2013 - 10 Bridges PDF

October 2013 Bridges
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI
STRUCTURE
POWERS PURE110+ EPOXY ADHESIVE ANCHOR SYSTEM
(1:1 RATIO)
WHY DO WE CALL IT 110+?

Adhesive anchors are now included in the International Building Code
All adhesive anchor systems are required to be tested at
110F for sustained loading, known as creep
Pure110+ has passed creep
testing and is also approved for both
cracked + uncracked concrete and
seismic loads
Pure 110+ is the only
approved epoxy that has
the same bond strength at
high temperature (110F )
as it does at room
temperature
So when youre looking for
an adhesive with great bond
strength, creep resistance and
that is code listed, remember
the number 110+!
NEW!
Pure110+ is now
available and in stock for
immediate shipment!
Powers Fasteners, Inc. www.powers.com
2 Powers Lane
P: (914) 235-6300
Brewster, NY 10509 F: (914) 576-6483
For over three decades engineers have relied on ENERCALCs industry leading
software to perform structural design and analysis for low to mid-rise buildings.
Software for rapid creation of calculations for

components of low to mid-rise buildings
Covers virtually all design & analysis tasks in
steel, wood, concrete, masonry, load generation
and frame analysis
Latest IBC, ACI, ASCE, AISC, NDS and CBC code
provisions incorporated
Flexible licensing, automatic web updates, superb
support, created by experienced engineers
Celebrating 30 years and 8,000+ users
ENERCALC
Improved continuously to suit users needs
Did you know?

A recent addition to Structural
Engineering Library is the
Project Load Group Builder.
This module allows you to
build a database of material
& weights and other loads common to your structural calculations.
You can then use this list to build load sets for your project calculations.
Draw from your custom list to quickly document and obtain design load
totals for project-specific loads such as roof & floor surface loads, lateral
loads, equipment loads & anything else.
ENERCALC
800.424.2252 | www.enercalc.com | info@enercalc.com
Evaluation Software: www.enercalc.com/demo
FEATURES
26
Historic Arch Bridge Reborn

with Progressive Design
By Chad Clancy, P.E. and Mike House, P.E.
The Burnt House Road Bridge, a historic bridge set in the

countryside of rural central Pennsylvania, was in need
of an update and it needed it quickly. Closed to traffic
in 2009, engineers were faced with the challenge of
balancing modern day traffic demands with the communitys
preference to preserve the appearance of the original
humped-profile bridge.
28
Bridges for Planes, Trains,

but not Automobiles
By David A. Burrows, P.E.
The route for the new PHX Sky Train takes the co-mingling of
air traffic and ground transportation in some very innovative
directions. Not only will the route for the new automated
transit system cross over one taxiway and beneath two
other taxiways, but construction occurs while the taxiways
are active! These crossings presented several design and
construction challenges.
CONTENTS
October 2013
COLUMNS
7 Editorial
A Culture of Risk Management
By Andrew Rauch, CASE Chair
10 Technology
The New Technology
of Bridge Design
By Scott Lomax and
Thomas Duffy, P.E.
14 Engineers Notebook
Energy Methods
By Jerod G. Johnson, Ph.D., S.E.
16 Historic Structures
Engineering History
By Alice Oviatt-Lawrence
21 Structural Forensics
Decayed Wood Structures
By Lee Dunham, P.E., S.E.
STRUCTURE
32 Structural Testing
ON THE COVER
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI
The art of bridge design is a timehonored pursuit that, throughout

the centuries, has undergone
significant advances in engineering and technology as a result of
mankinds passion to conquer the
challenges of any given crossing.
Santiago Calatravas Jerusalem Chords Bridge is one
of several modern bridges that is featured in the article
by Thornton Tomasettis Scott Lomax and Tom Duffy
on page 10.
October 2013 Bridges
IN EVERY ISSUE
8 Advertiser Index
37 Resource Guide
(Seismic/Wind)
44 NCSEA News
46 SEI Structural Columns
48 CASE in Point
Structural Health Monitoring

with Interferometric Radar
By Paul J. Bennett, P.E.
DEPARTMENTS
36 Legal Perspectives
Consideration
By Gail S. Kelley, P.E., Esq.
39 Great Achievements
The Permanent Bridge
By Frank Griggs, Jr., P.E.
42 InSights
Erratum
In the Structural Design Column article, Steel Deck Diaphragm Design 101 (August 2013
issue), there is a typo in an equation on page 11. A 2 should have been a superscript, thus
squaring the length; instead, the 2 was printed as if multiplying the length by 2. The correct
sentence should read:
Summing moments about point (a) yields a shear force along the top (building perimeter above
opening) of (8.01 k x 6.25 ft. + 0.175 klf x (6.25 ft.)2 / 2) / 30 ft. = 1.78 k (leftward).
The online version of the article has been corrected.
Disproportionate Collapse Design

Guidance in the United States
By David Stevens, Ph.D., P.E.
and Mark Waggoner, P.E.
43 Spotlight
The Harbor Drive
Pedestrian Bridge
By Joe Tognoli
50 Structural Forum
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.
STRUCTURE magazine
October 2013
Building Codes and

the Public Domain
By David L. Pierson, S.E., SECB
AL
UC
TU
R
R
EE
S
ST
R
GIN
EN
ING
IN U
NT
N
ED
UC
AT
IO
CO
NCSEA
Diamond
Reviewed
Schedule Your FREE Lunch & Learn with the Spec Expert
Earn 1 CE hour!
Lunch & Learn attendees
receive one Continuing
Education hour.
Brad Fletcher, structural engineer at Atlas Tube, spent six years helping
develop the new ASTM A1085 HSS spec. Now, he'll come to your facility
to explain how A1085 allows for more economical structures, enhanced
support for dynamic loads and greater control over your designs.
Got questions about A1085? Get answers with Atlas Tube.
Sign up and get a preview at atlastube.com/A1085

Don't delayBrad's calendar is filling up!
Editorial
A
Culture of Risk Management
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
By Andrew Rauch, CASE Chair
few weeks ago, I met with new employees of our firm

to introduce our risk management program to them.
It is one of my duties as the risk management director
for our office. Because of the economic downturn,
I had not had the opportunity to make this presentation for a
while, and it felt good to be able to do one again. As I was preparing for this presentation, I had the opportunity to consider
risk management and how it really requires that your firm have a
culture of risk management. A culture of risk management is the
first of CASEs Ten Foundations of Risk Management. It is not
something that can only be touched on occasionally, but must be
a constant presence in the design process.
A firms culture can be considered to consist of three components: artifacts; shared values, knowledge and learning; and basic
unspoken assumptions.
Artifacts are those things that can be seen and heard in your office.
They are some of the first things that employees see when they begin
working for you. Maybe it means having a poster showing your
commitment to risk management or perhaps the Ten Foundations
of Risk Management. Having a person or position responsible for
risk management is another visible way to show your commitment.
Putting risk management on the agenda for staff meetings and project
management meetings allows risk management issues and lessons
learned to be freely discussed.
Shared values, knowledge, and learning create awareness and
develop commitment to the risk management process. Share
horror stories of real claims that your firm or other firms have
endured. Tie risk into a monetary value. Let your employees
know how much professional liability insurance costs your firm.
Give them examples of what claims cost and how it can affect
firm profitability, their salaries or bonuses, and the firms ability
to grow. Share the status of ongoing claims with your employees
and celebrate when you are claim free. Compare how your firm
is doing in relation to industry averages. Take advantage of
risk management presentations through CASE, your insurance
broker or insurer, or the other
sources of risk management
information. All of these will
provide a constant drumbeat
to keep risk management present in their thinking.
Basic assumptions are those
aspects of company culture
that are not confronted or
debated. When these assumptions are challenged, they are
usually vigorously defended. By
STRUCTURAL
their nature, they take longer
ENGINEERING
to develop than the overt
INSTITUTE
actions described above. They
are also more powerful than
The Ten Foundations of Risk Management
1993-2013
a member benefit
structurE
years
STRUCTURE magazine
6. Scope
2. Prevention & Proactivity
7. Compensation
3. Planning
8. Contracts
4. Communication
9. Contract Documents
5. Education
10. Construction Phase
these actions and can quickly undermine what you are trying to
accomplish. For example, suppose your firm has a requirement
that all proposals are to be reviewed by a second person. If a principal routinely ignores that requirement and is not confronted,
your employees will assume that risk management is really not as
important as you claim it is.
For an engineering firm, culture is learned starting with the first
day. Employees learn about it based on how things are done around
the firm, from marketing to the end of the project. The culture is
learned through observation of what really happens each day. It is the
unwritten rules which can say that the written rules dont need to be
followed. It reflects the walk, not the talk, and is learned by what gets
rewarded, by what the heroes do, and by what the leaders tolerate,
not by what the leaders say.
In the book of Deuteronomy, the Jewish people were instructed
to write the Ten Commandments on their door posts and gates, to
teach them to their children, and talk about them when they woke,
while they went about their daily business, and in the evening. These
commandments were to be an integral part of their daily life, part
of their culture. While the Ten Foundations of Risk Management
are not as important as the Ten Commandments, they still need to
be an integral part of your firms culture. So, does your firm have
a culture of risk management? If it does, what does it tell your
employees? Is risk management important or is it something to
which you only pay lip service?
If you would like to learn more about the Ten Foundations
of Risk Management, visit the CASE website (www.acec.org/
case/gettinginvolved/toolkit.cfm). CASE has also developed a series
of risk management tools to help you institute your risk
management program and culture. They are available
free to CASE members and for purchase through the
ACEC bookstore.
Celebrating
1. Culture
Andrew Rauch is a principal with BKBM Engineers in

Minneapolis, MN and is responsible for overseeing their quality
assurance and risk management programs. He is the current
chair of the CASE Executive Committee. He can be reached at
arauch@bkbm.com.
October 2013
Advertiser index
PleAse suPPort these Advertisers
Cast ConneX......................................... 25
Computers & Structures, Inc. ............... 52
CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp........ 38
DBM Contractors Inc. .......................... 29
Enercalc, Inc. .......................................... 3
Engineering International Inc................ 11
Foundation Performance Association..... 12
Fyfe ....................................................... 15
Gerdau .................................................... 9
Hayward Baker, Inc. .............................. 20

Integrated Engineering Software, Inc..... 40
JMC Steel Group .................................... 6
KPFF Consulting Engineers .................... 8
Pile Dynamics, Inc. ............................... 23
Polytec GmbH ...................................... 22
Powers Fasteners, Inc. .............................. 2
QuakeWrap ........................................... 17
RISA Technologies ................................ 51
Editorial Board
Chair
Burns & McDonnell, Kansas City, MO

chair@structuremag.org
Brian W. Miller
CBI Consulting, Inc., Boston, MA
Mark W. Holmberg, P.E.
Evans Mountzouris, P.E.
The DiSalvo Ericson Group, Ridgefield, CT
Dilip Khatri, Ph.D., S.E.
Greg Schindler, P.E., S.E.
Khatri International Inc., Pasadena, CA
KPFF Consulting Engineers, Seattle, WA
Roger A. LaBoube, Ph.D., P.E.
Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.

BergerABAM, Vancouver, WA
Brian J. Leshko, P.E.
John Buddy Showalter, P.E.
John A. Mercer, P.E.
Amy Trygestad, P.E.
HDR Engineering, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA
Mercer Engineering, PC, Minot, ND
Chuck Minor
Dick Railton
Eastern Sales
847-854-1666
Western Sales
951-587-2982
sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
Davis, CA
Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc., Marietta, GA
CCFSS, Rolla, MO
AdvErtising Account MAnAgEr

Interactive Sales Associates
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECB
S-Frame Software, Inc. ............................ 4

SidePlate Systems, Inc. .......................... 31
Simpson Strong-Tie............................... 13
Structural Engineering Associates, Inc. .. 24
Structural Engineers Assoc. of Illinois .... 35
Structural Engineers, Inc. ...................... 30
Struware, Inc. ........................................ 33
Taylor Devices, Inc. ............................... 19
American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA
Chase Engineering, LLC, New Prague, MN
EditoriAL stAFF
Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE
execdir@ncsea.com
Editor
Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
Associate Editor
Graphic Designer
Web Developer
TARGETING
LEED GOLD
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY,

COLLABORATIVE LIFE SCIENCES BUILDING, PORTLAND, OR
IMAGE COURTESY OF CO ARCHITECTS
Nikki Alger
Rob Fullmer
graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org
William Radig
webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURE (Volume 20, Number 10). 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.
Celebrating
Seattle Tacoma Lacey Portland Eugene Sacramento San Francisco Walnut Creek Los Angeles
Long Beach Pasadena Irvine San Diego Boise Phoenix St. Louis Chicago New York
years
1993-2013
C3 Ink, Publishers
A Division of Copper Creek Companies, Inc.

148 Vine St., Reedsburg WI 53959
P-608-524-1397 F-608-524-4432
Visit STRUCTURE magazine
on-line at
Visit STRUCTURE
magazine on-line at
www.structuremag.org
Visit
STRUCTURE magazine online at
STRUCTURE magazine
October 2013
Building dreams that inspire future generations.

Gerdau is installing 6,650
tons of steel in San Diegos
New Central Library.
All across America, Gerdau helps build dreams.

San Diego dreamed of a library with 3.8 million books. Every day, people will
walk in curious and emerge inspired.
www.gerdau.com/longsteel
Technology
information and updates on
the impact of technology on
structural engineering
Iconic Firth of Forth Bridge, Scotland. Courtesy of Jim Wilson.
he art of bridge design is a time-honored pursuit that, throughout the

centuries, has undergone significant
advances in engineering and technology as a result of mankinds passion to conquer
the challenges of any given crossing. It has evolved
through the acceptance of
well-established practices,
codes and construction
techniques. In fact, when
new materials or methodologies are brought to
the market, it often takes
many years for the techniques to gain inclusion
in the modern practice of bridge design.
For example, even after the high-strength characteristics of iron were recognized, as compared
with timber, iron was still used as a lighter-weight
substitute. It was years before it came to be a
stand-alone structural material for bridge design.
Steel also went through a similar transformation before it was used as a replacement for iron;
welding and bolts replaced rivets; and in todays
modern age, computer analysis and CAD (from
matrix methods though FEMs) have replaced
hand calculations and hand drafting.
Where are we now in this continuum? Advanced
modeling techniques, material choices and analysis
methodologies adopted for building practices are
not yet fully embraced within the bridge industry.
This paradigm will soon shift, and we anticipate
that advanced computational modeling will be one
of the next big advances in bridge design.
The need to create crossings has always been
one of mankinds biggest challenges, and often
leads to an increase in mans ambition to have
a more enhanced understanding of mechanics
and advances in technology and materials. These
challenges create opportunities, and some of the
greatest leaps in engineering design and construction have occurred from the need to push
boundaries. Examples of this are evident from the
earliest recordings of Roman cofferdams, to the
Great Stone Bridge of the Sui Dynasty (581-618),
through to the Industrial Revolution (17601840). The Industrial Revolution in particular
The New Technology

of Bridge Design
By Scott Lomax and
Thomas Duffy, P.E.
Scott Lomax is a Vice President of

Thornton Tomasetti, specializing
in engineering for bridges and
long-span structures. Scotts past
work includes the World Trade
Center Transportation Hub,
currently under construction in New
York City. Scott may be reached at
SLomax@ThorntonTomasetti.com.
Thomas Duffy, P.E., is a Senior
Vice President at Thornton
Tomasetti and is responsible for
project management and business
development for Thornton Tomasettis
Building Performance practice. He
has served on the American Road
Transportation Builders Associations
planning and design committee.
He sits on the advisory board of the
Urban Assembly School of Design
and Construction in New York
City and has been a mentor and
technical advisor for Smith Colleges
Picker Engineering Program.
Thomas may be reached at
TDuffy@ThorntonTomasetti.com.
10 October 2013
was a watershed for advances in materials and

design, and coincided with the need to facilitate
an ever-expanding infrastructure network.
While Pre-Industrial Revolution bridges were
predominantly wood or stone, during the
Industrial Revolution, iron became a viable
option following the construction of the Iron
Bridge that stretched across the River Severn
in Coalbrookdale, UK. This can be seen as the
beginning of modern bridges produced with a
new material palette of industrially produced
iron, which gave way to cast iron, wrought iron,
steel, and reinforced and prestressed concrete.
This period also saw the development of the
Americas, which presented a growing need for
extended infrastructure.
In particular, the development of the railway network was instrumental in pioneering works such as
the first major crossing across the Mississippi via the
Eads Bridge in 1874, directed by Andrew Carnegie
through the Keystone Bridge Company; the iconic
Firth of Forth Crossing in 1890 near Edinburgh; and
the world-famous Brooklyn Bridge in 1883. This
era is often heralded as one of great civic works that
captured the imagination of the public and expressed
the rapidly expanding vision of engineers, architects,
entrepreneurs and empire-builders. Engineers played
a prominent role during the Industrial Revolution
and Victorian era, introducing to society names such
as Telford, Brunel, Roebling and Eiffel, and later,
Freyssinet & Amman. As architects took a lead role
in the design of buildings, the design and construction of bridges remained very much the domain
Gateshead Millennium Bridge. Courtesy of Kay Williams.
Iron Bridge at Coalbrookdale. Couresy of Leon Reed.
of the engineer. Major civil works, including

those of Amman, continued to push materials
and analysis to new boundaries and spans
notably with the use of cables in suspension
and cable-stay bridges. With increased spans
came heightened awareness and consideration
of wind forces and aerodynamics that led to
slender bridges. Following this path, we can see
the raw beauty of stressed ribbon bridges, such
as ones designed by notable engineer Jiri Strasky,
which epitomize both a structural and aesthetic
purity that has become the hallmark of signature
bridge design. Bridge design continued to be
dominated by engineers; however, appreciation
of the aesthetic impact was on the rise.
In recent times, we have seen architects play a
larger role in bridge design, creating signature
bridges that become important objects in the
public realm. Many have become landmarks
that raise the profile of the bridge design
industry, and highlight the importance of an
integrated design approach. Bridges by nature
are pure, almost raw objects, and as such possess a sculptural quality that is embraced by
the public. Through careful design, considering the form, function, detail and potential
to create more than just a link, bridges and
bridge designers have become more highprofile than ever. Celebrated engineer and
architect Santiago Calatrava is well-known
for his esoteric bridge designs, and involvement of well-known designers such as Sir
Norman Foster, Zaha Hadid, Wilkinson Eyre
and Thomas Heatherwick, amongst others,
on some truly innovative bridge projects, has
helped raise awareness of the importance of an
integrated approach to bridge design.
The domain of architects was more traditionally associated with building design, and in
keeping with this trend of architects increased
involvement in bridge design, it is only natural
that some of the recent innovations adopted in
building design will be implemented in bridge
design. It is clear that there will continue to
be advances in material science that push the
boundaries of the current palette of materials
(steel, cables, wood, glass and concrete) and
an expanding role of newer materials such as
plastics and composites, like the Sandwich
Plate System (SPS). Similarly, continued development of analysis software and understanding
of geometric and material nonlinearities will
also lend itself to push these materials to new
bounds. However, two areas in which we see
Santiago Calatravas Jerusalem Chords Bridge.

Couresy of Itay Barlev.
great growth and opportunity for the future of

bridge design are the application of advanced
geometric modeling and the delivery of the
design in a form that can be directly implemented into the fabrication process.
Advanced Computational Modeling
(ACM) is a powerful tool for both the conceptual and design development phases. As
bridge forms, particularly for footbridges,
become more complex, ACM can be used
to quickly investigate form-finding and
generate various geometrical options. As
part of this process, the ACM platform
can be used to refine and economize the
design and promote early understanding of
the structural behavior, visual appearance,
fabrication complexities and sustainability
issues. ACM can work within many platforms, including Rhino, Grasshopper and
Digital Project. These software packages,
Structural Design
Spreadsheets
www.Engineering-International.com
Seismic Analysis for Family Dwellings
Based on 2012 IBC/2013 CBC.
Wind Design for Low-Profile Solar
Photovoltaic Arrays on Flat Roof,
Based on SEAOC PV2-2012.
Falsework Design for Steel Girder
Bridge Based on NDS 2012 &
AASHTO.
Coupon for Package: $120 off Code: ASCE 7-2010
Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge. Courtesy of Amit Rawat.
STRUCTURE magazine
11
October 2013
233
The Majestic Millau Viaduct by Michel Virlogeux and Sir Norman Foster.
Courtesy of Dave Tappy.
ubiquitous within the design community,

facilitate development of forms that can be
quickly exported into a structural analysis
package and assessed for preliminary sizing
and behavior. The ability to produce early
3D images and renderings is also important, not only for consolidating the design
with the team but also for producing visual
graphics for clients, competitions and
media. By controlling parametric boundaries, it is possible to quickly optimize the
design for a number of parameters ranging
from weight to solar heat gain, offering early
evaluations of issues such as constructability
or energy modeling.
An example of this could be a covered
pedestrian bridge between two buildings in a hot climate, whereby the project
demands a high-profile response. Early
ACM work can be used to generate organic
structural forms, simulate various coverings
from tension fabric to glazing to Ethylene
TetraFluoroEthylene, orientate the structure
to both an optimized form while providing
maximum shading in the areas required,
while passing as much natural light as possible. The bridge structure can also quickly
be decomposed to show transportable and
erectable sections, thereby directing the constructability and early cost evaluation.
Breooklyn Bridge. Courtesy of Bess Adler.
The ability to fluidly converse between

software, including analytical packages, is
fundamental to the success of this approach. It
is important to note that this process continues through design development and is a tool
rather than a driver of the design, controlled
through a collaborative and integrated process
with the entire design team.
The early input of bridge constructability
in the design process is also important, as
it sometimes dictates the form of a bridge.
Consider the use of stressed-ribbon over a
deep ravine where falsework would be cost
prohibitive, or a tied arch bridge moved
into position in a single operation because
of either environmental considerations to
avoid temporary works in the crossing or
logistical rationale such as a limited closure.
Another link that is critical to the success of
a project is the production and delivery of
design information in a format that is directly
implemented by the contractor/fabricator.
This approach greatly benefits any project
and is fundamental for design-build projects
with aggressive schedules. While modeling
tools, such as Tekla, are the mainstay for this
effort, the success ultimately relies upon the
knowledge and understanding of the fabrication and construction process. To this end,
we have seen enormous benefit to having
Foundation Performance
Association (FPA)
ENGINEERS - Need CEUs??
The FPA hosts monthly events
with interesting presentations that
provide you CEUs. FPA also
sponsors the publication of
technical papers and research
material. FPA is great for
networking and low-cost CEUs.
Membership $96/yr $8/CEU
www.foundationperformance.org
Rolling Bridge. Courtesy of Eric Gjerde.
STRUCTURE magazine
12
October 2013
in-house fabrication expertise embedded

within the design team. Qualified staff delivering design materials in the same software
platform as the fabricator, and developing the
design both in this format and following the
methodology in which the bridge is erected,
the project can benefit from improved schedule. This minimizes reproduction and RFIs
and provides greater quality control due to a
common understanding between the design
and fabrication team and results ultimately
in cost benefits by reducing uncertainty in
the design material.
As the world population continues its migration to cities, and mega-cities emerge in Asia
and Latin America, we will see continued challenges to cross new spans. The importance
of aesthetics and the contribution of bridges
to the urban fabric means that an integrated
design team combining architectural form
with engineering elegance is fundamental
to the success of landmark bridge projects.
This process demands highly skilled and collaborative engineers, architects and designers
working seamlessly together in design, fabrication and construction. The future of bridge
design requires reinventing this
collaboration through the use of
new platforms for developing and
delivering the design materials.
Powerful
calculations,
Concrete solutions
Performing challenging calculations required by current design methodologies can be

completed quickly and accurately with the new Simpson Strong-Tie Anchor Designer
software. A fully interactive 3D graphical-user interface with 42 pre-loaded anchor
configurations simplify input, and calculation results are output for verification and
submission of your design. Anchor Designer complies with current ACI 318, ETAG and
CSA code requirements.
Call (800) 999-5099 to learn more and download the free software
at www.strongtie.com/anchordesigner.
2013 Simpson
Strong-Tie Company Inc. ADESIGN13
EnginEErs
notEbook
0.8
Acceleration (g)
0.6
aids for the structural

engineers toolbox
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Time (sec)
F
Energy Methods
What Does the
Future Hold?
By Jerod G. Johnson, Ph.D., S.E.
Jerod G. Johnson, Ph.D., S.E.

(jjohnson@reaveley.com), is a
principal with Reaveley Engineers +
Associates in Salt Lake City, Utah.
A similar article was

published in the Structural
Engineers Associations-Utah
(SEAU) Monthly Newsletter
(September, 2012). It is
reprinted with permission.
Figure 1: LA 38 Record from SAC Database.
or most of us, our training as structural

engineers has included significant attention toward transient seismic events.
They can have such destructive potential
as to occupy a major role in the geometry, design
and detailing of our projects.
For decades, prescriptive
methods in codes have
predicated design around a
peak transient condition that
presumably produces a peak
base shear reaction and a peak rooftop displacement. These phenomena then become the basis
of criteria for the seismic design.
These methods have arguably served us well,
and ample evidence gathered in post-earthquake reconnaissance efforts suggests that
structures designed and detailed in accordance
with contemporary codes have a far greater
potential for satisfactory performance than
other structures. Even so, we are far from being
able to state definitively that we can precisely
characterize the nature of expected ground
motions. As evidence of this concept, we need
only consider changes in prescriptive earthquake design provisions that seem to follow in
the wake of every major seismic event.
When considering the diversity that can occur
among earthquake ground motions, we need
not look any further than databases and ground
motion suites commonly used for research and
hypothetical studies. Consider two seismic acceleration records from the SAC Database derived
for soft sites (Soil Type E), one delivering a peak
ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.78g and the
second a PGA of 0.80g. Based on these parameters alone and without actually looking at the
accelerograms, we might conclude that these
events should produce structural motions with
comparable peak transient characteristics (drift
and base shear).
As we examine such behaviors, this indeed seems
to be the case, with these ground motions producing peak transient base shear reactions of 1,416 kips
and 1,618 kips, respectively, on a prototypical shear
14 October 2013
wall structure. So if we subscribe to methods driven

by current codes, we might conclude that these two
events result in similar seismic demands on the
structure. However, a closer look at the records as
shown in Figures 1 and 2 might lead us to draw a
different conclusion. While there are similarities
in peak acceleration and frequency content, there
are two major differences that are apparent.
The first record has a slightly higher
peak acceleration, but only has one pulse
reaching a magnitude of nearly 0.8g. The
second record has no fewer than six major
pulses, all of which reach nearly 0.8g.
The first record produces roughly 12
seconds of significant accelerations, while
the corresponding duration for the second
record is approximately twice as long.
The second record actually imposes a much
higher overall demand on the structure than the
first, primarily as an increase in element hysteretic
cycles driven toward peak element displacements
(or rotations). How can this demand be quantified
in a practical sense? Ordinates from response spectra for these events produce similar accelerations,
and response history analyses produce a similar result as we look at peak transient response.
Clearly, conventional methods fall short.
Alternative analysis methods gaining favor in the
research community include energy approaches.
While many of these methods have been around
for years, they have garnered greater attention
recently in light of the Sendai Earthquake on
March 11, 2011. Why is this so? The duration
of this event was far longer than most others on
record. Whereas earthquakes typically produce
major shaking for 20, 30 or perhaps 40 seconds,
Sendai continued shaking for minutes, leading
many initially to doubt the validity of the recordings. It is clear that such events hold the potential
for sustained lateral motion, and therefore an
increased structural demand.
Researchers Park and Ang developed energy methods to address this issue. Their coupled approach
accounts for peak transient response along with
total energy demand, with energy capacity derived
from hysteretic relationships not unlike nonlinear pushover curves.

The Park/Ang approach is embodied in the equation:
0.8
D = M +
dE
u Q y u
0.4
STRUCTURE magazine
Acceleration (g)
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Time (sec)
Figure 2: SE 33 Record from SAC Database.
where the first portion of the equation (M/u) represents peak

transient displacement over maximum capable nonlinear displacement. The balance of the equation reflects the ratio of
accumulated energy over maximum capable energy at maximum
capable nonlinear displacement. This equation produces a scalar
value not unlike a unity check. Results greater than 1.0 reflect
structural failure, and results less than 0.4 reflect a structure that
can likely be re-occupied immediately. Intermediate values reflect a
structure that may be reasonably recovered.
Using this approach, it may not be surprising
that results of the analysis for the previously
mentioned test structure subjected to the two
ground motions are significantly different.
The first produces a damage index calculation (D) of 1.02, and the second a value of
16.2. This demonstrates that the structure
would not survive the latter event, whereas
the former is just over the failure threshold.
In other words, the energy method shown
here predicts that one earthquake creates a
demand almost 16 times greater than the
other and this from two records of nearly
equal peak ground accelerations.
Only time will tell what future codes may
prescribe, and energy methods may eventually become mainstream. In the meantime,
since current code methods do not address
earthquake duration, what is the most prudent course of action? Do we now ask our
geotechnical counterparts to address not
only spectral accelerations and soil type, but
also earthquake duration? Their fees (and
likely their background) are probably not
sufficient for that level of sophistication.
Under current codes, it is not practical or
economical to address earthquake duration
(among other ground motion characteristics)
in our designs. Duration, like so many other
aspects of future ground motions, is a great
unknown. Trying to characterize it accurately
is like trying to understand a city by taking
pictures of the back yards of a few residents.
Rather, the more prudent approach is
to pay careful attention to seismic detailing. Thoughtful detailing in accordance
with current code prescriptions (which
we should be doing anyway) can make a
major difference with respect to the energy
portion of the equation listed previously.
Ductile detailing will increase the maximum capable nonlinear displacement,
thereby raising the denominator in the
latter half of the equation and lowering
the calculated damage index. This translates
to greater nonlinear displacement capability
and a more resilient structure.
0.6
15
October 2013
Historic
structures
significant structures of the past
aptains steering nineteenth century

heavy shipping-traffic remained vigilant when navigating the waterway of
the 850-foot wide Hell Gate Sector
of New York Citys East River, which is flanked
by two Manhattan islands and land eastward
in Queens, New York. Notoriously ferocious
waters, unexpected currents, and huge rocks
lurked below the turbulent surface. Yet this economically essential waterway provided major
regional freight operations.
Prior to the Hell Gate Bridge project, freight
trains and trucks, for example from New
England, stopped at rail termini, such as at
Morris Point in the Bronx, and transferred their
shipments onto floating barges bound for a destination terminal, such as in New Jersey, thereby
facilitating distribution of goods westward. But
the shipping back and forth in the waterways
became so congested with ferried traffic that
those involved called for modernization.
To expedite a solution
to such overcrowding and
for safety reasons, citizens
pressured Congress to
finance a deeper channelway. Congress, by 1885,
allocated approximately $600,000 for the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers to blast 9554 cubic
yards of rock out of the Hell Gate channel using
11,808 pounds of nitroglycerine, along with
1218 pounds of giant powder (TNT) and 8445
pounds of black powder (exploding TNT).
Blasting one cubic yard of rock required about
nine-tenths of a pound of nitroglycerine the
largest single blast removed 300,000 cubic yards
of rock. The Burleigh Drill, diamond drills, and
handwork removed more rock. Later, the East
River at Hell Gate was dredged from 26 feet of
original depth to 40 feet.
As marine traffic flourished, so too did the aggressive pursuit of railroad expansion. Engineers after
1890 knew that the Pennsylvania Railroad was
Engineering History
Gustav Lindenthals
New York City
Hell Gate Bridge
~1917
By Alice Oviatt-Lawrence
Alice Oviatt-Lawrence is
principal of Preservation
Enterprises, an architecturalengineering research and
historic-building analysis
organization. She serves on
the SEAoNY Publications
Committee, and may be reached
at StrucBridge@aol.co.uk.
The online version of this

article contains detailed
references. Please visit
www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
Recent overview of the project looking south, showing

the flagship Hell Gate Bridge and the 4-span Little
Hell Gate inverted bowstring arches in the foreground.
Towers probably by Henry Hornbostel, Architect.
Courtesy of www.loc.gov. HAER. NY-121-16. G.
Weinstein, Photographer. 1996.
16 October 2013
The New York connecting railroad

route. Half of the project is viaducts and
bridges. Courtesy of Popular Mechanics
Magazine, v. XX: 621. 1913.
evaluating opportunities for expansion, including

construction of a monumental railroad bridge to
span the Hell Gate waterway, to connect New
England with Long Island through, and into,
New York City and westward.
Therefore, the New York Connecting Railroad
Company incorporated in 1892, by Oliver Barnes
and Alfred Boller, among others. By 1900, a double-track, light Cooper E-40 cantilever bridge
design by Boller emerged for the site, but was
not accepted.
The existing bridge over the Hell Gate waterway became a reality soon after the turn of the
20th century. In 1900, the Pennsylvania Railroad,
together with the New York, New Haven &
Hartford Railroad, acquired the 1892 New
York Connecting Railroad Charter, with rights
to traverse the Hell Gate waterway. To facilitate
access to New York Pennsylvania Station, tunnels were in the works as well. After the definite
electrification of trains, the Pennsylvania Railroad
from 1904-1910 constructed two single-track
tunnels under the Hudson River and four tunnels beneath the East River, all traveling through
Manhattans newly constructed, classical-style
1911 Pennsylvania Station (McKim, Mead and
White; demol. 1965.)
The President of the Pennsylvania Railroad
selected Lindenthal as Consulting Engineer
and Bridge Architect of the East River Bridge
Division of the Hell Gate Bridge project in 1904,
at the end of Lindenthals term as New York City
Bridge Commissioner (1902-4).
In 1905, Lindenthal, after first considering a
three-span continuous truss and a three-span
cantilever design, presented two steel-arch
designs: One a crescent arch, with the top and
bottom chord termini converging, and the other
The Masonry Footings, Tower

Foundations and Towers
Completing Hell Gate arch top chord over rough waters. structural members manufactured for the floor
first act as backstays and counterweights. (Left & Right). The tremendous weights of the towers at the
abutments resist the thrust of the bottom chord of the arch where almost all of the forces are transmitted.
www.loc.gov HAER 3616-11 Taken 9/30/1915.Accessed Nov. 2012.
a spandrel arch design, with the termini of

the top and bottom chords splaying apart.
While the Pennsylvania Railroad aspired to
a world-class railroad, Lindenthal worked to
create an historically noteworthy, substantial
and visually unforgettable railroad entrance to
New York City. Lindenthals natural European
attention to quality, long service-life, and
aesthetics coincided with contemporary urban
movements working to improve the aesthetics
of the built environment.
Lindenthal and his 95 assistants, including

Othmar Ammann and David Steinman,
prepared the designs and specifications for
several miles of viaducts running from the
Bronx, into Queens, and three bridges; a
fixed metal truss bridge over Bronx Kill,
the noteworthy Little Hell Gate skew-deck
four-span reverse bowstring, and the flagship four-track spandrel-arch bridge over
Hell Gate. Construction began with the
July, 1912 ground breaking.
The Pennsylvania Railroads Joseph N.

Crawford, Consulting Engineer, made the
initial surveys and wash-borings. Later, coreborings ordered by Lindenthal established the
depth to bedrock, confirming on the Wards
Island side depths of 55 feet to 140 feet below
the mean high water line.
Geological problems on the Wards Island
side necessitated difficult, dangerous and
complex caisson construction, which was handled by the New York Connecting Railroads
Chief Engineer, P. G. Brown, Civil Engineer.
Here, the tower base and foundation rest on
21 caissons sunk to great depths. Of interest
are two rows of deep interlocking reinforced
caissons of 30 feet by 125 feet, which act
solely to resist the arch thrust and place 20
tons per square foot pressure on the bedrock.
On the Long Island (Queens) side, the excavated tower base, with its foundation weight
of eight and one half tons per square foot,
is 49 feet thick. It rests on Gneiss bedrock
encountered at 15 to 38 feet below the ground
surface, and is 104 feet by 140 feet at the base.
Architect Henry Hornbostel designed the
225-foot high portal towers in the project.
continued on next page
ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
The only product recommended by FEMA and the US Army Corps of

Engineers for fast repair of columns and piles following natural disasters.
UNDERWATER PILES STEEL POLES CONCRETE PILES TIMBER PILES UTILITY POLES BRIDGE PILINGS PILE EXTENSIONS
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
3-4 times stronger than steel with tensile strength more than 150,000 psi
Fastest repair & strengthening system with no traffic control
Increase axial capacity beyond original strength of column/pile
No weak seams along height offers uniform confining pressure (360)
No costly divers for underwater repair
Underwater cured resin eliminates the need for coffer dams
Does not corrode
No metallic parts
Grout or resin can be pressurized to penetrate all cracks and crevices
Available in carbon or glass
Works equally well on concrete, steel and wood or timber piles and columns
One size fits all piles (no delays for ordering customized jackets)
CALL US TODAY FOR A FREE CONSULTATION!

TM
By QuakeWrap, Inc.
STRUCTURE magazine
1-866-782-5397
www.PileMedic.com
17
October 2013
BEFORE
AFTER
The Romanesque-Revival towers have groundlevel footprints of 103 feet by 139 feet, with
the towers then tapering slightly inward up
to an entablature, above which an array of
simple, well crafted, stepped cornice-moldings
support a parapet of repeated small Roman
arches. A large Roman arch perforates each
of the four tower wall elevations, flanked by
two loopholes (medieval vertical slits).
The design concept of the portal towers is a
synthesis of historic meaning with new materials and technologies. The towers, appearing to
be solid, protective, load-bearing stone castlekeeps, become instead grand-arched open City
Gates, built of concrete with vertical and horizontal steel reinforcing rods and granite facings.
The concrete is waterproofed via its careful
mix, by smooth-finish toweling before setting, by proper sloping of the concrete for
quick water run off, and by the provision
of good drain holes. The mortar mix is one
part Portland cement, two parts sand, and
four parts gravel. There are steel girders in
the track floor and roof where the trains pass
through the portals.
The Steel
The bridge is constructed of 18,900 tons
of extra-heavy hard steel. All the rolled
steel and the forged and cast steel pieces
after annealing was tested for bending
and tension, multiple times and under
various loads. Carbon content in the
hard steel measured 0.27 to 0.34 percent.
Chemical content was controlled, resulting in maximum sulphur of 0.05 percent,
and phosphorus ranging from 0.04 to 0.06
percent. Tests of the hard steel yield point
calculated as +/- 38,000 pounds per square
inch, and the ultimate tensile strength +/71,000 pounds per square inch.
While Lindenthal with certainty used
nickel steel alloy for the eye bars and pins
in his 1909 cantilevered Queensborough
bridge, and considered its use for parts of
Hell Gate, he based his decision to not use
it on price ($40 more than carbon steel per
ton) and on what was thought at the time
to be a comparatively insignificant structural
advantage. Lindenthal originally specified
some structural steel for some parts (floor
system and suspenders only) of Hell Gate
Bridge but the American Bridge Company
provided 100% hard steel for the same price.
In 1910, Lindenthal upgraded the original specifications of the 1904 Pennsylvania
Railroad standard live loading of Cooper E-50
to the New York, New Haven and Hartfords
Cooper E-60 loading.
Inside Hell Gate Truss arch, looking down onto

the tracks. The truss is 53 feet wide over 4 tracks.
Note the lateral bracing and the heaviness of the
structural materials. The sidewalks flanking the
tracks are capable of supporting an overhead trolley.
Courtesy of DaveFrieder.com. All Rights Reserved.
The Hell Gate Arch

Superstructure
The two-hinged spandrel arch Hell Gate
Bridge, including the towers, is 1017 feet,
six inches long (977 feet between towers), 93
feet wide at the floor trusses (60 feet between
truss centers), and is comprised of 100% hard
steel. The ratio of rise to span is 1: 4.5, with
the height of the arch from mean high water
at 305 feet. No piers in the water or false work
were permitted, so as to not block the river
traffic under the bridges required 134-foot
vertical clearance. It was the most heavily
loaded bridge of its day.
The rectangular box-sections are by-andlarge of two-inch thick single plates. There
are 23 equal sized truss panels, each 42
feet long. The parabolic bottom chord
is a stiffened, double rectangular closedbox, hinged at the abutments where the
force equals 28,652 kips or 94.4% of the
total force.
Four static conditions for the Hell Gate
Bridges interesting erection sequence, perhaps
best summarized in Ammanns Transactions
of the ASCE paper of 1918 (Parenthetical
comment is added):
1) Cantilever condition. During erection
of first six panels, the truss held at end
of top chord by lower backstay.
2) Cantilever condition. During erection
of remaining panels, truss held at top
chord Point 11 by upper backstay.
3) Three-hinged arch condition. Backstays released and trusses connected at
bottom chord Point 22 Wards Island
side, which acted as hinge, top chord
STRUCTURE magazine
18
October 2013
23-23 (center), and diagonal 23 Wards

Island side 22 Long Island side not
connected at 23 Wards Island side.
Arch left in this condition until all
steelwork had been erected.
4) Final or two-hinged condition. All
steelwork erected and all members of
the center panel fully connected.
The bottom chord arch members were the
heaviest to be lifted. The superstructure
resists wind pressures of 3100 pounds per
linear foot, and lateral forces of 1500 pounds
per linear foot, creating 4600 pounds per
linear foot of total lateral resistance. The
American Railway Engineering Association
in 1914 specified total combined lateral and
wind force resistances of only 800 pounds
per linear foot.
The two ends of the steel arch met in the
middle over Hell Gate waterway, aligning
exactly, in 1915. During the next year, the viaducts and track floor were under construction.
The Viaduct Spans &

Approach Piers
Most of the project rests on elevated viaducts
spaced at 90 feet and averaging 100 feet high.
Lindenthal originally designed the viaduct
piers as steel trestle, so that as the marshy
ground below shifted, settled, or was drained
for future underground infrastructure, the
metal piers and girders assembly could then be
adjusted. Authorities noted that since nearby
mental and prison inmates housed on the
islands could climb metal trestles to escape,
Lindenthal in 1914 redesigned the piers as
horizontally and vertically reinforced arched
concrete supports for the approach viaduct
deck plate girder spans. Masonry ordinarily
would have been less economical than metal
trestle; however, due to high steel prices at the
time, concrete became economical.
The American Bridge Company controlled
the Wards and Queens plate girder erection.
After the arch closed, the Company distributed, on the ground by the viaduct piers,
the dismantled backstay structural members
and the plate girders which had been used as
counterweights during the arch assembly. A
locomotive crane on temporary track lifted
the members sequentially into place to construct the track floor.
McClintic-Marshall Construction Company
handled the Randalls Island and Bronx viaduct sections. Here, girders were riveted and
paired up at the shop, and delivered right to
the track. A 50-ton steel derrick car or locomotive crane operating on temporary track
positioned the girders.
Materials Testing &

Construction Observations
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.
Lindenthal was credited by his peers for

being the first to use all phases of a bridge
under construction for experimental testing.
At the time, engineers still worked under
theoretical assumptions and individual
experience; all advocated acquiring greater
scientific knowledge.
To that end, Bauschinger, in Germany,
developed a sensitive extensometer (accurate
to 1 x 10-6 ) with which he tested deformation and elongations of mild steel, and
investigated metal fatigue. Lindenthal
may have read publications of tests on
riveted trusses (Mesnager, 1899) using
Rabuts extensometer, as Lindenthal
employed them on parts of New Yorks
Queensborough Bridge (1909).
Lindenthal resolved to use Hell Gate
to share with the profession the findings
from this new scientific experimentation.
He acquired Howard extensometers and
attached them before, during and after
construction to all parts of the bridge
and equipment.
The extensometers were then monitored. The extensometers attached to the
Hell Gate eye bars, for example, revealed
uneven stresses during erection. After
controlled adjustments, the extensometers reflected a gradual leveling-out of
the eye bar stresses to a final, uniform
20,000 pounds per square inch. While
measuring the forces on both stays as seven
truss panels were placed, the hydraulic
jacks put the forward stay in tension and
released the lower stay. When too much
compression occurred, both stays could
be immediately adjusted.
Steinman, in 1918, remarked that the

Hell Gate was probably the only bridgeto-date to be scientifically analyzed for
bridge stresses. Published studies continued for years after completion, conveying
important technical information to other
engineers. The superb bridge remains in
active service with no major repairs necessary, having outlasted many other railroad
bridges. Hell Gate Bridge opened to traffic The Hell Gate Bridge today: The truss arch
in March 1917, for a project cost of about members structure highlighted under sunlight.
TAY24253
BraceYrslfStrctrMag.qxd 9/3/09
10:09
AM J.
Page
Courtesy
of Adam
Kirk 12011.
$20 million.
Post Construction
The detailed project records of all forces
and tests related in various papers at the
time facilitated thorough, subsequent
inspections. The original lead paint held
up for sixty years. After repainting in
1991, and again in 1996 after Congress
allocated $8 million for non-lead paint
jobs, Amtrak specified two coats of epoxy
primer, a red urethane coat in Hell Gate
Red, followed by a clear finish coat.
The paint faded immediately after both
applications. Lawsuits ensued, after which
findings were that the paint manufacturer
had changed pigment suppliers without
ensuring chemical content.
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 YourselfOctober
Magazine October 2009
STRUCTURE TAY24253
magazine
2013
19 Ad Structure
Half-Page Island 5" x 7.5"
Compaction Grouting for bridge pier settlement control.

le dOrlans Bridge, Quebec, Canada
Dry Soil Mixing to support new bridge abutments.

Port Everglades Bridge, Port Everglades, FL
SOLUTIONS FOR
BRIDGES
NEW CONSTRUCTION AND REMEDIATION

Micropiles for the support of replacement
approach deck truss spans.
Merchants Bridge, St. Louis, MO
800-456-6548
www.HaywardBaker.com
GROUTING
GROUND IMPROVEMENT
EARTH RETENTION
STRUCTURAL SUPPORT
For a complete listing of our techniques and offices, visit: www.HaywardBaker.com
DESIGN-CONSTRUCT SERVICES
Jet Grouting for stabilization of bridge abutment.

Milltown Reservoir/I-90, Missoula, MT
any existing structures in North

America experience ongoing
moisture intrusion and resulting decay that significantly
compromises the integrity of wood members.
If left unmitigated, advanced decay in wood
members supporting roofs, exterior walls, deck
assemblies and floor systems can and does
impair the capacity of these elements to support code-prescribed loads. The result is that
portions of existing structures can become
unfit for occupancy. The economic and environmental impacts are considerable as well;
these include demolition and disposal of building materials before the end of their expected
service life, expenditure of remediation labor
and materials (every year, a significant percentage of new framing lumber goes toward
fixing decayed portions of existing buildings)
and loss of use costs. Substantial re-roofing
and re-cladding projects can expose a veritable
hidden jungle of decay.
Detailed collection of field data on resulting
section loss can provide valuable information
as to the extent of structural damage and allow
the engineer to re-construct a history of impairment for the structure. This article presents
a method developed by the author for engineers to reasonably determine the occurrence
of structural impairment of a decayed wood
structure over its service life, and discusses its
practical application in assisting with property
insurance claims.
Residual Capacity
in Wood Structures
The majority of wood framed buildings consist
of thousands of elements connected together
in such a way so as to create a superstructure.
When engineers design wood structures with
repetitive members (such as studs, joists and
rafters), or members with slight variation in
geometry and loading (such as beams and
posts), these members are typically grouped
according to function and load demand, and
required member sizes are matched with available standard sawn or manufactured lumber
dimensions. In some cases, member sizes are
controlled by the attributes of interconnection; in other cases they may be oversized for
architectural reasons; however, they should
always be scheduled on drawings to ensure
economy in construction. In this way, the elements that comprise existing wood structures
have a range of residual capacity. If designed
properly, members should have some level
of oversizing some have a little, some
have a lot, but the majority fall somewhere
in between.
Decay in the Built Environment

What is Decay Fungi?
Decay fungi are primitive plants that feed on the
sugars (cellulose) in wood. Fungi grow by lengthening and branching of tubular cells called hyphae, in
a manner similar to the roots of plants (Highley).
In nature wood decay fungi live on dead wood
and in living trees, however, a small percentage are
particularly well adapted for consuming wood that
has been cut and worked into products used to
build structures (Edmonds). The most destructive
of these is brown-rot decay fungi, which preferentially attack softwoods. Since softwood species have
predominantly been used in building construction,
brown-rot decay fungi are the most common agents
of decay in wood buildings (Carll and Highley).
Structural
ForenSicS
investigating structures
and their components
Just Add Water

In order to grow, fungi require favorable
temperatures, a supply of oxygen, adequate
moisture and a suitable
food supply (Carll and
Highley). Constructed
buildings offer a ubiquitous oxygen supply and
temperatures that are
comfortable to humans, which are also ideal
for the growth of decay fungi (Morris). Wood
moisture content is therefore the most important factor in determining decay. Decay fungi
require free water, so wood must be above the
fiber saturation point (about 28% MC on a
dry weight basis) but below the waterlogged
condition to decay (Edmonds). Even though
modern building enclosure design and construction have come a long way in the last 20 years,
many existing buildings lack the proper means
of protection against water intrusion. When
breaches in waterproofing systems result in water
intrusion, moisture contents in framing elements
can elevate from those at equilibrium moisture
content (equivalent to 8-10% in most parts of
the country) to those conducive to growth of
decay fungi in a relatively short amount of time.
Some components of exterior wall assemblies,
such as batt insulation, can trap and hold water
against framing members.
Decayed Wood Structures
High-Early Strength Loss

Engineers that design with concrete are familiar
with the concept of high-early strength gain.
With decay, engineers need to be familiar with the
concept of high-early strength loss. Decay initially affects toughness, or the ability of the wood
to withstand impacts. This is generally followed
by reductions in strength values related to static
bending (Wilcox). Eventually, all strength properties are seriously reduced. Strength losses during
the early stages of decay can be considerable.
STRUCTURE magazine
21
Reconstructing a
History of Impairment
By Lee Dunham, P.E., S.E.
Lee Dunham, P.E., S.E., is a

structural engineer specializing
in the investigation and repair
of existing structures. Originally
hailing from Fredericton New
Brunswick, Canada, Lee is a
Senior Associate with OAC
Services, Inc., an architectural,
engineering and construction
management firm in Seattle,
WA. He may be reached at
ldunham@oacsvcs.com.
The online version of this

article contains detailed
references. Please visit
Just Point, Shoot

and Measure!
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Hidden Menace. Advanced brown rot decay in wood framing members in Pacific Northwest
buildings; 1 despite their appearance as rim joists, these are actually double 2x12 beams bearing at a
corner post in a multi-family residential building; 2 impaired elevated walkway beam, rim and studs;
3 glulam header with advanced decay and structural impairment at right side bearing; 4 double 2x10
rim with full section loss below a low-slope roof in a single family residence.
By the time weight losses in wood members

resulting from decay have reached 10%,
loss of most mechanical properties may be
expected to exceed 50% (Highley). When
wood is in the advanced stages of decay, it
essentially has lost all strength.
Remote Detection
of Vibrations on Large
and Distant Structures
Non-contact, optical vibration measurement on civil structures for health
monitoring and FE model validation
Long stand-off distance
True 0 Hz capabilities with mHz resolution for low frequency response

and displacement measurements
Small laser spot precise targeting,

e.g. on cable-stayed bridges
Easy targeting with integrated

video camera
Easy set-up in minutes no cabling

or measurement point preparation
Sub-m resolution for reliable results
Decay Progression
Although the precise growth rate of brown-rot
decay in wood framed buildings is generally
not determinable to a high degree of scientific
certainty, research in the field of wood science
has provided sufficient knowledge to allow the
shape of the decay curve to be bracketed with
an upper bound and a lower bound. In this
way, decomposition envelopes can be reliably
determined for wood structures, as the data
available from laboratory and field studies are
based on the same wood used in buildings,
the same decay fungi (brown-rot) and similar
moisture and temperature environments.
Structural Impairment
The Usual Suspects
Polytec GmbH
76337 Waldbronn Germany
www.polytec.com
Advancing Measurements by Light
The most common locations for water

intrusion at the exterior walls of buildings
are at windows, doors, corners and other
transitions in the building enclosure system.
Certain types of cladding systems have a
poor track record of managing water. Water
STRUCTURE magazine
pol_130783_rsv61_e_60x254.indd 1
15.08.13 11:10
22
October 2013
that has leaked into a building can wet vertical and horizontal wood framing elements.
Where water collects at and saturates horizontal wood surfaces, the saturation spreads
horizontally. As goes the water, so goes the
decay. A typical location of advanced decay
in framed walls is at the base of studs, plates
and rim joists. The list of usual suspects
at post and beam structures such as decks
includes beam ends and the tops and bottoms of posts. Deterioration can occur at
locations where bending stresses are the
highest, such as cantilever points for beams
at balconies. However, practically speaking,
the most common mechanical properties
affected are compression perpendicular
and parallel to the grain, as water gets funneled to and accumulates at bearing points
which often coincide with architectural
corners or transitions. Dowel-type connections between wood elements such as
nails, screws and bolts are also commonly
affected. Low-slope roofing systems, if not
constructed properly, can also be ripe for
decay resulting from water intrusion and/
or condensation of internal vapor caused
by the lack of proper ventilation.
Diminished Load Carrying Capacity
When a structural member is damaged or
weakened through diminishment of some
Time Distribution
of Impairment
Time distribution of the occurrence of impairment to wood framing elements in a building
over its service life can be reliably modeled
using a combination of applied structural
engineering, wood science, and basic statistics.
Step 1 Investigation and Research
Typically, wood goes into a building sound, and
(hopefully) dry. When deterioration of existing
wood framing elements is observed some time
after construction, the question is how did
it get from point A (dry, sound) to point B
(decayed, impaired)? Typically, for buildings
constructed in the last 30 years, construction
dates can be gleaned from building department
records. Sometimes, maintenance records kept
by building owners can provide an understanding of water intrusion history and timing of
any past repairs. Engineering investigations can
include studying the arrangement and condition of the building enclosure components
that permitted long term water entry. In some
cases, service life of failed waterproofing can
be estimated based on experience and industry
knowledge. In terms of rate of decomposition
of wood in buildings due to decay, an engineer
can provide reliable extrapolations of the most
aggressive rate of decay and the least aggressive
rate of decay, and use these in combination
with estimated earliest and latest decay start
times (based on water intrusion history and/
or specific envelope failures) to reasonably estimate a decomposition envelope applicable to
the building in question.
Step 2 Estimating Time Ranges

for Impairment
For each member affected by decay, measure
the section loss at the time of observation.
As described in Figure 1, next calculate the
section loss that corresponds to the point at
which the members load carrying capacity
becomes impaired. Then plot the impaired
section loss relative to the observed loss on a
graph. Superimposing this on the estimated
decay envelope, determine the points in time
when the impairment threshold intersects
the upper and lower bounds of the decomposition envelope. This gives a range of years
the impairment range for each member.
Repeating this exercise for other affected
members in the structure provides a group
of impairment ranges. If the sample is representative of the different types of structural
damage documented at the building, so too
is the set of impairment ranges.
Step 3 Empirical Probability Distribution
Step 2 results in a set of ranges that represent
likely time frames for various members to have
entered a state of impairment. Plotting all
the impairment ranges on a graph provides a
relative frequency distribution of impairment
over the service life of the building. With a
straightforward mathematical calculation, this
frequency distribution can be converted to an
empirical probability distribution. These plots
can then be used to estimate the percentage of
structural impairment in any period of interest throughout the service life of the building.
Cross-Hole Analyzer
Your best CSL choice.
Figure 1: Impairment range example

(illustrative only).
CHA-W software
Optional probe
deployment system.
sales@pile.com
+1 216-831-6131
STRUCTURE magazine
23
www.pile.com/cha
October 2013
material aspect, it is called impairment.

When load carrying capacity is diminished
by decay to the point that the member can
no longer support the associated code
load demand, the member is impaired
in its capacity. In order to determine if
the member is impaired, the engineer is
required to calculate the capacity of the
remaining good wood and compare
this to the calculated load demand on a
case by case basis. Impairment thresholds
are defined by the engineer based on his
or her engineering judgment, and in a
manner that is consistent with provisions
set forth in governing building codes.
Cross hole sonic

logging of drilled shafts
per ASTM D6760.
Figure 2 is the result of analyses performed on a series of wood framed

buildings in Seattle, based on the methodology summarized in this article. The author collaborated with Professor Robert Edmonds, Emeritus
Professor and wood decay expert at the University of Washington, to
model the decay envelope applicable to these buildings. The buildings
were constructed in the mid-1980s; observation of decay damage was
documented during a 2008 reclad. Building enclosure conditions
permitting long-term water intrusion (such as failed sealant joints)
were documented. Known areas of past framing repairs were used as a
check on the decomposition envelope. The total area under the curve
represents 100% of the impaired framing members. When long term
decay meets a range of residual capacity, there is a smaller percentage
of members entering a state of impairment in the early and later years,
and a larger percentage in the middle years.
Property Insurance Disputes

Some property insurance policies include an additional coverage that has been interpreted by courts to cover certain types
of structural damage. In some cases, this includes structural
Figure 2: Empirical probability distribution of impairment over service life.
impairment caused by decay. Substantial structural impairment
caused by decay can result in considerable financial losses that
create a dispute between the insured building owner and/or two are not required to be based on perfect scientific certainly, but
or more insurance companies that insured the building during rather, on the more probable than not civil case law standard. The
different periods of the buildings service life.
role of the forensic structural engineer in such cases begins with
In these cases, structural engineers are often retained to assess the a reasonable investigation of the damaged building. This involves
deterioration of wood framed structures caused by decay, and pres- either representative sampling by means of destructive testing, or
ent opinions on the extent and timing of impairment. Opinions in some cases, a census of damage taken when cladding assemblies
are removed in whole or in part. The engineer then carries out an
analysis using the data obtained to form his or her opinions.
There are two gate-keeping standards used by courts to decide
whether or not scientific evidence is admissible. Both are aimed at
identifying scientific evidence that is reliable. One is the Daubert
standard used by Federal Court, and the other is the older Frye
standard employed by some state courts. Both are similar in that
they aim to weed out junk science. The methodology presented
in this article has passed both the Daubert and Frye standards in
recent insurance disputes involving buildings in the Seattle area.
Even though the methodology summarized here pertains to wood
structures, the Author suggests that a similar approach may be
applied to steel and reinforced concrete structures.
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
10 years Minimum of Structural
Design experience in buildings
and/or transportation structures.
Apply at:
Structural Engineering Associates, Inc.
3838 NW Loop 410
San Antonio, TX 78229
or email resume to:

jpuente@seatx.com
STRUCTURE magazine
Conclusions
Long term water intrusion can wreak havoc on structures. Structural
engineers that consult on existing buildings and other structures should
familiarize themselves with the types of conditions that can result in
water intrusion, and elements of the superstructure most prone to
damage, such that owners receive diligent advice. In working with
contractors and architects, structural engineers should take a proactive
interest in waterproofing.
Analyses that allow damaged buildings to tell their own story can be
powerful tools when applied in a reasonable and reliable way. When the
standard of proof is more probable than not, and unbiased engineering
methodologies are applied to representative data consistently, reasonable
and reliable impairment ranges can be estimated. When required to
resolve disputes involving decayed wood structures, engineers should
consider using the applied science approach set forth in this article to
determine the occurrence of structural impairment of a building or
other structure over its service life.
24
October 2013
Historic Arch Bridge

Reborn with Progressive Design
By Chad Clancy, P.E. and Mike House, P.E.
he Burnt House Road Bridge, a historic bridge set in the

countryside of rural central Pennsylvania, was in need of
an update and it needed it quickly. After being closed
to traffic in 2009 following an underwater inspection
that revealed undermining of the foundations, the Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation (PennDOT) needed a solution that
would quickly bring the bridge back into operation for the nearly
2,100 cars that cross the bridge on a daily basis.
Constructed in 1912, the bridge carries Burnt House Road over
the Yellow Breeches Creek in Dickinson Township about 30 miles
outside of Harrisburg, PA. At nearly 100 years old, the single-lane
bridge already had a posted load limit of only three tons, which was
not conducive for normal traffic let alone nearby quarry traffic.
After the 2009 closure, Dickinson Township, which owns Burnt
House Road, and PennDOT, the bridges owner, embarked on an
evaluation process to determine if the original bridge could be rehabilitated or if it would need to be replaced altogether. Bridge engineering
firm Modjeski and Masters was engaged for preliminary and final
design, and faced the challenge of balancing the communitys preference to preserve the appearance of the original humpback bridge
with modern day traffic demands.
Context Sensitive Design

Calms Community Concerns
Because of the communitys attachment to the visual aesthetic of the
original bridge, context sensitive solutions were an important design
consideration. These solutions needed to not only preserve the look
of the original bridge, but also to improve bridge functionality and
safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
The replacement bridge design is composed of a wider bridge that
now accommodates two lanes of vehicle traffic with a sidewalk that
facilitates safer pedestrian traffic. A new sidewalk was incorporated
STRUCTURE magazine
on the same side of the road as nearby Stuart Park an added safety
feature for park visitors and Yellow Breeches Creek fishermen alike.
The new, three-barrel arch structure chosen for the replacement
bridge serves a dual purpose. First, the center barrel is raised relative
to the outer barrels, which maintains the humped profile that was
important to the community. Second, the large opening of the center
barrel improves hydraulic functionality by better accommodating
stream flow and preventing an increase in backwater, which in turn
reduces the risks of flooding nearby properties.
Finally, the new bridges stone facade was created to replicate the
look of regional limestone used in the construction of nearby historic
structures. Arch headwalls were fabricated using stacked stone pattern
formliners to give the appearance of stone. The concrete was then
stained to mimic the regional grey limestone.
Accelerated Construction Reduces

Environmental Impact
Other improvements were incorporated into the designs to streamline
construction, improve traffic flow and decrease future maintenance.
Because Burnt House Road is a primary travel route through
Cumberland County, and the bridge was already closed to traffic, getting a new bridge back into operation as quickly as possible
was important to PennDOT and Dickinson Township officials.
Accelerated construction alternatives were evaluated, and the final
designs incorporated 30-ft. pre-cast CON/SPAN arch units to streamline construction time.
The Yellow Breeches Creek is deemed a high-quality, stocked and
naturally producing trout stream. The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Commission regulates in-stream construction to prevent disruptions to
trout reproduction. As such, in-stream construction activities between
March 1 June 15, and October 1 December 31 are prohibited.
Because the available window for construction time is limited by these
26
October 2013
regulations, the use of prefabricated arch units drastically reduced the

amount of time construction teams needed in-stream access.
Asphalt Deck Streamlines Future Maintenance

Another benefit to the use of CON/SPAN units was the ability to
incorporate an asphalt deck versus a reinforced concrete deck. Bridge
redecking typically occurs every twenty to thirty years, and can be
a lengthy process with a substantial price tag and can often require
substantial bridge closures. Repaving saves future costs associated
with ongoing bridge maintenance, reduces traveler headaches and
improves bridge longevity. Further, PennDOTs ultimate goal is
to transfer ownership of the new bridge to Dickinson Township,
so future maintenance and its impact on the local taxpayer was an
important consideration.
Improved Alignment and Traffic Flow

To facilitate better traffic flow across the bridge, the project also
involved modifications to the horizontal alignment of Burnt House
Road. Prior to the bridge replacement project, the road had a distinct
kink immediately prior to the bridge on the south side. The design
team incorporated a new alignment that eliminated the kink, enabling
traffic to flow more freely across the bridge.
One of the major challenges the design team faced when creating a
new alignment was working within the given right of way. Because
of historic structures nearby, including a stone farmhouse, ruins
from a stone barn and nearby wetlands all of which were important historic and aesthetic components of the bridge setting the
new alignment would need to be created in a way that avoided any
impacts on these elements.
Gilbert Cornwell, former Dickinson Township resident of more than
fourteen years, believes he speaks for local residents when he says he
is very pleased with the new bridge. I have heard people talking
who wanted the bridge to be shut down completely, and now they
say its a very nice bridge. We are very pleased with the new bridge.
Township manager, Laura Portillo commented that the beauty of the
bridge speaks volumes and added that many residents comment on
how great it looks; that it kept the feel of the old bridge.
The Burnt House Road Bridge replacement project served a critical
need in Dickinson Township, PA. Closed to traffic because of its current condition, the township needed a new bridge that maintained the
same aesthetic qualities quickly. Modjeski and Masters incorporated
design features such as prefabricated CON/SPAN arches to streamline
construction, while at the same time focusing on context sensitive
design solutions to maintain a similar bridge profile and appearance
STRUCTURE magazine
Courtesy of Cumberlink.com.
to best compliment its natural setting. The new Burnt

House Road Bridge will ultimately save taxpayer dollars
by reducing the amount of future maintenance, while
helping to prevent future lengthy bridge closures due
to redecking.
27
Chad Clancy, P.E., is a Structural Project Manager at Modjeski and

Masters with 20 years of experience as a bridge designer. He can be
reached at CMClancy@modjeski.com.
Mike House, P.E., is a Lead Highway Engineer at Modjeski and
Masters with 15 years experience in transportation design and
construction and can be reached at MDHouse@modjeski.com.
October 2013
for Planes,
bridges

Trains,
buT noT auTomobiles
By David A. Burrows, P.E., LEED AP BD+C
British Airways 747 crossing beneath the Taxiway R bridge, June, 2012. Courtesy of City of Phoenix Aviation Department.
s described in the August edition of STRUCTURE magazine, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport opened
the first stage of their automated transit system, PHX Sky
Train, on April 8, 2013. Thousands of passengers have
already boarded the Sky Train and experienced the comfortable five
minute ride from the 44th Street Station through the East Economy
Lot Station, over Taxiway R (more than 100 feet above Sky Harbor
Blvd.), ending at Terminal 4.
The next phase, known as Stage 1A, is currently under construction and continues Sky Trains route from Terminal 4 to
Terminal 3. Scheduled to be open in early 2015, Stage 1A, similar
to the Stage 1 construction, faces the task of crossing an active
taxiway. Unlike the first Stages crossing above Taxiway R, the
current phase of construction crosses beneath Taxiways S and
T. Both Stages taxiway crossings presented several design and
construction challenges.
The Worlds First

On Oct. 10, 2010, a celebration to mark the re-opening of Taxiway
R was held by the City of Phoenix with members of the Citys
Aviation Department, designers, contractors and media watching
as the first two planes taxied under the new bridge. Nowhere in the
world had this been done before, a bridge carrying trains over an
active taxiway; even more remarkable, a taxiway that handles planes
as large as Boeing 747s. Delivered a week ahead of schedule and
approximately 35 percent below the initial budget, there was reason
to celebrate. To make this crossing a reality, creative problem solving
by both design and construction teams was necessary.
Design Constraints
An area 340 feet in length and 75 feet in height above Taxiway R was
needed to provide the clearance required for Group V Aircraft (Boeing
747s). Additionally, to stay below the Part 77 surface established by
the Federal Aviation Administration for safe aircraft operations, the
height of the bridge was limited. Thus, a narrow vertical band of
approximately 40 feet remained within which the bridge could be
built. Taking into account the vertical curve and bridge barrier, the
vertical band reduced further to just over 30 feet.
STRUCTURE magazine
A US Airways jet passes beneath the Taxiway R crossing with the PHX Sky
Train overhead. Courtesy of City of Phoenix Aviation Department.
In addition to the challenging geometry was the schedule constraint

for constructing the bridge. Because the construction required the
taxiway to be closed, a limited shutdown period of six months was
possible due to airport operations. The timing of the shutdown was
an additional factor to be managed. Due to seasonal traffic volumes,
the closure had to occur between Spring Break and Thanksgiving. If
this window was missed, it would delay construction of the bridge,
which would delay the entire project. Obviously, it was critical to
choose the correct structure and get the design and construction
right the first time.
Eight alternatives were evaluated and ranked based on impacts
to the taxiway, long-term maintenance, cost, aesthetics and special
considerations specific to each structure type. Evident from a drive on
metro-Phoenixs freeway system, concrete box girders are a popular
choice, which require little maintenance, only routine inspection and,
in many cases, a lower life-cycle cost. Aesthetically, the box girder
was the most streamlined and least obtrusive choice, fitting nicely
with surrounding concrete structures and adjacent guideway. Thus,
a cast-in-place box girder bridge was chosen.
Concern arose regarding the cost of falsework supporting a superstructure 90 feet above grade during construction. In order to minimize
disruption to the taxiway, end spans (which did not require a taxiway
28
October 2013
A Southwest Airlines 737 crosses over the newly completed Taxiway S bridge.
Courtesy of Visions in Photography.
shutdown) would be constructed first. To reduce falsework cost, the

CM-at-risk contractor recommended that the designers determine a
way to re-use the end spans falsework for main span construction.
Design based on this concept was completed in July, 2009.
The contract to build the bridge was awarded in September, 2009.
With the demand for construction impacted by the recession, the
bridge contractor found an abundant supply of falsework material, and proposed supporting all three spans simultaneously until
post-tensioning was complete. Therefore, the elements added to
accommodate the reuse of falsework were no longer necessary. A
redesign of the bridge, which eliminated supplemental post-tensioning
and closure pours, was completed in three weeks; a quick turnaround
to keep construction on schedule.
Construction Phase Challenges

A construction worker within the tight clearances of Taxiway R. Courtesy of
800-562-8460
STRUCTURE magazine
29
October 2013
Tight construction clearances were common and unavoidable during

Hensel Phelps Construction Co.
construction. While the taxiway remained
open, construction began with pier foundations. Due to the close proximity of
traffic on Sky Harbor Blvd and a bridge
over a nearby local street, the foundation
for the eastern main pier proved particularly difficult to construct. This was
overcome by installing the drilled shafts
from existing grade, rather than excavating first and drilling from the bottom of
footing grade as conventionally done. A
trench filled with slurry was placed to form
the perimeter of the pile cap to allow for
the 10-foot deep cap excavation without
impacting the adjacent area.
Another challenge encountered while
building the superstructure was in forming the deepest sections of the webs near
Design/Build
the main piers. Because the webs tapered
in thickness, working space for forming
Earth Retention
and stripping became extremely limited
Foundation Support
(as shown in upper right graphic). Once
the floor and webs of the girders for the
Slope Stabilization
end spans were constructed, the taxiway
was shut down in April 2010 to begin the
Ground Improvement
construction of the main span. The deck
Dewatering
was poured continuously over all three
spans, and post-tensioning of the bridge
occurred in early September 2010.
Donald B. Murphy Contractors, Inc.
Arguably the biggest challenge to conWWW.DBMCONTRACTORS.COM
struction was the tight and unmovable
schedule. It required tremendous planning

efforts that included several hour-by-hour
internal schedules for weekend and critical activities, such as falsework lowering.
Executing necessary restrictions on Sky
Harbor Blvd. and surrounding roadways,
required countless emails and hours of phone
calls to communicate between contractors,
airport operations, airlines, vendors, and the
travelling public. Crews worked through most
holidays and weekends, and out of 307 available shifts, the contractor worked 272 shifts or
nearly 90 percent of the total time available.
Taxiways S & T Going

Below the Surface
In contrast to the highly visible crossing above

Taxiway R, the crossings below Taxiways
S and T will be invisible to all but the passengers on the Sky Train. Why cross above one
taxiway only to then cross beneath another
two? Extensive coordination and planning
determined that an elevated Taxiway R
crossing provided the optimal alignment
into the Terminal 4 Station. Additionally,
the amount of utility relocation required by
constructing beneath the taxiway made that
option infeasible. Utility relocations, while a
concern, werent as problematic at Taxiways
S and T. However, because the two taxiways, at 210 feet wide, are only separated by
50 feet; placing a pier between them would
violate clear zone requirements. The resulting
span length would be 600 feet, a superstructure capable of that span, apart from being
uneconomical would have been impossible
to fit in the narrow vertical band described
for the Taxiway R crossing.
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport
has been the citys airport since 1935, so the
existence of underground utilities that are
unaccounted for, abandoned and forgotten,
or located incorrectly on utility maps is not
Software and ConSulting
FLOOR VIBRATIONS
FLOORVIBE v2.10
Software to Analyze Floors for Annoying Vibrations

New release
Demo version at www.FloorVibe.com
Calculations follow AISC Design Guide 11 Procedures
Analyze for Walking and Rhythmic Activities
Check floors supporting sensitive equipment
Graphic displays of output
Data bases included
CONSULTING SERVICES
Expert consulting available for new construction

and problem floors.
Structural Engineers, Inc.

Radford, VA 540-731-3330 tmmurray@floorvibe.com
Work on the Taxiway S

anchor slab. Courtesy of
Visions in Photography.
surprising. While understandable, the potential consequences of unknown utility lines

directly conflicting with new construction
can be disastrous. Instances of unforeseeable
conflicts arose in Stage 1 construction, which
cost several weeks of construction time to
resolve. With only a six month construction
duration for each undercrossing, a delay due
to a hidden conflict could disrupt the schedule
for the entire project and, more importantly,
the operations of the airport which requires
that all taxiways be open from Thanksgiving
to New Years day.
Design Innovation
To mitigate the risk of utility conflicts, the
designers took an innovative approach to the
undercrossing design. The design contemplated
adding a new span on the south end of each taxiway. Typically, construction for a new bridge
abutment would require a large amount
of excavation and thus greatly increase the
chance of uncovering unknown utilities.
Therefore, the designers developed an abutment wall consisting of 54-inch diameter
drilled shafts approximately 50 feet long
at 10-foot spacing, restrained at the top by
an anchor slab and with the gap between
each shaft filled with a reinforced shotcrete
wall. This allowed the new abutment to be
built with no excavation behind the drilled
shafts, except for the shallow depth required
for the anchor slab shear keys.
Another innovative idea that mitigated
schedule risk was to use the existing taxiway bridge abutment as a support for
STRUCTURE magazine
30
October 2013
the new span. The initial design proposed

building a new pier adjacent to, but outside
the footprint of the existing abutment, with
a reinforced concrete slab to span the short
gap between the two supports. During final
design, this concept was eliminated after
determining that loading from the new span
would cause less stress than the fill behind
the existing abutment. With a relatively small
amount of concrete added to the existing
abutment to accommodate the new span,
the duration of construction was shortened.
As required by Airport Operations, only
one taxiway could be shutdown at a time.
Construction began with Taxiway S on May
22, 2012 and was completed five days ahead
of schedule on November 14, 2012. The new
superstructures were built using the soffit fill
technique, where the superstructure was built
directly on compacted fill and, after post-tensioning, the fill is excavated to reveal the soffit
of the bridge. This technique also contributed
to shorter construction durations. Taxiway T
was shut down on January 7, 2013 and was
re-opened with its new span on June 11, 2013,
three weeks ahead of schedule.
The cost for both undercrossings
came in approximately ten percent below the initial budget.
David A. Burrows, P.E., LEED AP
BD+C, is a senior structural engineer at
Gannett Fleming, Phoenix, Arizona. He
was the lead engineer for the design of the
Taxiway R crossing. David can be reached
at dburrows@gfnet.com.
BUILD TOWARD THE SKY WHILE

DRIVING CONSTRUCTION
COSTS DOWN
NEW FIELD-BOLTED SIDEPLATE
MOMENT CONNECTION
SidePlate designs use less steel tonnage than conventional

ones, and now, by eliminating all field welding, our new
bolted connection reduces field labor and delivers even
lower construction costs on projects governed by wind or
low seismic (R=3). Not to mention our engineers provide
responsive assistance and customer service at no charge
to the design team. Visit SidePlate.com to find out what
we can save on your next project.
For more information: Toll Free 800.475.2077 | Tel 949.305.7889 | sideplate.com
Structural
teSting
issues and advances related
to structural testing
ridge deflection and vibration data

are often useful for structural health
monitoring (SHM), load rating determination, change in use, or retrofitting.
Deflection and vibration data are typically gathered through nondestructive testing (NDT) or
nondestructive evaluation (NDE) methods. For
most bridges, this means installing accelerometers, strain-gauges, linear variable differential
transformer (LVDT), or string pot type instrumentation, which sometimes requires a temporary
restriction of bridge use, and technicians must
gain access to the bridges structural members
which can involve fairly hazardous work, both to
install the instruments and to remove them when
the study is complete. Once the bridge is instrumented, the data is traditionally transmitted via
cell-phone signal and then processed. While these
traditional methods do generally produce reliable
data, they can be time consuming and costly.
In the past few years, a new NDE instrument
has arrived in North
America that presents
structural engineers
with an attractive
option for acquiring
bridge deflection and
vibration data. The
instrument is known as IBIS, which is an acronym for Image By Interferometric Survey. And
while this instrument may look like a whimsical
character in a Pixar film (Figure 1), rest assured
that its all business!
IBIS relies on advances in radar technology
interferometric radar, to be specific to measure
deflection of structural members as a function of
time. When a strong radar reflection is obtained,
the instrument can measure deflection to an
accuracy of 1/250th of an inch for all structural
elements in the line of sight. Data can be acquired
at a rate of 200 Hertz, which allows the user to
measure structural vibrations up to 100 Hertz.
This provides plenty of range for most structural
engineering purposes, because the most meaningful vibration data from civil infrastructure is
typically below 100Hertz. The instrument can
be used at distances as much as 3,200 feet away
from the structure, although closer ranges are
typically used for bridges. The non-contact nature
Structural Health Monitoring

with Interferometric Radar
By Paul J. Bennett, P.E., CBIE
Paul J. Bennett, P.E., CBIE,

is a Managing Engineer with
Exponent Failure Analysis
Associates, and is based in their
Boulder, Colorado, office.
Paul may be reached at
pbennett@exponent.com.
Figure 2: Ideal radar reflector.
32 October 2013
Figure 1: IBIS Instrument.
of IBIS, along with its quick set-up, is one of the

main differentiating features when compared to
typical current instrumentation.
How it Works
Radar relies on the Doppler Effect, wherein the
reflected radar waveform reveals the location of
an object. Radar has long been used to track
the movement of objects, but the range of discernible movement typically was measured in
feet. In the case of bridges and other structures,
however, we are interested in measuring much
smaller amounts of deflection. By noting the
phase change in the reflected wave form (as is the
case with interferometric radar), IBIS achieves a
high degree of accuracy when measuring deflection and vibration.
As one might suspect, the instrument works
well only when the object to be measured is a
good radar reflector. Thus, bridges shaped like
the stealth bomber are a bad match for IBIS. For
the remaining bridges out there, steel proves to
be a good reflector, whereas concrete and timber
do not reflect radar well. For concrete or timber
bridges, an ideal radar reflector can be installed
(Figure 2) on the structural member in question.
These reflectors work well, but the process of
installing them presents some of the same hazards
associated with the aforementioned traditional
instrumentation, although the process is simpler
than installing instruments because the reflectors
do not require hard wiring.
Because IBIS relies on radar, data can be
obtained from a remote point, as long as a clear
line of sight is available. For most highway overpasses, establishing a clear line of sight is not a
problem. For bridges over waterways, however,
finding a clear line of sight may be a challenge
if substantial vegetation is present, although this
difficulty can usually be overcome.
Once a location with a clear line of sight is
found, the IBIS instrument can be set up in
about 15 minutes, and data collection can begin
immediately. The instrument is connected to a
conventional laptop and operated with Matlabbased software provided by the manufacturer.
The user views an X-Y radar plot that shows radar
Profile
100
90
80
SNR [dB]
70
60
50
40
30
20
20
40
60
80
Rangebin index
100
120
Figure 3: Radar reflection plot. Peaks correspond to members that are

reflecting radar well. On the Xaxis, each rangebin equates to 2.46 feet
distance from the instrument.
reflection on the Y-axis and distance from the

instrument on the X-axis. The peaks correspond to objects that are reflecting radar well,
shown as a high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)
(Figure 3). Using a laser distometer, the user
can determine which structural members correspond to which peaks on the radar plot. At
this point, data are being collected under live
loads from a remote point, for all objects that
are reflecting radar well. For a bridge with steel
cross frames connected to girders, the user can
typically gather data on all the cross frames
at one time, provided they are all visible. The
instrument accounts for the unique angle to
each object it is measuring.
Because IBIS is radar based, the movement
in structural members is along the line of
sight of the radar. At first thought this might
seem like unusable data, but because such a
small amount of movement can be measured,
Figure 4: By measuring the original distance to the structural member (X1)

and the distance to the member after a load is applied (X2) and knowing the
angles, IBIS calculates actual vertical displacement (Y).
the minor amount of movement along the

line of sight can be used (via trigonometry)
to calculate vertical displacement. Once the
user inputs the angle of the radar head, IBIS
then automatically does the math to export
vertical displacement data. Figure 4 shows an
exaggerated view of this concept.
When data collection is complete, the data
can be viewed immediately in a Matlab-based
post-processing software package, which
allows the engineer to validate the data set
and view deflection data in both the time and
frequency domains. Because data are often
obtained for several cross sections along the
length of the bridge, one-dimensional vibration (vertical direction) data can be viewed
quickly the data can be plotted as a line plot
along the length of the bridge and that data
can be animated as a function of time, with
a click of a button.
Experiment
Most engineers will recognize the value of
an instrument that can be set up in minutes
and will collect deflection/vibration data on
all structural elements in the line of sight
without requiring direct access to the bridge.
However, when it comes to IBISs claims of
accuracy and ease of use, this engineer was as
skeptical as any who might think it sounds
too good to be true. Therefore, a field experiment was undertaken to measure vibrations
on a cable-stayed pedestrian bridge (Figure 5)
and verify the data collected using traditional
accelerometer methods.
The subject bridge is a 243-foot long pedestrian bridge owned by the City and County of
Denver. The bridge provides pedestrian access
over the Platte River, from Sixteenth Street in
downtown Denver to a nearby area known as
the Highlands. The bridge was built in 2003
and features two steel masts, nine structural
steel strands, 16-inch diameter steel tubes as
The easiest to use software for calculating

wind, seismic, snow and other loadings for
IBC, ASCE7, and all state codes based on
these codes ($195.00).
CMU or Tilt-up Concrete Walls with &
without openings ($75.00).
Floor Vibration for Steel Bms & Joists ($75.00).
Concrete beams with torsion ($45.00).
Demos at: www.struware.com
Figure 5: Cablestayed bridge.
STRUCTURE magazine
33
October 2013
StruWare, Inc
Structural Engineering Software
x 10
2011.07.30-11.33.01-global1
Rbin
Rbin
Rbin
Rbin
Rbin
Rbin
Rbin
Rbin
Rbin
Line of Sight Acceleration [mm/s 2/Hz]
2.5
1.5
0.5
Figure 6: IBIS setup beneath cablestayed bridge.
the main girders, steel floor beams, and timber

stringers and deck.
Global vibration data were desired for the
bridge as a whole, along with local vibration
data on the steel strands and towers. These
data were obtained by setting up the IBIS
instrument adjacent to one abutment and
viewing the length of the bridge (Figure 6).
Due to a cross member (shown by the
arrow in Figure 6), not all floor beams were
in the line of sight. However, data on nine
floor beams were obtained simultaneously
from one set-up. Data were acquired on
multiple occasions during different seasons,
and the data consistently indicated that
the global natural frequency of the bridge,
in the vertical direction, was 1.98 Hertz.
Figure 7 is an IBIS-generated plot that
shows vibration data for nine floor beams.
Global natural frequencies at 1.98 Hertz,
and local natural frequencies at 2.66 Hertz
on the floor beams, are noted in Figure 7.
The data shown in Figure 7 were obtained
in less than two hours, including set-up
time and multiple iterations.
Next, vibration data were obtained by setting up IBIS at nearly the same elevation
as the bridge deck while collecting data on
the structural steel strands, steel masts, and
steel guard rails. Data for the structural steel
strands were acquired through four different set-ups. Vibration and deflection data
were obtained on all of the subject elements,
and the data consistently showed a global
natural frequency of 1.98 Hertz and local
vibration modes of interest. Independent data
4
8
13
19
24
29
55
66
71
1.5
2.5
frequency [Hz]
3.5
Figure 7: Vibration data from nine floor beams on cablestayed bridge.
collection with an accelerometer verified the

IBIS data. Additional laboratory work with
accelerometer data consistently verified the
IBIS data. We are also aware of similar work
by other researchers that has validated IBIS
data using other methods.
Limitations
The most obvious limitation to the IBIS
system is that it requires a clear line of sight
to the structure; therefore, vegetation and
other obstructions can make it difficult to
use. Also, IBIS cant distinguish between different structural elements that are closer than
2.46 feet apart from each other, and this is
not adjustable. While this typically doesnt
translate to a real-world problem in bridge
structures, it is worth noting.
IBIS also has a limitation in that the object
you are viewing must be larger than 0.70
inches. Again, this is rarely a limitation, but in
the case of small diameter steel rods or cables,
it could be a factor to consider. A work-around
would involve installing an ideal radar reflector
on the object, as described above.
Finally, the typical IBIS set-up measures
displacement in only one dimension (one
degree of freedom). In many applications,
mode shapes of two (or more) degrees of freedom are of interest. This is especially true
for suspension bridges and other structures
with dominating torsional mode shapes.
While two-dimensional mode shapes are
not quickly accomplished with IBIS, other
researchers have used alternative IBIS set-up
STRUCTURE magazine
34
October 2013
configurations to obtain two-dimensional

mode shapes, proving it is possible.
Conclusions
Due to advances in technology, radar is now a
useful NDT/NDE tool for evaluating bridges
and other structures. The IBIS radar technology has limitations, such as the need for
a clear line of sight and restrictions on size
and composition of members that can be
measured, but in situations that arent subject to those limitations, the instrument has
proven to be an accurate and efficient method
for measuring deflection and vibration in
bridges. Data are obtained in a non-contact
manner, without interrupting the use of the
structure, and data acquisition and compilation are completed much more rapidly than
is possible using traditional strain-gauge and
accelerometer methods.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Larry Olson and Olson
Instruments, Inc., of Wheat Ridge, Colorado,
for providing the IBIS instrument for use in
this research. Olson Instruments is a vendor
for the IBIS instrument in North America,
providing instruments and operators, as well
as user training. This work was completed as
part of a masters thesis at the University of
Colorado at Denver and, as such, the author
is grateful to the following for their guidance
and assistance: Dr. Fredrick Rutz, Dr. Rui Lui,
and Dr. Kevin Rens, all of the University of
Colorado at Denver.
SEAOI SE Exam Review Course
October 28, 2013March 27, 2014
the most comprehensive review courses available:
40 sessions, organized by subject area:

Earthquake Resistant Design,
Geotechnical Design,
Structural Steel Design,
Structural Concrete, Masonry,
Bridge Design, Timber Design
70+ contact hours of class time

Outstanding value in terms of
cost per hour of class
Web-accessible
Continuing education credit
available for most sessions
Highly-qualified instructors with
experience in practice and academia
The SEAOI Course is fully updated for
the 16-hour structural exam.
All courses are taught on Monday and
Thursday evenings from 6:007:45 p.m.
in downtown Chicago. The class is fully
accessible via the Web.
Participants can take the entire course
or focus on specific areas.
from past participants:
I just wanted to take a quick minute to say THANK

YOU for having an absolutely amazing SE Review
course. I have taken the SE Exam a few times (the
SE-2 exam was easy, but I could never pass the SE-1)
and have taken review courses in the past This
course was absolutely wonderful.
Both days I was able to walk out of the test and
know that I passed the test. So now I will be able to
get my Illinois SE license, and my company is very
pleased.
Thanks for all of the help in getting together my
CEUs. I really got a lot out of the course, and I will be
recommending it to other engineers in my office.
I have to say your review class was immensely
helpful in passing the exam. During previous
attempts to pass it I am sure I studied many things
that were irrelevant. By concentrating on what was
covered in the class I believe I made much better
use of my study time.
(I) just wanted to let you know that I received exam
results over the weekend I was successful, and I
believe the review class was very helpful for me.
Thanks to you & SEAOI for offering it via the Web.
Visit www.seaoi.org to access the registration form

or call the SEAOI office at 312.726.4165 x200 for more information.
LegaL PersPectives
discussion of legal issues of interest to structural engineers
Consideration
View of the Court
What makes it Good and Valuable?

By Gail S. Kelley, P.E., Esq.
rom time to time, an A/E may be

presented with a contract that starts
off with the phrase For good and
valuable consideration, the parties do
hereby covenant... Alternatively, the consideration may be described as mutually-agreed
upon. This begs the question what is consideration? And what makes it good and valuable?
Legal Meaning
The confusion is partly due to the fact that
the legal meaning of the word consideration
(its meaning when used in legal documents
such as contracts) has nothing to do with
its ordinary meaning. When used in a legal
document, consideration means something
of legal value. Consideration can be money
or goods (either tangible or intangible), but
it can also be a promise to do something or
refrain from doing something.
Required for Both Parties

A contract is not enforceable in court unless
both parties provide consideration. In a typical business contract, both parties provide
consideration in the form of a promise. One
party promises to either supply goods or perform a service; the other party promises to
pay for the goods or service.
The requirement for consideration is an
attempt to ensure that the contract is a
legitimate bargained-for agreement. Often a
promise will indicate what someone will try
to do, or would like to do, but there is no
guarantee they will be able to carry out their
promise. A court will not penalize someone
for failing to keep a promise if the other party
did not provide anything of value in exchange.
This means courts will not enforce a promise
of a gift or a promise to provide a free service.
Even if the other party does not receive the gift
or service, its position is no worse than it was
before the promise was made.
A Promise not to
Do Something
Although consideration is typically a promise
to do something, it can also be a promise not
to do something. This is referred to as forbearance and is the basis for settlement of a claim.
If a party believes, in good faith, that it has

a claim against another party, whether for
breach of contract or some type of injury, their
promise NOT to sue is their consideration for
the settlement. The other partys consideration
is the amount it pays for the settlement.
It is not valid consideration unless the party is
giving up something it is legally entitled to do,
however. As an example, a neighboring business might be parking its trucks in such a way
that it is difficult to access a project site. The
project owner could promise to pay the drivers
a certain sum when the project is complete if
they promise to park their trucks somewhere
else. If it turns out that it is not legal to park
in front of the job site anyway, the contract is
not enforceable. Nevertheless, the owner might
want to ensure access to the site. The parties
could make the agreement, and if both sides
carried out their side of the bargain as agreed,
there would be no problem. However, if the
owner subsequently refused to pay, the drivers
could not get a court to enforce the contract.
Action versus Promise

As noted above, the typical business contract
consists of reciprocal promises; this is referred
to as a bilateral contract. It is also possible to
have a unilateral contract, where one partys
consideration is a promise and the other partys
consideration is an action. In unilateral contracts or agreements, the promise will typically
be conditional. For example, the client may
agree to pay the A/E an additional fee if the
drawings are finished by a certain date. The A/E
might not think this can be done, so is not willing to agree to the specified date, but decides
to try and ultimately succeeds. The clients
consideration is the (conditional) promise to
pay an additional fee. The A/Es consideration
is the action of getting the drawings done by
the specified date.
The party must not be under a pre-existing
duty to perform the requested action. If the
A/Es contract required the drawings to be
done by the specified date, it would not be
supplying any consideration. If the owner
refused to pay the additional fee, the A/E
would have no basis for a claim. There is nothing to prevent the owner from paying the
agreed upon fee, but the payment would be a
gift, rather than fulfillment of the agreement.
STRUCTURE magazine
36
October 2013
Although a contract is not enforceable unless

both parties provide valid consideration, the
parties right to contract under their own terms
is a cornerstone of contract law in this country.
Thus, courts will not examine whether the consideration provided by each side is equivalent,
or even appropriate. The only exception is if
there are allegations of fraud or duress, i.e. if
one of the parties misrepresented the value of
the goods or services it provided, or one of
the parties was forced to sign the contract by
threats of physical violence.
Sometimes contracts, particularly contracts
for real estate, use the phrase For good and
valuable consideration and ten (10) dollars.
It does not matter whether the money referred
to is ever exchanged. When both parties have
signed a contract agreeing that the money was
exchanged, neither party can subsequently
claim that the exchange never took place.
Good and Valuable

Consideration
Finally, to answer the original question, good
consideration is defined as consideration
founded on natural affection, generosity, love
or moral duty. By itself, good consideration is
not enough to make a contract enforceable;
the consideration must also have legal value.
Valuable consideration must involve doing
something one does not already have a legal
obligation to do, or refraining from doing
something one has the legal right to do.
The phrase good and valuable consideration was once common in contracts; the
intent was to emphasize that the parties were
exchanging valid consideration and thus the
contract was enforceable. Although the phrase
is not used in any of the current industry
standard form contracts (AIA, EJCDC,
ConsensusDOCS), it is sometimes used in
custom contracts. There is no harm in including the phrase in a contract, but it really has
no meaning; it is generally clear enough from
the contract language whether the consideration is valid. And if the consideration is not
valid, describing it as good and valuable will
not make the contract enforceable.
Gail S. Kelley, P.E., Esq., is a LEED
Accredited Professional as well as a
licensed attorney in Maryland and the
District of Columbia. Ms. Kelley can be
reached at Gail.Kelley.Esq@gmail.com.
a listing of seismic/wind firms, suppliers and software companies
SeiSmic/wind Guide
Hayward Baker Inc.
Materials
American Wood Council
Phone: 202-463-2766
Email: lmerriman@awc.org
Web: www.awc.org
Product: (SDPWS) Standard with Commentary
Description: The AWC Special Design Provisions
for Wind and Seismic (SDPWS-08) covers materials,
design and construction of wood members, fasteners,
and assemblies to resist wind and seismic forces.
Software
Phone: 800-456-6548
Email: info@HaywardBaker.com
Web: www.HaywardBaker.com
Product: Ground Improvement
Description: Hayward Baker Inc., annually
ranked #1 Excavation/Foundation Contractor by
Engineering News-Record, provides Design-Build
ground improvement solutions for support existing
or planned structures that require support for wind
or seismic loads.
Premier SIPS
Engineered Products
Cast Connex Corporation
Phone: 416-806-3521
Email: info@castconnex.com
Web: www.castconnex.com
Product: Cast ConneX Scorpion Yielding Connectors
Description: Provides a symmetric hysteretic response
in high-performance braced frames through the use
of off-the-shelf, highly ductile, collapse-resistant, and
inherently redundant Scorpion Yielding Connectors.
Product: Cast ConneX High-Strength Connectors
Description: Simplify and improve connections
to round HSS brace members in seismic-resistant
braced frames (SCBF and OCBF) by eliminating field
welding and providing highly compact connections.
Gripple Inc.
Phone: 630-406-0600
Email: grippleinc@gripple.com
Web: www.grippleseismic.com
Product: Gripple Seismic for Nonstructural
Components
Description: Provides solutions for projects requiring
seismic design or Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection (AT/
FP) for Nonstructural Components. Gripple provides
evaluations and calculations in order to determine the
solutions needed for your project, and then gives you the
seismic cable bracing and/or vibration isolation products
and engineering services to fulfill those solutions.
Hardy Frames
Phone: 800-754-3030
Email: dlopp@mii.com
Web: www.hardyframe.com
Product: Hardy Frame Panels, Brace Frames and
Special Moment Frames
Description: HFX-Series Panels and Brace Frames are
fabricated with galvanized Cold Formed Steel to standard
wood stud heights and the HFX/S-Series are fabricated
to standard steel stud heights; custom heights are also
available. Our Special Moment Frame is a structural steel
product that uses SidePlate moment connections.
All Resource Guides and Updates for the 2014
Editorial Calendar are now available on the website,
www.STRUCTUREmag.org. Listings are provided
as a courtesy. STRUCTURE magazine is not
responsible for errors. See more companies in the
2013 Annual Trade Show issue!
Phone: 800-275-7086
Email: info@pbssips.com
Web: www.premiersips.com/bc
Product: Premier SIPs
Description: Used for many years in all types of shear
wall applications, including in high wind and seismic
locations. The panels are exceptionally strong in racking
diaphragm shear capacities. Premier SIPs are suited
for use in single- and multi-family residential and
commercial/institutional structures.
Simpson Strong-Tie
Phone: 925-560-9000
Email: web@strongtie.com
Web: www.strongtie.com
Product: Connector and Lateral Systems for Seismic
and High-Wind Resistance
Description: Simpson Strong-Tie offers a wide variety
of code-listed, field-tested connector and lateral
systems products for seismic and high-wind resistance.
The new Strong Frame special moment frame
with the patented Yield-Link(TM) structural fuse
represents the latest innovative lateral system solution
from Simpson Strong-Tie.
The Steel Network, Inc.

Phone: 919-845-1025
Email: tdigirolamo@steelnetwork.com
Web: www.steelnetwork.com
Product: VertiClip SLB-HD and StiffClip LB-HD
Description: New enhanced seismic curtain wall
connections for seismic design categories D, E & F. The
new connectors allow installers to connect curtain wall
studs to the structure without welding time/cost, while
addressing seismic requirements in ASCE 7-10 and
California Building Code. Both restrict use of PAFs to
attach curtain wall.
Williams Form Engineering Corp.

Phone: 616-866-0815
Email: williams@williamsform.com
Web: www.williamsform.com
Product: Anchor Systems
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 90 years.
Applied Science International, LLC

Phone: 919-645-4090
Email: sscoba@appliedscienceint.com
Web: www.appliedscienceint.com
Product: Extreme Loading for Structures
Seismic Analysis
Description: Used to design new or analyze existing
structures against the effects of seismic events. ELS
provides engineers with quick and efficient method
of evaluating an entire structures as-built conditions
against seismic events.
Devco Software, Inc.

Phone: 541-426-5713
Email: rob@devcosoftware.com
Web: www.devcosoftware.com
Product: LGBEAMER v8
Description: Analyze and design cold-formed cee,
channel and zee sections. Uniform, concentrated,
partial span and axial loads. Single and multimember designs. 2007 NASPEC (2009 IBC)
compliant. Pro-Tools include shearwalls, framed
openings, X-braces, joists and rafters.
Digital Canal Corporation

Phone: 800-449-5033
Email: glageju@digitalcanal.com
Web: www.digitalcanalstructural.com
Product: Wind Analysis
Description: Wind Analysis is structural engineering
software that completely automates ASCEs Minimum
Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures
(7-10 in version 9 and 7-05 in version 8). It calculates
and analyzes wind forces on ASCE determined
structures and provides detail report.
Enercalc, Inc.
ENERCALC
Phone: 800-424-2252
Email: info@enercalc.com
Web: www.enercalc.com
Product: Structural Engineering Library 6
Description: The nations most used software system
for structural design of building components. The SEL
has powerful modules for wind & seismic loadings on
structures following major code requirements. All of the
component design modules also allow wind & seismic
loadings and extensive load combinations.
Georgia Tech CASE Center

Phone: 404-894-2260
Email: joan.incrocci@ce.gatech.edu
Web: www.gtstrudl.gatech.edu
Product: GT STRUDL
Description: Includes seismic design and analysis
capabilities, with 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. Optional modules
for Base Plate Analysis and Multi-Processor Solvers.

STRUCTURE magazine
37
October 2013
Software (continued)
Triple Protection
Against Corrosion
LARSA, Inc.
S-FRAME Software
Phone: 800-LARSA-01
Email: info@larsa4d.com
Web: www.Larsa4D.com
Product: LARSA 4D
Description: Analysis and design software addresses
the needs for bridges and structures including 4D
time effects. With features such as pushover, progressive
collapse, nonlinear time history within stage analysis,
and a full inelastic element library, LARSA 4D is the
standard at leading firms for design, construction, and
seismic analysis.
Phone: 203-421-4800
Email: info@s-frame.com
Web: www.s-frame.com
Product: Structural Office R11
Description: A complete structural analysis, design
and detailing management system, featuring powerful
FEM and FEA solutions, steel and concrete design tools,
powerful BIM and Cad links, and the ability to support
any material type, S-FRAME is widely adopted in a
variety of industries, both commercial and industrial.
POSTEN Engineering Systems

Phone: 510-275-4750
Email: sales@postensoft.com
Web: www.postensoft.com
Product: POSTEN Multistory
Description: The most efficient & comprehensive
post-tensioned concrete software in the world that
not only automatically designs the Tendons, Drapes,
as well as Columns for you, but also is the only
software built to design multistory post-tensioned
structures for wind and seismic forces.
Increase
Corrosion Resistance
Use in areas susceptible to

corrosion and chloride
Powers Fasteners
Repel Water
Phone: 985-807-6666
Email: jack.zenor@sbdinc.com
Web: www.powers.com
Product: PDA Anchor Design Software
Description: A real-time anchor design software
program which includes options for seismic analysis.
By utilizing this free software package, engineers
can design using any Powers Fasteners mechanical
and adhesive anchors qualified for use with ACI318
Appendix D. Includes normal weight, lightweight
concrete, and concrete-filled metal deck.
Prevent unsightly
appearance to concrete
Reduce
Chloride Permeability
RetainPro Software
Phone: 949-721-4098
Email: info@retainpro.com
Web: www.retainpro.com
Product: RetainPro 10
Description: The latest release of this long standing
excellent earth retention structure design software.
RetainPro 10 fully supports Seismic loading on
retaining walls using either user entered values or
internally calculated Mononobe-Okabe equations.
Wind loads on projecting stems are also allowed.
Increase the life expectancy

of metals, steel and rebar
RISA Technologies
Add Corrosion Inhibitor to Cement All,

Mortar Mix, Concrete Mix and DOT Repair
Mix for triple protection against corrosion
800-929-3030
ctscement.com
Phone: 949-951-5815
Email: info@risatech.com
Web: www.risa.com
Product: RISA-3D
Description: Feeling overwhelmed with the latest
seismic design procedures? RISA-3D has you covered
with seismic detailing features including full AISC
341/358 code checks. Whether youre using RISA3Ds automated seismic load generator, or using the
built-in dynamic response spectra analysis/design
capabilities, youll get designs and reports that will
meet all your needs.
STRUCTURE magazine
38
October 2013
Product: S-FRAME Analysis

Description: A structural modeling and analysis
program, features advanced methods for seismic and
wind load analysis including pushover, nonlinear quasistatic, base motion time history analysis and hysteresis
material models. S-FRAME includes powerful BIM and
CAD links and a model validation tool for viewing or
animating analysis results including time-history.
strand7 Pty Ltd

Phone: 252-504-2282
Email: anne@beaufort-analysis.com
Web: www.strand7.com
Product: Strand7
Description: An advanced, general purpose, FEA
system used worldwide by engineers, designers,
and analysts for a wide range of structural
analysis applications. It comprises preprocessing,
solvers (linear and nonlinear static and dynamic
capabilities) and postprocessing. Features include
staged construction, quasi-static solver for shrinkage
and creep/relaxation problems.
StructurePoint
Phone: 847-966-4357
Email: info@structurepoint.org
Web: www.StructurePoint.org
Product: PCA-StructurePoint Engineering Software
Description: Analysis and design software
programs for the reinforced concrete buildings,
bridges, tanks, and special structures including
tilt-up and retail buildings. Work quickly, simply,
and accurately using over 100 years of experience
of concrete design and technology built into a suite
of software programs and extensive support and
consulting services.
Struware, LLC
Phone: 904-302-6724
Email: email@struware.com
Web: www.struware.com
Product: Struware Code Search
Description: Calculates wind, snow and seismic
loadings in accordance with the International
Building Code, ASCE 7, and state building codes
based on these codes.
All Resource Guides and Updates for the 2014
Editorial Calendar are now available on the website,
www.STRUCTUREmag.org. Listings are provided
as a courtesy. STRUCTURE magazine is not
responsible for errors. See more companies in the
2013 Annual Trade Show issue!
notable structural engineers
Great achievements
The Permanent Bridge

Americas First Covered Bridge
By Frank Griggs, Jr., Dist. M. ASCE, D. Eng., P.E., P.L.S.
crossing of the Schuylkill River on

the extension of Market (Formerly
High) Street in Philadelphia had
been a pressing need for many
years when, in 1723, an act was passed entitled An Act for establishing a ferry over the
river Schuylkill, at the end of the High Street
of Philadelphia. In 1767, a bridge over the
river at the Middle Ferry was first proposed.
On January 31, 1769, a model and plan for
a multiple span wooden bridge from Robert
Smith, a well-known Philadelphia architect,
was submitted to the Assembly for its review.
He wrote that due to the difficulty of bridging the River Schuylkill near this City, he has
been induced to attempt an Improvement
on the Designs of Wooden Bridges raised on
stone Piers, with Hopes that one might be
constructed with equal Security, and much
less Expence than any heretofore published.
He reported that his design was supported
by many with a knowledge and judgment
in the field, and described his bridge as follows: by a simple method, of suspending
the platform below the Arch that sustains it,
by which Means the Piers are better secured
than by any other method, and applying the
Arch in the Side to strengthen it, and the
Whole well covered to secure it from the
Weather. Thereby saving a great deal in the
Frame, and lessening the height; that he has
drawn a Plan and Elevation for such a Bridge,
made a Model of one Arch and two piers,
and with great Respect to the Honourable
House begs Leave to present the same to
them, in Hopes that the Ingenious may turn
their thought to the Subject, and make such
Gilpins Chain Bridge 1774.
Smiths proposed covered bridge 1787.
further improvements thereon, as may render

it of some Service to the Public, Whenever
the Legislature shall find the Province in a
Capacity to execute a Design of such Utility
and Importance to the whole community. In
1774, Thomas Gilpin, a well known citizen
of Philadelphia, brought forward a plan of a
permanent bridge over the river Schuylkill at
Philadelphia the passage of which had always
been conducted at the three ferries opposite
to the city; for this purpose he obtained
soundings of the river at the centre ferry at
Market Street the distance here across the
river was found to be 546 feet 6 in(ches)
with a channel of 250 feet from 17 to 26
feet deep at low water gradually shallowing
to the shore on each side but nearest to the
east shore. Mr. Gilpins idea was to reduce
the width by (using) abutments on each
side to 300 feet waterway and across that,
to form a chain bridge upon a very simple
plan; the whole expence was estimated at
less than $30,000.
Peales Bridge.
STRUCTURE magazine
39
October 2013
In 1787, a plan was published in the

Columbian Magazine for a four span covered
bridge that was likely a rework of the earlier
Robert Smith design, who died in 1777. He
was the only person in America that had proposed covering an arch supported wooden
truss bridge to protect it from the weather.
He seems to have a double arch in each span
with diagonals in compression, and notes in
the lower left hand corner that the sketch
is for a plan of a bridge to be built across
the Schuylkill. He suggested four (4) one
hundred foot spans with two approaches each
140 feet long. In his description of the arches
Smith simply says, E, shews the manner of
framing before the weather boards are put on.
The next round of proposals came in the
late 1790s. Charles Willson Peale, the noted
painter, started publishing articles in the local
newspapers in 1796 about a 390-foot single
span bridge he designed and asked the Select
Council to view his model. He was issued a
patent on January 21, 1797, for a bridge he
indicated would fit the Market Street site
and followed it up with a pamphlet of 16
pages entitled An Essay on Building Wooden
Bridges describing his patent for a laminated
wood arch. His arch was built up of 1-inch
thick plank laid on the flat with overlapping
sides, and the planks butted to one another
with the entire wooden deck pegged with
hemlock trunnels.
On January 25, 1797, a memorial was
submitted to the Legislature stating in part
To the Honourable Senate and House of
Representatives of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania in General Assembly met. The
memorial of the subscribers respectfully
sheweth, that they are desirous, from motives

both of public and private interest, to promote
the establishment of a company for erecting a
permanent bridge over the River Schuylkill,
at or near the city of Philadelphia. Judge
Richard Peters was successful in having an
act passed entitled An Act to authorize the
Governor of this Commonwealth to incorporate a Company, for erecting a Permanent
Bridge over the Schuylkill River, at or near
the City of Philadelphia on March 16, 1798.
The company was formally incorporated and
patent letters issued on April 27, 1798 when
Peters and others reported to the Governor
that the necessary number of shares had been
subscribed. The act did not specify what kind
of a bridge would be built. It was over two and
a half years before work began on the bridge,
as the directors were determining what kind
of a bridge they could afford to build and who
would design and build it for them. The story
of the origins, trials, tribulations and ultimate
success of the bridge is told in A Statistical
Account of the Schuylkill Permanent Bridge,
prepared for the bridge directors in 1806.
William Weston, an English engineer/
builder, was then in the country working
on several canals. The directors of the bridge
asked him, based upon his experience in
England, to design a stone bridge, probably
Strickland painting of the permanent bridge. Note Wernwags 1812 Colossus Bridge in right background.
three spans, for the site. He designed one

that was elegant, plain, practicable and
adapted to the site with very minute and
important instructions for its execution.
It was said he submitted the plan gratuitously and from friendly and disinterested
motives. The directors later discovered
that the expense of erecting a stone bridge,
would far exceed any sum, the revenue
likely to be produced would justify.
On October 18, 1800, the directors began
work on the easterly abutment. This was followed by the easterly pier using Westons plan
and it was generally followed tho the circumstances compelled a considerable departure
Structural Software Designed for Your Success
Based upon their experience with the

easterly pier, Weston developed a plan
for the deeper westerly pier before he
left for England. It was original and
calculated for the Spot on which it was
to be placed. It was faithfully and exactly
executed under the care of Mr. Samuel
Robinson, who was then Superintendent
of the Companys Work. It was completed, after much difficulty, in the spring
of 1803. With the foundations in place,
Palmer began his work as the designer/
builder for the superstructure in 1804.
The directors spent so much money on
the foundations that they needed a superstructure that would be cheap and fast
to build.
Construction of the superstructure on
falsework went well, and the Directors
planned on opening the bridge January 1,
1805. The Poulson American Democrat
and Advertiser wrote We are informed
* Easy to Learn
* Analyze Anything
* Design for:
+ Steel
+ Wood
+ Concrete
+ Aluminum
+ Cold-Formed
* Friendly Support
www.iesweb.com
Free 30-Day Trial
IES, Inc. | 519 E Babcock St. Bozeman MT 59715

800-707-0816 | info@iesweb.com
STRUCTURE magazine
from it, as the Work advanced. This pier

rested on firm granular material outside the
main river channel and was completed in
the fall of 1801. At this time, Peters, in his
Statistical Account wrote:
We knew that no iron superstructure
of such a span had been erected.
We sent for Mr. Timothy Palmer, of
Newburyport, a celebrated practical
wooden bridge architect. He viewed our
site, and gave us an excellent plan of a
wooden superstructure. But he pointedly
reprobated the idea of even a wooden
arch extending farther than between
the position of our intended piers, to
wit, 187 feet. He had at the Picataway
Bridge, erected an arch of 244 feet; but he
repeatedly declared, that whatever might
be suggested by theorists, he would not
advise, nor would he ever again attempt,
extending an arch, even to our distance,
where such a heavy transportation was
consistently proceeding.
40
October 2013
that upon the completion abovementioned,

the directors with a few of those who were
sensible of the importance and who aided in
its promotion, were to dine together on the
day of its opening deference, however, to
the recommendation of the clergy of different denominations for setting apart the first
day of January, as a day of public thanksgiving has induced them to meet at the Bridge
for that purpose on this day, (December 31)
during which it will be free of toll for foot
passengers, and a collation will be extended
to all workmen employed.
The builders were still working on the
bridge over the next six months before any
serious discussion took place by the Building
Committee and Directors on covering it. It
appears, however, that Peters had frequently
suggested covering the bridge, possibly based
upon the earlier recommendation of Robert
Smith. Apparently, the other directors of the
bridge did not share Peters desire to cover the
bridge. The United States Gazette printed a
communication from Peters to the Board on
June 11, 1805 in which he made his case for
covering the bridge. After briefly describing
the early problems of building, the foundation
and superstructure, he wrote:
I hold it therefore a duty peculiarly
incumbent on me, who originated, and
have faithfully laboured in the execution
of an enterpize, in which so many have
embarked their property, to make an effort
for the completion and safety of a work
on which the value of their advances so
materially depends. Under this impression,
I bring before you the subject of covering
the bridge and herewith present several
drafts of covers, adapted to the frame.
From the time of the first idea of a wooden
superstructure, I have never wavered in
my opinion of the indispensable necessity
of the cover. I was surprised (a long time
after I had conceived it to have been
a general sentiment) to find myself in
minority on this subject though I was not
entirely alone. I have reason now to hope
that the sentiments of the stockholders
have materially changed
Peters published a letter from Palmer, dated
December 10, 1804, who was writing in
response to a request from Peters to discuss the
advisability of covering the bridge. Palmer wrote:
To some questions you put to me some
time since, relative to the durability of
timber bridges without being covered,
sides and top, I answer from experiences I
have had in New England and Maryland
that they will not last more than 10 to
12 years; to be safe for heavy carriages to
pass overAnd it is sincerely my opinion,
Official plan of bridge with ornate siding and roof on half truss (east), Philadelphia on the right.
Note deep westerly pier.
that the Schuylkill bridge will last 30 and

perhaps 40 years, if well covered You
will excuse me in saying that I think it
would be sporting with property; to suffer
that beautiful piece of architecture (as you
are pleased sometimes to call it) which has
been built at so great expense and danger,
to fall into ruins in 10 or 12 years.
Peters, in his Statistical Account article, claimed
the idea of covering the bridge, stating: The
Presidents proposition and general design of
the cover, were approved, and reported by the
committee. The article also stated that Palmer
(who is believed to be the original inventor
of this kind of wooden bridge) permitted with
much candor, considerable alteration in the
plan, accommodatory to the intended cover,
the design whereof is original. These were so
much approved by him, that he considers
the Schuylkill Bridge superstructure the most
perfect of any he has built.
Located in the largest city in the United
States at the time, the bridge attracted the
attention of many architects and builders who
placed their impressions in books and articles
that were distributed around the world. The
first account of the bridge in print was Owen
Biddles The Young Carpenters Assistant; or, A
system of architecture, adapted to the style of
building in the United States, first published
in 1805. Biddle compares the bridge with the
Limnat Bridge of Grubenmanns and concludes, the design is more simple, its strength
greater, its parts better combined, and more
assistant of each other, and there is no useless
timber, or unnecessary complexity in any of
its parts. He credits William Weston, Thomas
Vickers and Timothy Palmer for their work on
the bridge while describing his work on the
covering of the bridge. For Palmer, he notes
STRUCTURE magazine
41
October 2013
that it was a masterly piece of workmanshipthe Bridge Company had succeeded

in (a) great undertaking. Neither the Board,
or their committee who have been constantly
and actively engaged in all stages of the work,
possessed a scientific knowledge of Hydraulic
Architecture, even T. Palmer is self taught in
the art of wooden-bridge building; tho he has
carried it to such high perfection.
The bridge, with its spans of 150, 195 and
150 feet, wasnt as permanent (it was called
the permanent bridge to distinguish it from
the floating bridge that had earlier crossed the
river at the Middle Ferry) as they thought, but
it did last well beyond Palmers 40-year estimate. Samuel Kneass rebuilt a new wooden
bridge on the same foundations in 1850 to
carry the tracks of Philadelphia-Columbia
Railroad in addition to carriages and pedestrians. The railroad required a level deck, so
there was no way the Palmer Bridge with
its 8-foot camber could be adapted to that
purpose. Kneass bridge remained in use until
November 20, 1875, when it was destroyed
by fire. It was rebuilt in less than 30 days for
a sum of $75,000 and opened in December
1875. This bridge was later replaced by a steel
cantilever bridge in 1887.
Dr. Griggs specializes in the restoration
of historic bridges, having restored many
19 th Century cast and wrought iron
bridges. He was formerly Director of
Historic Bridge Programs for Clough,
Harbour & Associates LLP in Albany,
NY, and is now an independent
Consulting Engineer. Dr. Griggs can be
reached at fgriggs@nycap.rr.com.
InSIghtS
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
Disproportionate Collapse Design Guidance in the United States

By David Stevens, Ph.D., P.E., M. ASCE and Mark Waggoner, P.E., M. ASCE
isproportionate collapse of structures continues to be an exciting

topic in structural engineering,
given its public safety implications, philosophical aspects, technical
challenges, and opportunities for designers to
expand their technical skills while proposing
unique solutions. Research is actively underway in the US and many other countries, in
both university and government laboratories,
and technical sessions on disproportionate
collapse at recent Structures Congresses have
been lively and well-attended.
In addition to research developments, the
state of disproportionate collapse design
guidance continues to advance in the United
States, with three recent and significant events:
(1) initiation of a performance-based design
standard for disproportionate collapse by SEI;
(2) development of new General Services
Administration (GSA) design guidelines,
soon to be released; and (3) the recent release
of Change 2 to the Department of Defense
(DoD) design guidelines.
SEI recently formed the Disproportionate
Collapse Standards Committee (DCSC),
whose goal is to develop a consensus-based
approach for designing structures to resist disproportionate collapse. The first full committee
meeting was held at the Pittsburgh Structures
Congress in May 2013, with many of the 50
or so members in attendance. Subcommittees
for each of the nine planned chapters have been
formed, and corresponding white papers have
been developed. The DCSC hopes to finish the
standard within five years.
The development of this SEI standard is
noteworthy for a number of reasons. This
will be the first consensus-based standard
developed in the United States for disproportionate collapse; many other countries
already have such design guidance. Perhaps
more significantly, this standard will be performance-based; a lively discussion of the
merits of prescriptive- and performance-based
design occurred at the Pittsburgh meeting,
and the committee decided to pursue a
performance-based approach, in line with
developments in design procedures for other
extreme events (e.g., seismic).
The development of the standard will be
challenging, given that this will be the first
performance-based disproportionate collapse
significant advances have been made and are underway

in the design of structures to resist disproportionate collapse.
design approach anywhere in the world, and
thus will require careful deliberation. The
proposed performance-based design method
intends to incorporate proportionality through
the use of a suite of hazards of varying size
and corresponding categories of performance.
Research is currently underway on the appropriate levels of performance that can be readily
supported by available methods of design.
GSA has recently undertaken the development of a new set of guidelines for progressive
collapse design, tentatively titled Alternate
Path Analysis and Design Guidelines for
New Federal Office Buildings and Major
Modernization Projects. When issued, this
document will replace the 2003 GSA guidelines. The goals are to bring alignment with
the security standards issued by the ISC and
GSA, and to reduce inconsistencies between
GSA and DoD design approaches. The focus
of the guidelines is mitigating progressive collapse due to man-made explosive threats at
the ground level and in high-risk public areas.
These guidelines are threat-dependent and
incorporate a risk-based approach, such that
application is dependent on the required level
of protection as determined by the Facility
Security Level (FSL) or facility-specific risk
assessment. Reduction of progressive collapse
potential can be achieved either by precluding
failure of load-carrying elements for a defined
threat or by bridging over their loss.
The Alternate Path (AP) method, in conjunction with new redundancy requirements, is
used exclusively for verifying that the structure
can bridge over a lost load-carrying element;
tie forces and specific local resistance are not
employed. In the new GSA guidelines, the
AP method is based on the methodology and
performance requirements presented in the
DoD Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-02303, Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive
Collapse, and ASCE 41, Seismic Rehabilitation
of Existing Buildings, with some modifications
and additions. The intent of the redundancy
requirements is to distribute progressive collapse resistance up the height of the building
without explicitly requiring column/wall
STRUCTURE magazine
42
October 2013
removal scenarios at each level. One significant difference from UFC 4-023-03 is that
the acceptance criteria for existing buildings
will allow a specified amount of local damage
in the vicinity of the column or wall removal
location, providing that the designer can show
that the damaged or failed portion does not
create deleterious loading on the floors below.
After four years of application of the 2009
version of UFC 4-023-03, DoD released
Change 2 in June 2013. There are a number
of significant modifications and improvements, including revised peripheral tie force
equations that now directly include faade
loads, resulting in smaller peripheral tie
forces for framed structures. For one-way
load-bearing walls, both the wall loading and
faade loading are included in the peripheral tie force requirements. The applied load
combinations were revised to remove the 0.9
factor on the dead load, as well as the lateral
load requirement. The example problems in
the appendices now include a cold-formed
steel project. The enhanced local resistance
approach was recast in an LRFD format.
Finally, the cost of implementing progressive
collapse design requirements was investigated
as part of the effort to revise the 2009 UFC
4-023-03, using cost estimates for the four
example problems.
In summary, significant advances have been
made and are underway in the design of structures to resist disproportionate collapse. The
next major development will be the release of
the GSA design guidelines in 2013, followed
by the release of the ASCE SEI disproportionate collapse design guidelines, hopefully
within the next five years.
David Stevens, Ph.D., P.E., M. ASCE
(dstevens@protection-consultants.com), is
a Senior Principal at Protection Engineering
Consultants in San Antonio, Texas.
Mark Waggoner, P.E., M. ASCE
(mwaggoner@walterpmoore.com), is a
Principal at Walter P Moore in Austin, Texas.
award winners and outstanding projects
Spotlight
The Harbor Drive Pedestrian Bridge

By Joe Tognoli
T.Y. Lin International was an Outstanding Award Winner for the Harbor Drive Pedestrian
Bridge project in the 2012 NCSEA Annual Excellence in Structural Engineering awards
program (Category New Bridge & Transportation Structures).
Courtesy of Brooke Duthie.
he Harbor Drive Pedestrian Bridge

in San Diego, California, is located
in the downtown area of the city
near San Diego Bay. For many
years it has been the goal of the City to complete a pedestrian and bicycle link between the
historic Balboa Park area of the city, through
downtown, all the way to the Bay and Harbor
area. The last step in the link from the Park to
the Bay is blocked by the local trolley tracks,
several sets of freight train tracks, and a busy
downtown thoroughfare. In 2004, the City
commissioned the Centre City Development
Corporation (CCDC) to design and build
a bridge to complete the approximately 1.9
miles (3 km) route linking the Park to the Bay.
CCDC recognized that the high profile project location needed a landmark structure to
act as the gateway to the city and as an icon of
the revitalized downtown area of San Diego.
Through a series of community outreach
meetings, a self-anchored suspension bridge
with a single inclined pylon was selected.
The main span of the bridge is 354 feet
(108 m) and the pylon is 131 feet (40 m)
tall. The pylon is inclined at a 60 degree
angle from the horizontal and leans over the
deck to support the single pair of suspension
cables. Thirty-four individual suspenders
attached to the main cable support the wide
Figure 1: Typical section (Fukuhara, 2005).
Figure 2: Radial load and arch effect provide

equilibrium (Fukuhara, 2005).
deck from the top of the railing at one edge

of the deck only, as shown in Figure 1. This
is a bridge where architecture and engineering are integral. For instance, the inclination
of the pylon and the horizontal curve in
the bridge deck allow the suspenders to be
anchored to only one side of the bridge deck.
From the typical section of the bridge shown
in Figure 1, the unbalanced nature of the
deck becomes very apparent. It seems as if
the deck wants to rotate clockwise around
the suspender support point at the left edge
of the section. The torsion generated by the
unbalanced support location must be compensated in some way. The best solution
would be to get the line of action of the
supporting force to pass through the center
of gravity of the bridge section. An unsymmetrical cross-section was developed to try
to move the center of gravity of the section
as far to the left as possible. Unfortunately,
the center of gravity could not be shifted far
enough to achieve a balanced design. The
support point was then moved to the top
of the railing in an effort to move the line
of action farther to the right in the section.
Figure 2 shows that in order to achieve
equilibrium, an additional horizontal force
is needed to balance the horizontal component of the suspender force. To provide this
necessary horizontal balancing force, the deck
of the bridge was designed with a horizontal
STRUCTURE magazine
43
October 2013
curvature. In this way, the axial compression

in the deck generates a radial force directed
outwards that can be made to balance the
horizontal reaction from the suspenders. Due
to the over 19.7-foot (6m) wide deck, the
final geometry of the structure fell short of
the balanced condition. Still more balancing torsion was needed to reach equilibrium
in the section. Since the deck had already
been constructed on a horizontal curve,
an additional radial inward force could be
added to the equation at a distance above
the center of gravity to provide the balancing
torsion needed. The additional radial force
was provided in this case by the addition of
a longitudinal post-tensioned cable at the
location of the top of the railing post.
Conclusion
The high profile location of the final link in
the pedestrian route from the historic Balboa
Park, to the downtown and San Diego Bay
areas, led to the selection of a truly unique
and exciting bridge. The design and detailing of this project required some innovative
solutions that both challenged conventional
bridge methods and provided new architectural models for future bridge designers.
Innovation is demonstrated in the project
from the basic selection of the bridge type to
the smallest details of the design. Construction
of the bridge was completed in the spring of
2011. The bridge now stands as an icon for
the City of San Diego.
Joe Tognoli currently serves as a Vice
President and Principal Bridge Engineer
at T.Y. Lini International . Over his 22
year career, Mr. Tognoli has led the design
of many award-winning bridge projects
including non-conventional structures and
dramatic aesthetic designs.
The online version of this article
contains references. Please visit
EN
GINEERS
O NS
STRUCTU
OCIATI
RAL
ASS
NATIONAL
years
1993-2013
NCSEA News
News form the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
Celebrating
COUNCI L
Presidents Report
C. Ben Nelson, P.E., SECB
It is hard to believe that nearly one year has passed since I was
honored to become NCSEAs president for 2013, representing our 43 (recently 44!) Member Organizations (MOs) and
their 10,000 individual members. I set six goals for my year as
President, which I shared with you at our Annual Conference
in St. Louis. I am now pleased to be able to deliver a favorable
report on progress made toward these goals, accomplished with
the help and selfless contributions of our committees that form
the backbone of NCSEA.
1. Much of my Presidency focused on our Young Member
Group initiative. As part of the Membership Committee, the
Young Member Group (YMG) Support Committee was formed
shortly after the 2012 Annual Conference in St. Louis. It is
populated with several of our recent Young Member Scholarship
winners and others that volunteered. The committee is charged
with providing support to our MOs who seek to establish
Young Member groups within their organizations. Committee
members Heather Anesta, Emily Guglielmo and Jason Partain,
having already created the NCSEA YMG Support Guide that
was introduced at the 2013 Annual Conference, are currently
working with, or assisting in the formation of, YMGs in 24
chapters and MOs of NCSEA. In 2013, five structural engineering firms sponsored new Young Member scholarship winners at
the Atlanta conference. The momentum that is building with
YMGs is truly inspiring.
2. We created an ad-hoc Website Redesign Committee
to redesign our website from the ground up. Thanks to a
great reference from the Structural Engineers Association of
Oregon, we commissioned the same website designer and
launched the new NCSEA website in September just before
the Annual Conference. The ad-hoc committee hosted several
conference calls to solicit feedback which was incorporated
into the new platform. Carrie Johnson, Brian Dekker and all
of our NCSEA staff, particularly Susan Cross, converted the
ideas into reality in just ten months. A follow-up component
of the new website will occur in late 2013/early 2014 to
include on-line webinar registration, conference registration,
and roster-updating capabilities.
3. The Continuing Education Committee, under the leadership of Carrie Johnson and Mike Tylk, continues to be one
of our most active committees, and, as a result, NCSEA is
the leader in providing valuable and practical continuing
education for practicing structural engineers throughout
the country. The committee introduced a successful new
format for NCSEAs winter meeting now titled the Winter
Leadership Forum, organized over 20 webinars taught by
industry leading experts, and made ongoing refinements to
the SE Exam Review Course, developed in partnership with
Kaplan Education Services.
4. Our Structural Licensure Committee, under the leadership
of Susan Jorgensen, continues to work with our MOs toward
the adoption of structural engineering licensure in every state.
Working with state legislators is neither easy nor expeditious, but
together with the newly formed Structural Engineers Licensure
Coalition (SELC) with SEI, SECB, and CASE, we remain
committed to promoting licensure for Structural Engineers.
STRUCTURE magazine
44
It is a battle worth fighting and our

Structural Licensure Committees efforts
are making a difference.
5. The Membership Committee is pleased to welcome the
Structural Engineers Association of Wyoming, joining NCSEA
as our 44th Member Organization! Delegate John Shaffer and
Young Member Jera Schlotthauer joined us at the Atlanta Annual
Conference and represented one-half of their inaugural membership roster. Combining outreach with the University of Wyoming
and other young members is a formational guideline of their MO.
6. Our Advocacy Committee, under the co-leadership of Brian
Dekker and Rick Boggs, has made strong and steady progress
with its many subcommittees. One of the best ways to see how
the Advocacy Committee represents our NCSEA members is to
view their page on the new NCSEA website. There, you will find
videos of some of their projects, including several that debuted
at the Atlanta Annual Conference; and you might just see some
glimpses of yourself from Atlanta in the near future!
Finally, I want to recognize the longstanding and tremendous
contributions of two icons in NCSEA who are stepping down
from their committee chair positions. Ron Hamburger chaired
our important Code Advisory Committee (CAC) for eight
years. As chair, he oversaw the six separate subcommittees of the
CAC, all of which are structured to work with Model Code and
Standards issues and activities and the ever-important charge
of generating and responding to code changes over many code
cycles. His stalwart leadership will be missed. At Rons recommendation, Tom DiBlasi has agreed to take over leadership of the
CAC. Craig Barnes has chaired the Basic Education Committee
since its inception in 1999. The committee surveys Universities
and colleges and promotes a recommended core curriculum for
structural engineering students working to obtain recognition as
structural engineers in the workplace. At Craigs endorsement,
Brent Perkins has agreed to assume leadership of the Basic
Education Committee. NCSEA thanks and congratulates Ron
and Craig for their devotion to the work of NCSEA and for
their proven invaluable leadership capabilities.
All of NCSEAs committees are composed of, and led by,
dedicated volunteers. These volunteers are the heart and soul of
NCSEA, and their commitment to service cannot be overstated.
For those who volunteer on one or more of our committees,
please know that our national membership thanks you for
your time and devotion. For those interested in serving, please
complete the volunteer form available on the homepage of our
new website. For those who are thinking about getting around
to it someday, I encourage you to volunteer at your local state
level and perhaps at the national level someday. When you give
back to our profession, you WILL make a difference in more
ways than you might realize.
It has been my great privilege, honor and pleasure to serve
NCSEA as its President this past year. Since first being named
delegate for Colorado in 2000, and continuing on in various
roles with SEAC and the NCSEA Board of Directors, this has
proven the most humbling volunteer action Ive undertaken in
my 29 year career. Most importantly, I would do it all again,
without hesitation!
October 2013
Three Levels of Ownership Transition:

Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow
Small Firm Brian Dekker, Sound Structures, Inc.
Medium-Size Firm
Brian Phair, PCS
Structural Solutions
Large Firm Mark Aden,
DCI Engineers
NCSEA Webinars
October 15, 2013
Formwork: As-Cast Surface Finishes
Kim Basham
October 25, 2013
California Emergency Management Agency:
Safety Assessment Program (full-day program)
Jim Barnes
October 29, 2013
2012 I-Codes Structural Provisions for Existing Buildings:
IBC Chapter 34 and IEBC
David Bonowitz
November 5, 2013
Changing the Paradigm for Engineering Ethics
Jon Schmidt
ATI
ON
RA
TU
ST
R
UC
NTI
CO
UC
IN
NU
NCSEA
ED
RS
EE
GIN
EN
November 19, 2013

Simplied Design of Low-Rise Masonry Structures
Richard Klingner
Diamond
Reviewed
Registration information will be available soon at

www.ncsea.com.
Wyoming becomes the 44th

NCSEA Member Organization
Structural engineers in the state of Wyoming recently formed
the 44th ocial NCSEA Member Organization, the Structural
Engineers Association of Wyoming (SEAWY).
The groups NCSEA Delegate is John Shaffer, and the Alternate
Delegate is Jera Schlotthauer. SEAWYs Board of Directors is
comprised of Shaffer, Schlotthauer, Joe Hall, and Greg Shavlik.
They plan to meet on a quarterly basis. Schlotthauer is also
developing a Young Members Group as part of the new MO.
It is particularly inspiring to see our newest MO establish their
organization with Young Members in mind as a formational
objective, stated NCSEA President Ben Nelson. Delegate John
Shaffer and Young Member Jera Schlotthauer joined us at the
Atlanta Annual Conference and represented one-half of their
inaugural membership roster. Welcome SEAWY!
Check out the NEW

www.ncsea.com!
The newly redesigned website of NCSEA features
easier navigation, structured to help you nd what
you are looking for in three clicks or less.
45
October 2013
O NS
NATIONAL
Celebrating
STRUCTURE magazine
GINEERS
OCIATI
New content continuously being added!
EN
ASS
These courses will award 1.5 hours of continuing education. Approved for CE credit in all 50 States through
the NCSEA Diamond Review Program. Time: 10:00
AM Pacific, 11:00 AM Mountain, 12:00 PM Central,
1:00 PM Eastern. Register at www.ncsea.com.
Youve Been Sued Now What? What Engineers Need

to Know to Structure Their DefenseKevin Sido
Realizing that claims will inevitably be filed against Structural
Engineers regardless of merit, what should the Structural
Engineer do when the summons is served and in the months
that follow? Learn from this experienced attorney how to structure a solid defense.
News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
Baby Boomers Delay Retirements Career Bottleneck at

the Top Steven Isaacs
Attend this session to learn about a variety of processes intended
to break the Baby Boomer logjam at the top and create new
pathways to leadership, that are both visible and attainable, for
high-potential candidates deserving consideration.
Managing the Cost of Conict: Mediation, Arbitration

or Litigation? Jennifer Morrow and Kevin Sido
This session will explore the full spectrum of dispute resolution
processes available and provide tools for evaluating when to use
which process. Learn the nomenclature, know your options and
make more informed decisions to minimize the impact on your
time, your business and your reputation.
RAL
Thursday, March 20
Get the Value You Deserve Without Ruining the
Relationship Steven Isaacs
This interactive session, beginning with a new approach to
negotiations, will offer a variety of field-tested ways to get the
value you deserve, both financially and beyond.
Friday, March 21
Leadership is a Full-Contact Sport: Dealing with Conict
in the WorkplaceJennifer Morrow
This session will focus on critical skills for effectively dealing
with conflict in the workplace and beyond.
STRUCTU
The second NCSEA Winter Leadership Forum will gather leading structural engineers at the Meritage Resort & Spa in Napa,
California, to interact in an engaging environment focused on
leadership, networking and game-changing strategies:
NCSEA News
Winter Leadership Forum to

feature conict resolution,
transition issues, and wine-tasting
COUNCI L
years
1993-2013
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
Structural Columns
2014 Ammann Fellowship Online

Application Now Available
The O.H. Ammann Research Fellowship in Structural Engineering
is awarded annually to a member or members of ASCE or SEI
for the purpose of encouraging the creation of new knowledge
in the field of structural design and construction. All members
or applicants for membership are eligible. Applicants will submit
a description of their research, an essay about why they chose to
become a structural engineer, letters of recommendation, and
their academic transcripts. In 2013, four SEI members were
awarded Ammann Fellowships. This year SEI has developed an
online application to make submitting easier.
This fellowship award is at least $5,000 and can be up to
$10,000. The deadline for 2014 Ammann applications is
November 1, 2013.
For more information and to access the online application visit
the SEI website at www.asce.org/sei/ammann-fellowship/.
Errata
SEI posts up-to-date errata information for our publications at
www.asce.org/SEI. Click on Publications on our menu, and
select Errata. If you have any errata that you would like to
submit, please email it to Paul Sgambati at psgambati@asce.org.
ASCE Week A Continuing

Education Event
November 4-8, 2013
This event brings together our most popular face-to-face seminars
in one location and offers two special field trips for you to choose
from. Earn up to 36 PDHs. Structural topics include Design
for High Wind and Flood, Design of Anchors, Forensic Report
Writing, Instrumentation and Monitoring, and more. Register by
October 11 and save up to $800. Visit the ASCE Week webpage
at www.asce.org/asceweek for more information.
Save
the
Date
2014 SEI Student Structural

Design Competition
Attention Undergraduate Student Teams
and Faculty Advisors
Innovative projects demonstrating excellence in structural
engineering are invited for submission. Awards include an
opportunity to present finalist designs at Structures Congress
2014 in Boston, MA, April 3-5, 2014, cash prizes, and complimentary registration for Structures Congress (up to three
student registrations and one full registration for the faculty
advisor). Entries are due January 3, 2014 for design projects
completed in 2013.
For more information and to apply, visit the SEI website at
www.asce.org/SEI.
Get Involved in Your

Local SEI Chapter
Join your local SEI Chapter or Structural Technical Groups
(STG) to connect with colleagues, take advantage of local
opportunities for lifelong learning, and advance structural
engineering in your area.
If there is not an SEI Chapter or STG in your area, talk with
your ASCE Section/Branch leaders about the simple steps to
form an SEI Chapter.
Some of the benefits of forming an SEI Chapter include:
Connect with other SEI local groups through quarterly
conference calls and annual conference
Use of SEI Chapter logo branding
SEI Chapter announcements published at
www.asce.org/SEI and in SEI Update
One free ASCE webinar (to $299 value) sponsored by
the SEI Endowment Fund
Funding for one representative to attend the SEI
Local Leadership Conference to learn about new SEI
initiatives, share best practices, participate in leadership
training, and technical tours.
SEI outreach supplies available upon request
Visit the SEI website at www.asce.org/sei for more information
on how to connect with your local group or to form a new
SEI Chapter.
STRUCTURE magazine
46
October 2013
Nominations are being sought for the 2014 SEI and ASCE
Structural Awards. The objective of the Awards program is to
advance the engineering profession by emphasizing exceptionally
meritorious achievement, so this is an opportunity to recognize
colleagues who are worthy of this honor.
Nomination deadlines begin October 1, 2013 with most
deadlines falling on November 1, 2013.
Visit the SEI website at www.asce.org/SEI for more information and nomination procedures.
American Society of Civil Engineering

Structural Awards
Jack E. Cermak Award
This award was created by the Engineering Mechanics Division/
Structural Engineering Institute to recognize Dr. Jack E.
Cermaks lifetime achievements in the field of wind engineering and industrial aerodynamics.
Shortridge Hardesty Award

This award was instituted in 1987 by the firm Hardesty &
Hanover to honor the contributions of Shortridge Hardesty
as the first chair of the Column Research Council (Structural
Stability Research Council since 1976). The Shortridge Hardesty
Award may be given annually to individuals who have contributed substantially in applying fundamental results of research
to the solution of practical engineering problems in the field
of structural stability.
Ernest E. Howard Award
This award may be presented annually to a member of ASCE
who has made a definite contribution to the advancement of
structural engineering, either in research, planning, design,
construction, or methods and materials. This award was instituted and endowed in 1954 by Mrs. Howard in honor of her
husband, Ernest E. Howard, Past President of ASCE.
Walter L. Huber Civil Engineering Research Prizes
In July 1946, the Board of Direction authorized annual awards
on the recommendation of the Societys Committee on Research
to stimulate research in civil engineering. In October 1964,
Mrs. Alberta Reed Huber endowed these prizes in honor of
her husband, Walter L. Huber, Past President of ASCE. Up to
five prizes may be awarded for notable achievements in research
related to civil engineering and are often seen as helping to
establish careers of the top researchers in civil engineering.
Moisseiff Award
The Moisseiff Award recognizes a paper contributing to structural
design, including applied mechanics, as well as the theoretical
analysis or construction improvement of engineering structures,
such as bridges and frames, of any structural material. The award
STRUCTURE magazine
Raymond C. Reese Research Prize

The Raymond C. Reese Research Prize may be awarded to the
author(s) of a paper published by ASCE that describes a notable
achievement in research related to structural engineering and
recommends how the results of that research (experimental and/
or analytical) can be applied to design. The prize was established
in 1970 in honor of Raymond C. Reese.
Structural Engineering Institute Awards

Contact SEI directly for more information on these awards
visit the SEI website at www.asce.org/SEI.
Dennis L. Tewksbury Award
The Tewksbury Award recognizes an individual member of the
Structural Engineering Institute who has advanced the interests
of SEI through innovative or visionary leadership; who has
promoted the growth and visibility of SEI; who has established
working relationships between SEI and other structural engineering organizations; or who has otherwise rendered valuable
service to the structural engineering profession.
Walter P. Moore, Jr. Award
This award honors Walter P. Moore, Jr. for his dedication to
technical expertise in the development of structural codes and
standards. The award is made annually to a structural engineer
who has demonstrated technical expertise in and dedication to
the development of structural codes and standards. The contribution may have been in the form of papers, presentations,
extensive practical experience, research, committee participation,
or through other activities.
Gene Wilhoite Award
The Wilhoite Award recognizes an individual who has made
significant contributions to the advancement of the art and
science of transmission line engineering. The SEI Technical
Activities Division Awards Committee makes recommendations regarding who should receive the Gene Wilhoite award.
However, they seek the opinions of members as to which papers
are meritorious. If a reader encounters a paper that s/he believes
is outstanding for any reason, please convey this information
along with a statement as to why s/he considers the paper
exceptional to Susan Reid at sreid@asce.org.
47
October 2013
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
Norman Medal and J. James R. Croes Medal

The Norman and Croes Medals recognize papers that make a
definitive contribution to engineering science. The Norman Medal
was instituted and endowed in 1872 by George H. Norman,
M.ASCE. The Croes was established by the Society on October 1,
1912, and is named in honor of the first recipient of the Norman
Medal, John James Robertson Croes, Past President of ASCE.
was established in 1947 in recognition of the accomplishments

of Leon S. Moisseiff, M.ASCE, a notable contributor to the
science and art of structural engineering.
Structural Columns
CALL for 2014 SEI/ASCE Award Nominations
New CASE Documents
CASE in Point
The Newsletter of the Council of American Structural Engineers
Foundation 9 Contract Documents:

Produce Quality Contract Documents
Foundation 10 Construction Phase:
Provide Services to Complete the Risk
Management Process
Tool 9-1: A Guideline Addressing Coordination and

Completeness of Structural Construction Documents
Welcome to the Tool No. 9-1, CASE RMP Tool Kit Committees
A Guideline Addressing Coordination and Completeness of
Structural Construction Documents. The Tool Kit Committee
has repackaged a previously released CASE document with
upgrades and additions! A summary test and answer key have
been added to the Appendix of the original document. It is
recommended that engineers read this Guideline and take the
test at the end of the document. More experienced engineers
should then sit down with the engineers to go over the various
subjects and answer any questions. The CASE Drawing Review
Checklist will be a valuable tool to take away from this experience and implement into normal office use.
Tool 10-1: Site Visit Cards

This tool provides sample cards for the people in your firm who
make construction site visits. These cards provide a brief list
of tasks to perform as a part of making a site visit: What to do
before the site visit; What to take to the construction site; What
to observe while at the site; What to do after completing the
site visit. The sample cards include several types of structural
construction, plus a general guide for all site visits.
Tool 10-2: Construction Administration Log
Tool 9-2: Quality Assurance Plan
Construction administration is a time when good record keeping

and prompt response is essential to the success of the project and
to limiting the risk of the structural engineer. For this reason
and many others, a well-organized and maintained construction
administration log is essential
The plan provides guidance to the structural engineering professional for developing a comprehensive detailed Quality Assurance
Plan suitable for their firm. A well developed and implemented
Quality Assurance Plan ensures consistent high quality service
on all projects, and includes: 1) Quality Control Review; 2)
Firm-wide Standards and 3) Construction Quality Assurance.
All of these tools and more are available

at www.booksforengineers.com.
CASE Business Practice Corner

If you would like more information on the items below, please contact Ed Bajer, ebajer@acec.org.
Indemnity Is the Most Litigated

Contract Clause
Indemnification is a duty to make good on any loss, damage or
liability incurred by another party, and the right of that party to
claim reimbursement for its losses. A bad clause can also include
a duty to defend (pay legal expenses) that could go into effect
even though you have no liability yourself. It is usually the right
of a secondarily liable party to recover from a primarily liable
party. Agreeing to an indemnity clause is ultimately a business
decision. Try to use your own appropriately-worded indemnity
clause. Explain that a duty to defend clause is not covered by
your insurance policy. It is better to have no indemnity clause
than a bad one.
Telecommuting
When considering adopting a telecommuting policy, employers may carefully weigh the potential for equipment and
facilities cost savings, the ability to recruit and retain employees outside the local market, and an increase in morale and
productivity against the sometimes complex logistics of
remote work. Yet there are a few considerations of remote
work that sometimes slip through the cracks. Taxes states
that may be hungry for revenue may look to collect if they
STRUCTURE magazine
48
find you have employees in them even though no office.

Unemployment if the employee has to be laid off, in
which state do they file and where does the employer pay
unemployment insurance? Claims are usually filed in the state
where the work is performed. The ability to retain valuable
employees may outweigh the potential problems. Be sure you
know the state from which the employee will be working to
fully understand your responsibilities.
A Positive Note
These articles have contained warnings and admonitions about
the snares and pitfalls of contracts and legal exposure in the
engineering and construction industries. What is not emphasized strongly enough is the positive side. It should be noted
that when the engineer does what he or she has been trained to
do and performs services within the orbit of his or her expertise, the risk of making a mistake or being sued for an error or
omission is greatly reduced. The temptation to assume greater
responsibility should be tempered with the realistic evaluation
of the legal exposure that goes with it.
Follow ACEC Coalitions on

Twitter @ACECCoalitions.
October 2013
Strong Lineup of Risk Management Sessions at ACEC Fall Conference

The CASE Convocation offers a full day of sessions on Monday,
October 28 dedicated to best-practice structural engineering:
10:30 am
Whats Next, the Legal Aspects of Building
Information Modeling, Sue Yoakum,
Donovan Hatem LLP
2:15 pm
Practical Insurance Advice, Brian Stewart,
Collins, Collins, Muir + Stewart; Tom Bongi,
Caitlin; Atha Forsberg, Marsh
4:00 pm
Developing an Internal Culture to
Manage a Firms Risk, Michael Strogoff,
Strogoff Consulting
5:30 pm
ACEC/Coalition Meet and Greet
Register now at
www.acec.org/conferences/fall-13/.
Other Fall Conference Highlights include:

Mitch Daniels, Former Indiana Governor and President,
Purdue University, on The Private Sector and Public Projects
CEO Panel on Trends in Private Client Methods
Commercial, Industrial, Energy
Victor Mendez , FHWA Administrator on MAP-21 and
the Future of the Federal Highway Program
Expert Panel Discussion on Transportation Funding
Options and Outlook
Fred Studer, Dynamics GM, Microsoft on How
Technology Will Transform the Business of Engineering
CEO Roundtables
CIO and CFO Industry Sessions
Emerging Leaders Forum
30 Industry Education Sessions offering 21.5 PDHs
Beware the Risks Posed by Non-Standard

Construction Contract Documents
November 6, 1:30-3:00 pm
Properly drafted construction contract documents will reduce
the contractual risk to consulting engineers and minimize the
potential for exposure to costly litigation.
In Beware the Risks Posed by Non-Standard Construction Contract
Documents, Gerald Cavaluzzi, vice president and general counsel,
Essentials of A/E Financial

Management, Valuation, and
Transition Planning
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Friday, November 15, 2013; Chicago, IL
Faculty: David Cohen, Principal, Matheson Financial Advisors
This course will explore the impact a volatile economy has on
financial management above and beyond revenue, profits, backlog, and staff size. Participants will learn to effectively extract
and apply key financial measures such as breakeven overhead
rate, target billing multiplier and labor utilization percentage.
Attendees will also examine various performance, liquidity and leverage ratios, and how to benchmark these results
to make the causal link to shareholder value including the
acceptable valuation methodologies for engineering firms
and the valuations relationship to internal owner transition planning. For more information and to register,
www.acec.org/education/searchDetails.cfm?eventID=1486.
STRUCTURE magazine
ARCADIS U.S., and Kevin OBeirne, principal engineer and

manager of standard construction documents, ARCADIS U.S.,
will demonstrate how to reduce the risk of becoming involved
in a dispute or lawsuit arising from the use of non-standard
construction contract documents; discuss why you should be
concerned about using non-standard documents; identify provisions that commonly pose liability issues; and, outline a program
to limit these risks. For more information and to register,
www.acec.org/education/eventDetails.cfm?eventID=1458.
How to Write and Edit Readable Proposals

Your primary goal in a proposal is to persuade a client that
your firm is perfectly suited to the project. In Writing and
Editing Readable Proposals, David Stone of Stone & Company
will show you how to make the content of your proposal easily
accessible and understood. For more information and to register,
Reducing Project Costs Through Risk

Assessment and Management
Project risk is becoming more and more of an issue with
clients. As a result, firms need to develop and consistently
update an effective risk mitigation strategy. In Reducing
Overall Construction Costs through Risk Assessments and
Management, Renee Hoekstra of Rha will demonstrate how
to integrate risk management into your current program/
project management. For more information and to register,
49
October 2013
CASE is a part of the American Council of Engineering Companies
ACEC Business Insights: Upcoming ACEC Online Seminars
CASE in Point
CASE Risk Management Convocation
STRUCTURAL FORUM
opinions on topics of current importance to structural engineers
Building Codes and the Public Domain

By David L. Pierson, S.E., SECB
short time ago, I started working

on a project that will be designed
for construction in Europe. As
such, I decided that I ought to
know European construction law. I quickly
found my way to the Eurocode, the governing building code for the European Union.
Thinking that I ought to purchase it, I turned
to the Internet. I discovered that it is not
available from Amazon, and no online version shows up on any search engine. I need
it in English, so there is only one place to go
to buy it.
What is the cost? Well, if I want individual
volumes one covers snow loads, another
wind loads, etc. they run between $250 and
$350 each. As it turns out, there are a total
of 52 volumes. But wait I get a discounted
price of $9,971 if I buy all of them together!
I am still looking for alternatives otherwise,
I could be using 20% of my fee just to purchase the required code. If there is a silver
lining here, it is that they do not update the
Eurocode every three years.
This was the catalyst for me to start inquiring
about things that I should have questioned
when I was a younger engineer. I do not mind
paying for textbooks, design guides, seminars, etc. To every squirrel his nut, I say. If
you create value, then protect it, and make
others pay for it. That is free-market activity. However, I have always been somewhat
bothered when, in the course of my design
work, I find that there is a code with which
I need to comply that I do not already have,
and it is going to cost me part of my fee to
acquire it. Even worse, that code often references other codes or standards that I may not
already have.
The key question is this: Is it right, in a country governed as a representative republic, that
the government can create a law with which
persons must comply (under threat of statesanctioned penalties) and then not make the
complete text of that law available for free
in the public domain? Is it proper that the
government forces a person to purchase the
law from a private organization in order
to find out exactly what the law requires? Is
this not where we find ourselves now with

building codes and referenced standards?
I am somewhat astonished that our profession has acquiesced to the situation in which
we currently find ourselves. Does every jurisdiction that mandates a building code make
it available to design professionals in the
public domain? Or are you required to buy
it, and then buy it again and again, every
three years? I have tried to figure out if there
are any similar situations in other professions
or occupations, but so far I have been unable
to come up with any.
In 2002, there was a legal case (Veeck vs.
Southern Building Code Congress) in which
the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held
that a building official was not violating copyright law when he put the adopted building
code online for free access. This case essentially held that the model codes themselves
are protected by copyright, but once they
are enacted into law, they become part of
the public domain. Because of that case, the
organization Public Resource tries to publish
the enacted building codes for every state
online, making them available as free PDF
files. However, in general, they only have the
text of the code itself.
My next question is a simple extension:
What about the various industry standards
that are referenced within that code? Those
standards bind me legally as part of the building code. Just because they are published in
different books does not diminish the fact
that I, as a design professional, am bound to
know what is in them and to comply with

them. Yet the total cost to purchase all of the
referenced standards could easily exceed the
$10,000 that is being asked for the Eurocode.
Under what legal doctrine can I be compelled
to engage in commerce with a third party in
order to determine what is in the law?
I submit that once a building code is adopted
by any authority having jurisdiction, then that
jurisdiction should be required to make available in the public domain, free of charge, not
only the code, but also all referenced standards
within that code that are legally binding,
Perhaps this would require changes to how
building codes are developed and promulgated. I think it is time that we address this.
And before anyone goes jumping to the conclusion that the solution is elimination of the
building codes, I would argue that this is not
the correct answer. A staunch political libertarian may claim otherwise, but I maintain
that building codes do have a necessary place
in our society.
It is completely proper, however, to debate
what the scope of the building codes should
be, what their objectives ought to be, and how
they should be developed. But that sounds
like a topic for another time and place. In
the meantime, does anyone know someone
willing to trade a complete Eurocode for,
say, a kidney?
David Pierson, S.E., SECB
(davep@arwengineers.com), is a Vice
President at ARW Engineers in Ogden, Utah.
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
50
October 2013

2013 - 10 Bridges PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

2013 - 10 Bridges PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

October 2013 Bridges

A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

POWERS PURE110+ EPOXY ADHESIVE ANCHOR SYSTEM

WHY DO WE CALL IT 110+?

Software for rapid creation of calculations for

Improved continuously to suit users needs

Did you know?

Historic Arch Bridge Reborn

The Burnt House Road Bridge, a historic bridge set in the

Bridges for Planes, Trains,

By Andrew Rauch, CASE Chair

By Jerod G. Johnson, Ph.D., S.E.

A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

The art of bridge design is a timehonored pursuit that, throughout

October 2013 Bridges

Structural Health Monitoring

By Gail S. Kelley, P.E., Esq.

By Frank Griggs, Jr., P.E.

Disproportionate Collapse Design

Building Codes and

By David L. Pierson, S.E., SECB

Sign up and get a preview at atlastube.com/A1085

few weeks ago, I met with new employees of our firm

The Ten Foundations of Risk Management

2. Prevention & Proactivity

10. Construction Phase

Andrew Rauch is a principal with BKBM Engineers in

PleAse suPPort these Advertisers

Hayward Baker, Inc. .............................. 20

Burns & McDonnell, Kansas City, MO

CBI Consulting, Inc., Boston, MA

Mark W. Holmberg, P.E.

Evans Mountzouris, P.E.

The DiSalvo Ericson Group, Ridgefield, CT

Dilip Khatri, Ph.D., S.E.

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

Khatri International Inc., Pasadena, CA

KPFF Consulting Engineers, Seattle, WA

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

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

Brian J. Leshko, P.E.

John Buddy Showalter, P.E.

John A. Mercer, P.E.

Amy Trygestad, P.E.

HDR Engineering, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA

Mercer Engineering, PC, Minot, ND

Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc., Marietta, GA

AdvErtising Account MAnAgEr

Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB

Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECB

S-Frame Software, Inc. ............................ 4

American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA

Chase Engineering, LLC, New Prague, MN

Christine M. Sloat, P.E.

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

OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY,

STRUCTURE (Volume 20, Number 10). ISSN 1536-4283.

reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission

A Division of Copper Creek Companies, Inc.

Building dreams that inspire future generations.

All across America, Gerdau helps build dreams.

he art of bridge design is a time-honored pursuit that, throughout the

The New Technology