formed steel moment frame used as a seismic force resisting system was recently approved for adoption by the 2012 IBC (Figure 1). While the seismic design parameters for the Cold-Formed Steel Special Bolted Moment Frame (CFS-SBMF) are found in ASCE 7-10, the detailing requirements for this system can be found in the 2007 edition of the AISI S110 standard including Supplement 1-09. Although newly adopted, this framing system has been used in the construction of free standing platforms (mezzanines), equipment support platforms, elevated office support platforms, portal frames and small buildings for many years. Structures built in high seismic areas have demonstrated good performance in seismic events; however, up until recently no test data was available to show why and how this system resisted seismic forces. A companion article in this issue details the testing and analysis performed at UCSD. (See Codes & Standards, page 8.)

The Analysis Concept

In structural steel systems, a strong column-weak beam concept was developed as a way to absorb the energy from a seismic event. However, in the CFS-SBMF, due to cold-formed steel components, the members cannot satisfy the compactness requirements to perform like a traditional structural steel system. The results of extensive cyclic testing at UCSD demonstrated that the connection did, in fact, perform consistently as an energy dissipation mechanism, which is a key element in developing a seismic force-resisting system. The design requirements in AISI S110, which were developed from the testing, allow the engineer to design a framing system based on the connection response, so the beams and columns will remain elastic during a significant seismic event. The capacity design for a yielding element in this case the bolted connection is required in order to determine the maximum seismic effect in the non-yielding members (beams and columns) at the design story (amplified) drift, . The connection, when subjected to a seismic event, resists rotation by developing the expected moment resulting from two force resisting components (Figure 2) in the connection. The first force resisting component is due to slip of the faying surfaces and, if the seismic event is significant enough, then the second force resisting component, the bearing component, develops in the connection to complete the total shear demand on the columns (n(Vs+RtVb) (Figure 3). From this total column shear the expected moment (Me = h(Vs+RtVb)(Eq. D1.2.3.1-1) can be computed.
Cold-formed Beams

HSS Column Bolt/Nut/washers

a b a

Designing a Cold-Formed Steel Special Bolted Moment Frame

By Ken Wood, P.E.

HSS Column

Figure 1: Bolted Connection-SBMF. Figure 1: Bolted Connection-SBMF

Ken Wood, P.E. is the Principal of KL Wood Engineering, Inc. He is a member of the AISI COS Sub-32 committee responsible for the development of AISI-A110. Ken can be reached at klwoodengineerin@qwestoffice.net.

Column Shear

Vb range Vs

Story Drift

The Design Procedure

The first step in the design process is to select a beam and column combination (see Table C-D1.1-1 in AISI S110) and determine a standard beam to column connection from this selection. The standard connection based

s y+ s y

Figure Structural Response Bolted Figure 2:2: Structural Response of Bolted of Connec tion Connection.

on the beam and column selection is in Table C-D1.2-1 or Table C-D1.2-2 of AISI S110. These are the only connection combinations for which coefficients have been developed to be used in the analysis of the column shear. Once the framing system has been selected, an analysis should be performed, using the applicable building code load combinations with R = 3.5 (ASCE 7-10, Table 12.2-1), of the system to establish the structural period. Using ASCE 7 Equation 12.8-3 (Cs = SD1/T(R/I) for TTL) times the appropriate seismic mass, Ws, for the structure use, the total base shear is calculated for the frame line being checked. Once the base shear is established, the drift can be calculated by dividing the total base shear by the structural framing lateral stiffness, K. This drift, , when amplified by Cd, is the design story drift used in the first check to determine if the bearing component Vb of the connection is zero or not. In order for Vb to be zero, must be less than s+y. If Vb = 0, then the expected connection moment is simply Me = Vsh. If Vb is zero, then the value for Vs can be calculated using AISI S110, Equation D1.2.3.1-2. See Figure 4 for a flow chart on the design process.

12 February 2011

 n (Vs + RtVb) Beam

If is greater than s+y, then b must be computed. In order to calculate b, the values for s, y, B,max and VB,max must be determined. The y value occurs at the point where slip shear force (Vs) takes place. Once the value of b is computed, then you must use AISI S110 Equation D1.2.3.1-3 and adjust the value of Vb until the equations is balanced. That is, the left side of the equation is approximately equal to 1.0 and, when this occurs, the computed Vb value is used in Equation D1.2.3.1-1 to calculate the expected moment developed at the bolted connection. Vs = Cs k N T/h y = Vsn/K B,max = CB,O CDB h s = CDShosh VB,max = CBNRo/h CB, CDS and CB,O = values from Table D1-1 b = [-(s+y)]K / (nVB,max/B,max + K) (Vb /Vb,max )2 + (1 b/b,max)1.43 = 1.0 Me = h(Vs + RtVb)

Column

Vs+RtVb

Vs+RtVb

Vs+RtVb

Figure 3: Column Vase Shear.

Eq. D1.2.3.1-2 drift at connection slip (Fig.C-D1.3-1) Eq. D1.2.3-1-5 Eq. D1.2.3.1-7 Eq. D1.2.3.1-4 Eq. C-D1.2-9 from commentary section Eq. D1.2.3.1-3 Eq.D1.2.3.1-1

Figure 3: Column Base Shear

Summary
Because of the development of the connection (performance based), relative to the seismic moment demand, there is no need to apply any system over-strength factor o (see Table 1.2.1 in AISI S110 and Footnote o in Table 12.2-2 ASCE 7-10) to the seismic force component in the applicable building code load combinations. The CFS-SBMF is the first lateral forceresisting system to be introduced in the new AISI S110 standard for seismic design of coldformed steel structures. The design concept of this system is based on determining the maximum seismic force on the moment connection at the expected story drift when using the proper Cd (3.5) amplification factor. Once the seismic force has been determined, then the capacity design of the beams, columns and connections can be performed in accordance with the AISI S100-07. Since this is a new approach and there are other possible connection types that can be developed, new designs in cold-formed steel systems should be submitted for inclusion in future editions of the AISI S110. Based on some preliminary connection concepts already presented for further testing, it would appear that some of these connections would provide for increased performance in resisting seismic events.
Yes

The expected moment (Me) developed at the connection provides the lateral force that the framing components must resist when with the applicable building code load combinations are applied. Once the frame analysis is complete, using the load combinations, the beam and column capacities must be checked in accordance with the requirements found in AISI S100-2007. Frame Analysis and Design-Example Given: Framing system: Beams 2C20x3 x .135; Columns HSS10x10x System: h = 8.25 feet; Frame Span = 18 feet; Bay Width = 19 feet Loading: D = 12 psf; Live = 125 psf light storage Lateral stiffness K = 22.22 kips/inch Sds = 1.557; Sd1 = .597; Site class= D; Seismic mass = 14.8 kips Cb = 8.5; CB,O = 0.46; Cs = 4.8 From TableD1-1; CDB = 1.18 from Table D1-2 Computed = 1.52 inches design story drift s = CDShosh = 1.33 inches y = Vsn/K = .346 inches s+y = 1.68 inches > Therefore Me = hVs B,max = CB,O CDB h = 4.47 inches VB,max = CBNRo/h = 19.47 kips Vs = Me / h = 3.84 kips/column This is the lateral demand at the column. The capacities for the beam and column were computed using AISI S100-07. The beam capacity is based on the beam being braced properly in all three axes. Beams: 2C20x3 x.135 capacity Mn = 187 kip-ft Max. demand Mu = 83.24 kip-ft Load combination: 1.2D+1.6L Columns: HSS10x10x capacity Mn = 113.5 kip-ft Pn = 336 kips Max. demand Mu = 77.9 kip-ft Pu = 29.6 kips Load combination: (1.2+.2Sds)D+L+pQe

s + y
No Compute b per Eq. (C-1.2-9)

Vb = 0

Me = V s h

Compute Vb per Et. (1.2.3.1-3)

Symbols
h = Story height centerline of beam Rt = Ratio of expected tensile strength to specific tensile strength Vs = Column shear corresponding to the slip strength of the bolt group Vb = Column shear corresponding to the bearing strength of the bolt group n = Number of columns in frame line Cs = Value from Table D1-1 K = Slip coefficient = 0.33 N = 1 for single-channel beam or 2 for double-channel beam T = 10 kips (44.5kN) for 1-in. diameter bolts STRUCTURE magazine

Compute Me per Eq. (1.2.3.1-1)

Compute b per Eg. (1.2.3.1-5)

No

Is computed b close to assumed value?

End

Figure 4: Design Chart. FigureFlow 4: Design Flow Chart

13

February 2011

Building Blocks
updates and information on structural materials

Small Details, Big Consequences

The Right Type of Fastener Can Make the Difference Between Success and Failure
By Gregg Melvin and Steven H. Miller, CDT

s a tiny detail worth getting right? Does selection of a self-drilling screw merit an engineers attention? Over 50,000 self-drilling, self-tapping screws were used to hold slabs of Sardinian granite onto the exterior of the massive Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts in Miami, Florida. This detail was important enough to warrant specifying a specialized fastener a selectively-hardened self-drilling screw instead of the conventional casehardened fasteners that are widely used in the industry. The reasons for this selection might be surprising.

Many of the stone slabs on the Arsht Center exterior, weighing approximately 200 pounds each, are held in place by six -inch structural selfdrilling screws.

Hard Facts About Hardening

Screws capable of self-drilling and selftapping in structural steel are a relatively recent invention, dating back to the 1970s. They drill their own holes and tap their own threads, making the substrate act as the nut that secures the fastener. Hundreds of millions are used around the world every year. Attachment of cladding systems is one of their major uses, but they are also specified in a wide variety of structural applications. In order to drill into metal, fasteners need an integral drill-point that is harder than the metal being penetrated. This is achieved by first forming the fastener, and then hardening it. Case-hardening has been the most common method used. Low-carbon steel fasteners are heated in a high-carbon environment, infusing carbon into the outer layer of the steel and creating a hardened shell, or case, that is hard enough to drill and tap soft steel. The inner core of the fastener remains softer and more ductile.

The Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts

Gregg Melvin (gmelvin@acument.com) is a senior applications engineer with Elco Construction Products. He has been in the fastener industry for more than 20 years. Steven H. Miller, CDT (steven@chusid.com) is an award-winning writer and photographer specializing in issues of the construction industry. He works with Chusid Associates, a technical and marketing consultant to makers of advanced building products. The Arsht Center is the second largest performing arts center in the US, a 570,000 square foot complex that took five years to construct. Its two main structures, the Sanford and Dolores Ziff Ballet Opera House and the John S. and James L. Knight Concert Hall, include a 2400-seat theater, a 2200-seat concert hall, and a 200-seat studio theater. What appears to be stone architecture reminiscent of ancient structural methods is actually two layers of very modern design: a backing wall of concrete masonry units (CMUs) and a decorative veneer of granite just 1.4 inches thick. The stone slabs, which averaged 2.5 feet by 4 feet, were made from three different kinds of granite, each requiring slightly different treatment because of variations in thickness and hardness. The wind loads reach 140 psf near the roofline of the structures, which are located in one of only two High Velocity Hurricane Zones under Floridas stringent building codes.

Self-drilling, self-tapping screws install quickly using hand-tools. Courtesy of CDC Curtainwall Design Consulting, Inc.

14 February 2011

The chief weakness of these fasteners can be, ironically, their hardness. Only the drill tip and the first few threads need to be hardened for self-drilling. The part of a screw used for load-bearing, however, is the main section of the shank, behind the tapping-threads and up to the head. That section has no need of surface hardening; unfortunately, case-hardening is not selective and the entire fastener is treated. Hardened steel can account for about 25% of the total diameter of the screw. The hardened metal is brittle, not ductile. The effect is that the cross-sectional area of ductile steel can be reduced to 75% or less. In certain situations, as discussed below, that ductility is highly desirable. Selectively-hardened self-drilling fasteners were developed about 20 years ago. They perform the same function as case-hardened units but avoid surface hardening of the loadbearing portion of the fastener. In selective hardening, only the drill-tip and tapping threads of the unit are hardened. The entire head and the main length of the shank remain softer and more ductile. The first selectively-hardened fasteners were made of a single piece of special, high-carbon steel alloy. Since carbon is already present in the metal, enrichment in a high carbon chamber is unnecessary. Instead, the fastener tip is passed through a high-voltage induction coil to heat it, hardening it to approximately Rockwell hardness HRC 52, while leaving the rest of the fastener unaffected at Rockwell hardness in the range of HRC 28-34. Since the Arsht Center was built, the science of selectively-hardened fasteners has continued to advance. First, bi-metallic

fasteners were perfected. These highly corrosion-resistant units are made by fusing a high-carbon steel drill-tip and tapping threads onto a 300 series (18-8) stainless steel screw shank. The tip is then selectively hardened. These bi-metallic fasteners soon emerged as the fastener of choice for exteriors and other aggressive environments. Now, a new generation of fasteners is being introduced that offer much higher loading capacities for a given diameter, allowing significant reductions in the number of fasteners that need to be used for an application. These new fasteners utilize a super alloy and a proprietary heating process that results in steel of very high tensile strength, and possessing a specific micro-structure that impedes delayed hydrogen damage. They have been subjected to Rising Step Load testing, in which samples are exposed to a solution with high hydrogen content and put under stress that is periodically increased over a number of hours. The fasteners were stressed up to 70% of their ultimate strength (average 190 ksi/1,310 Mpa) and showed no signs of hydrogen-induced damage. They easily exceed the loading standards for the highest SAE grade, grade 8. Their tested ultimate strength is also higher than the ultimate strength of the highest metric bolt standard, grade 12.9. These super-high-strength, selectivelyhardened fasteners can save money. They are expected to cost approximately 20% more than a selectively-hardened fastener of the type used on the Arsht Center. They can reduce the number of fasteners needed for a given load by up to 40%, a potential savings of 20% on materials cost. The savings on labor from installing fewer screws can multiply the savings on materials several fold. According to Joe Brescia, founder and CEO of Architectural Glass and Aluminum, a leading provider of architectural glazing and cladding, installation gets more expensive the higher you are above ground. Above 10 stories, it costs about $6.00 for every part installed. This means that, even for an expensive fastener that might cost $1.00 or $1.20 each, switching to the super alloy fasteners will save enough on labor to make the fasteners themselves better than free.

A granite slab is held in place on the exterior of the Arsht Center using a two-part clip assembly. Courtesy of CDC Curtainwall Design Consulting, Inc.

Brittle materials tend to shatter easily under impulsive loading. However, the energy of these loads can be dissipated by ductile structural elements that deform without failing. With a case-hardened screw, the ductile steel can be diminished to 75% or less of the full cross-sectional area. This makes the fastener more vulnerable to failure under an impulsive load. In a selectively-hardened screw, the full diameter remains ductile, more likely to stretch than to break under extreme loading. This makes selectively-hardened fasteners a good choice for building enclosure systems for structures in seismic zones and severe weather conditions, buildings that require high security or are considered likely targets for violent attack, and buildings adjacent to potential attack targets. Surprisingly, however, hurricane-rated fasteners were not required for the cladding on the Arsht Center. The granite slabs were considered a sacrificial veneer that could break and fall off without compromising the weather-proof skin of the building.

Designed-In Danger
Instead, selectively-hardened fasteners were chosen because of a little-known but significant issue: due to the use of dissimilar metals in the attachment of the stone slabs, there was a significant risk of hydrogen assisted stress corrosion cracking (HASCC), also known as delayed hydrogen embrittlement. HASCC is a by-product of galvanic reaction, but it only affects steel hardened above certain levels. HASCC can cause the heads of standard quality, properly load-rated, code-approved fasteners to pop off without warning, potentially causing failure of the cladding system. Under test conditions, it can occur in as little as 24 hours. It can also occur in a fastener that has been in service, under load, for 20 years, if moisture is introduced. continued on next page

Extreme Loading
Bi-metallic fasteners are also selectively-hardened. The drill-tip and tapping threads are high-carbon steel, fused to a stainless steel shank (left, before coating). The high-carbon steel is hardened, leaving the shank unaffected. The entire fastener is then covered with corrosion-protective/galvanic barrier coating (right). Courtesy of Elco Construction Products.

Under extreme loading situations such as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, or explosions, the ductility of fasteners becomes a significant issue. These loads are applied impulsively, like a hammer-blow, which can produce a different type of response from gradual or continuous loading in a structural element.

STRUCTURE magazine

15

February 2011

For a more complete discussion of HASCC, see Melvin, Gregg and Chusid, Michael, Making the Right Connections, The Construction Specifier, Aug. 2008, pg 64.

aluminum clip and an unprotected steel screw. Even though the fastener would be immune to HASCC, galvanic action would cause accelerated corrosion of the aluminum, weakening it at the connection point and possibly resulting in pull-through. The slab joints are then sealed with a non-staining silicone to protect against wind and rain infiltration.

Costs
Selectively-hardened fasteners are hardened by passing the drilltip through a heat-source. The main load-bearing section of the shank remains ductile. Courtesy of Elco Construction Products.

When galvanic reaction occurs, the hydrogen generated by the galvanic cell can cause HASCC. Then the hardened case of the fastener can form micro-cracks right down to the inner, ductile core. Since many of these fasteners have hardness up to HRC 42, even the core is hard enough to be vulnerable to embrittlement and micro-cracking can continue inwards. This can compromise not only the hardened case but a considerable part of the softer core, leaving as little as 25% uncompromised metal. The design load may then exceed the capacity of the screw, causing the head to pop off. Selectively-hardened fasteners are HRC 34 or less (Grade 5 strength) in the load-bearing portion of the shank and head, and therefore immune to HASCC. The cladding system of the Arsht Center involved aluminum, stainless steel, galvanized steel, and carbon steel. Given so many possibilities for galvanic reactions and HASCC, with so many metal combinations in a humid environment, selectively-hardened fasteners made sense. The Arsht Center granite was attached using aluminum anchor clips that fit in kerf-slots on the edges of the stone slabs. Top and bottom courses of stone were attached with running aluminum extrusions the full width of the stone. Intermediate courses have smaller clips, ranging from 8 to 12 inches long. The anchor clips are two-piece aluminum assemblies. One L-shaped piece is anchored to the CMU backingwall with 5/8-inch stainless steel wedge-bolts, painted with yellow chromate to prevent corrosion. This piece is anchored to the wall before lifting the stone slab into place. The second piece is screwed to the first with three -inch selectively-hardened screws. This clip-piece has a downward-facing lip that mates with the kerf-slot in the top edge of the stone below it. The fasteners have a corrosion-preventive coating for long-term structural integrity. If moisture infiltrated the clip assembly, it could set up a galvanic cell between the

Although usually more expensive on a per-unit basis, selectively-hardened fasteners can be less expensive in use than the more conventional case-hardened ones. The drill-tips of conventional fasteners frequently snap off, wasting many screws; this is rare, however, when using selectively-hardened fasteners, yielding overall cost savings. Labor-reduction associated with the new super alloy fasteners is expected to result in even more significant overall savings, especially on high-rise structures.

Summary
When designing structural connections between dissimilar metals, attention must be paid to galvanic reaction. If hardened-steel parts such as self-drilling screws are used for the connection, HASCC is also a possibility. Selectivelyhardened fasteners with corrosion-preventative coating can avoid these dangers and protect the integrity of the structure. In exterior applications or aggressive interior environments, bi-metallic or super alloy fasteners are recommended.

Detail showing the two part clip assemblies, attached to the backing wall with a 5/8-inch wedgebolt (F1), and connected with -inch selectively-hardened self-drilling screws (F2). Courtesy of CDC Curtainwall Design Consulting, Inc.

STRUCTURE magazine

16

February 2011

We engineered the frame, so you don't have to.

With the Strong Frame ordinary moment frame, you can create wall openings that span up to 20 feet wide and 19 feet tall. In fact, there are 368 pre-engineered steel frame congurations to choose from as well as custom sizes. So whether youre working on a custom home on the lake, retro tting a multi-story building or creating an open oor plan, Simpson Strong-Tie has the frame, which means all you need to do is choose. For additional information, call (800) 999-5099 or visit www.strongtie.com/strongframe.

2011

Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. SF11-E

Structural teSting
issues and advances related to structural testing
An overall view of the IBHS Research Facility. Courtesy of IBHS.

Putting Mother Nature in a Box

By John Lyons, P.E., S.E., and Jason Meadows, P.E.

John Lyons, P.E., S.E. served as project manager for the IBHS Research Facility. He is president and owner of Structural-Evolution in Peachtree City, GA. John may be reached at jlyons@structural-evolution.com. Jason Meadows, P.E. served as project engineer for the IBHS Research Facility. He is a member of the Atlanta office of Walter P Moore. Jason may be reached at JMeadows@walterpmoore.com.

n August of 1992, Hurricane Andrew made landfall in southern Florida. Andrew came on shore with torrential rain accompanied by 145 mph sustained winds with 170 mph gusts, which was measured before the equipment was rendered inoperable by the ever increasing winds. Andrew was the third costliest tropical system to impact the United States, with damages estimated near $26 billion and 23 storm-related deaths. What if we had a way to reduce the cost or prevent loss of life from catastrophic events? What if we could put Mother Nature in a box to more accurately study the effects of wind and wind-driven rain? That is exactly what the Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS) has done in Richburg, South Carolina. The IBHS Research Facility the only one of its kind will significantly advance building science by enabling researchers to more fully and accurately evaluate various residential and commercial construction materials and systems. It is designed to attack full-scale test structures with the winds and rains of

hurricanes, the pounding hail of severe thunderstorms, or wind-driven fire embers. Privately funded by a consortium of insurance companies, this $40 million facility will produce new building standards for construction practices, and test current and future materials against the worst Mother Nature has to offer. Real-world application of IBHS research findings will lead to more sustainable, durable communities and will provide a foundation for development of solid public policy, such as improved building codes.

The Research Facility as a Whole

The IBHS Research Facility is a complex of 6 buildings. At nearly 42,000 square feet, the main structure includes an observation area, a test chamber, and a fan array that pumps air through a flow contraction area before it enters the test chamber. There is an 11,000-square-foot office and conference building which has offices for the staff and classrooms for presentations. The remainder of the campus consists of four pre-engineered metal buildings used to facilitate mechanical and electrical equipment, test-specimen

Sketch-up view of a test specimen in the test chamber. Courtesy of Odell Associates, by Tommy Dew, Jr.

18 February 2011

construction, and weathering of the test specimens where the shingles may be heated to approximate the condition of weathered roofing. The specimen (i.e., a two-story house) is moved throughout the facility on a custom designed motorized house moving system. There are four key engineered components of the IBHS Research Facility that are used to facilitate these studies: the fan array and flow contraction area, test chamber, turntable, and fire protection systems.

Fan Array and Flow Contraction Area

The fan array and flow contraction area provides support for the 105 electric fans on one end and funnels the air through 15 tubes towards a smaller area on the other end, which increases the velocity of the moving air and promotes uniformity of the flow exiting each tube. The structures supporting the fan array and the contraction area are structurally independent from the main building and are constructed of precast concrete. Precast offered a durable substrate on which the fans could be mounted. Its mass also mitigates vibration introduced into the structure from

An overall view of the IBHS Test chamber and office building. Courtesy WALTER P MOORE.

the operation of the fans. Typical slabs and walls are made of 8-inch-thick precast panels. Stability along the axis of the chamber is provided by load-bearing walls, and stability transverse to the axis is provided by external 1-foot-thick precast buttress walls. The walls and slabs of the reduction chamber were given a smooth finish to reduce the turbulence in the air flow. Careful attention was given to the accommodation of the 16-blade, 5-foot diameter fans. These fans, in conjunction with the reduction chamber, are capable of producing winds equivalent to Category 3
ADVERTISEMENT For Advertiser Information, visit www.structuremag.org

hurricane strength over land. The superstructure of the fan array is designed to support large 8,000-pound thrust from each fan, as well as the overall maximum thrust of 400 kips from the entire fan array. The fans also weigh upwards of 9,000 pounds each, which require the fan array to be supported on a large mat foundation. In front of the fans is a 400-foot diameter clear zone that is kept free from debris and obstructions. Air entering the fans comes from this zone. Wire mesh screens across the fan intake prevents foreign objects from being drawn into the fan. A 20-foot-high earthen

STRUCTURE magazine

19

February 2011

berm planted with pine trees is just outside this clear zone and serves to absorb sound waves from the fan array which might otherwise be objectionable to surrounding residents.

Test Chamber
The 21,000-square-foot chamber houses the test specimen and must withstand an internal wind pressure of 30 psf due to the force of wind moving through the chamber. A 60-foot clear height is maintained throughout the chamber. The walls and steel framing members are designed to withstand impact loads which could be caused by airborne debris separating from the test specimen. The outlet wall consists of 6-inch-thick reinforced concrete precast panels that are capable of resisting the impact of a 15-pound 2x4 traveling at 100 mph. The roof structure consists of 10-foot-deep structural steel wide flange roof trusses supporting wide flange purlins and metal deck. The roof framing and trusses are designed and braced to perform in uplift conditions when the chamber is pressurized during a test. The roof deck is fastened with self tapping screws, which provide superior resistance to uplift. All steel members within the test chamber are galvanized to guard against corrosion, as the chamber will often be subjected to rain-tests. Due to the galvanization process, all members have fieldbolted connections. The side walls of the test chamber are also precast concrete due to the required impact resistance.

The aluminum deluge truss rig being assembled on the test chamber floor just above the turntable. Courtesy WALTER P MOORE.

Turntable
A 55-foot-diameter custom-built turntable is used to allow the building specimen to be rotated at different angles relative to the air stream. The turntable has a 6-inch-thick concrete slab surface which is used to secure the specimen during testing, and is designed for gravity loads, as well as for shear and overturning loads due to the force of the wind acting on the specimen. Three building designs were assumed in the analysis so that the loads could be enveloped for the turntable design: a two-story framed house, a small brick veneer commercial building, and a typical prefabricated metal building.

raised during a test so it does not interfere with the air flow. Lighting Production Equipment and Walter P Moore designed a 20-inch by 20-inch, 55-foot by 63-foot aluminum rigging grid which supports the sprinkler system piping, and a system of 4,000 pound hoist motors is used to raise and lower the rigging grid. A system of elbow joints and swivel bearings allows the rigid 8-inch-diameter supply piping to remain attached in any position. In addition, four remotely controlled water cannons are strategically placed around the chamber. The fire protection system is fed by a 750,000-gallon water tank which was constructed on the facility (650,000 gallons is allocated for fire suppression through the deluge and sprinkler systems, while the remaining 100,000 gallons is used for rain production, the water cannons and a water curtain at the outlet that is used to quench embers blowing out of the test chamber).

Moving Forward
Although the design and construction of this $40 million research facility presented many engineering challenges, the engineers and architects were more excited about the larger purpose of the facility. In the same manner in which automobile crash tests improved the safety of vehicles, this research facility promises to give building designers an unparalleled opportunity to learn and to improve the safety and performance of our built environment. The IBHS Research Facility will, without a doubt, lead to more sustainable and durable structures for future generations. It will provide the research needed to improve future building codes. The researchers at the IBHS Research Facility will begin their experiments in early 2011.

Project Team
Owner: Institute for Business and Home Safety, Tampa, FL Structural Engineer: Walter P Moore, Atlanta, GA Design Architect: Odell Associates Inc., Charlotte, NC MEP Engineer: United Engineering Group, Charlotte, NC Civil Engineer: BP Barber, Charlotte, NC Precast Supplier: Metromont, Greenville, SC Contractor: Holder Construction Company, Atlanta, GA Macton: Oxford, CT Lighting Production Equipment: Atlanta, GA

Fire Protection
In addition to a dry pipe sprinkler system at the roof of the test chamber, a deluge sprinkler system guards against a possible fire in one of the test specimens installed on the turntable. The system needed to be positioned within 15 feet of the test specimen roof, but must be

STRUCTURE magazine

20

February 2011

TESTED TO MEET

IBC

2009

The cure for the uncommon cold.

Looking for a fast cure? The new AT-XP Acrylic-Tie anchoring adhesive by Simpson Strong-Tie Anchor Systems is specially formulated for fast curing, even in below-freezing temperatures, and has the easiest hole cleaning requirements on the market. As a high-strength anchoring solution, AT-XP adhesive provides optimum performance anchoring threaded rod and dowels in uncracked concrete. And it provides excellent performance in temperatures as low as 14 F (-10 C). AT-XP adhesive has been rigorously tested in accordance with ICC-ES AC308 and IBC 2009 requirements for uncracked concrete. For more information, call (800) 999-5099 or visit www.simpsonanchors.com.

2011 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. ATXP11

AVAILABLE SOON

IN THE SPECS ON THE JOB AT YOUR SERVICE

Product Watch
updates on emerging technologies, products and services

n preparation for inclusion by reference in the 2012 International Building Code (IBC), the Steel Joist Institute (SJI) has completed the 43rd Edition of the Open Web Steel Joist and Joist Girder Specifications, as well as the Code of Standard Practice. This edition includes significant changes and improvements. The 40 balloted revisions encompass previously unpublished design checks and assumptions, better use of mandatory code language, and reorganization of certain sections for better clarity. But most important, the changes are all aimed at making SJI products safer, easier to use and more economical. This article highlights significant changes for the Specifying Design Professional.

rows have been added to the K-Series Load Table to provide greater clarity as to the load carrying capacity of joists with a span to depth ratio of less than 12.

Span versus Clearspan

In communication between the Specifying Design Professionals and the SJI Member companies, it has become apparent that the current LH and DLH tables can be confusing when determining a uniform load from the load table based on the clearspan. The K-Series Standard Load Tables are based on span and many users have assumed the LH and DLH Standard Load Tables also use span instead of clearspan. The resulting LH and DLH joist selection based on span rather than clearspan would be conservative, but may not lead to the most efficient joist selection. Consequently, all four Longspan Joist Standard Load Tables (LH and DLH Series in both ASD and LRFD) have been made simpler to use and more consistent with the K-Series Standard Load Tables by incorporating span instead of the clearspan terminology. Previously for joists with spans within or less than the Safe Load range, interpretation of several footnotes was required to establish the uniform load capacity. The revised Standard Load Tables simplify the use of joists in the Safe Load range because the Safe Load can simply be divided by span, and for spans less than the minimum Safe Load length, a new column provides the maximum safe uniform load value. The Clearspan terminology is inconsistent with other top chord length criteria used in the specifications, such as camber and erection stability bridging. So the use of a common term span will greatly simplify the specification.

Longer Spans and Load Table Revisions

New Horizons in Open Web Steel Joists and Joist Girders

Longer Spans, Less Bridging and Better End Anchorage
By Tim Holtermann, P.E., S.E., Mark Godfrey, P.E., and Bruce F. Brothersen, P.E.

Timothy J. Holtermann, P.E., S.E. is the Corporate Engineering Manager for Canam Steel Corporation and is based in Washington, MO. He is also the chair of the Steel Joist Institute Engineering Practice Committee. He can be reached at tim.holtermann@canam.ws. Mark Godfrey, P.E. is the Engineering Manager for Quincy Joist Company in Quincy, FL, and is a member of both the SJI Engineering Practice Committee and Education Committee. He can be reached at mark.godfrey@quincyjoist.com. Bruce F. Brothersen, P.E. is the Engineering Manager at Vulcraft-Utah, in Brigham City, UT, and is Chairman of the SJI education committee. He may be reached at bbrothersen@vulcraft-ut.com.

A substantial expansion to the deep Longspan DLHSeries Load Tables increases the maximum span length for these SJI joists. The new longest length is 240 feet almost a 100-foot increase from the previous maximum length of 144 feet. To accommodate the longer spans, the maximum joist depth has been increased from 72 inches to 120 inches. The chord number, which is the final two digits of an LH/DLH-Series joist designation, is simply a relative indicator and a reference to a particular row in the Load Tables. The increased range of the DLH-Series Load Tables has led to the use of chord numbers up to 25, where the previous limit was 19. Also, because of the tremendous range of the DLH-Series joists, it becomes impractical to list every one foot increment of span in the Load Table. For the larger chord numbers, depths and spans, the increment between Load Table columns increases to 3 feet, and then 5 feet. Linear interpolation can be used for spans between the given columns. In addition to the expansion of the DLHSeries Load Tables, a number of other less substantial Load Table revisions have been made. For K-Series, the 8K1 designation has been dropped, because typically either a joist substitute can be used or there is sufficient headroom clearance to allow the use of a 10K1. The joist substitute tables have been revised, extending their range from a maximum span of 8 feet to a new maximum span of 10 feet. A few

JOIST END REACTION LOCATED AS SHOWN

22 February 2011

SEAT HEIGHT

Anchorage
The Steel Joist Institute Specification includes an introduction to each joist series. For the K-Series, the statement is made that standard K-Series joists have a 2 inch end bearing depth. This implies that other depths may not be available or that, if the seat is deeper, the entire joist would no longer be standard, which is not the case. Likewise, the introduction for the LH and DLH Series states that the bearing seat depth has been established at 5 inches or 7 inches depending on the chord number of the joist. Although the Accessories and Details section of the catalog shows seat depths for sloped joists that are greater than the established standards, there are other conditions where the use of deeper seats may be more appropriate and necessary. In some cases, the standard bearing depths can be problematic and a deeper seat is the best solution. For example, on perimeter beams or supporting members with unbalanced tributary loading, the Specifying Design Professional may wish to move the reaction point, for a K-Series joist, to the center of the support to minimize eccentric loading. When Insulating Form Concrete walls are used, the outside of the form may need to be notched to allow for joist end web

clearance, or the inside face of the form to be tapered to allow the steel embed plate to fall no farther than inch from the face of the wall. Perhaps for K-series joists bearing on the top of masonry walls, the Specifying Design Professional may wish to move the reaction point of the joist closer to the center of the wall to minimize the opportunity for spalling of the concrete at the edge of the embed plate. The new specification clarifies that seat depths greater than 2 inches, for K-Series joists, are readily available. An exception is created in the K-Series, LH and DLH Series specifications allowing the Specifying Design Professional to locate the bearing plate more than -inch from the face of the wall, provided that the condition is clearly noted on the contract drawings and the bearing seat depth is sufficient. Specifically, the Specifying Design Professional needs to note the required location of the joist end reaction over the wall. To deliver the end reaction to the desired location, the joist manufacturer needs to provide sufficient bearing seat depth. The specifications state if the joist reaction is to occur more than 2 inches from the face of the wall, the minimum seat depth shall be 2 inches plus a dimension equal to the distance the joist reaction is to occur beyond 2 inches.
ADVERTISEMENT For Advertiser Information, visit www.structuremag.org

Bridging
Joist bridging plays a key role in the stability and load carrying capacity of the joists. During the construction and erection phase of a project, the bridging stabilizes the joist for construction loads prior to the top chord having full lateral support from the steel deck. After construction and during the life of the structure, bridging stabilizes unsupported joist components for the design loads. Consequently, bridging is not directly designed for the external loads applied to the joists. Joists are designed to be strong in plane or the direction perpendicular to the applied loads. In the out of plane direction, joists are weaker and need bridging to keep them properly stabilized and aligned so that they can resist the in plane loads. Factors that determine the type and number of rows of bridging not only include construction loads but also span, depth and member component sizes. Bridging consists of horizontal and diagonal angle members connecting to the joist top and bottom chords. Common types of bridging are Horizontal Bridging, Welded Cross Bridging, Bolted Cross Bridging, Bolted Erection Stability Cross Bridging (EX) and Uplift Bridging. continued on next page

GT STRUDL
Structural Analysis & Design Software

New R ele Versio ase n 31

Base Plate Module

Multi-Processor Solvers
Standalone static analysis solvers take advantage of multi-core processors and the large address space available on Windows7 64 Bit operating systems.

Performance Examples
Linear Static Analysis: 55,000 Joints; 330,000 DOFs 54 Loading Conditions Solution Time (32 bit) 286 Seconds Solution Time w/2 Processors (64 bit) 36 Seconds Nonlinear Static Analysis: (13th Edition AISC Direct Analysis Method) 2,500 Joints; 15,000 DOFs 88 Loading Conditions Solution Time (32 bit) 123 Seconds

The Best Choice for Infrastructure & Nuclear

STRUCTURE magazine

Georgia Tech - CASE Center Phone: 404-894-2260 Email: casec@ce.gatech.edu www.gtstrudl.gatech.edu

23

February 2011

A number of variables were revisited to come up with the modifications to the way the 43rd SJI Specification addresses bridging requirements. In order to make the bridging revisions in the specification, the construction loads were reviewed. Construction loads are not proportional to span and are independent of joist series (K and LH). Also, the stresses in the top chord vary with joist depth. Consequently, some revisions to the specification were made to better match the needs of the joist but not to over design the bridging, which may cause undo expense to the project. Also, the bridging tables in the 43rd SJI Specification have been expanded for longer length joists. These changes resulted in new tables for all joist types. In the past, the bridging requirement may have seemed quite arbitrary and tabulated values were shown with little or no explanation as to how these values were determined. The 43rd SJI Specification includes some simple information, which explains design criteria and equations (K series specification section 5.4(d)) to determine a force (Pbr) for which the bridging should be designed. Also, the role of bridging anchorage is included. Rows of bridging must be anchored or terminated at a rigid support to function properly, which is addressed in more detail than before. Additionally, the cumulative effect of the number of joist spaces is included in the equations to determine the bridging force. Consequently, the new bridging tables include this force (Pbr) for different standard sizes of joists. As a result of the revisions to bridging provisions in the 43rd SJI Specification, some joists will have fewer rows of bridging. In all cases, the bridging will be more exact in it usage.
COSP New Bridging Table 2.7-1c

Conclusion
The 43 Edition of the SJI specification contains many revisions. It is the culmination of years of research and a concerted effort to simplify the use of open web steel joist products. This article has highlighted just a few of the changes. In 2011, the SJI will be conducting Webinars to explain the changes in more detail. Visit the SJI website at www.steeljoist.org to learn more about new publications and educational opportunities.
rd

MAXIMUM BRIDGING FORCE (Pbr) FOR HORIZONTAL BRIDGING (lbs) Joist Spacing (Ft.) 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 Bridging Angle Size (Equal Leg Angle) 1 x 7/64 r = 0.20 2150 1370 950 700 530 420 340 1 x 7/64 r = 0.25 3960 2730 1890 1390 1060 840 680 560 470 1 x7/64 r = 0.30 5600 4410 3290 2420 1850 1460 1180 980 820 700 600 520 5910 4850 3840 2960 2340 1890 1560 1310 1120 960 840 740 650 6180 5030 4000 3240 2670 2250 1910 1650 1440 1260 1120 1000 890 810 5490 4680 4030 3510 3090 2740 2440 2190 1970 1790 1630 1490 1370 5680 5060 4540 4100 3720 3390 3100 2850 1 x 7/64 r = 0.35 2x r = 0.40 2 x 5/32 r = 0.50 3 x 3/16 r = 0.60

STRUCTURE magazine

24

February 2011

For demand critical welds, the right product is crucial.

ESAB Seismic Certified filler metals deliver the strength you need for structural fabrication. With products such as Atom Arc, Dual Shield, Coreshield, and Spoolarc, ESAB Seismic Certified filler

metals meet AWS D designator requirements, and are excellent options for when FEMA 353, D1.1, or D1.8 is utilized. Plus, our experts will help you determine the best solution for your application. Get started today. Visit esabna.com/seismic for a brochure, and well even send you a free do-rag.

ESAB Welding & Cutting Products / esabna.com / 1.800.ESAB. 123

Atop the completed building, the 747 awaits the installation of water slides which will exit the fuselage and drop sixty feet into the waterparks interior pools. Courtesy of Jeffrey Diephuis.

By Jeffrey Diephuis, P.E.

he newest building on the Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum campus in McMinnville, Oregon, inspires amazement. It appears as though a massive 747 aircraft is sitting on top of the structure and, indeed, it is. This surprising sight sets a precedent in structural engineering, as never before has anyone placed a plane so large on the roof of an erected building. On a campus known for the Howard Hughes HK-1 flying boat (commonly known as the Spruce Goose) and a Titan II rocket, this milestone project is fitting. Visitors who come to marvel at the HK-1s vast size or the Titan IIs enormous length in the adjacent buildings will soon be able to splash down from the 747 plane atop the new Wings & Waves Waterpark building as well. Stairs will lead guests into the rooftop attraction where water slides will spill from the aircrafts fuselage and into the buildings wave pool 62 feet below. Group Mackenzie of Portland, Oregon, provided the architectural and structural engineering design for the building, working in a design-build collaboration with Hoffman Construction Company.

Taking Off
Positioning the recently decommissioned 747-100 cargo plane on the constructed building required a carefully engineered solution. Despite the fact that they take to the skies daily, 747s are enormously heavy and lifting one requires exceptional effort. Completing the lift meant raising the 269,000-pound plane 55 feet into the air and transporting it 165 feet to perch atop the building frame. The construction team considered a myriad of variables including weight distribution, balance, wind speed, crane travel speed, and clearances between the crane, plane, and building. Without access to a mobile crane that had the capacity to lift the airplane and reach over the completed building structure, the construction team had to devise a scheme for placing the 747 on the partially completed building. The resulting plan required one-third of the roof structure and the second floor mezzanine to be left unconstructed in order to provide a slot in the structure for crane access to the planes final location. Hoffman, along with their steel erection subcontractor Carr Construction of Portland, Oregon, asked Portlands KPFF Consulting Engineers to assess the planes stability throughout the lifts phases. KPFF was also charged with bracing the incomplete structure to carry the STRUCTURE magazine

aircrafts weight and resist added wind and seismic loads from the 747 while the structure was completed. KPFF and Hoffman collaborated with Carr Construction and Campbell Crane to identify the best solution balancing the needs of the project schedule, construction sequence and cost. The team launched a 3-D modeling effort, which allowed them to virtually experience every step of the complex lift, move and landing, with accurately modeled building, crane and plane elements. The first task in preparing for the lift was to determine the needed bracing for the incomplete building and accommodate construction sequencing. In addition to typical erection bracing, two temporary steel braced frames were added to resist wind and seismic loads on the building and airplane. The engineers designed the frames to resist 120kips of lateral force each. Each frame consisted of W8 wide-flange braces which connected to the buildings concrete column and tubulartruss gravity framing system. After erecting the remaining building structure and completing the lateral system, the construction team removed the temporary frames from the structure. The lifting procedure involved two cranes; however, the project marks the first time an aircraft of this size has been lifted with one principal crane. A Manitowoc 2250 with MAX-ER served as the primary crane, while a Leibherr LTM 1400 with luffing jib positioned over the nose served to control the planes orientation and

The 747 was lifted approximately 6 feet off the ground during the test pick. Courtesy of Jeffrey Diephuis.

26

February 2011

The plane approaches its maximum height on lift day. Courtesy of Evergreen International.

guide the nose to its rooftop support point. KPFF programmers customized a commercial crane-modeling program, and incorporated it into a 3-D computer model including the building framing and the plane. The innovative model allowed the team to track the movements of the plane and cranes throughout the lift and travel sequence. This model played an instrumental role in ensuring that the lift plan maintained adequate clearances between the plane and the cranes booms and building structure during transport. In planning the lift, the team established a clearance safe zone for the lifting/travel sequence. After initial model runs, the construction team was not comfortable with how close the body of the plane came to the boom. The team took advantage of the models flexibility to explore various other equipment configurations for the lift. By varying the angle and length of each cranes boom and the angle of the plane to the travel path, the clearances between the plane, cranes and building were maximized. The team also removed wing flaps from the plane itself to increase the safety margin. Demonstrating this result before the actual lift would not have been possible without the 3-D model. continued on next page STRUCTURE magazine

ADVERTISEMENT For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

27

February 2011

The plane in its final position on the roof of the partially completed structure. Courtesy of Jeffrey Diephuis.

The sophisticated 3-D model was intended for planning purposes, but the team also used the results in presentations to the owner, insuring agencies and stakeholders to show that the lift and placement could be completed effectively. Dave Garske, project manager at Hoffman, says the model was also a resource for addressing issues in the contractors detailed preengineering erection plan. We wanted the teams responses to dozens of questions including design questions regarding what wed do if the crane did not perform as expected, physical questions like what if a crane operator became ill, or environmental questions like what if the wind speed was higher than design limitations? These types of what if questions were critical on this project in particular, as this type of lift had never been done. By using the model, there was no second guessing on the day of the event.

Achieving Cruising Altitude

When the plane reached the site, the team removed its four 12,500pound engines and replaced them with a light skeletal structure to support the engine cowlings, bringing the planes weight to 269,370 pounds. Determining the center of gravity and subsequent loads for each crane required an extensive engineering effort. Calculations revealed that engineers needed to add ballast in the nose to provide the two-crane lift with an adequate factor of safety against tipping on its tail when raised. The team loaded eight water tanks providing 23,260 pounds of ballast, which increased the total weight to 292,630 pounds. The lift required 31,135 pounds of rigging resulting in a total hook load of 323,765 pounds. During the hoist, the Manitowoc 2250 bore 294,390 pounds while the secondary crane carried the remaining 29,375 pounds.

Positioned on the port side of the aircraft, the Manitowoc lifted the plane using a custom-designed and fabricated 38-foot long, 18,000pound spreader. This bar was positioned over the wing and attached through the wing to the wing landing gear structure on each side. The secondary Liebherr crane used a standard spreader bar that attached to a Boeing recovery sling, which cradled the fuselage of the aircraft. These planes are so rarely lifted from above that only seven sets of 747 recovery equipment exist, and these are positioned around the world for rapid deployment in emergency and salvage operations. One variable remained: even aviation experts and engineers could not fully predict how a static plane would react when suspended, so the team executed a test pick. They lifted the aircraft approximately 6 feet off the ground on a day with 10- to 15-mph winds. The test helped validate the center of gravity determined by calculation and reconfirm the actual crane loads. It also showed that the wind resulted in an unacceptable amount of sway. The plane did what it was designed to do; it reacted to the air currents and wanted to fly, explains Garske. The team multiplied surface area by wind pressure to approximate the force required to resist the influence of the wind on the planes position. The result was an estimated 1,100 pounds of force. What remained unknown was whether two men on a tag line could resist this influence and adequately control the position of the plane from the ground. Garske continued, We did another test pick the following day and were able to absolutely confirm that two men on a tag line could control the planes movement. That gave us a level of confidence.

Touching Down
In May 2010, the team raised the plane, transported the massive shell 165 feet and lowered the aircraft into the nose gear cradle first. Then they eased the rest of the plane into wing and fuselage gear cradles, designed by Group Mackenzie in consultation with Boeing engineers. After the team successfully landed the 747-100 on top of the waterpark building, crews bolted it into place and performed the welds to permanently secure the aircraft at its five landing gear positions. Only then did the huge Campbell Cranes release it completely. Over the following weeks, the contractor erected the remaining roof and mezzanine structure around the aircraft. Evergreen officials plan to open the $25 million waterpark in mid-2011. Jeffrey Diephuis, P.E. is a project manager at KPFF Consulting Engineers Portland office. He may be contacted at Jeff.Diephuis@kpff.com.

Plan view of the lift model showing the partially completed structure, the plane and each crane part way down the travel path. Courtesy of KPFF Consulting Engineers.

STRUCTURE magazine

28

February 2011

1.26: From Tsunami to Abstract Net Form

By Shane McCormick, P.E., S.E., Charles Keyes, P.E., S.E., and Peter Heppel

monumental net sculpture was installed in Denver July, 2010, as a featured element of the Denver Biennial of the Americas. The sculpture, 85x63 feet in plan and 30 feet deep, was suspended 93 feet above the ground from a 203-foot long planer mesh tensioned between the Denver Civic Park Greek Theater and Denver Art Museum (Figure 1). In generating the sculpture form, artist Janet Echelman drew inspiration from a map illustrating the effects of the February 2010 Chilean earthquake and its ensuing tsunami. The sculpture, fabricated of advanced lightweight materials, required the use of sophisticated non-linear structural analysis methods to accurately predict internal forces and deformations. The Biennial was a month-long event celebrating the culture of the western hemisphere. The event included music performances, roundtable discussions, public lectures, and art exhibits. Attendees included current ambassadors, national cabinet secretaries, and former presidents. As part of the event, the Denver Office of Cultural Affairs commissioned Massachusetts-based artist Janet Echelman to design a temporary sculpture to be displayed in the southwest corner of Denver Civic Park. The sculpture would be the largest and most visible artwork of the Biennial. Echelman is known for designing monumental public net sculptures animated by wind. Suspended in the air, the sculptures are made of modern lightweight fiber materials and illuminated at night. Recent work includes Her Secret is Patience, the new 145-foot tall civic icon in Phoenix Civic Space Park, and Water Sky Garden, a 75,000-squarefoot immersive art environment with two net sculptures located at the Richmond Olympic Oval, the official venue for the speed-skating events of the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Winter Games.

Figure 1: Artists initial sketch showing the sculpture suspended between the Denver Art Museum and Greek Theatre, located in Civic Park. Courtesy of Janet Echelman, Inc.

Sculpture Design
Echelmans primary goal for the Denver sculpture was to represent natural phenomena linking the 35 countries of the western hemisphere. Additional goals included visually connecting the Denver Art

Museum with a recently restored 1920s Greek Theatre in Civic Park, and creating a quickly deployable (and demountable) piece. She was further challenged to meet an extremely tight schedule: only four months separated artist selection and sculpture installation. In February 2010, an earthquake, measuring 8.8 on the Richter scale, struck Chile. The event, which lasted over 90 seconds, had an epicenter 71 miles north of Concepcin, Chiles second largest city. Many buildings collapsed and 486 people perished. During the event, rapid movement of the ocean floor generated a tsunami that affected the eastern half of the Pacific Ocean. Scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) used data from a network of specialized ocean buoys to generate a map illustrating increased wave amplitude resulting from the earthquake (Figure 2). Amplitude increased over four feet near Chile and one foot over 2000 miles west of the coast. This map served as the initial form generator for the sculpture. Scientists calculated that the event shortened the length of the day by 1.26 microseconds, a figure which became the title of the piece. The earthquake, resulting from tectonic plate movement, redistributed mass closer to the Earths core. To satisfy the law of conservation of angular momentum, the Earths rotational speed increased, similar to what happens when a spinning ice skater pulls her arms closer to her body. Echelmans studio created the net form using proprietary computer software. An outline, created by isolating the area from the NOAA map most affected by the tsunami, was extruded downward, cinched at the center, and subjected to gravity forces. The studio divided the resulting form into differently colored horizontal bands that correlated to wave amplitude.

Suspending the Sculpture

The net form was suspended from an inclined tensioned planer mesh extending from the North Wing of the Denver Art Museum to the ground in front of the Greek Theatre. The mesh consisted of twine spaced at 1 inches on center in each direction. Boundary ropes, 716-inch in diameter, were at the mesh edges, and 716-inch diameter

Figure 2: Map of wave amplitude increase caused by the 2010 Chilean earthquake. Courtesy of NOAA.

STRUCTURE magazine

30

February 2011

stay ropes connected to three points at each end of the mesh. The North Wing of the Denver Art Museum, designed by Italian architect Gio Ponti and completed in 1971, is an abstract castle form with artistically arranged slots and rectangular openings. Perimeter walls are 10-inch reinforced concrete and extend as much as 25 feet above the roof. Three openings in these walls above the 6th floor roof, 110 feet above grade, were used as anchor locations for the planer mesh stay ropes. Twelve-inch deep channels placed across the inside face of each opening were attached to the walls with concrete screw anchors. Stay ropes connected to D-rings, which were welded to the outside face of the channels. At the base of the Greek Theatre, the contractor installed three inclined Manta Ray 2 ground anchors. These anchors are often used to support telephone pole stays and earth retaining systems. The anchors consist of a straight rod with an end plate that rotates perpendicular to the rod during installation, to permanently bear against the soil. Anchors are tensioned in place to confirm assumed design capacities. The mesh, boundary ropes, and stay ropes consisted of Spectra fiber, a lightweight polyethylene material manufactured by Honeywell that has a strength-to-weight ratio seven times that of steel cable. The planer mesh was tensioned to limit vertical and horizontal deflections, with each mesh twine stressed to 5 pounds, and the boundary and edge stay ropes stressed to 3,000 pounds. The tensioned planer mesh is similar to the form of a spider web (Figure 3). Both have a central area with closely spaced lines, edge lines to collect force from the interior, and primary lines anchored to adjacent structures. Both resist lateral forces by significantly deformed geometric forms. The inclined mesh and suspended net were assembled using traditional net and braid detailing commonly used in fishing nets. Steel IES-Feb-Half-Pg-4C.pdf 1 12/27/2010 2:03:08of PM knots, loops, and splices. linking plates were eschewed in favor

Figure 3: A spider web, similar in form to the included tensioned mesh used to support the net sculpture. Courtesy of David Kleinert Photography.

The artist has, in the past, supported sculptures using inclined masts and suspended steel armatures. This is the first installation with a tensioned mesh, a structure with much less visual mass, allowing the sculpture to appear to float in space.

Structural Analysis
The sculpture was designed according to IBC 2006 and assigned to occupancy category I, commonly used for temporary facilities that, in the event of failure, present a low hazard to human life. The design pressure was 15 psf, calculated using a wind speed of 90 miles per hour and a density reduction factor of 15%. continued on next page

ADVERTISEMENT For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

CM

MY

CY

CMY

STRUCTURE magazine

31

February 2011

Peter Heppel Associates (PHA), specialists in aerodynamics and lightweight structures, completed structural analysis using proprietary non-linear software. The shape of the tensioned mesh was developed using form finding techniques (Figure 4). Form finding is a process involving iterative analytical methods (or physical models) to determine a deformed shape in equilibrium with externally applied forces. The process is often used when structures have minimal bending stiffness and resist load primarily by internal axial forces. Loading on the net and tensioned mesh was estimated assuming that straight segments and knots had the classical aerodynamic properties of yawed cylinders and spheres, accounting for the appropriate Reynolds number. The drag coefficient varied based on wind direction, but was typically about 0.95. Dynamic effects were generally ignored wind pushes nets downstream, aligns elements, and reduces projected area. Fluttering, usually exhibited by fabric elements such as flags, does not typically occur due to nets high aerodynamic damping properties. The calculated lateral deflection of the tensioned mesh under design wind load was two feet. The calculated lateral deflection of the net itself was ten feet.

Installation
JunoWorks, a Denver-based fabrication studio specializing in art and architectural metal works, installed the sculpture. JunoWorks first attached the stays to the Art Museum with a crane, and then lifted the tensioned mesh and net sculpture over trees and other obstacles using tall man lifts. Chains were attached to the ends of the stays to allow adjustment for tolerance and relocation of ground anchors due to conflicts with in-place utilities and trees. JunoWorks tensioned the chains with ratchet winches and monitored forces with in-line load cells. Construction lasted about a week, with the installation of the tensioned mesh and sculpture taking a single day.

Figure 5: The sculpture illuminated at night, a fitting memorial to the 2010 Chilean earthquake. Courtesy of Janet Echelman, Inc.

From Diaster to an International Bond

Echelmans 1.26 is a unique fusion of traditional net technology, advanced modern materials, and refined aesthetics (Figure 5). Representing wave patterns that affected the entire Western Hemisphere, it is a fitting memorial of the earthquake that struck Chile February 2010 and how that event joined 35 countries as one. The City of Denver currently plans to reinstall the sculpture during future Biennial Events. Shane McCormick, P.E., S.E., is Senior Professional Engineer with Martin/Martin Consulting Engineers. He may be reached at smccormick@martinmartin.com. Charles Keyes, P.E., S.E., is Principal with Martin/Martin Consulting Engineers and a specialist in structural engineering of monumental sculptures. He may be reached at ckeyes@martinmartin.com. Peter Heppel is Principal with Peter Heppel Associates and a specialist in aerodynamics and design of lightweight structures. He may be reached at peter@peterheppel.com.

Project Team
Engineer of Record: Net Design Engineer: General Contractor: Sponsoring Agency: Architect of Record: Lighting Designer: Artist: STRUCTURE magazine Martin/Martin Consulting Engineers Peter Heppel Associates JunoWorks Denver Office of Cultural Affairs Fuse Studio Architects Richter Scale Productions Janet Echelman, Inc.

Figure 4: Inclined tensioned mesh form.

32

February 2011

Bridging Your Innovations to Realities

Bridges & Civil Structures

Nonlinear Analysis
Dynamic nonlinear dampers and base isolators Pushover analysis Material nonlinear analysis (including Masonry) Inelastic time history analysis Fiber material model Integral bridge analysis

Integrated design software for

Moving Load Optimizer

AASHTO LRFD, CAN/CSA-S6 BD37, BS5400, Eurocode 1, IRC:6 Chinese / Japanese / Korean Standards Abnormal Indivisible Load / Permit Load Transverse Analysis Model Wizard Influence Line & Surface

Construction Stage Analysis

Creep, shrinkage and modulus of elasticity (CEB-FIP, Eurocode 2, IRC:18, ACI, AASHTO, PCA, User-Defined) Prestress losses in tendons 3D Internal / External tendons Automatic calculation of effective width Staged segmental post-tensioning wizards for - Balanced cantilever construction - Span by span construction - Incrementally launched construction Composite section analysis reflecting deck construction stages Suspension bridge analysis - Initial configuration analysis (self-anchored/earth-anchored) - Backward stage analysis reflecting large displacements Cable-stayed bridge analysis - Cable forces optimized through Unknown Load Factors - Forward/Backward stage analysis reflecting large displacements - Cable fitting forces by Lack-of-Fit-Force - Cable tuning

Design
Frame design: - AASHTO LRFD, CAN/CSA-S6, Eurocode 2 - IRC:21, TB 10002 3-05, JTG D62-04 - TWN-BRG-LSD/ASD Bridge load rating: AASHTO LRFR Post-tensioned box girder design: ASSHTO LRFD, Eurocode 2 Composite plate girder design: Eurocode 4 Tendon stress limit check

5 Penn Plaza, 23rd Fl., New York, NY 10001 +1-212-835-1666 midasoft@MidasUser.com

www.MidasUser.com
for a free trial version & more...

ICC and NCSEA Partners in Building Safety

Introducing the NCSEA Afliate Bookstore
As part of ICCs continued partnership with NCSEA, and in appreciation for your shared commitment to building safety, we are happy to offer 1020% off the list price on select codes, standards, and structural references. These items will assist you with the important life-saving work you do every day.

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS: IN THEORY AND PRACTICE

Author: Alan Williams, Ph.D., S.E., C. Eng. A comprehensive reference lled with equations, calculations, and modeling instructions. It covers classic methods of analysis and recent advances in computer applications. (624 pages) #9320S List $89.95 | NCSEA Affiliate $80.96
REINFORCED MASONRY ENGINEERING HANDBOOK: CLAY AND CONCRETE MASONRY, 6TH EDITION

10% off

at www.iccsafe.org/NCSEA
To get your discount, enter Promotional Code: NCSEA in your shopping cart.

10-20%

SAVE

Publisher: MIA Eliminates repetitious calculations and offers detailed explanations, hundreds of drawings and 70+ step-by-step examples. (648 pages) #9346S6 List $99.95 | NCSEA Affiliate $89.96
ASCE/SEI 7-05: MINIMUM DESIGN LOADS FOR BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE IBC, 2009

#9002S05

List $125 | NCSEA Affiliate $112.50

ASCE/SEI 7-10: MINIMUM DESIGN LOADS FOR BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES

Authors: Doug Thornburg, AIA, and John Henry, P.E. Comprehensive, practical analysis of critical changes between the 2006 and 2009 IBC. Hundreds of color gures (365 pages) #7024S09 List $42.95 | NCSEA Affiliate $36.51
MASONRY STRUCTURAL DESIGN

#9002S10

List $125 | NCSEA Affiliate $112.50

2005 NDS WOOD DESIGN SPECIFICATION PACKAGE

#9542S

List $150 | NCSEA Affiliate $135

TMS 402-08/ACI 530-08/ASCE 5-08

Author: Richard E. Klingner Complete guide to masonry materials and structural design using the 2009 IBC and 2008 MSJC. (588 pages) #9355S List $118 | NCSEA Affiliate $100.30
DESIGN OF WOOD STRUCTURES ASD/LRFD, SIXTH EDITION

#9026S08

List $100 | NCSEA Affiliate $135

ANSI/AF&PA SDPWS-08: 2008 SPECIAL DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR WIND AND SEISMIC STANDARD

#9580S08

List $50 | NCSEA Affiliate $45

Authors: Donald Breyer, Kenneth Fridley, Kelly Cobeen, David Pollock, Jr. The elds leading text demonstrates all necessary steps and techniques, provides practical design examples. (1,025 pages) #9047S6 List $79.95 | NCSEA Affiliate $67.96
AISC 325-05: STEEL CONSTRUCTION MANUAL, 13TH ED.

#9206S05

List $350 | NCSEA Affiliate $297.50

and select CODE MASTERS

15% off

People Helping People Build a Safer World

2009 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE

Publisher: ICC Includes bonus downloads. (704 pages) #3000S09 List $111 | NCSEA Affiliate $88.80
2009 IBC: CODE AND COMMENTARY

GUIDE TO THE DESIGN OF OUT-OF-PLANE WALL ANCHORAGE: BASED ON THE 2006/2009 IBC AND ASCE/SEI 7-05

20% off

Author: Timothy W. Mays, Ph.D., P.E. Loaded with example problems, this unique guide is the solution to out-of-plane wall anchorage analysis. (175 pages) #7043S09* List $59 | NCSEA Affiliate $47.20
A GUIDE TO THE 2009 IRC WOOD WALL BRACING PROVISIONS

Publisher: ICC Read expert commentary printed after each code section. Understand code intent and improve application. 2009 IBC CODE AND COMMENTARY, VOLUME 1 (CHAPTERS 115) #3010S091* List $114 | NCSEA Affiliate $91.20 2009 IBC CODE AND COMMENTARY, VOLUME 2 (CHAPTERS 1635) #3010S092* List $114 | NCSEA Affiliate $91.20
2009 IBC HANDBOOK: STRUCTURAL PROVISIONS

From: APA and ICC Learn correct application of the lateral bracing requirements of the 2009 IRC one of the most common sources of confusion and misapplication. Includes 200 color tables and gures. (255 pages) #7102S09* List $41 | NCSEA Affiliate $32.80
PERFORMANCE-BASED PLASTIC DESIGN: EARTHQUAKERESISTANT STEEL STRUCTURES

Authors: S.K. Ghosh, Ph.D., and John Henry, P.E. Discusses IBC Chapters 1623 using 200+ color gures to clarify application and intent. A bonus CD contains the complete Handbook and many helpful structural references. (681 pages) #4001S09* List $95 | NCSEA Affiliate $76
2009 IBC CHECKLIST : STRUCTURAL PROVISIONS

Authors: Subhash C. Goel and Shih-Ho Chao Filled with examples, formulas, tables, and drawings. (280 pages) #7032S List $98 | NCSEA Affiliate $78.40
SEISMIC DESIGN USING STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS: 2006 IBC, 2009 IBC, ASCE/SEI 7-05

Editor: Henry Huang, P.E., C.B.O. The most comprehensive structural plan check book available! Go step-by-step through the 2009 IBC structural requirements to ensure compliance. Bonus CD contains lists in PDF and editable RTF les. (375 pages) #4008S09* List $59 | NCSEA Affiliate $47.20
STRUCTURAL LOAD DETERMINATION: UNDER 2009 IBC AND ASCE/SEI 7-05

Authors: S.K. Ghosh, Jaehong Kim, and Farhad H. Shad Effective answers to many common questions. (204 pages) #9183S09 List $54.95 | NCSEA Affiliate $43.96
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE WIND LOAD PROVISIONS OF ASCE 7-10: AN ILLUSTRATED GUIDE

Author: T. Eric Stafford, P.E. Each update is explained in straightforward language. (160 pages) #9591S10 List $73 | NCSEA Affiliate $58.40
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE SEISMIC LOAD PROVISIONS OF ASCE 7-10: AN ILLUSTRATED GUIDE

Author: David Fanella, Ph.D., S.E., P.E., F.ASCE Packed with owcharts, load diagrams and illustrated design examples solved in a step-by-step fashion. (380 pages) #4034S09* List $65 | NCSEA Affiliate $52
DESIGN OF LOW-RISE REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS: BASED ON THE 2009 IBC, ASCE/SEI 7-05, ACI 318-08

Authors: S.K. Ghosh, Ph.D., Susan Dowty, P.E., Prabuddha Dasgupta, Ph.D., P.E. Provides brief summary of updates, diagrams and examples. (192 pages) #9590S10 List $83 | NCSEA Affiliate $66.40
GUIDE TO THE DESIGN OF DIAPHRAGMS, CHORDS AND COLLECTORS: BASED ON THE 2006 IBC AND ASCE/SEI 7-05

Author: David Fanella, Ph.D., S.E., P.E., F.ASCE A straightforward approach helps engineers analyze, design and detail low-rise cast-in-place reinforced concrete buildings. (384 pages) #7034S09 List $79 | NCSEA Affiliate $63.20 *Also available in PDF Download.

#7042S06

List $59 | NCSEA Affiliate $47.20

2006 IBC STRUCTURAL Q&A

#4003S06

List $45 | NCSEA Affiliate $36

START SAVING TODAY! 1-800-786-4452 | www.iccsafe.org/ncsea

10-04029

Code Updates
code developments and announcements

Wind Blown Snow

N

Ln
Figure 1: RTU Drifting-North Wind.

Ls
Over time, wind and thermal effects come into play and the roof load morphs into the balanced load, ps. It is this balanced load, which includes the exposure, thermal and slope factors, that is consistent with drifting and the like. In ASCE 7-10, this intent is hopefully clarified by using a new symbol, pm, for the minimum roof load to avoid confusion with the flat roof load pf and by identifying the sloped roof snow load ps as the balanced snow load. Finally, for further clarification, the following note was added at the end of Section 7.3.4: This minimum roof snow load is a separate uniform load case. It need not be used in determining or in combination with drifts, sliding, unbalanced or partial loads.

Snow & Rain Provisions in ASCE 7-10

Whats New and Different
By Michael ORourke, Ph.D., P.E.

he American Society of Civil Engineers ASCE 7-10 load standard is now available and, as one would expect, some things have changed. Although the snow and rain chapters are nominally the same size as before (14 pages in both 7-05 and 7-10.), some changes are subtle while others are not-so-subtle. In this article, the most substantive changes are discussed along with the reasoning behind them.

Minimum Roof Snow Load

The minimum roof load provisions have been a source of confusion for some time. In ASCE 7-10, as in ASCE 7-05, the minimum roof load is the importance factor I times the smaller of 20 psf or the ground snow load, pg. The confusion is not the magnitude of the minimum load but whether it is to be used in combination with drift loads, sliding loads and the like. The answer to this last question is no. The situation envisioned by the minimum load provision corresponds to the roof snow load immediately after a single large snowfall without wind. Under these conditions, neither the exposure factor Ce (no wind), the thermal factor Ct (no time for thermal effects to develop) nor the slope factor Cs (no time for sliding to develop) apply. As a result, the roof snow load is the same as the ground snow load. Finally, the single large snowfall is taken to be Ipg or I20 psi whichever is smaller. That is, for locations with comparatively low values of pg, one could get the 50 year ground snow load in a single large snowfall. However, even for locations with comparatively high values of pg, a single large snowfall is not expected to result in a ground snow load of more than 20 psf.

RTU Drifts
Another area of confusion has been drift loading at Roof Top Units (RTUs). In ASCE 7-05, it is clear that the drift in question is a windward drift (three quarters of the height of the leeward drift from ASCE 7-05 Figure 7-9). The confusion involved the appropriate fetch distance. For example, considering the RTU sketched in Figure 1; some engineers thought that the drift immediately south of the RTU should be based upon the fetch distance, Ls. In ASCE 7-10, the situation is clarified For roof projections, lu, shall be taken equal to the greater of the length of the roof upwind and downwind of the projection. That is, irrespective of the location of interest being upwind or downwind of the RTU, a windward drift ( factor) using the larger of Ln or Ls as the fetch distance is prescribed. In way of explanation, consider an example with wind out of the north as shown in Figure 1. Clearly the drift immediately north of the

Michael ORourke, Ph.D., P.E. has been on the faculty in Civil Engineering at Rensselaer since 1974. He has been a member of the ASCE 7 Snow and Rain Load subcommittee since 1978, and its chair since 1997. He may be reached at orourm@rpi.edu.

36 February 2011

4max

a) Venturi Tube with Laminar Flow

4.7
1/2 12 1/2 12

below and ambient air above. At the other extreme is a freezer building with cold air Thermal Conditions Ct below and ambient air above. Between these two extremes are the ground snowpack with Unheated and open air structures 1.2 warm earth below and ambient air above, and a loading dock roof with ambient air above Structures intentionally kept 1.3 and below. below freezing In ASCE 7-05, a thermal factor of Ct = 1.2 was specified for both unheated structures That is, freezer buildings now have their own and structures intentionally kept below freez- group with a new Ct of 1.3, while loading ing. Based upon the SEAW observations and docks are grouped with unheated buildings differences in heat transfer characteristics, in with a Ct of 1.2. TAY24253 BraceYrslfStrctrMag.qxd 9/3/09 10:09 AM Page c 1 ontinued on next page ASCE 7-10 we have:

b) Gable Roof with Flow Seperation

Figure 2: Venturi Tube and Gable Roof Geometry.

RTU is the windward drift for an upwind fetch distance of Ln. The drift to the south of the RTU is a leeward drift for a fetch distance somewhat less than Ln. The fetch is less because some of the wind blown snow is captured in the upstream drift. Since a leeward drift for a reduced fetch is not greatly different than a windward drift for an un-reduced fetch, for simplicity it was decided to require the same drift on both sides.

Y O U B U I L D I T. W E L L P R O T E C T I T.

SEISMIC PROTECTION FROM TAYLOR DEVICES

Stand firm. Dont settle for less than the seismic protection of Taylor Fluid Viscous Dampers. As a world leader in the science of shock isolation, we are the team you want between your structure and the undeniable forces of nature. Others agree. Taylor Fluid Viscous Dampers are currently providing earthquake, wind, and motion protection on more than 240 buildings and bridges. From the historic Los Angeles City Hall to Mexicos Torre Mayor and the new Shin-Yokohama High-speed Train Station in Japan, owners, architects, engineers, and contractors trust the proven technology of Taylor Devices Fluid Viscous Dampers.

Thermal Factor
In most cases, the roof snow load without drifting or sliding is less than or equal to the ground snow load. This is consistent with the ASCE 7-05 provisions for the sloped roof load (or the balanced load). That is, for an importance factor of I = 1.0, the largest balanced load one for a sheltered (Ce = 1.2) unheated (Ct = 1.2) roof is 1.008 pg (0.7 x 1.2 x 1.2 = 1.008). There are, however, some cases where the balanced roof load was observed to be larger than the ground snow load. For example, as noted in a report by the Structural Engineers Association of Washington (SEAW), the peak ground snow load in the Greater Yakima area was 31 pounds per square foot (psf ) during the 1996-97 Holiday Storm, while the measured roof load on Freezer Buildings and Cold Rooms was roughly 35 psf. This observation is generally consistent with heat transfer and conditions leading to retention of a snow pack. That is, in relation to the temperature at the bottom of a snow pack and hence the potential for melting, the worst case is a roof snow pack on a heated building hot air

ADVERTISEMENT For Advertiser Information, visit www.structuremag.org

Taylor Devices Fluid Viscous Dampers give you the seismic protection you need and the architectural freedom you want.
w w w. t a y l o r d e v i c e s . c o m

North Tonawanda, NY 14120 - 0748 Phone: 716.694 .0800 Fax: 716.695 .6015

Brace YourselfFebruary Magazine October 2009 STRUCTURE TAY24253 magazine 2011 37 Ad Structure

Half-Page Island 5" x 7.5"

6h 1 h Lower Roof

Upper Roof

S < 20'

a) Geometric Criteria Drift only for Close (S < 20ft) Lower Roofs in Wind Shadow (S < 6h) Smaller of hd and (6h-S)/6 Smaller of 6hd and (6h-S) b) Drift Surcharge Load

drifts had a rise-to-run of one vertical to two horizontal (1V: 2H) or less. Both sets of observations suggest that the angle of repose of drifted snow is about 26 degrees, substantially less than that for fresh fallen snow. It is possible that windblown snow particles become more rounded as a result of the transport process. Whatever the actual scientific reason, the committees choose a somewhat conservative approach. For hip and gable roofs with slope exceeding 7 on 12 (30.2)unbalanced loads are not required to be applied. Lower Bound SlopeUnbalanced Loads

Based on the evidence from fluid mechanics and a desire to simplify matters, the empirical relation in Equation 1 was eliminated from the ASCE 7-10 provision. For hip and gable roofs.with a slope less than 2.38 ( on 12) unbalanced snow loads are not required to be applied. Lower Bound Eave to Ridge DistanceUnbalanced Load The empirical relationship between drift height hd, ground snow load pg, and upwind fetch distance lu, in Equation 2 (Figure 7.9 of ASCE 7) was originally developed from a database of leeward roof step drifts. hd = 0.433u 4Pg+10 1.5 Equation 2

Figure 3: Leeward Drift on Separated Roofs.

Unbalanced Loads
It seems that each new version of ASCE 7 brings changes to the unbalanced load provision. ASCE 7-10 is no exception. However, the good news is that the changes make the provision simpler (more engineer friendly) and more realistic in terms of the applicable roof geometrics. Upper Bound Slope Unbalanced Loads In ASCE 7-05, unbalanced loads were required for hip and gable roofs with slopes up to 70 degrees. This limit is the same as that for balanced loads. That is, the slope factor Cs is zero for roof slopes of 70 degrees and higher, and the thinking was if fresh fallen snow doesnt stick to such steep roofs then the drift loads would similarly not accumulate on them. Underlying this approach is the assumption that, in terms of an angle of repose, drifted snow behaves like fresh fallen snow. However, two independent sets of observations suggest differently. One set is from the Tahoe-Truckee Engineers Association (TTEA). Located in a truly beautiful part of Northern California which gets large amounts of snow, roof snow loading is a particularly important consideration for TTEA. Their observations suggest that unbalanced loads (across-the-ridge drifts) only form on roof slopes of 6 on 12 or less. The other set are observations of the rise-torun of roof step drifts taken from insurance company files. The vast majority of roof step

The lower bound slope, below which unbalanced loads need not be considered, has varied over the years. In the original load standard ASCE 7-88, the limit was 15 degrees. In ASCE 7-02, an empirical curve fit relation: angle = 70 + 0.5 W Equation 1

was introduced where the angle is in degrees and the eave to ridge distance W is in feet. This was modified in ASCE 7-05 to exclude roofs with slopes less than on 12 since there was no empirical evidence of drifting W on such shallow, near flat roofs. Note that evidence from fluid mechanics, specifically the behavior of Venturi tubes, is consistent Pf with the on 12 roof slope limit. In order to achieve laminar flow, the maximum angular deviation Sloped Upper Roof at a Venturi tube can be no more h>S 1 than about 4 degrees, as shown in 1 Figure 2 (page 37). Laminar flow means no flow separation and no Lower Roof areas of aerodynamic shade. For the gable with on 12 slope, also shown in Figure 2, the total S < 15' angular deviation from the windward to leeward roof surfaces is a) Geometric Criteria Sliding Load only for 4.7 degrees. That is, based on the Close (S < 15') Lower Roof in 45 Shadow (S<h) Venturi Tube analog, one expects 0.4Pf W(15-S)/15 flow separation, areas of aerodynamics shade and drifting for the on 12 roof (4.7 > 4.0) while one expects no flow separation, 15-S no aerodynamic shade and no drifting for a 3/8 on 12 roof slope b) Sliding Load (3.58 < 4).
Figure 4: Sliding Load on Separated Roof.

In the database, the fetch distances were typically hundreds of feet. This may well have led to the fact that the relation is problematic for much shorter fetch distances. For example, one calculates negative drift heights for small fetch distances and low ground snow loads. With this undesirable feature in mind, a minimum fetch distance of 25 feet was specified. For the roof step geometry, an upwind fetch of 25 feet or less is unusual and designers did not question the lower bound fetch distance of 25 feet. In ASCE 7-05, the drift height relation in Equation 2 also was used to determine unbalanced loads on hip and gable roofs. The

STRUCTURE magazine

38

February 2011

windward eave to ridge distance then became the upwind fetch with the same lower bound of 25 feet. However, for the gable roof geometry, an eave to ridge distance of 25 feet or less is quite common. Designers questioned the lower bound value since it controlled for the majority of single family residences. Simply eliminating the lower bound was not an option due to the aforementioned problems with Equation 2. Due to the lack of available case histories, the Snow and Rain Subcommittee commissioned a small study of simulated drifts using a numerical technique developed originally by Cocca (Masters Thesis, Rensselaer, 2006). An analysis of the simulated drifts convinced the Subcommittee that lowering the limit by five feet was consistent with safety margins associated with larger fetch distances. As a result Section 7.6.1 now reads: For W less than 20 ft, use W = Lu = 20 ft. in Fig 7-9.

was steep enough (greater than on 12 for slippery upper roof surfaces and greater than 2 on 12 for non-slippery upper roof surfaces). The load per unit length was specified to be 0.4pfW, where W is the upper roof eave to ridge distance and the horizontal extent was specified to be 15 feet. In ASCE 7-10, the sliding load provisions were expanded to include separated roofs. The lower roof is subject to a truncated sliding load if the separation distance is less than 15 feet and the elevation difference is greater than the horizontal separation distance. The first

geometric criterion is based upon the 15 foot horizontal extent for attached roofs, while the second is based upon a 1V:1H sliding load shadow. As shown in Figure 4, the truncated load per unit length is 0.4pfW(15-s)/15. To clarify the application of sliding loads for both attached and separated roofs, ASCE 7-10 notes: Sliding loads shall be superimposed on the balanced snow load and need not be used in combination with drift, unbalanced, partial or rain-on-snow loads. continued on next page

Separated Structures
If two roofs are close enough, the lower may be subject to additional drifts or sliding loads due to the presence of the higher separated roof. Drift Loads Separated Structures In ASCE 7-05, a truncated drift was specified for the lower level roof if the roof separation distance s was less than 20 feet. In ASCE 7-10, the separation distance criterion is retained and an additional geometric criterion is introduced. Specifically, a leeward drift on the lower level roof is required only if the lower roof is in the aerodynamic or wind shadow of the upper level roof. The wind shadow region is assumed to trail downward from the upper level roof at a slope of 1V: 6H. As shown in Figure 3, the leeward drift height is the smaller of hd and (6h-s)/6. The first is the drift height based upon the upper roof fetch distance, while the second is based upon a snow drift filling the wind shadow space on the lower level roof. The rise-to-run of the drift is assumed to match the slope of the wind shadow boundary; hence, the horizontal extent is the smaller of 6hd or (6h-s). For windward drifts, the drift is truncated by simply eliminating the portion of the drift between the edges of the two roofs. Sliding Loads- Separated Structures In ASCE 7-05, a sliding load was required for a lower roof if the slope of the upper level roof

custom built to the highest standards.

Yours.
ADVERTISEMENT For Advertiser Information, visit www.structuremag.org

Tubular sections

SuperStruct tubular sections hold up to the strictest design standards without holding them back.
Manufactured in a variety of shapes and sizes to your specifications Large sizes from 12 up to 48 squares and rectangles Lengths up to 55 Wall thickness 5/16 to 1 Excellent column strength and torsional properties Aesthetically appealing

800-825-6668 www.valmont.com Valley, Nebraska

Contact Kyle DeBuse at Valmont Tubing toll-free at 1-800-825-6668 ext. 3558 or kld2@valmont.com to learn more on the design possibilities of HSS SuperStruct.

Description: SuperStruct Ad Size: Flat 4.5" STRUCTURE magazine 2011 39 February

Client/Job#: 8911_ChangesToAd

Color(s): Black x 7"

above the eave. That is, the on 12 rule works in precluding standing water if the eaves are free draining. However, irrespective of roof slope, one gets standing water for other roof geometries. Figure 5 shows two such roof geometries that are susceptible to ponding problems. In the first, a) Plan View Roof with Interior Primary Drains and the roof has perimeter parapet Secondary Drains in Parapet Walls walls with secondary drains and a roof surface that slopes downward toward primary interior drains. If the primary drains are assumed to be blocked, one gets standing water even if the roof Susceptible Bays is much steeper than on 12. The second figure has a similar problem adjacent to the parapet wall to the left and the valley in the center. Figure 5: Susceptible Bays. In recognition of potential b) Elevation View Adjacent Gables with Parapet Wall Ponding standing water problems for roofs without free draining eaves, ASCE 7-10 requires a In ASCE 7-05, a ponding analysis with priponding instability analysis for so-called susmary drains assumed blocked was required for ceptible bays. roofs with slopes less than on 12. For a Bays with a roof slope less than in./ on 12 roof slope, even a generous maximum ft. or on which water is impounded allowable deflection criterion of the span/100 upon them (in whole or in part) when results in the roof low point being located
ADVERTISEMENT For Advertiser Information, visit www.structuremag.org

the primary drain system is blocked, but the secondary system is functional, shall be designated as susceptible bays. Roof surfaces with a slope of at least in per ft. (1.19 ) towards points of free drainage need not to be considered a susceptible bay.

Summary
This article summarizes the most substantive changes to the Snow and Rain provisions of ASCE 7-10. The changes to the Minimum Load and the RTU Drift provisions were intended to clarify the existing provision. A new Thermal factor category was established for a freezer building and cold rooms. The revised lower and upper bound roof slopes for unbalanced loads are straight forward, easier to apply and based on observed behavior. For separated structures, drift loads are no longer required for the lower roof outside the wind shadow region, while sliding loads are now required for lower roofs within a 45-degree sliding load shadow of the upper sloped roof. Finally, the change to the Ponding provision was intended to alert users to the fact that certain roof geometrics require a ponding analysis irrespective of the roof slope.

Fyfe Ad-Oct 2010.indd 1

STRUCTURE magazine

40

February 2011

12/1/10 10:55 AM

BUILDING INTELLIGENT CONNECTIONS.

Why settle for this?

When your software can do this?

SDS/2 is the only BIM software that designs connections intelligently. This means it recognizes and resolves erectability issues and framing conditions while automatically designing connections. SDS/2 takes the work out of completing your BIM model. With SDS/2s power to engineer joints and superior connections to project partners, viewing the as-built model enables you to get the job done better, faster and smarter. Visit sds2.com or call 800.443.0782 to learn how you can start building intelligent connections in your projects today.

www.sds2.com
Copyright 2009 Design Data, Inc. All rights reserved.

800.443.0782

402.441.4000

e-mail: info@sds2.com

Quality assurance corner

Part 1
By Clifford W. Schwinger, P.E.

meeting and exceeding requirements and expectations

Tips for Designing Constructible Concrete Structures

he economy of cast-in-place concrete structures depends in large part on decisions made early in design regarding framing dimensions, repetition and simplicity of formwork. Once design is underway, attention to the ease of reinforcing steel placement contributes further to the economy of design. The term constructability with respect to cast-in-place concrete construction refers primarily to the ease with which formwork can be constructed and reinforcing steel placed. The next several QA Corner articles will discuss cast-in-place concrete constructability tips. This months article focuses on a fundamental theme making sure the reinforcing steel fits. As simple as it sounds, this issue is often overlooked. What follows is a list of suggestions related to placement of reinforcing steel. Envision placing the reinforcing steel when designing the structure: Engineers should imagine themselves in the field trying to place the reinforcing steel in the structures that they design. Visualizing the construction process will aid in catching constructability flaws. Draw reinforcing steel details to scale to verify that the bars will fit: Look for areas where reinforcing steel congestion may be a problem. Areas where congestion problems often occur include, Slab/column connections Narrow beams Columns with more than 2% vertical reinforcing steel Areas of slabs perforated with multiple openings, particularly near columns and slab edges Slabs in which electrical cable and conduit are installed

Areas of slabs where embedded items such as those required to support facade supports Designers need to consider actual dimensions of reinforcing bars, including hook dimensions and bend radiuses. Figure 1 illustrates an example of wishful thinking by an engineer attempting to fit too much reinforcing steel in too little space. Consider conflicts where multiple typical details occur at a single location: Engineers often use typical details to show frequently occurring conditions. Constructability issues can occur when multiple typical details occur at a single location. Look for congestion when there are more than two layers of top or bottom bars in thin slabs: Two-way slabs usually have two layers of top bars and two layers of bottom bars spanning in orthogonal directions. Occasionally there can be a third layer of top or bottom bars, such as in a two-way slab where a non-typical diagonally spanning bay frames to an orthogonal bay. A third layer of top bars can be especially problematic, particularly at slab edges where those bars are hooked. Consider hook dimensions when selecting reinforcing: Top bars with hooks are easiest to install when the hooks can be oriented straight down as shown in Figure 2. This can be more readily achieved by using the smallest bars practical and, when the bars are #5 or smaller, specifying the use of 90 degree stirrup hooks. Ninety degree stirrup hooks are smaller than 90 degree standard hooks for #3, #4 and #5 bars. For example, the dimension of a 90 degree hook on a #6 bar is 12 inches versus 6 inches for a 90 degree stirrup hook on a #5

bar. When hooked top bars are required in a 7.5-inch thick slab, the #5 bars can be easily installed with -inch clear cover top and bottom, without having to rotate the bars to install them. While a larger number of smaller bars will be required, the cost for installing reinforcing steel is usually estimated based on the tonnage of reinforcing steel rather than number of bars. The only issue related to using 90 degree stirrup hooks is that ACI 318 specifies that a transverse bar perpendicular to the hooked bar be located inside the bend. This is generally not an issue though, since there is usually such a bar parallel to slab edges anyway. A good rule-of-thumb is to use bars of sufficiently small size such that the hook dimension does not exceed 80% of the slab thickness. While adhering to this rule may not always be possible, its a good starting point. Avoid using 180 degree hooks in slabs: While the use of 180 degree bar hooks might seem like a good idea, doing so can complicate the placement of reinforcing steel. Consider the reinforcing steel shown in Figure 3. While bars with 90 degree hooks can be dropped straight down into place, bars with 180 degree hooks cannot be dropped into place unless the perpendicular edge bar is temporarily moved out of the way and then re-positioned after the hooked bars are installed. Consider top reinforcing steel occurring in a slab at a corner column. Visualize placing the slab top bars in both directions using 90 degree hooks versus placing bars with 180 degree hooks. Limit the percentage of column vertical reinforcing steel to 2% for economy and 4% for constructability: ACI 318 permits columns to be reinforced with up to

Figure 1: Actual bar dimensions must be considered.

Figure 2: Bars with smaller hooks are easier to install in thin slabs.

STRUCTURE magazine

42

February 2011

Figure 3: Avoid using 180 degree hooks in slabs.

Figure 4: Avoid using more than 4% reinforcing steel in columns.

8% vertical reinforcing steel. Unfortunately, columns reinforced with 8% steel using lap splices will have 16% steel at splice locations unless mechanical splice couplers are used. Figure 4 shows the reinforcing steel in two 24-inch by 24-inch columns one reinforced with 8-#11 (=2%) and one reinforced with 16-#11 (=4%). The section was cut where the bars are lap spliced. Note the close bar spacing in the column with 16 vertical bars. Large numbers of vertical bars also require more ties. Installing beam and slab reinforcing through heavily reinforced columns also can be difficult. Heavily reinforced columns are not only difficult to build, they are often not the most economical design. Most of the axial load capacity in a concrete column is provided by the concrete, not the reinforcing steel. Figure 5 compares the load capacity of three 24-inch by 24-inch columns (using Equation 10-2 in ACI 318) using different quantities of reinforcing steel and concrete strengths. Note that doubling the reinforcing from 2% to 4% increases the column strength by only 22% while increasing the compressive strength by a relatively small 30%, from 5 ksi to 6.5 ksi, achieves the same strength increase. While costs of concrete, reinforcing steel and labor vary geographically, the most economical column design is generally one with no more than 2% vertical reinforcing.

Avoid using bundled bars in columns: For the reasons discussed above, avoid using bundled bars in columns. If you have to bundle the bars, the column is too small. Splices in bundled bars must be staggered, which adds another level of complexity. Likewise, mechanical splice couplers, when required, cannot be easily installed on bundled bars. Coordinate placement of slab embedded electrical conduit: Designers must specify criteria for installing slab embedded cable and conduit in floor slabs. Specifying such criteria on the general notes will, at a minimum, facilitate awareness that caution must be taken in coordinating where and how cables and conduits may be installed without compromising the structural integrity of the floor framing. Specify reinforcing steel placing priority for reinforcing steel in slabs: Although reinforcing steel placing priority usually does not affect constructability, placing priority can affect flexural strength and deflection, especially in thin slabs. Specifying placing priority on the drawings and requiring that placing priority be indicated on the reinforcing steel placing drawings can eliminate conflicts and problems in the field. Clifford Schwinger, P.E. is a Vice President and Quality Assurance Manager at The Harman Group. He can be contacted at cschwinger@harmangroup.com.

ADVERTISEMENT For Advertiser Information, visit www.structuremag.org

24x24 ConCrete Column Design options f'c 5 ksi 5 ksi 6.5 ksi As 8-#11 16-#11 8=#11 2.2% 4.3% 2.2% 0Pn 1635k 1977k 2008k % increase 22% 23%

Figure 5: Column strength is most influenced by concrete strength.

STRUCTURE magazine

43

February 2011

Great achievements
Fazlur Rahman Khan
The Einstein of Structural Engineering
By Richard G. Weingardt, P.E.

notable structural engineers

ost visible among Americas impressive list of elite engineering giants are its leading-edge structural engineers, the designers of spectacular bridges, skyscrapers, sports facilities, space-age-looking buildings and national monuments recordsetting complex structures that are often the biggest, tallest, longest and/or first. Foremost on that list is Pakistan native Fazlur R. Faz Khan, a structural trailblazer whose breakthroughs in structural engineering for tall and long-span buildings exerted an unprecedented and lasting influence on the profession, both nationally and internationally. Mir M. Ali, University of Illinois professor and author of Art of the Skyscraper: The Genius of Fazlur Khan, said that in addition to being labeled as one of the greatest engineers of our time, Khan was many times referred to as the Einstein of Structural Engineering. According to David Billington, coiner of the phrase structural art, Khans work exemplified that concept. Said Billington, The first fundamental of structural art is the discipline of efficiency; a desire for minimum materials, resulting in less weight, less cost and less

Sears Tower, now known as the Willis Tower. Courtesy of SOM and Hedrick Blessing.

visual mass. In his many notable skyscrapers, Kahn clearly mastered those objectives, often influencing the final architectural appearance of signature buildings in a major way. Considered the father of tubular design in high-rises, Khan was a firm believer that meshing the talents of structural engineers and architects always resulted in the best solutions. According to John Zils, senior engineer and associate partner with Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM), It was his unique ability to bridge the gap between architectural design and structural engineering that truly set Faz apart from other structural engineers. Because of that, Khan became an icon in both architecture and structural engineering. Born on April 3, 1929, in Dhaka, Bengal (then in British India), Fazlur was the son of Abdur Rahman and Khadija (Khatun) Khan. His father Abdur was a well-respected high school mathematics teacher and the author of several seminal textbooks on the subject. He eventually became the Director of Public Instruction in the region of Bengal. In addition to his father, Fazlurs early decision to become an engineer was influenced by an older cousin who preceded him into college to study engineering. After completing undergraduate coursework at the Bengal Engineering College, University of Calcutta, Fazlur proceeded to the University of Dhaka, where he received his bachelors in engineering degree in 1950, finishing first in his class. A Fulbright Scholarship, combined with a Pakistani government scholarship, brought him to the U.S. and the University of Illinois at Urbana. There, he earned two masters degrees one in structural engineering, and the other in theoretical and applied mechanics followed by a PhD in structural engineering in 1955. Khan immediately joined the internationally known architectural and engineering firm of SOM in Chicago. By 1960, he was fast establishing his trademark of pioneering creative concepts for tall buildings framed with structural steel, concrete and/or composite systems. His tube system, using all the exterior wall perimeter structure of a building to simulate a thin-walled tube, revolutionized tall building design. In 1962, while designing the 38-story, reinforced concrete Brunswick Building in

Fazlur R. Khan. Courtesy of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (SOM) and Stuart-Rogers.

Chicago, he developed methods for using shear wall and frame interaction to resist lateral forces. Later, he refined this system to come up with the tube-in-tube concept, initially used for the 52-story One Shell Plaza Building in Houston. Khans diagonal-framed tube system, first used for the John Hancock Center in Chicago, connected widely spaced exterior columns with diagonals on all four sides of the building. The concept allowed the 1965 Hancock building to reach 100 stories, making it the tallest building in the world. The Hancock Center and Khans other masterpiece the 110-story, 1974 Sears Tower with its unique bundled tube structural system drew worldwide attention to the advancements that American structural engineers were making in skyscraper design. At 1,468 feet, Sears Tower remained the worlds tallest building for more than 20 years. Clad in a black aluminum skin with bronze-tinted, glare-reducing glass and with a gross area of 4.4 million square feet, the structure was impressive and massive by any standards. Only the Pentagon had more space at the time. Khans portfolio of notable international structures includes the Haj Terminal Building at the Jeddah International Airport in Saudi Arabia, an enormous tent-like structure covering nearly one square kilometer (105 acres) of area, more space than any other roof in the world when built. Kahn allowed that the pioneering design of the terminal, with its

STRUCTURE magazine

44

February 2011

intricate fabric tension roof, was based on the union of architecture and engineering, form and function. Zils said, In addition to Faz being an innovator of the highest order as evidenced by his introduction to the profession of numerous innovative structural systems (tubular structural concept, tube-in-tube, braced tube, bundled tube, etc), he was the consummate team leader. You never worked for Faz, you always worked with him as an equal. Plus, his enthusiasm for whatever the task at hand or the project was contagious. His philosophy was that there was always something new and interesting about any task or project, and that it was up to us to find and pursue the issue. Many times, Zils observed Faz getting involved in something that appeared on the surface to be quite mundane, only to find that in the end he had discovered something unique or interesting about it. Said Zils, I believe his ability to see the opportunities that each situation presents was a major factor in Fazs ability to think beyond the norm, and create and innovate as he did. Working on projects with Faz was always a joy because he was always probing and challenging the norm. He always did this in a collaborative way, incorporating the entire team in the process. As a result, you

always felt a part of the process, and when the task or project was complete, all who participated felt some sense of ownership in the result. This collaboration, believed Zils, is why Khan was able to produce so many highly creative and innovative designs in his relatively short career. Active in several engineering groups, Khan was a leader in many of them. He was, for instance, chairman of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat from 1979 until his death. He was also an adjunct professor at Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT), often teaching and working there late at night. In addition to his participation in professional societies, and providing leadership and mentoring to young and up-and-coming engineers, Khan was active beyond engineering in his community. For many years, he served on the board of trustees for the condominium development in Chicago where he lived. And he never forgot his roots. Khans homeland came to be called Pakistan in 1947. During 1971, the country was divided into East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and West Pakistan, with its government and military centralized in West Pakistan. Because of this, the economic conditions in East Pakistan (Khans homeland) deteriorated so much that its people protested
ADVERTISEMENT For Advertiser Information, visit www.structuremag.org

the unequal distribution of the countrys income and wealth. To discourage unrest, the Pakistani government sent its military into East Pakistan to terrorize the people. Ten million Bangladeshi refugees eventually made their way to India. As a result, Khan founded a Chicago-based organization, the Bangladesh Emergency Welfare Appeal, to help the people in his homeland. The group, which met at Khans home, raised money for aid and for lobbying government officials. Many of the Bengalis involved (including Khan) had family and friends in Bangladesh who were in obvious danger; Khans group did everything it could to make it safer for them. Indias aggressive intervention finally put an end to the killing. Fazlurs younger brother Zillur Khan said, My brother was not only a creative structural engineer, he was also a philosopher, visionary, educator and humanist. As my guide, he always told me, Think logically and find the relationships which exist in every system, because it will help you understand nature itself, making living more meaningful and exciting. Khan believed that engineers needed a broader perspective on life, saying, The technical man must not be lost in his own technology; he must be able to appreciate

REASON N0. Why galvanize? Consider nine floors of employees who depend on their steel high-rise offices to work as hard as they do. Corrosion costs our economy almost $300 billion annually. But the father working in suite 517 is a stronger reason. Learn more at azzgalvanizing.com.
We Protect More Than Steel.

362.

COLORS

JOB#

4C
PROOF

AZZ-36326
SIZE

STRUCTURE magazine
FILE NAME

AZZ-36326_7.5x4.75

45

February 2011
OK as is OK with changes

life, and life is art, drama, music, and most importantly, people. Khan, himself, was an aficionado of classical music, especially Bach and Brahms. For enjoyment, he loved singing Tagores poetic songs in Bengali with family and friends. Khan and his wife, Liselotte, who emigrated from Austria, had one daughter, born in 1960. A structural engineer like her father, Yasmin Sabina Khan said of her father, He was concerned, foremost, with people and how engineering affected them. He wanted his structures to be part of a culture and society that strove to benefit its people. In celebration of his life, she wrote an in-depth book about him and the impact of his work, Engineering Architecture: The Vision of Fazlur R. Khan, published in 2004. Khan died of a heart attack while on a business trip in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on March 27, 1982. Only 53, he was a general partner in SOM, the only engineer holding that high position at the time. His body was returned to the U.S. and is buried in his adopted home of Chicago. Posthumously, the city of Chicago named the intersection of Franklin and Jackson Streets, located at the foot of the Sears Tower, Fazlur R. Khan Way in his honor. One year later, in 1999, Engineering News-Record listed him as

one of the worlds top 20 structural engineers of the last 125 years. Three decades earlier, when Khan was 41 years old, the Chicago Junior Chamber of Commerce had named him Chicagoan of the Year in Architecture and Engineering. Among Khans other honors were the Wason Medal (1971) and Alfred Lindau Award (1973) from the American Concrete Institute, Thomas Middlebrooks Award (1972) and Ernest Howard Award (1977) from ASCE, Alumni Honor Award (1972) from the University of Illinois, Kimbrough Medal (1973) from the American Institute of Steel Construction, Oscar Faber Medal (1973) from the Institution of Structural Engineers (UK), AIA Gold Medal for Distinguished Achievement (1983) and Aga Khan Award for Architecture (1983) from the American Institute of Architects, and John Parmer Award (1987) from the Structural Engineers Association of Illinois. Khan was elected into the National Academy of Engineering in 1973, and received Honorary Doctorate Degrees from Northwestern University in 1973 and Lehigh University in 1980. In 2006, he was inducted into the Illinois Engineering Hall of Fame (sponsored by the Illinois Engineering Council).
ADVERTISEMENT For Advertiser Information, visit www.structuremag.org

His works and his citations are reflective of Khans main legacy more than any other individual, he helped usher in a renaissance in skyscraper construction in the U.S. during the second half of the 20th century. He epitomized both structural engineering achievement and the need for creative collaborative between architect and engineer. To him and his collaborators, for architectural design to reach its highest levels, it had to be solidly grounded in structural realities. Richard G. Weingardt, P.E., is Chairman of the Board for Richard Weingardt Consultants, Inc. in Denver, Colorado. Mr. Weingardt is the author of nine books. His latest, Circles in the Sky: The Life and Times of George Ferris, is the one-and-only biography of Ferris and how he built his 1893 Ferris Wheel. Mr.Weingardt can be reached at rweingardt@aol.com. The online version of this article contains additional photographs. Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.

STRUCTURE magazine

46

February 2011

new trends, new techniques and current industry issues

InSIghtS

Creating an Alternative for Performance Concrete

By Jack Gibbons and Mark F. Chrzanowski, P.E.

ow more than ever, the concrete industry is looking for ways to do it better, faster, more economical, and with greater environmental stewardship. All of this requires mechanisms for innovation in an industry that can be slow to change. Author Jack Gibbons, with the help of ACI 329 Chair Mark F. Chrzanowski, look at how the American Concrete Industry has set their sights on developing a culture that encourages innovation through performancebased delivery of concrete. One of the most significant recent developments in concrete is the creation of American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 329, Performance Criteria for Ready Mixed Concrete. This committee formally recognizes the need to move beyond prescriptive mix specifications in order to meet the demand for higher performance concrete and the more rapid cycle construction schedules that todays projects require, while addressing the need to practice greater environmental stewardship by allowing a project team to tailor the utilization of materials and construction means and methods to the specific needs of a given project. Back in 2004, the Strategic Development Council of ACI identified the move from prescriptive to performance-based specifications as an industry-critical technology. This led to the creation of Innovative Task Group-8, (ITG-8), whose mission statement read, to develop a report on performance criteria and test methods for concrete materials that could be used in codes and specifications.

329 is to ballot the document and adopt the ITG-8 Report as the an ACI 329 document. Possible future goals include: Develop additional performance-based criteria and guidance for future revisions to the ITG-8/ACI 329 Report. Review ACI Documents to identify barriers to performance-based specifications and work with committees to address the barriers. Review current industry practices to identify barriers to performance-based specifications and work within the industry to remove the barriers. Document performance projects with the intent of educating.

What does this mean? (Authors Opinion)

I participate in a seminar each year at the World of Concrete titled, How to Use Chemical Admixtures Effectively . Using admixtures individually, or in many cases, in combination, is the primary tool advancing the performance of concrete. Today water reducers are more powerful than we could have ever imagined, and accelerators and retarders are often used all year long. Rapid cycle concrete construction is common today and would not be possible without the creative use of chemical admixtures. It wasnt that long ago when a three-day cycle was the accepted norm for post-tensioned concrete. Then it was reduced to two. Today its not unusual to pull strand in only one day. Durability has increased with the use of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs), as well as our ability to produce low heat mass concrete, and SCMs are crucial to the production of high- and ultra highstrength concrete. All of this has been made possible because of mixes being designed for performance and not by prescription. One of the best comments Ive seen on the current advances in concrete construction was from Stan Korista of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill in an interview he gave on the design and construction of Chicagos 100-story Trump Tower. Korista states, What has made the difference for concrete construction is the development of highstrength concrete mixes, the greatly increased efficiency of concrete pumps and placing

booms, and the development of forming systems that can be erected safely and quickly then moved to the next location. Having been personally involved in developing the mixes for the Trump project, the only change I would make to Stans comment is that it isnt just about high strength, its about high performance. Only about 40% of the Trump Tower concrete was high strength, but every cubic yard was high performance for construction purposes. Another published quote regarding the construction of Trump Tower came from Dave Alexander, Senior Vice President of McHugh Construction, concrete contractor for the project .moving and placing 180,000 cubic yards of concrete..was a technical challenge that might have been impossible only 10 years ago. SOM wrote a performance specification for the concrete which thoroughly detailed their requirements and then let Prairie Materials (the ready mix producer) use their expertise to design the mix.

Conclusion
ITG-8 and ACI 329 are laying the groundwork for how the concrete industry can proceed. We have only scratched the surface of how successful it can be designing for performance. The Trump Tower is only one example where performance was essential in every area. Future examples may be even more extreme and their success may depend on designing for performance. Jack Gibbons is the Central Region Manager for the Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute. Jack is a long time member of ACI and serves on several technical committees, and is a regular speaker at the World of Concrete. He may be reached at jgibbons@crsi.org. Mark F. Chrzanowski, P .E. is a Principal Structural Technologist for CH2M HILL and is currently serving as an expert in concrete materials to the Panama Canal Authority (ACP). Mark also is a member of ACI and serves on several technical committees. He may be reached at mchrzano@ch2m.com.

History
Since their first meeting in Fall of 2007, members of ITG-8 have been busy writing a guide report that investigates the issue of specifying concrete through performance-based criteria. In December 2010, ACI published ITG-8R-10 Report on Performance-Based Requirements for Concrete and subsequently discharged the members of ITG-8. It will now be the task of newly formed ACI Committee 329 to champion the concept of performance-based concrete.

Goals
According to ACI 329 Chairman Chrzanowski, the short term goal for ACI

STRUCTURE magazine

47

February 2011

NOTEWORTHY

news and information

Editorial Board Appoints New Member

Dr. Roger A. LaBoube has been appointed to the STRUCTURE Editorial Board as a representative of the steel industry. Dr. LaBoube is Curators Teaching Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering, Director of the Wei-Wen Yu Center for Cold-Formed Steel Structures and Director of the Student Design and Experiential Learning Center at the Missouri University of Science & Technology (formerly University of Missouri-Rolla). Dr. LaBoube has an extensive background in the design and behavior of cold-formed steel structures. Roger is active in several professional organizations and societies, including a member of the American Iron and Steel Institutes Committee on Speci cations for the North American Speci cation for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members and a member of the AISI Committee on Framing Standards. He is a Registered Professional Engineer in Missouri. Please join us in welcoming Dr. LaBoube to the Editorial Board.

BRIDGE RESOURCE GUIDE

Top Firms Engineering & Construction Buckland & Taylor Ltd.
Phone: 206-216-3933 Email: rsro@b-t.com Web: www.b-t.com Product: Bridge Engineering Description: Buckland & Taylor Ltd. provides specialized bridge engineering services. Founded in 1972 with a goal of providing the highest standard of bridge engineering, the Company is recognized throughout North America and internationally as a leader in the design, evaluation, rehabilitation and construction engineering of bridges of all sizes and types.

a definitive listing of major bridge professionals and suppliers

precast-prestressed girders with field splicing and topping slab, box girder bridges and more. Handles geometry and stress control during construction and reports service load design values.

Compaction, Vibro Concrete Columns, Vibro PiersTM, Vibro Replacement, Wet Soil Mixing, Cement Grouting, Chemical Grouting, Compaction Grouting, Fracture Grouting, Jet Grouting, Polyurethane Grouting, Wick Drains.

KPFF Consulting Engineers

Phone: 206-622-5822 Email: david.mcmullen@kpff.com Web: www.kpff.com Product: Bridge Engineering Description: KPFF provides planning, design, and construction support services for new bridges and bridge replacements; widening, rehabilitation, and retrofit of structures; load ratings; and inspections. Projects include simple stream crossings, urban interchanges, grade separations over railroads, construction at remote sites, long-span structures, and floating bridges.

Computers & Structures, Inc.

Phone: 510-649-2200 Email: info@csiberkeley.com Web: www.csiberkeley.com Product: CSIBridge Description: From the developers of SAP2000, CSIBridge is a new, comprehensive state-of-theart software product for the structural & seismic analysis, design and rating of simple and complex bridges. All operations are integrated across a single user interface that provides an easy-to-use and intuitive workflow environment.

DBM Contractors, Inc.

Phone: 800-562-8460 Email: rcarnevale@dbmcm.com Web: www.dbmcontractors.com Product: Bridge Foundations Description: Design-build specialty geotechnical contractor specializing in drilled foundation support, earth retention, slope stabilization, and ground improvement for structural support and seismic hazard mitigation.

GT STRUDL
Phone: 404-894-2260 Email: joan.incrocci@ce.gatech.edu Web: www.ce.gatech.edu Product: GT STRUDL Description: GT STRUDL Comprehensive Linear/ Nonlinear, Static/Dynamic analysis features for Frame and Finite element structures includes moving load generation, response spectrum, transient, and pushover analyses. Models plastic hinges, discrete dampers, tension/compression only members and nonlinear connections. Multi-Processor Solver Feature is available which enables the solution of static/ dynamic models with over 300,000 DOF.

VSL
Phone: 800-899-1016 Email: info@structural.net Web: www.vsl.net Product: Bridge Construction Services Description: With experience on over 130 major projects worldwide, VSL has resources from proven systems to constant innovation for the most challenging projects. Resources include special superstructure construction techniques such as cast-inplace cantilever, precast, incremental launching & stay cables. Custom designed equipment includes precast erection gantries, form travelers & strand jacks.

FIGG
Phone: 850-224-7400 Email: lgg@ggbridge.com Web: www.ggbridge.com Product: Bridge Design Description: FIGG specializes in bridge design and construction engineering and management. Our focus on bridges allows us to create landmarks that incorporate function, sustainable design and beauty to enhance the quality of life for communities across America in the philosophy of Creating Bridges as Art.

MIDASoft, Inc. Software Vendors/Developers ADAPT Corporation

Phone: 650-306-2400 Email: info@adaptsoft.com Web: www.adaptsoft.com Product: ADAPT-ABI Description: Easy-to-use, cost effective, and practical bridge design software for all of your concrete bridge types: balanced cantilever (cast-in-place or precast), incrementally launched, span-by-span, cable-stayed, Phone: 212-835-1666 Email: midasoft@MidasUser.com Web: www.MidasUser.com Product: Midas Civil 2011 Description: Midas Civil 2011 is the leading structural steel design software with live load optimizers for curved/straight girder, composite, skewed slab, frame, and arch bridges. Other applications include segmental post-tensioning, suspension, cable-stayed, and culvert bridges. Midas Civil is continuously enhanced to be fast, user-friendly, and equipped with innovative graphic components.

Hayward Baker Inc.

Phone: 800-456-6548 Email: info@HaywardBaker.com Web: www.HaywardBaker.com Product: Ground Improvement Description: Dry Soil Mixing, Dynamic Compaction, Injection Systems for Expansive Soils, Rapid Impact Compaction, Rigid Inclusions, Vibro

STRUCTURE magazine

48

February 2011

Pile Dynamics, Inc

Phone: 216-831-6131 Email: media@pile.com Web: www.pile.com/grl Product: GRLWEAP Description: GRLWEAP 2010: Available in Standard and Offshore Wave versions. The most widely used pile driving simulation software in now more powerful and user friendly. New features improve the accuracy of predicted stresses, bearing capacities, blow counts and installation time.

CONTECH Construction Products Inc.

Phone: 800-338-1122 Email: nollj@contech-cpi.com Web: www.contech-cpi.com Product: CONSPAN Bridge Systems Description: CON/SPAN Bridge Systems precast modular units provide quick, aesthetic and environmentally preferred solutions for pedestrian and roadway bridges. Each structure, complete with precast headwalls and wingwalls, is custom-designed and can accommodate architectural treatments/ facings. CON/SPAN bridges, with span ranges from 12 60 feet, are provided by CONTECH. Product: CONTECH Structural Plate Description: CONTECH Structural Plate products include MULTI-PLATE, Aluminum Structural Plate, Aluminum Box Culvert, SUPER-SPANTM and SUPER-PLATE bridge solutions. Structural Plate options feature fast, easy low cost installation and proven durability. These structures, part of CONTECHs bridge product line, account for over 45,000 installations worldwide.

Hayward Baker Inc.

Phone: 800-456-6548 Email: info@HaywardBaker.com Web: www.HaywardBaker.com Product: Earth Retention Description: Anchors, Anchor Block Slope Stabilization, Gabion Systems, Micropile Slide Stabilization, Sheet Piles, Soil Nailing, Soldier Piles & Lagging, TRD Soil Mix Walls, Slurry Walls, Jet Grouting, Cement Grouting. Product: Structural Support Description: Augercast Piles, Drilled Shafts, Driven Piles, Franki Piles (PIFs), Helical Piles, Jacked Piers, MacropilesTM, Micropiles, Pit Underpinning.

POSTEN Engineering Systems

Phone: 510-275-4750 Email: sales@postensoft.com Web: www.postensoft.com Product: POSTEN Multistory Description: Not only the most efficient & comprehensive Post-tensioned Concrete Software that automatically designs the tendons, drapes as well as columns for you (no fiddling, no time wasting), but also the only software specifically designed to produce efficient, cost saving, sustainable designs with automatic documentation of material savings for LEED.

Western Wood Structures

Phone: 800-547-5411 Email: bridges@westernwoodstructures.com Web: www.westernwoodstructures.com Product: Timber Bridges Description: Western Wood Structures is a sales and engineering company specializing in the design, fabrication, distribution, and installation of timber bridges. We design and supply vehicular and pedestrian bridges, using the highest quality, pressuretreated, glulam timber. Experience our enduring commitment to quality, achieved through 40 years of premium performance.

RISA Technologies
Phone: 949-951-5815 Email: info@risatech.com Web: www.risa.com Product: RISA-3D Description: With RISA-3Ds versatile modeling environment and intuitive graphic interface you can model any structure from bridges to buildings in minutes. Get the most out of your model with advanced features such as moving loads, dynamic analysis, and over 40 design codes. Structural design has never been so thorough or easy!

CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp. Rapid Set

Phone: 800-929-3030 Email: jong@ctscement.com Web: www.ctscement.com Product: KSC Type-K Cement Description: ASTM C-845 Type-K Cement Shrinkage-Compensating Concrete (SCC) has been successfully used in over 800 bridge decks since the 1960s. SCC characteristics include reduced permeability, excellent durability and little to no cracks, increasing the concrete life cycle of the decks and lowering maintenance costs. Product: Rapid Set Construction Cement Description: Rapid Set is a brand of fast-setting cement products used in concrete applications requiring the highest durability and fastest strength gain, achieving structural or drive-on strength in one hour. High durability makes Rapid Set ideal for bridges, highways, airport pavements, tunnels, parking decks, and roadways. Product: Rapid Set Low-PTM Cement Description: Rapid Set Low-P Cement is a specialty formulated Rapid Set cement. When incorporated into a concrete, the performance includes very low permeability, high durability and corrosion resistance. These attributes are highly desirable for structural repairs and bonded overlays in exterior and harsh environments.

Wheeler
Phone: 800-328-3986 Email: info@wheeler-con.com Web: www.wheeler-con.com Product: Prefabricated Bridge Kits Description: Steel, timber and FRP bridge kits for recreation and vehicular applications. Fully engineered and ready for installation.

Strand7 Pty Ltd

Phone: 252-504-2282 Email: anne@beaufort-analysis.com Web: www.strand7.com Product: Strand7 Description: Strand7 is a sensibly priced FEA system. It comprises preprocessing (with CAD import, automeshing), solvers (linear, non linear, dynamic and thermal) and postprocessing. Release 2.4s many new features include staged construction, a moving load module, new solvers including quasi-static for shrinkage and creep/relaxation problems.

Wheeling Corrugating
Phone: 304-234-2326 Email: bensonmw@wheelingcorrugating.com Web: www.wheelingcorrugating.com Product: Stay-In-Place Steel Bridge Forms Description: Wheeling Bridge Form is a heavy-duty steel decking system for forming bridge slabs quickly and permanently. High strength, galvanized Wheeling Bridge Deck is specially designed to sustain heavy loads and adapts to pre-stressed concrete, built-up girders, or steel beam bridges. Wheeling Bridge Deck also provides a safe, solid, working platform.

Suppliers CETCO
Phone: 847-851-1800 Email: CDPinfo@cetco.com Web: www.cetco.com/cdp Product: Shore Pac Polymer Drilling Slurry Description: Shore Pac is a free-flowing, dry, granular polymer. Shore Pac polymer has a molecular weight that creates high viscosities at low dosage concentrations. When mixed with fresh water, the polymer chains uncoil creating a strong bond that binds the excavated soil solids, facilitating removal from the excavation.

Williams Form Engineering Corp.

Phone: 616-866-0815 Email: williams@williamsform.com Web: www.williamsform.com Product: All-Thread Rebar Description: Williams Form Engineering Corporation has been providing threaded steel bars and accessories for rock anchors, soil anchors, high capacity concrete anchors, micro piles, tie rods, tie backs, strand anchors, hollow bar anchors, post tensioning systems, and concrete forming hardware systems in the construction industry for over 85 years. All Resource Guides and Updates for the 2011 Editorial Calendar are now available on the website, www.STRUCTUREmag.org. Listings are provided as a courtesy. STRUCTURE magazine is not responsible for errors.

The Dyson Corporation, Inc.

Phone: 440-946-3500 Email: mhiggins@dysoncorp.com Web: www.dysoncorp.com Product: Fasteners and Construction Accessories Description: The Dyson Corporation manufactures domestic fasteners, forgings and machined parts for major steel and simple steel bridge structures, including large diameter structural bolts and nuts, wire rope cable sockets, bridge pins and nuts, eye bolts, turnbuckles, clevises, stirrup rods, threaded foundation rods and studs.

STRUCTURE magazine

49

February 2011

award winners and outstanding projects

Beauty and the Beast

Spotlight

Wild Beast Music Pavilion at the California Institute of the Arts (CalArts)
By Bruce Gibbons, P.E., S.E. CEng, LEED AP

Thornton Tomasetti, Inc. received an Outstanding Project Award for the Wild Beast Music Pavilion project in the 2010 NCSEA Annual Excellence in Structural Engineering awards program (Category New Buildings under $10M)

omposer Morton Feldman used the metaphor wild beast to describe what he believed was the generative vigor within art. The new indoor-outdoor music pavilion on the CalArts campus in Valencia, California, is wild but welcoming, featuring a flowing, arched roofline. Positioned just inside the main campus entry, the new structure serves as a prominent gateway to the campus. The Wild Beasts versatility expands the educational resources of the school. The venue functions as a classroom, as a 100-seat indoor music hall and, when the hangar-style doors are open, as an outdoor amphitheater with a capacity for up to 500 spectators. It can be used for instruction, rehearsal, performances and student gatherings. Through creative collaboration between the architect and engineer, the image of the project evolved from the clients functional requirements for additional classroom space for their music program into an iconic project that has now been adopted by CalArts as a primary symbol of artistic creativity. LA-based architectural firm Hodgetts+Fung envisioned a space echoing the interior of a string instrument and called for a light and flowing roof form. This aesthetic goal required the structural engineer to optimize the balance between form and function, and two concepts were investigated with the goal to minimize the structural depth of the curved structure. First, a system consisting of a concrete sandwich shell with a central styrofoam core and rebar trusses at 24 inches on-center in both the longitudinal and transverse directions was studied. Alternatively, a system of longitudinal curved steel beams at the outer edge and valley lines supporting a composite deck with 3-inch shotcrete was studied. By providing fixity at the base and roller supports at the tip of the roof, it was possible to take advantage of the curvature to minimize deflection and bending in the members. The form of the curve was adjusted to maximize structural efficiency by balancing positive and negative moments, and this proved to be the most cost-effective solution.

Courtesy of Tom Bonner 2009.

The primary structure consists of four parallel ribs that spring up from the floor, arch over the space, and then rest lightly on a concrete masonry wall. These ribs 14-inch wide-flange sections rolled the hard way to radii as tight as 12 feet achieve a 60-foot roof span. The shells geometry was originally designed using NURBS curves and then rationalized into a series of segments with defined arc lengths and radii. Frame action is utilized where the roof is curved, transitioning to composite action where the roof flattens out. Composite metal deck spans between the ribs, connecting to the webs of the two outer members to minimize apparent structural depth. High-strength concrete was sprayed on the outer face of the metal deck to provide acoustic mass and increase overall rigidity. The structures longitudinal lateral system comprises a series of curved cantilevered columns, although the struts at the end resting atop the masonry wall provide some additional restraint through frame action. During an earthquake, the structure will undergo lateral drift along its primary axis. The strut connections employ pins and clevises to allow out-of-plane rotation, effectively creating a horizontal roller joint that accommodates large drifts and minimizes load transfer to the cantilevered concrete masonry wall below. The transverse lateral system is more rigid, with behavior similar to that of a concentric braced frame. The inclined struts at the cantilever end transfer lateral load directly from the roof diaphragm to the concrete masonry wall, and at the curved end diagonal bracing is provided between the relatively vertical portions of the W14 ribs, hidden behind acoustical panels. The 600-square foot hangar-style doors were designed to be particularly heavy to provide acoustic mass. The door frame, requiring both vertical and horizontal stiffness, is formed from two side-by-side W24 beams welded flange-to-flange to form a flanged box beam, and braced out-of-plane at its corner by a single, wide-flange beam that doubles as rigging for spotlights and microphones. Copper shingles, mullionless glazing and custom plywood panels give this building the refined finish it deserves. Together with the exposed structure, they form a unit that communicates the elegance of a musical instrument and the athletic poise of a wild beast. Bruce Gibbons, P.E., S.E. CEng, LEED AP, is a Senior Principal at Thornton Tomasetti and has more than 25 years of experience in the structural design, specification and construction of a wide variety of structures. Bruce may be reached at bgibbons@thorntontomasetti.com.

Diagram showing bending moments in primary structure due to gravity loads. Courtesy of Thornton Tomasetti.

STRUCTURE magazine

51

February 2011

News form the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

2010 2011
Associate Members
AISC Chicago, IL American Forest & Paper Association Washington, DC Bentley Systems, Inc Carlsbad, CA Institute for Business & Home Safety Tampa, FL ITW Red Head Addison, IL

N C S E A Membership
Partnering Organizations
SEI Reston, VA CASE Washington, DC

International Code Council Birmingham, AL

Metal Dek Group, a Unit of CSI Columbia, SC Schuff Steel Company Phoenix, AZ USP Structural Connectors Burnsville, MN

Metal Building Manufacturers Association Cleveland, OH

Affiliate Members
CETCO Building Materials Group Hoffman Estates, IL Cold-Formed Steel Engineers Institute Washington, DC Construction Tie Products (changed from Associate to Affiliate this year) Michigan City, IN CSC Inc. Chicago, IL DECON USA, Inc. Beaufort, SC Dwyer Companies West Chester, OH Fibrwrap Construction, Inc. Lombard, IL Hardy Frames, Inc. Ventura, CA Helical Anchors, Inc. Minneapolis, MN Hilti, Inc. Tulsa, OK Powers Fasteners Brewster, NY RISA Technologies Foothill Ranch, CA SE Solutions, LLC Holland, MI SidePlate Systems, Inc. Laguna Hills, CA Steel Joist Institute Myrtle Beach, SC

Sustaining Members

NCSEA News

Barrish, Pelham & Associates, Inc. Sacramento, CA Barter & Associates, Inc. Mobile, AL Burns & McDonnell Kansas City, MO Cartwright Engineers Logan, UT CBI Consulting, Inc. South Boston, MA Construction Technology Laboratories Skokie, IL Cowen Associates Consulting Structural Engineers Natick, MA

Criser Troutman Tanner Consulting Engineers Wilmington, NC Degenkolb Engineers San Francisco, CA DiBlasi Associates, P.C. Monroe, CT Dominick R. Pilla Associates Nyack, NY Dunbar, Milby, Williams, Pittman & Vaughan Richmond, VA Engineering Solutions, LLC Oklahoma City, OK Gilsanz Murray Steficek, LLP New York, NY

LBYD, Inc. Birmingham, AL Ruby & Associates, Inc. Farmington Hills, MI Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger, Inc. San Francisco, CA Structural Engineers Group, Inc. Jacksonville, FL TGRWA, LLC Chicago, IL The Harman Group, Inc. King of Prussia, PA Thornton Tomasetti Chicago, IL United Structural Systems Ltd., Inc. Lancaster, PA

STRUCTURE magazine

52

February 2011

NCSEA News

NaTioNal CoUNCil oF STRUCTURal ENgiNEERS aSSoCiaTioNS

2011 Winter institute

Deferred Submittals:

What the EOR needs

to know and show

From Design to Construction

February 25 & 26, 2011

The complexity of deferred submittals is not often appreciated by the Structural Engineer, nor fully comprehended by the contractor, both of whom will subsequently be impacted by the results of inappropriate integration of the deferred submittal with the original drawings. The challenges may be further exacerbated by the interpretation of building departments and the lack of concise definitions and controls. Do SEs get themselves into trouble, more often than not, by improperly dealing with deferred submittals? Dont miss this opportunity to find out and discuss these problems with your peers! Only $595 for 2 days, or $350 for 1 day. Earn up to 15.5 professional development hours. Included in the program Friday are tours of the Canam Steel Joist Facility and Gate Concrete Products.

News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

Location:

Omni Amelia Island Plantation Amelia Island, Florida 32034

Reservations:

1-888-261-6165 Group number: 022011NCSEAWINT

Mention NCSEA Winter Institute for a special room rate of $149 until February 9.

Register at www.ncsea.com

Room rate includes free hourly transportation to/from JAX Airport (Jacksonville, FL). Call 904-277-5920 at least 3 days before your arrive with your flight information to secure a ride. February 10, 2011: Detailing of Unbonded Post-Tensioned Structures to Minimize the Effects of Restraint to Shortening Bryan Allred March 1, 2011: Building Information Modeling in Structural Engineering Practice Today David J. Odeh March 10, 2011: Post-Tensioned Slabs on Ground Design Bryan Allred April 19, 2011: Code Issues in Existing Buildings: Archaic and Obsolete Structures Donald Friedman May 17, 2011: AISC T.R. Higgins LectureThe AISC Seismic Design Provisions: Past, Present and Future James O. Malley

Upcoming NCSEA Webinars:

NCSEA/Kaplan Structural Engineering Exam Review Course

Obtain two weekends (12 hours each) of targeted review, sitting in front of your computer, with 24/7 playback. Review anytime. Instructors are knowledgeable, hand-picked and recommended by your peers: January 29-30: Vertical Forces Review. February 12-13: Lateral Forces Review. Visit www.ncsea.com and follow the Hot Topics link for the NCSEA/Kaplan SE Exam Review Course, to register and for more information on the course and the instructors.

2011 NCSEA Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards

CALL FOR ENTRIES
The National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA) announces the Call for Entries for the 2011 NCSEA Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards Program. Projects must have been completed between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2010, or must be sufficiently complete such that they clearly show the basic design of the structural system. Projects may be located anywhere in the world. Multiple entries from the same firm will be accepted. All entries must be received at the NCSEA office by 4:00 p.m. CDT on Friday, July 22, 2011. Visit www.ncsea.com for more details. STRUCTURE magazine

53

February 2011

2011 Structures Congress Technical Sessions

Thursday, April 14, 2011
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
Track 8:00 AM 9:30 AM Bridge
Innovative Seismic Analysis of Bridges

Buildings 1 James Dolan

Long Span Stadium Roofs

Buildings 2 William Baker

Building Specific Seismic Strengthening and Design Nonlinear Seismic Analysis for Everyday Application

Extreme Loads Ahsan Kareem

State of the Practice for Blast Resistant Design of Structures Innovative Methods to Defeat Blast Loads: Windows and Doors

Forensic Alicia E Daz de Len

Legal and Business Challenges to the Dissemination of Failure Information

Track Chair Bruce Peterson

10:00 AM Seismic Reliability and Performance Assessment 11:30 AM

of Bridges

Integrating Life Cycle and Carbon Assessments

Forensic Investigation of Crane Failures: Case Studies and Lessons Learned

12:00 PM 2:00 PM Opening Luncheon, Plenary Speaker and Awards Program 2:15 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 5:30 PM
Bridge Structural Health Monitoring Specification: 2020 Long Term Structural Health Monitoring of Bridges Existing Masonry Buildings Evaluation and Retrofit Structural Performance in Fire Seismic Design of Cold Formed Steel and Metal Building Systems Lateral Force Systems Current State of Practice of Bridge and Tunnel Vulnerability Assessments/ Evaluations Advances in Concrete for Blast Resistant Structures Wind Vulnerability for Critical Facilities

Performance Issues in Buildings and Structures

6:00 PM 7:30 PM Grand Opening Reception

Friday April 15, 2011

Track 8:30 AM 10:00 AM Bridge
Assessing and Retrofitting Steel Bridges for Fatigue

Buildings 1 James Dolan

Tall Building Design in Seismic Regions: Design Philosophies & Global Perspectives Wind Induced Torsional Loads on Buildings

Buildings 2 William Baker

An Introduction to New AISC Design Guides

Extreme Loads Ahsan Kareem

Blast Design

Forensic Alicia E Daz de Len

Forensic Remediation Measures

Track Chair Bruce Peterson

10:30 AM Design Build Procurement 12:00 PM 1:30 PM 3:00 PM 3:30 PM 5:00 PM

Innovative Bridge Analysis Approaches

The 14th Edition AISC Steel Construction Manual

Blast Analysis and Testing

Structural Repair and Strengthening of Foundations and Slabs-on-Grade Performance of Structures Under Extreme Loads through Field Observations and Analytical Investigations Reducing Brittle and Fatigue Failures

Structural Columns

Floor Vibration Serviceability

Detailing Issues for Steel Structures

General Provisions, Load Combinations, and Dead Live and Atmospheric Ice Loads ASCE 7-10 Seismic Loads

Innovative Bridge Design and Construction Approaches

Comparing the Results of Wind Tunnel Studies of Unconventionally Shaped Tall Buildings

Innovations in Steel Plate Shear Walls

5:30 PM 9:30 PM Evening at the Hoover Dam

Saturday April 16, 2011

Track 8:30 AM 10:00 AM Bridge
Experimental Investigation of Bridge Response

Buildings 1 James Dolan

Wood Light Frame Design

Buildings 2 William Baker

Use of Protective Systems to Achieve High Seismic Performance Goals Soil Structure Interaction and Seismic Isolation at Nuclear Facilities

Extreme Loads Ahsan Kareem

ASCE 7-10 Snow, Rain and Flood Loads

Forensic Alicia E Daz de Len

SEI/ASCE Chile Earthquake Assessment Team Report Session 1 SEI/ASCE Chile Earthquake Assessment Team Report Session 2

Track Chair Bruce Peterson

10:30 AM Cable Supported Bridges 12:00 PM

Reinforcing Topics for Concrete Structures

ASCE 7-10 Wind Loads

1:30 PM 3:00 PM Closing Session Unique Challenges of the Built Environment of Las Vegas

For more information about the 2011 Structures Congress, including Registration and Housing STRUCTURE magazine

54

February 2011

Structural Columns

April 14-16, 2011 Green Valley Ranch Resort and Spa, Las Vegas, Nevada
New Research and Novel Applications 1 New Research and Novel Applications 2 Business and Professional Practice Energy Structures and Non-Structural Components

Las Vegas Structures Theodore L. Droessler

Hoover Dam Bypass Project

A. Emin Aktan
Dynamic Monitoring of Civil Structures Using Advanced Sensing Systems and Techniques

Paul Mlakar
Advanced Computation Techniques in Structural Engineering Remote Sensing of Structural Damage

John Tawresey
SE Licensure

Robert Bachman
Structural Performance Criteria for Alternative Energy Production Systems Design and Reliability of Transmission Tower and Wind Turbine Structures

Nevada Geology and Assessment of Seismic Hazards

Seismic Analysis of Nuclear Facilities

How the Future of Structural Engineering Sees the Future of Structural Engineering

Opening Luncheon, Plenary Speaker and Awards Program Alternative Project Delivery Methods Life Cycle Performance Under Multiple Hazards Student Structural Design Competition Thinking about Engineering Design and Evaluation of Non-Structural Components and Non Buildings Seismic Response of Ceiling Piping Partition Non-Structural Systems

Research in Nevada Universities Grand Opening Reception

Multi Hazard Modeling and Response of Structures

RAPID Assessment of Effect of Haitian Earthquake

Construction Crane Collapse Case Study

New Research and Novel Applications 1

New Research and Novel Applications 2

Business and Professional Practice

CASE Risk Management Convocation

Non-Building Structures

The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE

A. Emin Aktan
Resilience of Structures, Infrastructures, & Communities Under Seismic Hazard Advances in Shape Memory Materials Bridge Applications

Paul Mlakar

John Tawresey

Cheng Lok Caleb Hing

How Structural Engineers Can Work Effectively with Architects Who Use AIA C401 The Changing Face of Indemnity: Meaner and Uglier! New Tools for Managing Risk and Project Implementation

Robert Bachman
Wind Effects of Non-Building and Special Structures

What Can We Learn From the Structural Engineers and the Great Structural Designers Media

Creating Greater Triple Bottom Line Benefits from Sustainability Approaches Recent Advances in Structural Engineering

Connection Details Engineering

Seismic Blast Vibration and Modular Weight Management Aspects of Petrochemical Structure Designs Design, Investigation and Repair of Large Non-Building Structures Seismic Retrofit of Non-Building Structures

Progress of the SEI Disproportionate Collapse Standards and Guidance Committee Advances in Structural Analysis Multiscale Mechanics and Advanced Simulation Methods in Structural Engineering Evening at the Hoover Dam

Current and New Technology in the Business of Structural Engineering ASCE Guiding Principles

Experimental Validation of Design Concepts and Analytical Methods for Collapse-Resistance of Structures Subjected to Explosive and Abnormal Loading

Lessons Learned from Arbitration, Mediation and Litigation

New Research and Novel

Las Vegas Structures Theodore L. Droessler

Viva Las Vegas Structural Challenges

Applications 1

Business and Professional Practice John Tawresey

Effect of I-35 Minnesota Bridge Failure on Bridge Inspection and Evaluation Program Opportunities for the IPD Structural Engineer Now and Into the Future Technician or True Consulting Engineer That is the Question!

Education A. Emin Aktan

Failure Case Studies and Forensics in Engineering Education Best Practices Advances in Structural Engineering

Special Structures Robert Bachman

Engineering of Monumental and Unusual Stairs

A. Emin Aktan
Bridge Reliability and Fragility Issues

Construction Failures in Las Vegas Nevada During the Past Twenty Years

Recent Developments in Simplified Nonlinear Static Procedures for Seismic Evaluation and Design of Structural Systems

Engineering Live Entertainment

Closing Session Unique Challenges of the Built Environment of Las Vegas

visit our website at www.structurescongress.org. STRUCTURE magazine

To view the interactive Technical Program, including all presenters and abstracts, on the SEI Website, visit www.structurescongress.org

55

February 2011

CASE Risk Management Convocation in Las Vegas Next Spring

The Newsletter of the Council of American Structural Engineers
The CASE Risk Management Convocation will be held in conjunction with the Structures Congress at the Green Valley Ranch Resort in Las Vegas, NV, April 1416, 2011. For more information and updates go to www.seinstitute.org. The following CASE Convocation sessions are scheduled to take place on Friday, April 15:

8:30 AM - 10:00 AM How Structural Engineers Can Work Effectively with Architects Who Use AIA C401
Speaker William Geisen, Esq., Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP If your firm works as a sub-consultant to architects, come examine CASEs Commentary on AIA Document C401, the Standard Form of Agreement Between Architect and Consultant. AIA Contract Document C401 incorporates by reference AIA Contract Document B101, the Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect. The interplay between C401 and B101 cannot be overemphasized. Using C401 without understanding fully the interrelationships with B101 is a recipe for disaster. This presentation will cover how the engineers rights and obligations are impacted by these two agreements, and CASEs recommended provisions to include in your contract with the architect. Understanding and using B101 effectively can give you more leverage in collecting fees, getting paid for Additional Services and collecting more reimbursable expenses.

1:30 PM 3:00 PM New Tools for Managing Risk and Project Implementation
Speakers Stacy Bartoletti, President and COO, Degenkolb Engineers Nils V. Ericson III, Project Manager, The Di Salvo Ericson Group John Aniol, Vice President, Thornton Tomasetti Brent White, President, ARW Engineers The CASE Tool Kit Committee has developed a number of new tools that will be presented in this session. Developing a Culture of Quality provides a white paper and PowerPoint presentation used to engage firm leaders in a discussion about their firm culture and key aspects that contribute to quality. A new tool on staffing projections provides a method for firms to project future revenues and staffing demands based on contract values and potential work. Project Work Plans set the stage early for project success and a new work plan template will be presented. Finally, a new tool titled Managing Computer Software Use will be presented. This tool provides a white paper on key aspects and responsibilities of the project manager and principal in charge relative to software use on projects.

CASE in Point

10:30 AM 12 Noon The Changing Face of Indemnity: Meaner and Uglier!

Speaker Brian Stewart, Esq., Collins, Collins, Muir & Stewart This program will present an overview of some recent California cases having received national attention, which could present potentially disastrous results for the engineering community. The discussion will center on how and why the cases were decided the way they were, and what is being done as a result of the holdings in those cases. The program will conclude with a description of some legislative and practical efforts to defend against this unfortunate tide.

3:30 PM 5:00 PM Lessons Learned from Arbitration, Mediation and Litigation

Speakers John O. Woods, Jr., P.E., President, WOODS PEACOCK Engineering Consultants, Inc. Bruce E. Titus, Esq., Principal Rees Broome, PC Charles Vonderheid CBIZ This panel discussion will focus on applying lessons learned from the speakers involvement with arbitration, mediation and litigation. The speakers, who are a practicing structural engineer & arbitrator, an attorney specializing in construction law, and a professional liability insurance agent, will share some of their own lessons learned and anecdotes.

STRUCTURE magazine

56

February 2011

CASE in Point

CASE Winter Planning Meeting Scheduled for February

The CASE Winter Planning Meeting will take place on Wednesday and Thursday, February 23-24, 2011, at the Amelia Island Plantation, Florida in conjunction with the NCSEA Winter Institute. On Wednesday afternoon, the CASE Executive Committee will meet and set the agenda for the next days committee planning sessions. The committee breakout meetings will take place on Thursday for the National Guidelines, Contracts, Programs & Communications, and Toolkit Committees to continue work on their respective assignments. As part of the Committees ongoing activities, face-to-face meetings and informal discussions are held twice a year to explore current issues, andwork on projects like new and revised Risk Management Tools, Guidelines and Contracts, as well as Publications, and Risk Management Convocations. These meetings also allow the various CASE committees to interact across all of CASEs activities. For more information on the CASE committees and CASE in general visit their website at www.acec.org/CASE.

Follow ACEC on Facebook

The just-launched ACEC National Facebook page offers members and prospective members a new way to stay abreast of important Council initiatives and events. Go to www.facebook.com/pages/ACEC-National/150339271657089?ref=ts to view ACECs new Facebook page, or search ACEC National in your Facebook account. You must be registered with Facebook to view the ACEC National page.

CASE is a part of the American Council of Engineering Companies

ACEC Education Information

Prepare for LEED Green Associate Credential With On-Demand Course

Green Buildings and Preparing for the LEED Green Associate exam is a first step towards the Green Building Certification Institutes (GBCI) LEED Green Associate professional credential. In partnership with the U.S. Green Building Council, ACEC again offers this unique online course on the sustainable building concepts that are fundamental to all LEED Rating Systems. The 32-hour course is live online 24/7 beginning January 31, 2011 and is accessible to registrants at their convenience through March 27, 2011. ACEC members may register for the course at a special discount price. For complete details on course content and to register: www.acec.org/education/eventDetails.cfm?eventID=1196

STRUCTURE magazine

57

February 2011

Structural Forum
By David W. Hillery, P.E. hen a person trains in martial arts long enough and acquires sufficient skill, he receives a black belt to wear with his uniform. Once he obtains this belt, he does not declare that he has a black belt; he does not claim that he owns the black belt, nor even that he wears the black belt. What he says is that he is a black belt. The training that earned him the new belt color has changed his entire identity, and symbolizes much more than just a reward or medal of achievement in the martial arts. Engineers should be the same. We do not merely act as Engineers only during the times when we are working on a project or only in the office; but the title of Engineer remains with us on the weekend at home, and in bowling alleys, restaurants and churches as well. We have had our very identities changed by the training that we have received, and we do not want to separate ourselves from the title that we use: Engineer with a capital E. I might state the fact that I am an Engineer upon meeting another person for the first time. Most of us consider this line of work as something to be proud of, and something that defines our very being and purpose. The title Engineer is a role that defines us just as the color of the belt defines the martial artist. I agree with Richard G. Weingardt, P.E., who has written at least eight books and numerous articles for STRUCTURE magazine, about Engineers doing non-engineering things to promote our profession to non-engineers. He inspired me to believe that if I accomplish something like earning a black belt in martial arts or writing a novel more on that in a moment I should tell people that I have done so, and make sure that they know that I am an Engineer. I should strive to call attention to the fact that Engineers make a difference; if I am asked to speak to any audience, even for a non-engineering reason, they ought to know that I am an Engineer. By doing so, I can enhance their knowledge and change the way they define the role of an Engineer in their own minds. I can, and should, make a difference to them, as a way of promoting my profession. It will help all

opinions on topics of current importance to structural engineers

The Black Belt in Engineering

of us if I am successful in other areas of life besides Engineering. Not only am I a 5th degree black belt in Taekwon-Do, I have also recently published a science fiction novel called The First Degree. It is the story of an Engineer who is a student of Taekwon-Do, and who has some surprising adventures involving space and time travel, alien life forms, deadly weapons, amazing computer technology, and interesting characters doing interesting things. Of course, in order for me to be successful as a new author, my publisher must sell enough books to make money; and the more copies we sell, the more success I will have in promoting what we as Engineers do. Becoming a successful Author, with a capital A, will provide me with more opportunities to speak to audiences who will listen as I tell them about what we do as Engineers. I can tell stories and explain things in a way that they might enjoy, as they learn to understand better who we Engineers really are. I want to make them more aware of us, just as Mr. Weingardt has suggested. I will probably never get called by a reporter about the fact that I am an Engineer. However, now that I have written a novel, someone at a newspaper or television station might want to interview me. Then, when I mention that I am also a black belt in martial arts, that will probably find its way into the story as an entertaining bonus for the audience. I know that in such an interview, I will also mention that I am an Engineer and present this fact in a way that will be perceived as a bonus as well. Perhaps I will tell the audience something that they did not know about bridges or buildings. This exposure of the world of engineering would be possible because I had accomplished something supposedly unrelated to engineering. What opportunities do you have to connect your hobbies, interests, and non-professional accomplishments to engineering? It could be said that writing fiction, doing martial

arts and inspecting bridges are all separate and unrelated activities, but I beg to differ because I am an Engineer who does all three of these, they are inter-related as far as I am concerned. I encourage all Engineers to try, when you assemble with non-engineers, to let the audience know that your identity includes engineering as well as the activities that brought you together. Finally, we need to be more interesting. I love to hear about Engineers standing in front of an audience, or writing articles or books that get read by many people, and effectively communicating about engineering subjects in a way that truly interests the audience. Maybe you can become such a person yourself. Too often, brilliant Engineers are lacking in presentation and communication skills, as smart as we may be in our various fields of expertise. The audience may get bored if we fail to entertain. I think that we should strive to find ways to entertain people and, in the process, make sure that they know that we are Engineers.

David W. Hillery, P.E. (david.hillery@gmail.com) is a structural engineer with Jacobs in Houston, Texas. His book, The First Degree, is available online at www.DorranceBookstore.com.

Structural Forum is intended to stimulate thoughtful dialogue and debate among structural engineers and other participants in the design and construction process. Any opinions expressed in Structural Forum are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C 3 Ink, or the STRUCTURE magazine Editorial Board. STRUCTURE magazine

58

February 2011

Easy to Learn
From expert in-person training to informative online webinars and tutorials, its never been easier to learn RISA.

800.332.RISA

www.risa.com
2011 RISA Technologies, LLC