®

July 2010
Concrete
STRUCTURE
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI
Typical Applications that Require Code
Compliant Anchors According to ICC: Powers Compliant
• Pipe Hanging (Water & Waste) • Windows & Doors Products Have
You Covered:
• Sprinkler Pipes • Glazing & Curtain Walls
• Ceiling Grids with Lighting • Beam Connections
or Fans • Shear & Stem Walls
• Air Handling Units • Sill Plate and Ledger
• HVAC Duct Work Attachments
• Electrical Wire Trays & Conduit • Concrete Form Work
• Fire Alarms, Exit Signs • Scaffolding, Cranes, Rails,
• Smoke Detection Devices Fall Protection

2009 IBC

2006 IBC

2003 IBC

For further clarity on this important change,

visit www.powers.com/icc.pdf in regards to
this topic, they make it crystal clear.

Powers Fasteners, Inc. www.powers.com

2 Powers Lane P: (914) 235-6300
Brewster, NY 10509 F: (914) 576-6483
 CONTENTS
Features
20 Barton Creek Bridge
By Mark W. Holmberg, P.E.
8
Rising eighty feet above the Barton Creek streambed, this three-span fin-back
bridge was recommended as the most economical alternate that met unique
geometric and environmental constraints, and provided a novel gateway for the
subdivision it served. The fin-back name derives from the central fins, or walls,
which rise from the triangular box to peak over each intermediate pier.

Columns Departments
5 Editorial 26 InSights
What Business Are You In? Curved Steel: Means and Methods
By John A. Mercer Jr, P.E. By Erin J. Gachne Conaway, P.E.,
LEED AP and Jacinda L. Collins, P.E.
7 InFocus 12
Engineers Are from Aristotle
By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
8 Guest Column
Seismic Design of Concrete Parking
In every Issue
Structure Ramps 6 Advertiser Index
Seismology Committee, Structural
Engineers Association of California
27 Resource Guide
(Pre-Cast Concrete)
12 Structural Design
Post-Tensioned Slabs on Ground 28 NCSEA News
Part 3 30 SEI Structural Columns
By Bryan Allred, S.E.
32 CASE in Point
16 Structural Practices 20
Sea Wall Systems
By Vitaly B. Feygin, P.E.
®

STRUCTURE

22 Building Blocks on the Cover

Service Life of a Structural Retrofit The underside of Barton Creek
By Zachery I. Smith, P.E., Scott F. Bridge with struts and water
Arnold, P.E., and Guijun Xian, Ph.D. Publication of any article, image, or
lines on overhang and twin shaft
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

advertisement in STRUCTURE ®
34 Structural Forum piers in the distance. An analysis magazine does not constitute
The Case for System-Based of this bridge can be seen on endorsement by NCSEA, CASE,
page 20 of this issue. SEI, C 3 Ink, or the Editorial Board.
Structural Design July 2010
Concrete

Authors, contributors, and advertisers

By Avinash M. Nafday, Ph.D., retain sole responsibility for the content
M.B.A., P.E. of their submissions.

IRVINE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
C.V. Chelapati, Ph.D., P.E., F. ASCE
Est. 1973
SE License Seminars | Webcast | Nationwide-Worldwide
Offers 4 Courses for SE License | Credit or CEU’s
24 hours each | 8 Thursday evenings | Live offsite | Archived
Other license programs – PE (Civil), PEME, PEEE, SE I, Seismic and Surveying
Ph: (949) 585-9137 www.irvine-institute.org
Erratum
In the Education Special Section of the May 2010 issue of
STRUCTURE magazine, there was an error in the table highlighting
courses available at schools not offering the full curriculum. Texas
A&M University does offer, and exceeds minimum course offering
requirements for, the Analysis portion of the Basic Education Requirements. A red “check
mark” should have been printed in the Analysis column for Texas A&M (page 20). We
apologize for this error.

STRUCTURE magazine 4 July 2010

 Editorial
What Business Are You In?
By John A. Mercer Jr, P.E.
CASE Chair

Author’s Note: Because of a change in employment and subsequent resignation by Doug Ashcraft, I have recently
assumed the chair position of CASE. I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for his past committee
participation and leadership on CASE RMP committees and as Chair of the CASE Executive Committee, and
wish him well in his new endeavors. The CASE Executive Committee encourages Doug to stay engaged in our sister
organizations, NCSEA and SEI, as time allows.

Looking forward as CASE Chair, I will continue to rely upon the active
leadership and participation of CASE members to share their time,
energy, ingenuity, and expertise with our fellow structural engineers
in CASE, NCSEA, and SEI when it comes to Risk Management and
Business Practices.
As we continue to move forward, we are reminded constantly that
today’s economy has presented a daunting challenge to all of our
country’s companies, corporations, and individuals, not the least of
which includes our structural engineering firms. Firms have had to take
a hard look at themselves in structure, staff, and markets to assess their
survival potential until there is a turn around in the recent downward
financial trends.
Traditionally, firms have been grown around Finders, Minders, and
Grinders. In the past growing economy, there was a shortage of each,
stimulating acquisitions to fill the gaps to grab market share. rent, vehicles, supplies, advertising, non-billable staff time and the list
Finders are typically the firm principals responsible to feed a firm’s can go on and on.
hungry appetite for work. Minders are those few engineers that have One outside influence impacting our firms today is the illusion that
moved up to a project management role to maintain contact with the BIM, perpetrated on our engineering community by the software
client, manage firm resources including staff, and keep a project on industry, is the ultimate answer in document preparation. BIM can
schedule and hopefully under budget. Finally, grinders include the actually be a Trojan horse that will eventually erode the quality of our
staff engineers and support staff that turn out the work of engineering work product and increase firm risk, if we continue to allow this myth
analysis and design, document preparation, and construction services to become an unchecked part of our Culture. BIM is only a tool. BIM
support. They typically include entry level engineering staff, itching to causes restructuring of our production departments and puts firms
design something. behind a new learning curve. We need to ask if it will it make firms
This scenario should be familiar to you. But why is it important? money or increase our risk?
Financially, a firm must be at minimum, break-even, and profitable Another external influence is LEED certification. LEED was created
by design when possible. Firm CFO’s are challenged with keeping by architects with intentions to provide our society with energy saving
overhead rates in line using project multipliers as gauges to evaluate the buildings and sustainable develop-
performance of the firm’s staff, project type, and client. ments. We need to evaluate the real
When the economic environment declines as we have recently cost to firms and our clients. It has
experienced, it may be appropriate to re-evaluate how you define and become another way for a few to
practice your business. Buggy whip manufacturers experienced this extort money out of us and our
sort of situation when Henry Ford automated the auto manufacturing clients, as overseers of a perceived
business. What are we missing in today’s picture? Who or what is it that greater good.
is consuming our revenues and profits? I would suggest we need to take It is my intent that this editorial be
a look at the internal and external line items comprising our overhead. the first in a series that will intro-
Internally, we can include our IT needs. We depend on computers duce the concept of creating profit
and software just as our predecessors relied upon the pencil and centers out of our overhead items
eventually calculators. But computers and software cost more than while maintaining multipliers for
pencils. The basis of our overhead is impacted by these types of cost government audit purposes.
increases. Some of us have in-house IT departments while others What if you could save just one STRUCTURAL
outsource this capability, maximizing cost efficiency. We can make a job in your firm? Could it be yours? ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE
list of our overhead line items to include equipment, software, IT staff, Just what business are you in?▪
communications systems, cell phones, Internet bandwidth, heat, lights,

STRUCTURE magazine 5 July 2010

 FYFE Co.
LLC Over 20 years ago we created the industry...
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Ty fo Fibr wrap Systems
® ®
today we set the standard
National Council of Structural
ADVERTISEMENT – For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

Structural Strengthening
• FRP Installation Engineers Associations
• Seismic Upgrade Jeanne M. Vogelzang, JD, CAE
• Blast Mitigation Executive Director
• Concrete Retrofit 312-649-4600
• Specialty Gunite execdir@ncsea.com
• Underwater & Coastal Repairs
• Expansion & Seismic Joints
Council of American Structural Engineers
Heather Talbert
Pipe Repair and Renewal
Coalitions Director
• Large and Small Diameter
202-682-4377
• PCCP, RCP, Steel Structural Repairs
htalbert@acec.org
• Carbon Fiber Structural Liners
Concrete Restoration Structural Engineering Institute
• Epoxy Crack Injection John E. Durrant, P.E.
• Spall Repair
STRUCTURAL
Manager
• Corrosion Protection ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE ASCE Engineering Programs
Advanced Fire Protection 703-295-6360
sei@STRUCTUREmag.org
8380 Miralani Drive, San Diego, CA 92126
NSF R
Tel: 858.642.0694  Fax: 858.444.2982
www.fyfeco.com
ADVERTISING ACCOUNT MANAGER
Certified to NSF/ANSI 61

Interactive Sales Associates

2010 NCSEA
Chuck Minor Dick Railton
Eastern Sales Western Sales
847-854-1666 951-587-2982

Excellence in
sales@STRUCTUREmag.org

EDITORIAL STAFF
Structural Engineering Awards Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE
execdir@ncsea.com
Entries are due on Friday, July 9, 2010
Editor Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
Associate Editor Nikki Alger
publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
NCSEA 2010 Graphic Designer Rob Fullmer
NEW YORK graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org
Web Developer William Radig
September 30 – October 2, 2010 webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org

STRUCTURE® (Volume 17, Number 7). ISSN 1536-4283.

Publications Agreement No. 40675118. Owned by the
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations and
Courtesy of Sarah McGee Photography published in cooperation with CASE and SEI monthly by C3
Ink. The publication is distributed free of charge to members
Awards will be presented on October 2, 2010 at the NCSEA Annual Meeting.
of NCSEA, CASE and SEI; the non-member subscription rate is
NCSEA’s Eighteenth Hyatt Regency on the Hudson $65/yr domestic; $35/yr student; $125/yr foreign (including
Canada). For change of address or duplicate copies, contact
Annual Conference Jersey City, New Jersey
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.

Advertiser Index Please support these advertisers 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
Computers & Structures, Inc. ................. 36 Powers Fasteners, Inc. ................................ 2 of the publisher.
CTP Inc. ................................................. 27 QuakeWrap, Inc. ....................................... 9
CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp.......... 10 RISA Technologies .................................. 35 Published By:
Fyfe Co. LLC ............................................ 6 SidePlate Systems, Inc. ............................ 15 C3 Ink
Integrated Engineering Software, Inc....... 23 Simpson Strong-Tie................................. 11 C3 Ink A Division of Copper Creek Companies, Inc.
148 Vine St., Reedsburg WI 53959
Irvine Institute of Technology.................... 4 StrucSoft Solutions, Ltd. ........................... 3 P-608-524-1397 F-608-524-4432
ITW Red Head ....................................... 13 StructurePoint ......................................... 25 publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
KPFF Consulting Engineers .................... 17 Struware, Inc. .......................................... 18 Visit STRUCTURE magazine on-line at
National Council of Examiners for Visit
Visit
STRUCTURE
STRUCTURE
magazine
magazine
on-line
online
www.structuremag.org at at
Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) ...... 19 www.structuremag.org
www.STRUCTUREmag.org

STRUCTURE magazine 6 July 2010

 InFocus thoughts from a member of the Editorial Board

Engineers Are from Aristotle

By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
The January 2007 issue of STRUCTURE® included an “Outside the
Box” article by Erik Anders Nelson entitled Architects Are from Plato.
Nelson used the different philosophical priorities of Plato and Aristotle
to highlight some of the distinctions between the typical approaches
that architects and engineers take when carrying out their respective
design tasks. I would like to elaborate on some key aspects of Aristotle’s
thought that I believe are especially relevant to engineering design.
Like Plato, Aristotle was concerned with resolving the tension between
the permanence and change that we observe in the world around us.
Which is more basic – the one or the many? Earlier philosophers tended
to take sides – for example, Heraclitus argued that permanence is an
illusion, and change is the universal feature of reality; while Parmenides
advocated the opposite position, claiming that change is impossible,
since everything that exists is just being itself. Plato sought to harmonize
the two by developing an elaborate theory of “forms” – independently
existing immaterial universals in which various individual material
things participate.
Aristotle absorbed and adapted his mentor’s teachings, adopting the
notions of act and potency – what something is and what it has the
as something that is present throughout the universe, not just confined to
human endeavors. By contrast, modern philosophy largely abandoned
both formal and final causes and is still struggling with the “problems”
that this created.
What does any of this have to do with engineering design? Well, it
seems to me that the role of an engineer is to select the formal, material,
and efficient causes of an artifact in light of its final cause, which is
often dictated primarily by non-technical factors (The Social Captivity
of Engineering, May 2010). This is essentially what we mean when we
use the verb “design”, and the noun “design” roughly corresponds to
the formal cause of the thing designed – the structure or pattern that
informs the matter that ultimately constitutes the physical product or
project (material cause), which serves a designated purpose (final cause)
after it is assembled or built (efficient cause).
Of course, in the process of designing, an engineer must determine all
four causes for various elements and subsystems – final (function), formal
(configuration), material (specification), and efficient (construction).
None of these component causes are inherent in the client’s overall
final cause, just waiting to be “discovered”; the engineer has to make

YOUR
capacity to become – and noting that potency must always be grounded
in something actual. For example, that which is actually a steel billet
(now) is potentially a wide flange beam (in the future). Aristotle also
modified Plato’s theory of forms, insisting that every physical object
is an irreducible composite of matter and form. Matter without form is
pure potency, and thus not actual; form without matter can exist only
as an immaterial particular, such as an abstract concept in the mind.
Change occurs when something else causes an object’s matter to tran-
sition from one form to another – to transform – actualizing a potency
of that object. Aristotle identified four different types of causes, which
are perhaps better characterized as types of explanations: material, formal,
efficient, and final. As the terminology suggests, the first two correspond
directly to matter and form; the last two concern how and why potency
is actualized, respectively. Efficient causes are similar to what we mean
by our most common current usage of the word “cause” – that which
brings something about. Final causes are ends or goals – that for the
sake of which something is brought about.
Aristotle believed that final causes are “the cause of causes” and took
precedence over the other three kinds. Unless an object (material cause)
is directed at producing certain effects (final cause) by virtue of its
nature (formal cause), how can we be confident that the object is really
the (efficient) cause of those effects? Notice that the final cause is not
necessarily conscious or intentional; in fact, Aristotle viewed teleology
decisions based on his/her knowledge of various feasible arrangements of
appropriate materials and the corresponding fabrication and installation
methods (Engineering as Willing, March 2010).
In summary, engineering design creates roadmaps for actualizing the
potency of physical objects in order to satisfy real and perceived needs
and desires. Aristotle taught that a good life was one that achieved
eudaimonia – a Greek word usually equated with “happiness”, but more
accurately translated as “human flourishing”. I would like to think that
he would commend the engineers of today as enablers of eudaimonia
for society as a whole.▪
Your Can Aristotle’s concepts of act and potency, matter
and form, and the four causes be reconciled with the
Turn modern “scientific” worldview? Are they relevant to
our understanding of engineering and its place in our
culture? Please submit your responses and see what others have had to say
by clicking on the “Your Turn” button at www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB (chair@STRUCTUREmag.org), is an
associate structural engineer at Burns & McDonnell in Kansas City,
Missouri. He chairs the STRUCTURE magazine Editorial Board
and the SEI Engineering Philosophy Committee.

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

STRUCTURE magazine 7 July 2010

 Seismic Design of Concrete Parking Structure Ramps
Seismology Committee, Structural Engineers Association of California

Beginning in 1959 and extending to 1996, the Seismology Committee of the

Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) published printed
editions of Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, which
was commonly called the Blue Book. The “Requirements” portion of those
publications was in large part adopted verbatim by the International Council
of Building Officials as the seismic regulations of the Uniform Building Code.
With the unification of the three major model building code organizations in the
United States to form the International Code Council, and the nationwide use
of the NEHRP seismic design provisions that are developed under the auspices
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Building Seismic Safety
Council, SEAOC directed its focus to developing forward-looking seismic
design articles. Those articles provide commentary and guidance for engineering
practitioners and building officials, clarifying ambiguities in codes and standards
and identifying needed improvements in them. The result is a set of articles,
SEAOC Blue Book, 2009 Edition, published by the International Code Council.
The SEAOC Seismology Committee is continually developing new articles,
which are web-accessible at www.seaoc.org/bluebook.

In the January 17, 1994 Northridge that is suitable because long

Earthquake, eight major parking struc-
tures suffered partial or total collapse
(Figure 1) and at least twenty others were
heavily damaged. Most of these struc-
tures were relatively modern, having been
constructed in the 25 years prior to the
Northridge earthquake.
No other modern concrete building
type performed as poorly relative to the
primary code objective of safety. A variety
of damage occurred and was noted in the
Earthquake Engineering Research Insti-
tute reconnaissance report on structural
damage: collapse of the gravity load-
dedicated to the dissemination of information from other organizations
spans are economical with
smaller member sizes. The
long-span floor systems tend
to vibrate, but the resulting
vibrations are acceptable to
uninhabited spaces such as
parking garages. As a result,
the structural long-span fra-
Figure 1: Collapsed parking structure, 1994 Northridge
ming systems often used in
Earthquake. Courtesy of Robert Reitherman.
parking structures are not
usually found in other types of building which are likely to be governed by shear
occupancies. Additionally, the open nature action rather than bending. This article
of parking structures has resulted in less is confined to this important issue of the
redundant structures with fewer shear walls, seismic design and analysis of ramps. A

resisting systems sometimes occurred while frames, or other lateral force-resisting more complete treatment is available in
perimeter walls and frames that were part systems. Parking structures have very few the Structural Engineers Association of
Guest Column

of the lateral force-resisting system were
undamaged; failure of diaphragm collectors
and chords; large diaphragm deflections;
and distress at precast connections due
to lateral movements. On the other hand,
many parking structures in the area of
strong shaking received little or no damage,
suggesting that some design and construc-
tion practices used in these structures
were inherently better than others.
Unique Seismic Issues of
Parking Structures
Parking structures are usually very large
in plan area, with relatively thin post-
tensioned or precast concrete diaphragms
as compared to a typical office building. Ar-
chitectural, traffic, security, and economical
demands push for long spans and large
open areas. Prestressed concrete is a system
interior nonstructural elements, such California Blue Book paper on Concrete
as partitions, ceilings, and mechanical Parking Structures available at www.seaoc.
systems. This inherently leads to lower org/bluebook, which includes references
damping than could be expected from a and also covers design issues related to
typical office or other building. Damping columns and diaphragms.
ratios ranging from 3% to 4% were ob-
served in an instrumented parking structure
during the Northridge earthquake. Ramps
Typical parking structures differ from We can speak in general of a parking
office buildings in that they may not have structure being a particular number of
discrete story levels. Instead the stories may stories in height, but in terms of its struc-
be connected with long, slightly-sloping tural actions, the concept of stories can be
ramps, which may constitute entire parking an ambiguous concept. Parking structures
levels and are sometimes called parked-on often have a spiral or split level configu-
ramps, or shorter ramps of greater slope ration that is not clearly represented by
that provide one or two lanes of inter- discrete story levels. For example, the same
level access, which are called speed ramps. segment of the deck could connect level
Ramps can be detrimental to the intended three to level four. Ramps that connect
seismic response of the building by acting directly to shear walls or moment frames
as unintended diagonal braces. Additionally, further deviate from the idealized distinct
ramps often create interior short columns story levels used in the current codes.

STRUCTURE magazine 8 July 2010

 The actual performance of an integrated Table 1: Building code changes since 1994 affecting concrete parking structures.
ramp structure may not match the ductile
behavior upon which seismic factors, such as Structural Element Intent of Code Change ASCE 7-05 ACI 318-05
the R factor, were based. Ramps can change Diaphragm and Specified the minimum ACI 21.9.4
the stiffness and deflection patterns of the Collectors thickness of topping slabs. ACI 21.9.8.3
building and change the distribution of loads Limited the spacing and bar size
to the designated seismic resisting elements, in at lap splices for force transfer
some cases attracting a significant percentage of
the force. For example, the R factor in ASCE
7-05 or the 2006 International Building Code Collector Design Forces Increased the collector ASCE 12.10.2
for a special moment resisting-frame (SMRF) design forces
is 8. For comparison, the R factor for a special
shear wall in a building frame system is 6. In
other words, the base shear for a SMRF building
is permitted to be 75% of that of a shear wall
building because of the relative implied ductil- Prestress Tendons Excluded the use of prestressing ACI 21.9.5.2
ity (6/8) for the two systems by the code. If a tendons in boundary and
ramp in a SMRF parking structure stiffens up collector elements, except
the building, reducing the true flexibility and for the precompression from
altering the hinge formation mechanism, then unbonded tendons
the use of R = 8 in this case is non-conservative.
Strength Factor, Φ Reduced Φ from 0.85 to 0.60 ACI 9.3.4
for the design of reinforcement
Treatment of Parking used for diaphragm chords and
Structures by Building Codes collectors placed in topping
Based on observations from the 1994 North- slabs over precast
ridge Earthquake, the following code changes
(Table 1) were subsequently added for concrete Beam-to-Column Added requirements for ACI 21.11.4
structures in regions of high seismicity. Connection precast concrete gravity frames
Current building codes do not provide for improved beam to column
specific guidelines suitable for analyzing the connections
complex story interactions that can occur in
parking structures, nor provisions for detail-
ing seismic capacity in the ramps. In some Transverse Prescriptive requirements ACI 21.11.2
cases, assuming discrete story levels may be Reinforcement of for transverse reinforcement ACI 21.11.3
too simplified an approach and could cause Frame Members for frame members not
the designer to overlook unintended struc- proportioned to resist seismic-
tural shortcomings. induced forces
Shear walls and moment frames are recognized
lateral force-resisting elements in building codes,
but ramps are not codified. Yet, some ramps
can be stiff and massive enough to interact with
the designated seismic resisting systems. A lit-
eral interpretation of the 2006 International
Building Code might place ramps in the “other

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

components” category like gravity columns and
non-frame beams, which are often excluded in SuperLaminate™ - Not Your Ordinary Fiber Wrap System
seismic analysis models. When ramps are cat-
egorized as non-seismic elements, their effect
Introducing the Next Generation of FRP
Advantages of SuperLaminate™
on the seismic behavior of the structure could Blast retrofit of structures Strengthening of concrete & masonry walls
• One size fits all
be inadvertently overlooked. • Stronger than fiber wrap
Ramps can be considered as inclined slabs, • ISO-9000 certified plant Retrofit of
• Up to 80% faster construction time beams, slabs &
but codes lack specificity in detailing guide- • Material properties known before columns
lines suitable for slabs to function as vertical installation Repair of columns
You can learn more about these below grade without
elements of the primary seismic force-resisting products by visiting the need for costly Field-manufac-
system. Interconnected ramps are not held to excavation tured cylindrical
www.SuperLaminate.com
shell around
the ductility detailing provisions prescribed www.QuakeWrap.com (PileMedic.com) square columns
for the shear walls and frames. The diaphragm www.PipeMedic.com
www.PileMedic.com
collector and shear reinforcement is not in- Repair of under-
tended to yield, and thus boundary member PLEASE CALL US FOR AN EVALUATION BY Trenchless repair of water piles with-
ONE OF OUR STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS pipes and culverts, out the need for
confinement would not be required. Similar (520) 791-7000 OR costly divers
including spot repair
concerns regarding the greater force demands (866) QuakeWrap [782-5397]
(PipeMedic.com) (PileMedic.com)

STRUCTURE magazine 9 July 2010

 have been raised pertaining to the discussion
of highly flexible diaphragms with perimeter-
only lateral restraint systems. Stiff ramps also can
alter the balance of lateral resisting components,
causing secondary torsion effects that redistrib-
ute the story forces, potentially increasing loads
to specific seismic resisting elements.
Design Approaches
It is common practice to release ramps at
grade, but to provide positive connections at
the elevated parking decks. This may result in
soft and/or weak story performance in areas of
high seismicity. The shift from connected to
disconnected levels can cause a local redistri-
bution of the shear forces, causing the second
story diaphragm to act like a transfer slab with
substantial load demands. This is more critical
for moment frame structures than for other
structures. In some configurations, the top-
level floor may have shear-resisting elements
on three sides only, and thus relies on canti-
lever diaphragm rotation to distribute seismic
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
forces at that level. The horizontal irregularity
types noted in the building code lack guide-
lines to limit cantilever diaphragm distance.
It is common in the industry to neglect
the interconnectivity of the story levels in
the analysis stage of design. A less common
approach, due to its impracticality, is to design
the ramp with a physical release at each level,
using expansion joints to change the structure
to match the code. While analytically possible,
this construction approach is impractical as
the lateral seismic loads imposed by the sloped
ramps, which are connected to the horizontal
diaphragms on one side only, contribute to
undesirable torsional effects. Additionally, the
added initial cost, ongoing maintenance, and
the added aesthetic drawbacks of the expansion
joints further undermine this approach.
Some practitioners believe that interconnecting
sloped floors provide for structural “tough-
ness,” judging that a well tied-together building
is inherently more robust. While it is valid
to assert that connected ramps provide reserve
stiffness or redundancy to a building, it also
is true that concurrent load paths are inher-
ently unpredictable. Secondary systems can
inadvertently absorb a disproportionate share
of the load, even functioning as primary load
paths. For example, stiff non-ductile ramps
can dominate a moment-frame system, short-
circuiting the ductile members that are designed
to dissipate the energy.
Many practitioners prefer to include shear
walls in the direction of the ramps, while
maintaining more flexible moment-resisting
STRUCTURE magazine 10 July 2010
frames in the orthogonal direction. This prac-
tice allows less seismic deformation along
the sloped ramps and reduces seismic loads
imposed on short columns. In any event, it
should be noted that ramps have two different
characteristics: orthogonal and longitudinal. In
the longitudinal direction, ramps act as truss
elements transmitting axial forces. The con-
cern in the orthogonal direction is the aspect
ratio of the diaphragm and the deformation
associated with it. Designers should properly
account for these issues.
In the absence of published guidelines, the
best approach currently being used to study
these effects is project-specific computer anal-
ysis, with each unique building being modeled
to evaluate the effects of the particular ramping
configuration. Today’s computational tools
permit more complex analysis, including flex-
ibility of diaphragms, and more complex defi-
nitions of deck levels, including sloped ones.
However, the current computer output is even
more difficult to correlate with the prescribed
design approach specified in the building code
because seismic loads are resisted by other
members of the structure such as the ramps,
not just the designated lateral force-resisting
system recognized by the code.
Summary
Parking structures have a number of unique
characteristics, compared to conventional con-
crete buildings, which affect their seismic
performance. While this article has focused
specifically on issues regarding ramps, addi-
tional topics are addressed in the full SEAOC
Blue Book article. Ramps will impact the seismic
behavior of parking structures to varying
degrees, depending on the interconnectivity of
the ramps and the primary seismic force-
resisting system. An appropriate level of analyti-
cal sophistication is required to identify and
properly design for these effects. A three-
dimensional computer analysis, which includes
consideration of the ramps, is an effective tool
to capture the behavior and is highly recom-
mended. The challenge, and responsibility, of
the structural designer of a parking structure is
to overcome the disparity between the config-
uration of the structure and the current code
procedures, and to demonstrate and detail a
rational load path through the structure.▪
Mehran Pourzanjani, Chair of the
Seismology Committee of the Structural
Engineers Association of California,
mehran@sbise.com.
 Cracked-Concrete Solutions Cracked &
Uncracked IBC
®

CONCRETE 2006

ICC-ES
Listed

Anchors that crack the code.

Since the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) has been adopted
by the majority of the states, choosing concrete anchors has become
more complicated. Some applications now require anchors to perform
in cracked concrete, while others may not. Look to Simpson Strong-Tie
for the products that meet both types of anchoring challenges. Our
Titen HD® screw anchor, Strong-Bolt™ wedge anchor and SET-XP™
anchoring adhesive are all ICC-ES code listed for use in cracked and
uncracked-concrete applications. And we still offer a full line of traditional
wedge, sleeve and drop-in anchors for almost any anchoring project.
When you have questions, look to us for answers. For more information
visit www.simpsonanchors.com/cc or call (800) 999-5099.

Titen HD® Strong-Bolt™ SET-XP™

ICC-ES ESR-2713 ICC-ES ESR-1771 ICC-ES ESR-2508 IN THE SPECS
ON THE JOB
AT YOUR SERVICE™
© 2010 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. THDSBSETXP10-S
 Post-Tensioned Slabs on Ground
Part 3: Proper Detailing and Quality Control
By Bryan Allred, S.E.

This is the third of four articles on post-tensioned slab on ground design and
construction. This article will focus on detailing and quality control, while the
previous two articles provided a general overview and special design considerations.
Please see the January 2010 and April 2010 issues of STRUCTURE® magazine for
these articles.

Advantages in Use of Rebar

Numerical design using the Post-
Tensioning Institute (PTI) method is
based primarily upon on the precompres-
sion from the tendons in conjunction
with the section and material properties
of the concrete. Rebar plays a very limited
role in the design for expansive soils, but
is very useful as crack control reinforcement.
Trim bars are typically placed around pen-
etrations and re-entrant corners (Figure
1) where shrinkage cracks will most
likely occur. Until the tendons have been
stressed, the foundation is essentially un-
reinforced, so well placed rebar is useful
in minimizing shrinkage cracks. While
the force of the tendons has the potential to
close up small cracks that occur prior to
stressing, relying on this benefit is not
recommended. The typical repair for
“substantially” cracked concrete is the
use of structural grade epoxy; however,
this fix is often very unappealing from an
Structural DeSign
Figure 1: Trim Rebar.
the slab and essentially stay at
this general position across the entire
foundation. Chairs or dobies are typi-
cally placed at 4-foot centers to support
the tendons (Figure 2); any vertical dis-
continuity in the strand is typically due
to a missing or incorrect chair. Anchors
that are located near penetrations should
be adjusted to avoid blow outs. Provided
the number of tendons installed matches
the permitted plans, adjusting the loca-
tion of a specific strand should not affect
the performance; however, the tendons
should not be placed more than 6 feet
apart. If a gap larger than 6 feet is required,
additional rebar or localized tendons may
be required. Each tendon will be loaded
to approximately 33,000 pounds during
stressing, and a discontinuity near the
anchor can cause cracking or a blow out.
If the anchor or the penetration cannot
be adjusted, schedule 40 steel sleeves have
Inspection
During the stressing operation, a licensed
inspector is required to observe the jack-
ing procedure and record the resulting
elongations. The elongation record is the
primary tool for the engineer and owner
to verify permitted structural drawings
have been implemented correctly. The
elongation record should be sent to the
engineer for review prior to removing the
stressing tails. If the elongations are within
10% of the calculated value, the stressing
is considered acceptable and the tails can
be removed. Having the inspector list
the elongation out of tolerance percent-
age will speed up the review process. If
the elongation is outside of this tolerance,
the engineer should evaluate the situation
and make appropriate modifications. The
author recommends taking the overall

owner’s point of view. The crack will need
to be routed out to achieve the proper
width for the injector, and the epoxy
rarely matches the color of the concrete.
The finished repair typically looks like a
spider web of dark lines, often appearing
worse than the original cracked condition.
The look of the repair also gives the
impression that something has gone seri-
ously wrong with the foundation. While
trim rebar will not guarantee a crack free
system, it will provide some crack control
strength until the tendons are stressed.
Rebar is also typically added under large
hold downs or post loads to increase the
design issues for structural engineers
been successfully used in the past.
The observer should also verify that any
rebar placed in the bottom of the footings
is clear of dirt or debris. Due to the foot
traffic of the contractors, it’s common to
have soil fall into the trench and cover
the rebar. In addition to decreasing the
footing depth, the soil can reduce the
rebar-to-concrete bond, which will mini-
mize its effectiveness.
concrete section into consideration rather
than focusing on a single strand.
A specific tendon only has a localized
affect on the concrete for the first few
feet away from the anchor, until the
precompression spreads into the larger
foundation area. Subgrade friction is at a
minimum near the slab edge, so any re-
duction in the tendon force should have
a negligible effect on the foundation. As

footing’s flexural and shear capacity. This

is often done where the foundation design
does not require the use of deep footings
to resist soil movement.

Placement of Tendons
During a structural observation, the
location and path of travel of the tendons
should be reviewed. Localized vertical and
horizontal kinks in the strands should be
removed, especially if these occur near
the anchor. Unless specifically detailed,
the tendons should run at the center of Figure 2: Plastic Chairs Used to Support the Tendons.

STRUCTURE magazine 12 July 2010

the precompression force disperses into the
whole foundation, the concrete isn’t able to
determine what strands have a “low” force
and which ones have a “high” force. The con-
crete only feels the total load applied by the
strands. Provided the overall precompression
is achieved, the as-built construction satisfies
the drawings and no remedial work is required.
If the engineer requires the tendons to re-
stressed, they will have to be de-tensioned by
removing the wedges, releasing all the elon-
gation and repeating the stressing procedure.
De-tensioning can be dangerous and should
only be done after careful consideration by
qualified personnel. If the elongation errors Figure 3: Adjusting a Strap in the Footing Prior to Pouring the Slab.
are more systematic (generally high or low),
the engineer may want to verify that the jack
and the pressure gauge were calibrated together.
The stressing unit should be treated as a com-
plete system and not as separate pieces.

Cold Joint Hazard

In the construction of ribbed foundations,
contractors will often pour the footings first,
verify and make any final adjustments to the
embedded hardware (Figure 3) and then place
the slab over the existing footings. If the time
gap between when the footings and slab are
poured is large enough, a cold joint will be cre-
ated, effectively disconnecting the slab from
the footings. The foundation will essentially
be a thin uniform thickness slab sitting on,
but effectively not connected to, the footings.

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

Without slab footing composite action, the
section properties and flexural strength of the
as-built system will be substantially less than
design required. Having the tendons only being
placed in the slab, the cold joint prevents their
precompression from extending into the foot-
ings. The footings are basically un-reinforced
concrete and more prone to cracking. Specific
details and/or notes are recommended to
specify the maximum time gap between pours,
or verification that the separate pours were
vibrated together to replicate a monolithic
system. If a cold joint is desired, rebar dowels
extending from the footings into the slab are
typically used to achieve composite action.
The dowels should be designed to transfer the
horizontal shear between the footings and
slab, and address any large hold downs or post
loads which may require additional reinforcing.
In addition, the anchor and hold down bolts
may have longer embedment requirements for
a two pour system.

Concrete Strength
The concrete used in a post-tensioned slab
on ground is the same as conventionally rein-
forced foundations. The concrete will typically
have a compressive strength of 2,500 to 4,500
psi. The 4,500 psi concrete is typically used

STRUCTURE magazine 13 July 2010


Figure 4: Typical Stressing Equipment.
to resist severe sulfates or is used on highly
expansive sites where the higher strength can
aid in satisfying allowable stresses. Some large
tract home builders will require a minimum of
4,000 psi concrete with type V cement, since it
provides moderate sulfate protection and sulfates
have been an issue in home owner association
litigation against developers and contractors.
The use of higher strength concrete is typi-
cally useful for a post-tensioned foundation
since the minimum compressive value to begin
stressing will be achieved in a shorter time. The
sooner the tendons are stressed, the sooner the
primary reinforcement is added to the system
which should minimize shrinkage cracks. Some
engineers and contractors will perform a par-
tial pre-stress to place some precompression in
the system in an attempt to minimize cracking.
The typical practice is to stress each strand to
approximately 20% of the full value the day
after the foundation was poured. The author
would recommend caution for new post-
tensioning engineers in specifying partial
pre-stressing. The more times the jack is applied
to the system, the greater the chance of damag-
ing the strand, anchor, wedges or the concrete.
In addition, this practice is primarily used
on slab-on-ground construction and is rarely
performed on elevated post-tensioned systems
even though the anchors, wedges, strands and
concrete are exactly the same.
Construction Joints
and Delay Strips
The construction of apartment complexes
and industrial projects often leads to large and
sometimes irregular plate configurations. These
foundations will often require construction
joints and/or delay strips to create manageable
pour sizes and to adequately stress the tendons.
Construction joints will have the tendons
STRUCTURE magazine
continue through the joint and use shear keys
with rebar dowels to connect the adjacent
slabs. Ribbed foundations will typically have
a center slab dowel while the thicker mat
foundations will use top and bottom bars. The
joints are limited to a spacing of around 100
feet which is the typical maximum length of a
singled ended pull. In addition, review of the
hold downs bolts and plumbing penetrations
should be taken into consideration prior to
selecting a joint location. Placing a joint di-
rectly adjacent to a large uplift/post load or
splitting a penetration is not recommended.
Delay strips are typically three feet wide open
spaces between slab pours so the tendons from
each pour can be stressed. The rebar is lapped
for the full width of the pour strip but should
not extend into the adjacent slab. Any rebar
extending from one pour to the other will act
as a tension tie and eliminate any independent
movement of the slabs. The time the delay
strip is poured is at the engineer’s discretion,
but is typically around 30 to 45 days to allow
the adjacent pours to shrink as a smaller unit
rather than be part of a larger plate. Near the
end of the project, the concrete sub-contractor
will often request to place the delay strip be-
fore the recommended time as occurred. From
a structural point of view, there is minimal
downside since the strength is not affected;
however, it’s important that owner and archi-
tect understand additional shrinkage cracking
may occur.
Tendon Length
Tendons can be manufactured to effectively
any length desired but practically range from
20 to 200 feet long. Tendons less than 20 feet
long will have a very small elongation and
this increases the chance of over extending
the jack, over loading the tendon and possibly
14 July 2010
cracking the slab. For smaller slab areas,
rebar is recommended instead of using short
tendons. The maximum length of a tendon
is typically around 200 feet, due to stressing
limitations and realistic pour sizes. While it’s
possible to use longer tendons, the buildup
of subgrade friction and increased shrinkage
crack potential usually makes this practice un-
economical. Tendons longer than 100 feet
often require double ended pulls, unless spe-
cifically designed otherwise. Double ended pulls
require stressing at each end of the strand,
but the stressing is not done simultaneously.
The stressing system (Figure 4) is placed on
one end while the wedges are hammered into
the opposite anchor to resist the stressing
force. The jack will be fully elongated at the
one end and will generate the vast majority of
the required elongation. After the wedges are
installed on the first stressing end, the jack is
removed and placed on the other end of the
tendon. The jack is loaded to the same pres-
sure as the first stressing, but a very small
elongation is expected. This second stressing
is referred to as a “lift off ”, and is primarily
intended to relieve any slack or extra friction
in the strand and to seat the wedges to correct
gauge pressure. A double ended pull is typi-
cally indicated by arrow heads on both ends of
the strand. If the tendon location and stressing
is left up to the contractor or supplier, notes
requiring double ended pulls for tendons
beyond a certain length are recommended.
For these larger foundations, it is recom-
mended that the designer consult the concrete
sub contractor to determine their preferred
pour size and stressing abilities. Unlike rebar
only foundations, the pour size and stressing
locations should be determine during the design
process so the appropriate number of tendons
are specified.
New Footing Requirements
With the new ACI appendix D requirements
for the design of concrete due to uplift loads, the
typical footing details that have been used for
years will most likely not be sufficient. Addition-
al width and depth of the footings are typically
required at the hold down bolts. If the building
structural engineer is detailing the framing to
concrete connection, notes are recommended on
the post-tensioning plans to direct the con-
tractor to the other engineer’s drawings for the
additional footing requirements.▪
Bryan Allred is a license structural engineer and
Vice President of Seneca Structural Engineering
Inc. in Laguna Hills CA. He can be reached
at Bryan@SenecaStructural.com with
any questions.
 Sea Wall Systems
Sea Wall vs. Bulkhead
By Vitaly B. Feygin, P.E.

To properly assess the requirements

for a Bulkhead or Sea Wall, the Design
Professional should fully understand and
differentiate the purpose of these two
structures. Both structures, Sea Walls and
Bulkheads, serve the purpose of vertical
shoreline stabilization. They allow prop-
erty owners to maximize the efficiency
of their property. Both structures utilize
similar construction techniques and simi-
lar construction materials. However, the
structures are not the same.
• A Bulkhead is a vertical shoreline
stabilization structure that primarily
retains soil and surcharge loads
behind the wall.
• A Sea Wall is a structure that
has two primary functions:
° retaining soil and surcharge
loads behind the wall, and
° protection of shoreline from
wave loads. Figure 1: Diaphragm Sea Wall.
In addition, Sea Walls typically protect
frontline beaches from storm surges, shore-
line erosion and wave overtopping. Some The uplift force imposed by wave action • Relies heavily upon the weight of the
Structural PracticeS

waterfront properties are subject to signifi-
cant wave activity during the storm surge
events, even though they are not exposed to
wave action for the most part of the year.
The following design considerations are
normally addressed by the designer of a
Sea Wall as compared to the designer of a
Simple Bulkhead:
• Direct wave force action
• Uplift force imposed by wave action
• Wave overtopping
• Storm surge
• Toe scour
The following numbering indicates
different wall elements in the
accompanying figures:
practical knowledge beyond the textbook
is an important factor that is frequently
neglected by design professionals, that
leads to instability and undermines the
longevity of the Sea Wall structure.
Many existing waterfront properties
around the country, including both East
and West Coast shorelines as well as
shorelines of the Great Lakes, were de-
signed using a simple bulkhead approach
that neglected wave forces. As a result,
many waterfront properties suffered sub-
stantial structural damage and incurred
costly maintenance problems.
Sea Wall Systems:
Advantages and
wall when that weight significantly
decreases due to buoyancy effect.
• Requires a very stiff base that can
prevent wall settlement, tilting or
heavy toe scour that affects wall
integrity and stability.
• Unviable option when bedrock
elevation or elevation of other
suitable base significantly varies
along the wall length.
System B: L-Shaped Wall
with Buttresses
• A type of wall that is more
economical than a Gravity Wall
and easier to construct.
• Buttress of the wall serves as a

10) Diaphragm Sea Wall
11) Front column of the
Diaphragm or column of
braced Soldier Pile system
12) Back column of the Diaphragm
13) Web of the Diaphragm
14) Continuous retaining wall
15) Diaphragm web closure pour
16) Retaining wall closure pour
17) Caisson
18) Wall drainage system
20) Shaft cage
21) Retaining wall splice rebar
22) Diaphragm web splice rebar
23) Tie Back soil/rock anchor
Disadvantages
Many Sea Wall systems were developed
to address the design considerations
noted previously. The advantages and dis-
advantages of several typical systems are
reviewed below.
System A: Gravity Wall
• A type of wall, known from ancient
times, that is extremely costly to
build, especially when wall height
dictates significant development of
the wall base.
• Requires consideration of significant
wave generated uplift force.
stiffening element for the wall itself,
and allows some force redistribution
in the wall based upon the stiffness
of the tapered buttress element.
• L-Shaped wall faces exactly the same
design stability issues as a Gravity Wall:
° Significant wave generated
uplift force.
° Heavy reliance on soil surcharge
on the hill of the wall at the time
when that weight significantly
decreases due to buoyancy.
° Requirement for very stiff base and
possibility of heavy scour that can
affect wall stability.

STRUCTURE magazine 16 July 2010

 • Wall stability is dependent upon the
drilled caisson capacity to resist uplift and
the effect of horizontal loads.
• Lack of uplift pressure on the wall base or
heel, as the Diaphragm system does not
have a heel.
• Effective span moment redistribution
allowed by constant stiffness of the Deep
Beam Diaphragm fixed at the wall base.
• Horizontally spun continuous wall
supported by Deep Beam Diaphragms.
Wall Diaphragm provides support for
loads applied in both directions.

System E: Soldier Pile System with

Horizontally Spun Wall and Tie Back
Anchors (Modified Bulkhead Approach)
A type of wall system that is also easy to
construct. The front of the wall is somewhat
similar to the front wall of the diaphragm Figure 3: Section B-B of Diaphragm Sea Wall.
system; however, design of this wall is based
on a different philosophy, as the wall derives its • Wall stability is dependent upon the
resistance from different elements, depending drilled caisson capacity to resist the effect
on direction of load application. Benefits of of horizontal load, and capacity of the
Figure 2: Section A-A of Diaphragm Sea Wall.
this system include: soil anchors to resist the load in a seaward
• Lower cost of construction and higher direction. Ability of elastic foundation
System C: L-Shaped Wall with adaptability of the system, as compared to (Caisson socket and granular soil backfill
Buttresses Supported by Piles the same features of traditional designs. behind the composite width of the
• A type of wall, a modification of System • Wall stability is not dependent on the wall column) to resist the wave load in
B, that has a significant advantage over gravity load of backfill. landward direction. Elastic foundation
System B. • Low effect of soil scour in front of the wall reaction in that case, is compared to
• Does not rely, or relies much less, on on wall system distress. Easy maintenance. the lateral capacity of mobilized passive
the gravity of the heel surcharge.
• Less susceptible to distress due to
scour problem.
• Stability of the wall depends upon the
pile capacity to resist uplift and the effect
of horizontal load.
• Variable stiffness of the buttress T-section
does not allow effective span moment
redistribution, particularly when resultant

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

of the horizontal force shifts towards the
top of the wall as happens in the case of
wave load or Monotobe - Okabe seismic
soil wedge retained by the wall.
• Price of the wall can be prohibitive.

System D: Diaphragm Wall System

with Horizontally Spun Wall
A type of wall system that is easy to construct.
The wall system provides a new design
philosophy for Sea Wall construction. Benefits
of the system include:
• Lower cost of construction and more
flexibility of the system, as compared to
the same features of traditional designs.
• Wall stability is not dependent on the
gravity load of backfill.
• Wall stability is independent of gravity
of the surcharge.
• Low effect of soil scour in front of the wall
on wall system distress. Easy maintenance.

STRUCTURE magazine 17 July 2010


Figure 4: Soldier Pile Braced Sea Wall.
pressure. The designer must distinguish
the difference between maximum
possible soil passive resistance and
mobilized passive pressure, as mobilized
passive pressure frequently is only a
fraction of maximum passive pressure
resistance. Quite often, mobilized passive
pressure does not exceed the pressure
equivalent of the pressure exerted by the
active pressure wedge.
• Lack of uplift pressure on the wall base.
• System effective span moment
redistribution in both seaward and
landward direction.
• Stiffness of the soil anchors and stiffness
of specially modified backfill allows
for the design of the retaining wall as a
continuously spun horizontally slab.
• Attractive price of the wall.
Wall Systems A, B and C are well-known
and well-described in many sources. A general
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
The easiest to use software for calculating
wind, seismic, snow and other loadings for
IBC, ASCE7, and all state codes based on
these codes ($195.00).
Tilt-up Concrete Wall Panels ($95.00).
Floor Vibration for Steel Beams and Joists
($100.00).
Concrete beams with torsion ($45.00).
Demos at: www.struware.com
STRUCTURE magazine
concept of the Diaphragm Sea Wall,
Wall System D, is represented in
Figures 1 (page 16), 2 (page 17) and
3 (page 17). Wall System E is shown
in Figures 4 and 5.
Wall Systems D and E, however,
have a common requirement for
behind the wall backfill. This require-
ment compensates for lack of wall
embedment or entrenchment into
the rock or beach soil. The bottom
2-3 feet of the backfill consists of 3
to 4 inches of stone aggregate over-
topped by a 2-foot thick layer of
filter stone or overlaid by Geotextile
filter fabric in order to prevent back-
fill erosion.
The final advantage of Wall System
D and E is derived from the fact
that erosion of the soil around the
front pile can be easily remedied by
the use of flowable fly ash fill that
can easily restore eroded soil around
the pile to a preexisting or better
condition. Erosion of the soil in
front of the wall itself is almost never critical
and does not require urgent attention. Soil in
front of the wall can be restored during normal
beach nourishment operations.
Quite often, high flexural moments are ex-
erted on the front piles of the Wall System E.
Sometimes it is more economical to design
front piles of that system as columns and not
as beams. In that case, front pile should be
designed with a post-tensioned rock anchor
exerting compression force predetermined by
wall designer.
The stiffness of the Deep Beam Diaphragms
fixed at the base, and a very rigid spring value
of such support, allows the horizontally span
retaining wall (14) to be designed as a multi-
span continuous horizontal slab. The Author
recommends a fairly conservative three-span
approach for the wall design and a five-span
approach for determining the wall support
reactions. To design the wall properly, the
designer must check the support spring values
for each set of loads in order to assure the
validity of the support stiffness assumption.
Sea Wall Design Guidelines
1) Determine loads and load
combinations affecting the Sea Wall
design. The following short list of
loads should be reviewed during the
design process:
° Active soil pressure wedge
° Active soil pressure wedge + Seismic
rupture wedge determined from
Monotobe-Okabe equation
° Direct Horizontal Wave load + Wave
uplift pressure exerted on the heel of
the wall
18 July 2010
Figure 5: Section A-A.
2) During the wall system selection
process, the Designer should
understand that every flexible wall
system that allows force redistribution
in the horizontal direction should be
designed using a set of spring values
for each wall support. Each support
spring value should be determined
for each load combination at the level
of the Horizontal Resultant force.
The design should use a 3 or 5 span
continuity approach, assuming pin
connections at the ends of the 3 or
5 span wall. Some savings can be
achieved if the designer uses spring
supports only for the dynamic portion
of the load. Remember that static
load redistribution is a one time
event causing permanent plastic
deformations.
3) It is prudent to assume only half of
the wave or seismic load in the mid
span or alternate spans to verify the
impact of the load on the supports
differential movements.
4) The Designer, Owner and Contractor
should collectively select the most
economical Wall System. Consideration
should be given to availability of
materials and availability of skilled
labor force.▪
Vitaly B. Feygin, P.E. is a Marine Structural
Engineer. He is a Principal Structural
Engineer with Marine and Industrial
Consultants , Baltimore and Tampa offices.
He is an author of two patents related to Sea
Walls, Composite Cofferdams, Bridge Fenders
and Port Structures. Mr. Feygin can be
contacted at vfeygin.mic@gmail.com.
 Keep your professional records
as mobile as you are.

An NCEES Record is invaluable to every

licensed engineer and surveyor on the go.

NCEES Records are recognized nationwide.

Once yours is established, you can quickly
and easily have it electronically transmitted
to any state licensing board to expedite
the comity licensure process.

Let an NCEES Record keep track of what

you’ve accomplished, so you’re free to work
on what’s ahead.

www.ncees.org/records
records@ncees.org
800.250.3196
Barton Creek Bridge

By Mark W. Holmberg, P.E.

Figure 1: Concrete Fin-Back Bridge Crossing 80-feet Above Barton Creek.

T
his concrete fin-back bridge rises eighty feet above the streambed The three-span fin-back bridge was ultimately recommended because
that carries Barton Creek into Austin, Texas and eventually it was the most economical alternate, limited disturbance of the creek
to the Colorado River (Figure 1). The bridge is the main flood plain due to balanced cantilever construction, accommodated
entrance to The Estates of Barton Creek subdivision, a country club the required unsymmetrical span arrangement, and provided a novel
community of million dollar plus homes. The bridge was constructed gateway for the subdivision.
during 1985 to 1987, and was opened for traffic in 1988. The design
and construction of the bridge was perhaps the first application of a fin- Design
back, balanced cantilever, cast-in-place, post-tensioned bridge in the world.
The central location of the main pre-stress force presents design
The bridge is 686 feet long and consists of three spans: 156-feet, 340-
challenges for the fin-back bridge. Conventional hollow box sections
feet, and 190-feet. The unsymmetrical span arrangement was dictated to
require internal struts to carry loads to the center web/fin. This is a sim-
respect the environmentally sensitive gorge and stream buffer/greenway
ilar design situation for cable-stayed bridges with a single plane of stays,
area adjacent to the creek. The basic superstructure form is a triangular
such as the Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Tampa, Florida. To overcome
box with concrete ribs and struts supporting a concrete deck. The fin-
the internal strut issue that would complicate cast-in-place segmental
back name derives from the central fins, or walls, which rise from the
construction, the Barton Creek Bridge designers developed a constant
triangular box to peak over each intermediate pier. The fins encase post-
depth triangular section with external struts supporting transverse ribs,
tensioning ducts, which take advantage of the large eccentricity of the
which in turn supported an eight-inch slab spanning between the ribs
post-tensioning force in the negative moment regions of the structure.
(Figure 2). The triangular section allowed the central fin to start at the
The bridge provides a two lane roadway with central median barrier
apex of the triangular section. This junction also provided a sufficient
required to accommodate the fin.
area in which to anchor the pair of main post-tension tendons required
for each segment.
Project History The bridge was designed to be built as a cast-in-place balanced canti-
During 1983, the developer of The Estates of Barton Creek, Barnes lever using a form traveler. A typical segment length of 11feet 4 inches
Connelly Investments, negotiated with Travis County for permission was selected to accommodate a reasonable size form traveler. The deck
to build a new road, including a landmark bridge that would minimize ribs and struts were located near the leading edge of each segment,
visual and environmental impacts to the steep slopes and flood plain again primarily for support of the form traveler.
of the Barton Creek gorge. The primary need for the road and bridge A unique aspect of the design is that the fin was raised as a series of
was to provide the shortest route from the subdivision to downtown lifts above the deck. The initial lift made by the form traveler included
Austin. In May 1984, the developer hired engineers, including Atlanta starter bars for the fin. As balanced cantilever construction advanced,
based Tony Gee + Quandel, Inc., to study a cost effective solution for the fin was raised following completion of three pairs of segments.
the bridge. Longitudinal analysis of the superstructure indicated that shear lag,
The developer and engineer were aware of problems and expense or concentration of post-tensioning force at the center of the section,
experienced by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) in was a concern during initial stages of construction. To overcome this
1981 during construction of a multi-span pre-stressed con-
crete (PSC) girder bridge over Barton Creek, approximately
six miles downstream from the proposed crossing. Due to
environmental constraints, the TxDOT contractor was re-
quired to use over-the-top methods for erection of the PSC
girders. This required a costly girder launching gantry in
order to place the PSC girders from above.
The developer and Travis County wanted to minimize the
number of piers in the area near the creek. The following
alternates were considered:
• Single-span cable-stay bridge
• Single-span suspension bridge
• Three-span cable-stay bridge
• Three-span conventional variable depth box
girder bridge
• Three-span concrete fin-back bridge
Figure 2: Barton Creek Bridge Typical Section.

STRUCTURE magazine 20 July 2010


Figure 3: Barton Creek Bridge Deck and Fins Condition.
situation, a high strength post-tensioning bar was added to a beam/
parapet at the exterior edges of the deck. This progressively coupled bar
was stressed following casting of each segment.
To overcome the tension created by the strut geometry, the ribs were
post-tensioned transversely with a four 0.6-inch strand tendon, and the
main triangular webs were post-tensioned with two high strength bars
located at the struts.
The bridge substructure consists of two abutments and two main
piers comprised of pairs of flexible rectangular shafts, 3½ feet thick
and 11feet 4 inches apart to match the superstructure segment length.
The shafts are integral with the superstructure. The twin shaft design
supported out-of-balance construction loads in addition to final wind,
live loads, and shrinkage and creep forces anticipated during the life of
the structure.
Foundations for the abutments and piers consist of drilled shafts founded
in sound limestone. Abutments are supported on four 36-inch diameter
shafts between 15 to 25 feet deep. Each pier is supported on six 60-inch
diameter drilled shafts, approximately 30 feet deep.
Following completion of the design and contract documents in late
1984, Travis County hired HNTB to perform a design review of the
unusual project. No major comments resulted from this review and the
project was advertised to a group of pre-qualified contractors.
Three bids were received for the bridge, with the successful contractor
being Prescon Corporation, a subsidiary of a large French contractor,
Campenon Bernard. The bid price was $3.6-million.
Construction
Following execution for the construction contract in October 1985, the
contractor immediately began design of the form traveler system. Founda-
tion construction began in November 1985. Superstructure construction
began in March of 1986 with construction of the east pier table.
Following construction of the pier table, the form travelers were
erected. Due to the limited length of the pier table (34 feet) the travelers
were linked together to provide out-of-balance stability for the first two
pairs of segments on each side of the pier table. Following post-
tensioning of the first two pairs of segments, the form travelers were
STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 4: Underside of Barton Creek
Bridge with Struts and Water Lines
on Overhang and Twin Shaft Piers
in the Distance.
separated and moved independent of one another. The travelers were
anchored to each rib by means of high strength post-tensioning bars
placed in small deck block-outs.
There were two disadvantages of the external ribs and struts. The first
involved the distance required for dropping the deck forms to clear the
just-cast segment. The final form traveler developed by the contractor
combined partial disassembly of web, rib, and strut forms and lowering
of the deck to clear all obstructions.
The second disadvantage involved casting and consolidating concrete
in the relatively long, slender struts. To overcome this potential problem,
the designer allowed a pre-cast strut option, which the contractor
ultimately chose to use for all pier table and segment struts.
Twenty Years after Construction
The author visited the bridge site in May 2009. The bridge appeared to
be in excellent condition, with no obvious signs of distress. The wearing
surface is sound with no evidence of cracks. It appeared that the fins
had recently been painted and new deck joints had been installed at
each end of the bridge (Figure 3). The bridge carries water lines on
each side of the main triangular section (Figure 4), as well as a pair of
conduits inside the main section.▪
Mark W. Holmberg, P.E. is Vice President and Civil Engineering
Manager for Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc. in Marietta, Georgia.
He was Resident Engineer during construction of the Barton Creek
Bridge in Austin, Texas. Mark currently serves on the STRUCTURE
magazine Editorial Board and he can be reached by email at
mholmberg@heath-lineback.com.
Acknowledgements
Owner: Travis County
Engineer of Record: Tony Gee, P.E., Tony Gee + Quandel Engineers
Contractor: Prescon Corporation
21 July 2010
 Service Life of a Structural Retrofit
Engineering Judgment is a Key Element When Using
FRP Advanced Composite Materials
By Zachery I. Smith, P.E., Scott F. Arnold, P.E. and Guijun Xian, Ph.D.
Service life is a concept always on the
minds of engineers. Unfortunately, with
the large majority of structures built
post WWII, the engineering community
is faced with a nation of structures all
coming to the end of their service lives.
Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRP) Systems
have been elegantly providing solutions
to upgrade and extend the service life of
structures for almost twenty years now.
With limited financial resources and
distressed structural elements, FRPs of-
fer an excellent alternative to costly new
structures and more obtrusive traditional
repairs. While FRP systems can greatly
extend the service life and performance
of structures, the service life of the FRP
system itself must also be considered.
The service life of concrete buildings
and bridges can be 50, 100 or even 150
years. Several factors affect the perfor-
mance of concrete structures and thereby Construction photo circa 1950.
limit their service life. These include, but
are not limited to, the type of concrete, past. This is further complicated with ret- sure the retrofit meets or exceeds the
construction methods, coatings and envi- rofit designs. Therefore, designers need to intended service life. However, there are
ronmental factors. However, there is no educate themselves and be conscientious two questions any engineer should ask
universal method of determining an exact of the structural elements, parameters and before commencing with an FRP design
service life. For example, there are no factors that affect an FRP retrofit design. alternative: 1) is it feasible and, 2) how
provisions in ACI 318-05 that require an Over the past twenty years, externally difficult is obtaining building permits
explicit life-span for a building. Typically, bonded FRP systems have been used to for the specific application and municipal-
structural durability is accounted for glob- repair and retrofit a variety of structures for ity? Feasibility depends on life safety and
ally with strength reduction factors and a variety of reasons. FRP systems bring economics, an FRP solution should not
Building Blocks

load increase factors. The assumption
being that this will produce a sufficient
margin of safety between demand and
capacity to withstand strength degradation
over time in order to reach a desired design
life (Figure 1).
Until model codes can incorporate time-
dependent deterioration models, the design
updates and information on structural materials
great qualities for retrofit designs including
non-corrosive properties, lightweight,
low-profile, and high strength-to-weight
ratios. When properly designed, FRP
can add shear strength, ductility, con-
finement, flexural strength and tensile
capacity to exiting walls, beams, slabs
and columns
be considered if failure of the FRP sys-
tem would result in a catastrophic failure
of the structure. Economics naturally
weighs in on any design alternative, but
FRPs are often prematurely eliminated
as cost prohibitive before all the factors
are considered. For example, the logistical
advantages including ease and speed of

of structural durability will largely depend There are numerous factors to consider installation often outweigh the increased
on engineering judgment, as it has in the when designing an FRP system to en- price per unit price of FRP. And, with

ULS 8.0
RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURE (R)

SLS 6.0
Log (Service Life in years)

DESIGN LIFE 4.0

2.0

0.0
-2.0

ORIGINAL SERVICE LIFE -4.0

SERVICE LIFE AFTER FRP RETROFIT -6.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
25 50 75 Design Strain/Tensile Breakage Strain
AGE OF STRUCTURE (YRS)
Figure 1: Resistance of Structure vs. Age of Structure. Figure 2: Log Service Life vs. Design Strain/Tensile Breakage Strain.

STRUCTURE magazine 22 July 2010

owners becoming sophisticated with their
capital investments, the “first costs” versus the
“life-time costs” of an FRP system often well
outweigh a cheaper traditional solution that
will require regular maintenance over the life
of the repair.
Now, assuming the project is feasible and
the application is within the current industry
practice to pull a permit, what are some of
the many factors that impact the service life
of an FRP system? Is the FRP supporting sus-
tained loads or intermittent live loads, what
are the environmental exposure conditions,
what is the application for shear, flexure, etc.,
will coatings be applied? Below, each one of
these topics has been elaborated to help engi-
neers with the engineering judgment required
when designing FRP retrofits and their relative
service lives.
Sustained versus
Intermittent Loads
FRP may be designed as a passive structural
member or an active structural member. Passive
structural strengthening includes, for example,
seismic and blast mitigation retrofits. In these
types of applications, the FRP will see no loads
for the majority (perhaps all) of its lifetime.
Only in the event of an earthquake or blast
Table 1.
Figure 4: Pre-stressed Concrete
Cylinder Pipe.
Figure 3: Large Retail Space.
will it have load. Active structural strengthen- sustained stress. The viscolestic nature of the
ing will see loading on a regular basis. This polymer matrix under sustained loads needs
includes retrofitting bridges and buildings to to be properly addressed. Short term experi-
increase their load carrying capacity, such as mental tests, that have traditionally been used
heavier vehicles on a bridge or the change of in the aerospace industry, can be used to quickly
use in a building. Some of these applications evaluate the creep behavior of the system.
will be for intermittent loads such as vehicular One example is the Reiner-Weissenberg crite-
traffic or for long term sustained loads, such as rion. This demonstrates that higher sustained
high density files placed on top of a slab ret- stresses leading to associated strains closer to
rofitted with FRP. The different types of fibers the composites ultimate strain significantly
behave differently under these types of loading reduce the service life. This is illustrated in the
conditions. Glass fibers are the most susceptible log graph in Figure 2 and Table 1.
to creep rupture, and carbon fibers are the least
affected. ACI 440.2R-08 addresses this issue
by placing limits on the ultimate allowable
Environmental Conditions
stress that can be used in design. This is done Environmental conditions play an important
1 6/2/2010 3:51:26 PM role in the service life of an FRP. Temperature,
to ensure aIES-Structure-July-3rd-Pg-4C.pdf
safe long term application under

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

C

CM

MY

CY

CMY

STRUCTURE magazine 23 July 2010

Figure 5: Parking Garage (rare inclined cracks).
freeze-thaw, UV radiation and humidity can all
affect the performance of both the resin and
fibers. To address this issue, design guidelines
use a reduction factor based on both envi-
ronment and fiber type. ACI 440.2R-08 has
reduction factors listed in Table 9.1 of that
standard; those factors range from 0.95 for
carbon FRPs with interior exposure to 0.50
for glass FRPs used in an aggressive environ-
ment. These reduction factors are used for
both the ultimate tensile strength and ultimate
strain. It is not applied to the modulus, which
is typically unaffected by the environment. In
the final design equations, it is the modulus
that is used along with the calculated design
strain. So the reduction factors ensure a factor
of safety by providing upper bounds on the
strain and stress. This ensures the long term
performance of the FRP, and indirectly the
service life.
Coatings
Coatings can provide significant protection
to the FRP, and increase the performance and
service life. Due to the variety of coatings avail-
able for the different FRP systems, the design
should ensure that any coating that is used has
been tested with the FRP System. This will
ensure that the coating will stay well adhered
and provide protection from the environment.
It should also be noted that the FRP itself pro-
vides environmental protection to the reinforced
concrete member to which it is bonded. There
have been several studies demonstrating that
the use of FRP can reduce rates of corrosion
and extend the service life of a structure.
It is also important to consider coatings and
how they relate to loading type. FRP installa-
tions that are designed to carry long-term
sustained load must consider if a fire rating
is required. Other installations designed as
passive members might require a flame and
smoke spread rating. It is important to check
the local requirements and properly coat the
FRP if required.
STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 6: Parking Garage (rare inclined cracks).
Examples from the Field
Now, having taken a cursory review of the
multiple factors involved with a FRP retrofit
service life, we can walk through a few examples.
One of the most common applications for
FRP retrofit is the strengthening for increased
super imposed live loads. The project shown
in Figure 3 (page 23) was a large retail store
where the occupant wanted to increase the
flexural strength of its slabs to accommodate
more merchandise storage. In brief, the flexural
strength increase was 25%; therefore, it was
structurally feasible. The FRP manufacturer
had a 4-hour UL rated fire protection system
that could be used to pull a permit in San Diego,
and the FRP design strain was only slightly
reduced since the material was a primary carbon
FRP, non-sustained load, interior application.
The final coating was spray applied fire proofing;
no other factors were considered. Qualitatively,
this retrofit is expected to last as long as, or
longer than, the traditional materials used in
the original construction.
Another project included the strengthening
of pre-stressed concrete cylinder pipe for internal
and external loads (Figure 4, page 23). The
pipe section had been inspected and found to
have lost 30% of its pre-stressing wire from
corrosion. The FRP retrofit was therefore feasi-
ble, and appropriate municipality approvals were
available for the FRP system. The FRP was
not the primary reinforcement but would be
in sustained stress; a final coating was applied
to aid in the long-term protection of the FRP
system. Extra conservatism was added into the
design strain of the FRP composite, given the
relative importance of the water supply line.
The last project illustrates a construction an-
nomally with an uncertain cause. Several, if not
the majority, of the the prestressed double-tees
making up the parking garage shown in Figures
5 and 6 had rare inclined cracks that started
approximately five feet from the supports and
inclined in the opposite direction when com-
pared to textbook shear cracks. A consensus
24 July 2010
could not be reached of the cause, so it was
decided that proof testing would be completed
to establish the existing capacity. FRP compos-
ite was used to make the difference between
demand and capacity. Since there was some
uncertainty of the existing double-tees capacity,
the FRP was considered primary reinforcement
and would require a fire protection system. The
design service life of the project will be conser-
vative considering the interior application, final
coating, and low stress that the FRP composite
was designed for.
Conclusions
Service life of structures has a long way to
go before it is treated as scientifically as the
rest of the structure by the engineering profes-
sion. The very use of FRP systems to retrofit
structures and extend their service lives inher-
ently complicates the process. Thus, it will
continue to depend on engineering judgment
to tabulate and assess all of the parameters
and factors that contribute to a structurally du-
rable FRP retrofit. The sustained stress should
not exceed set limits to avoid creep rupture,
coatings should be considered in order to
protect against UV degradation, exposure to
fire must be considered, and so on. With so
many parameters influencing FRP service life,
engineers should be careful to choose a system
that has been validated by both structural and
environmental durability testing. However,
when properly designed, an FRP retrofit can
add significant service life to a structure and
be one of the best design alternatives to our
aging infrastructure.▪
Zachery I. Smith, P.E., is a Regional Manager
for Fyfe Co. LLC and can be reached at
(zach@fyfeco.com), Scott F. Arnold, P.E., is
a Vice President for Fyfe Co. LLC and can be
reached at (scott@fyfeco.com), and Guijun
Xian is a Material Scientist for Fyfe Co. LLC.
 Work quickly.
Work simply.
Work accurately.

StructurePoint’s Productivity Suite of powerful software tools

for reinforced concrete analysis & design

Finite element analysis & de- Analysis, design

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

Design & investigation Analysis, design

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

Finite element analysis & design of reinforced concrete

foundations, combined footings or slabs on grade

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

STR 6-09
 InSIghtS
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues

Curved Steel: Means and Methods

By Erin J. Gachne Conaway, P.E., LEED AP and Jacinda L. Collins, P.E.

Every piece of structural steel experiences some Table 1: Bending process.

form of bending during its life. Straightening, Bending Process Process Description Process Distinction(s) Mainly used for: Steel Shapes
cambering, and curving of structural shapes
Rotary Draw / Structural member is bent Produces very tight radii Complicated Medium to
are all representative of bending. W-shapes are Compression by rotating it around a die. (typically limited to 180 bends in the smaller sections
straightened at the mill to a curvature that is Bending The member is clamped degree of bend) machine and parts of round,
within the tolerances as specified in ASTM into a form and then is industry rectangular, and
Specification A6/A6M. Camber, or curvature, drawn through the machine square HSS, or
is often fabricated into structural steel beams until the bend is formed. pipe
to compensate for deflection. But it is the third Rolling or Structural member is placed The typical method of Profile rolls for Angles, flat
reason for bending structural steel that is often Cold Bending in a machine and curved curving steel for construction bending in the 8D bars, channels,
(a.k.a. “Pyramid between three rolls. Also and above range W-shapes, WT-
misunderstood or just unknown. Usually the most economical
called “Pyramid Bending” (capable of 360 shapes, HSS
What is “curved steel”? The use of curved Rolling”) for rolling members with
because of the three rolls’ degree of bend) (all shapes),
steel in building projects is a growing trend tighter radii
pyramid arrangement. pipe, and rails
that can benefit any type of project. Curved Bending occurs when the Typically bent to larger
steel is used to increase visibility and provide distance between the rolls radii than the rotary draw/
more architectural freedom in aesthetics and is manipulated before each compression bending
functionality. But as curved steel has increased successive pass.
in popularity, so have the questions about it. Point Bending / Structural member is bent This is the typical method Cambering and W-shapes,
“Who curves steel?” and “How is it curved?” Gag Pressing by applying a minimal used for cambering beams curving to very channels, HSS
number of point loads with large radii and pipe
are two common questions that many design Good for larger sections bent
a hydraulic ram or press at
professionals have. selected points.
to larger radii
Bending/Rolling is carried out by a “Bender”,
who is typically a specialty subcontractor of Synchronized Structural member is bent A patented process Situations where HSS,W-shapes,
Incremental by applying pressure in a performed by only one tight radii with channels and
the fabricator. Curved steel is readily available highly synchronized fashion bender in the US minimal distortion pipe
Cold Bending
for most projects, as there are many qualified at several locations on is desired
Typically this method allows
bender-rollers located across the US. Many the section. This method
for tighter radii with better
different bending techniques exist, and each employs external restraint
levels of distortion control
process has its advantages and specific char- and internal support at the
when compared to Point
bend point.
acteristics. The six most widely used bending Bending / Gag Pressing
processes in the industry are included in Table Hot (Heat) Structural member is Expensive and rarely used as Repair All shapes
1, listed in order based on prevalence of use in Bending heated directly and then an initial bending method applications
the industry. bent. The heat source could unless other methods cannot
It is important for design professionals to be a direct flame or furnace. be used
The application of bend
recognize that different levels of quality and Allows for members to be
pressure is performed in
consistency are associated with each bending numerous ways; by bending
bent very tight with low
process, tooling and material size/thickness. levels of distortion
around pins or forms or by
Benders, if included early in a project, can help short increment pushes or
provide assistance on what is and isn’t feasible pulls with bending at the
concerning a design, and can help save time fulcrum point.
and money as a project moves forward. In all Induction Structural member is Not commonly used and can Situations that Large shapes
cases, a qualified bending company is going Bending heated over a short section be expensive require larger with heavy wall
to know what process is necessary to meet the with an electric coil drawn diameter shapes thicknesses
Produces curved steel with
through a process similar with heavy wall
design and quality requirements. Curved steel little distortion
to rotary-draw and cooled thicknesses to have
can provide many readily available options with water directly after Applies principles of both a smaller, tighter
to benefit all project types – big or small – if bending. Rotary draw and Heat radius
properly understood and specified. Bending, but allows the
Do you have more questions about bending? bending of larger members to
Detailed questions regarding the visual appear- very tight radii
ance of a specific member with a specific bend
and cost implications for a given configuration Erin J. Gachne Conaway, P.E., LEED AP is the Intermountain West Regional Engineer with the
are best handled by contacting an AISC mem- American Institute of Steel Construction. Erin may be contacted at conaway@aisc.org.
ber bender-roller. For a list of AISC member Jacinda L. Collins, P.E. is an AISC Steel Solutions Center advisor. Jacinda may be contacted at
bender-rollers and other bending information, collins@aisc.org.
visit www.aisc.org/benders.▪
The online version of this article contains references. Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.

STRUCTURE magazine 26 July 2010

 Not listed? Please contact STRUCTURE® magazine at 2010 PRE-CAST CONCRETE GUIDE
guides@STRUCTUREmag.org with your company information. Listings are
provided as a courtesy. STRUCTURE magazine is not responsible for errors. a listing of pre-cast concrete manufacturers/distributors and their product lines

Company Product Description

ADAPT Corporation
Phone: 650-306-2400 ADAPT-PT is easy-to-use and versatile software for the design of prestressed beams, beam frames, one-
ADAPT-PT 201 way and two-way floor systems. It handles pre-cast, pre-stressed as well as cast-in place, post-tensioned
Email: info@adaptsoft.com
members. Carries out full code checks and calculation of required reinforcement.
Web: www.adaptsoft.com
AltusGroup CarbonCast Insulated Insulated Architectural Cladding offers weight reductions of about 40% compared to solid, 6-inch thick
Phone: 866-462-5887 Architectural Cladding precast concrete wall panels; engineered to deliver insulation values of R-8 or more in addition to a lower
Email: info@altusprecast.com and High Performance carbon footprint. High Performance Insulated Wall Panels use C-GRID carbon fiber grid as a shear
Web: www.altusprecast.com Insulated Wall Panels connector between inner and outer wythes of concrete.

CTS Cement Manufacturing Corporation Rapid Set is a brand of fast-setting cement products used in concrete applications requiring the highest
Phone: 800-929-3030 Rapid Set®
durability and fastest strength gain, achieving structural or drive-on strength in one hour. Applications include
Email: jong@ctscement.com Cement Products
structural, architectural, and ornamental precast, concrete repairs, and smoothing.
Web: www.ctscement.com
Hilti With a unique wedge design, reduced requirements for edge distance and anchor spacing, Hilti Kwik-
Phone: 800-879-8000 Bolt (KB) or KB-TZ Expansion Anchors can be used for many applications including pre-cast and
Expansion Anchors
Email: custserv@us.hilti.com tilt-wall construction. The Hilti Kwik-Bolt TZ Anchor is qualified with ACI 355.2 and ACI 193 for use
Web: www.us.hilti.com in seismic design environments.
iLevel by Weyerhaeuser iLevel offers a single source for quality concrete forming materials, including TimberStrand® LSL
Phone: 888-453-8358 Steel and Concrete form boards, along with rebar, remesh, anchor bolts, wire and steel construction stakes. Technical
Email: ilevel@weyerhaeuser.com Forming Products representatives are available to assist with component selection, transporting to multiple job sites upon
Web: www.iLevel.com request and just-in-time delivery.

RISA Technologies RISA-3D is the premiere choice for the design of concrete beams and columns. With finite element
Phone: 949-951-5815 analysis, the design of both conventional and unconventional framing layouts is possible. T-Beam design,
RISA-3D
Email: info@risatech.com biaxial column design, custom rebar layouts, and 11 different design codes all combine to make RISA-
Web: www.risa.com 3D your most flexible solution.

STRUCTUREPOINT spSlab, spColumn,

Phone: 847-966-4357 Upgraded to ACI 318-08, PCA’s concrete design suite is now: spSlab, spColumn, spMats, spWall,
spMats, spWall, spBeam,
Email: info@structurepoint.org spBeam & spFrame.
spFrame
Web: www.StructurePoint.org
Tendon Systems, LLC
Phone: 678-835-1100 Post-Tension, Barrier Tendon Systems provides and installs post-tensioning systems, Shearail® shear stud reinforcement and
Email: Brad@TendonLLC.com Cable, Anchors barrier cable to vehicular restraint.
Web: www.TendonLLC.com

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

Restoration Team Experience Since 1978

Masonry Façade Re-Anchoring Solutions

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

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

STRUCTURE magazine 27 July 2010

 National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
EightEEnth AnnuAl ConfErEnCE
September 30 – October 2, 2010
Hyatt Regency on the Hudson
News form the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

Jersey City, New Jersey

Plan your fall to include the NCSEA Annual Conference
at the Hyatt on the Hudson, Jersey City, NJ, September
30 – October 2, 2010. While you are there, enjoy views of
the Hudson River and lower Manhattan; and plan time for
a visit to the One World Trade Center (formerly, Freedom
Tower) construction site, via ferry or the PATH train, located
only a few steps from the hotel.
Courtesy of Sarah McGee Photography.
Lectures you can expect to hear include the following: Exhibitors:
The Future of New York City Building, presented by Robert American Institute of Steel ITW Red Head
LiMandri, Commissioner, NYC DOB Construction LINDAPTER NORTH
Azz Galvanizing Services AMERICA, INC.
Renovation of the Guggenheim Museum, presented by Nancy
CMC Steel Products Singer Nelson Charlmers
Hudson, Robert Silman Associates
Construction Tie Products Powers Fasteners
Lake Champlain Bridge Projects, presented by Ted Zoli, ConXtech, Inc. RedBuilt, LLC
HNTB CSC Inc RISA TECHNOLOGIES,
New York Underground: Grand Central Station LIRR DESIGN DATA LLC
Terminal, presented by Colin Barratt, MTA Fabreeka International Inc. SidePlate Systems, Inc.
FYFE COMPANY, LLC Simpson Strong-Tie
Protecting People and Neighborhood Property During Grace Construction Products TurnaSure LLC
Excavations, presented by Tim Lynch, NYC DOB Hardy Frames, Inc. Valmont Industries
High Strength Concrete Design, including One World Trade Hilti Vector Corrosion Technologies
Center, presented by Caz Bognacki, Port Authority of NY and NJ
Visit the NCSEA website (www.ncsea.com) to view the lim-
AISC Seismic Design Provisions: Past, Present and Future, ited number of exhibitor booth spaces still available, or contact
presented by AISC’s TR Higgins Lecturer and NCSEA Emile Troup steelstruk@aol.com.
Incoming President, Jim Malley, Degenkolb Engineers
Sponsors:
Changes to the 2010 MSJC Code, presented by Ed Huston,
Smith & Huston Consulting Engineers ACEC – New York Nicholson & Galloway
Bentley Systems, Incorporated Powers Fasteners
Social events include an exhibitor reception on Thursday Cives Steel Company Simpson Strong-Tie
night, Friday night dinner at Carmine’s legendary Italian Concrete Industry Board, Inc. Skyline Steel
restaurant in the Theatre District, and the Awards Reception Girder-Slab Technologies, LLC West NY Restoration of CT
and Banquet on Saturday night (formal attire requested). ITW Red Head Wheeling Corrugating
Register at www.ncsea.com. To become a sponsor of this event, please contact Erica Fischer
ericafischer@gmail.com or Melissa Melissa@ncsea.com.
NCSEA News

2010 NCSEA EXCELLENCE IN

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING AWARDS
The University of Illinois Memorial Stadium,
photo courtesy of Brad Feinknopf.
Call for Entries
NCSEA’s Annual Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards program highlights
some of the best examples of structural engineering ingenuity throughout the world.
Structural engineers and structural engineering firms are encouraged to enter this
year’s program. Projects will be judged on innovative design, engineering achievement
and creativity.
Entries are due on Friday, July 9, 2010. Awards will be presented on October 2,
2010, at the NCSEA Annual Meeting at the Hyatt Regency on the Hudson, Jersey
City, New Jersey. Winning projects will be featured in future issues of STRUCTURE
Magazine. For award program rules, project eligibility and entry forms, see the Call
for Entries on the NCSEA website at www.ncsea.com.

STRUCTURE magazine 28 July 2010


Next NCSEA Webinar July 15
Design of Coastal Buildings – Presented by William Coulbourne
This seminar is intended to help engineers, architects and
building officials who design or oversee construction in or near
coastal areas to not only better understand the magnitude of
flood and wind forces but also to help them apply sound
judgment about the possible siting of buildings, and about
the possible consequences to the built environment when the
design hurricane event occurs. The webinar emphasizes the
importance of understanding the flood and wind effects and
how to minimize their impacts, as follows:
1) Flood forces caused by coastal events such as hurricanes
and tsunamis
2) Wind forces caused by hurricanes
3) Discussion of possible mitigation measures
Mr. Coulbourne has a BS in Civil Engineering from Virginia
Tech and a Masters in Structural Engineering from the University
of Virginia. He is a national expert in wind and flood mitigation
and has been involved in FEMA Mitigation Assessment Teams
August 5, 2010: Wind Load Design for Storm Shelters and Critical Facilities, Marc Levitan
Upcoming
Webinars
August 19, 2010: Wind Load Design for Industrial Structures and Appurtenances, Marc Levitan
NCSEA
September 14, 2010: Wood and Cold-Formed Steel Trusses, Ed Huston
October 19, 2010: ATC-58, Ron Hamburger
October 28, 2010: Design Considerations for Ponding Loads on Roofs, Tom Wallace
NCSEA has published a new design guide...
Purchase it from ICC’s website today. Attend the course and receive the book onsite!
Guide to the Design of Out-of-Plane Wall Anchorage: Based on the 2006/2009 IBC and ASCE/SEI 7-05
To date, ten cities representing eight member organizations
have participated in the new NCSEA short course titled Guide
to the Design of Out-of-Plane Wall Anchorage: Based on the
2006/2009 IBC and ASCE/SEI 7-05. The course and book are a
direct response to over 1,500 comments received directly from
our members regarding some of the most confusing issues in the
code. The new course uses Dr. Mays’ concept oriented approach
to instruction to carefully illustrate appropriate applications of
some of the code’s most confusing requirements. If your member
organization would like to schedule this 8 hour course, please
contact Dr. Mays directly at timothymays@bellsouth.net.
Course Description: The 2006/2009 International Building
Code (IBC) and ASCE/SEI 7-05 contain detailed design require-
ments for wall anchorage systems to resist out-of-plane wind
and seismic load effects. However, the provisions are scattered
throughout the code and/or referenced standards, are material
specific, and are often challenging for practicing structural
engineers to apply for many practical building configurations.
Using concept oriented instruction, Dr. Mays breaks down the
analysis and detailing requirements separately for seismic and
wind anchorage. Structural walls, nonstructural walls, parapets,
and cladding are each considered separately as related to gov-
erning provisions. Solutions for high wind areas, Seismic Design
Category (SDC) B, and SDC D are provided for each problem
presented in the course. Example anchorage problems for con-
necting concrete, masonry, timber, and precast walls/panels to
diaphragms composed of various materials are presented. Special
STRUCTURE magazine
NCSEA News
for over 15 years. He has been involved
in every major hurricane and flood
disaster since 1995. Mr. Coulbourne
has investigated failures and mitigation
design techniques for thousands of
buildings including residential struc-
tures, schools used as shelters, hospitals,
and other critical facilities. He holds Certifications in Structural
Engineering and Building Inspection Engineering. Mr. Coul-
bourne has written articles for journals and given presentations
for homebuilders, engineers, architects and homeowners on
high wind and flood design and coastal construction issues. He
was one of the primary authors for FEMA’s Coastal Construction
Manual and for FEMA 320, Taking Shelter From the Storm –
a tornado safe room design guidance manual for homeowners
and homebuilders.
Register at www.ncsea.com.
News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
provisions for subdiaphragms, continuous ties/struts, pilasters,
straps, eccentric connections, and wood ledgers are included. A
detailing example for economical tilt up wall anchorage using
just metal decking is presented. Comprehensive examples are
provided for subdiaphragms composed of wood structural panel
sheathing on wood framing and metal decking on steel joists.
Course Instructor:
Timothy Wayne Mays, Ph.D., P.E. is President of SE/ES and
an Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at The Citadel
in Charleston, SC. He currently serves as Chairman of the
Structural Technical Group for ASCE SC Section and NCSEA
Publications Committee Chairman. He has received two
national teaching awards (ASCE and NSPE) and both national
(NSF) and regional (ASEE) awards for outstanding research.
COURSES SCHEDULED FOR JULY AND AUGUST 2010:
July 14, 2010 – New York, NY
July 19, 2010 – Nashville, TN
July 21, 2010 – Tulsa, OK
July 23, 2010 – Oklahoma City, OK
July 28, 2010 – Tucson, AZ
July 30, 2010 – Phoenix, AZ
August 2, 2010 – Albuquerque, NM
August 5, 2010 – Little Rock, AR
August 9, 2010 – Atlanta, GA
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations Course
Approval No. 100405D
29 July 2010
 Structural Engineering Institute 2010 Award Recipients
The Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) proudly recog-
nized the following recipients at the Joint NASCC: The Steel
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
Conference and Structures Congress in Orlando, Florida on
May 15, 2010:
Jack E. Cermak Award
This award is given jointly by the Engineering Mechanics Institute
and the Structural Engineering Institute. The 2010 award goes
to Jon Peterka, Ph.D., P.E., M. ASCE, in recognition of his
lifelong contributions to the field of wind engineering through
education, research, and practice. Dr. Peterka is presently the
President of CPP, Inc., and is one of the co-founders of the firm.
J. James R. Croes Medal (2009)
The 2009 medal is awarded to Michael H. Scott, Ph.D.,
M. ASCE; Gregory L. Fenves, Ph.D., M. ASCE; Frank
McKenna, Ph.D.; and Filip Filippou, Ph.D., M. ASCE for
the paper “Software Patterns for Nonlinear Beam-Column
Models” Journal of Structural Engineering, April 2008. Dr. Scott
is currently an Assistant Professor of Structural Engineering at
Oregon State University. Dr. Fenves is the Dean of the Cockrell
School of Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, and
the Jack and Beverly Randall Dean’s Chair for Excellence in
Engineering. Dr. McKenna is an Assistant Researcher at the
University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Filippou is a Professor at
the University of California, Berkeley.
Shortridge Hardesty Award
The 2010 award goes to Dinar Camotim, Ph.D., M. ASCE,
in recognition of his sustained and substantial contributions to
the field of structural stability during his career of active teaching
and research, and how his scholarship and service has positively
impacted many global design standards. Prof. Camotim is cur-
rently a Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering and
Architecture at the Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal.
Structural Columns
Ernest E. Howard Award
The 2010 Award is awarded to Charles Roeder, Ph.D., P.E.,
M. ASCE, for his outstanding contributions to research and prac-
tice in the seismic resistant design of structural steel buildings,
bridge bearing design and bridge thermal movement design.
Prof. Roeder is a Professor of Structural Engineering and
Mechanics at the University of Washington.
Walter L. Huber Civil Engineering Research Prizes
The 2010 recipients are Gustava Parra-Montesinos, Ph.D.,
A.M. ASCE, and Benjamin W. Schafer, Ph.D., P.E., M. ASCE.
Dr. Parra-Montesinos is being honored for research on frame
and wall structural systems that opened new doors of perception
and enabled use of strain-hardened fiber-reinforced concrete, a
highly effective composite, to improve the safety and behavior
of connections and members subjected to intensive shear force.
Prof. Schafer is being honored for his research on the behavior
of thin walled structural members and the development of more
comprehensive design methodologies. His recommendations on
the Direct Strength Method have influenced several standards.
Dr. Parra-Montesinos is currently an Associate Professor at the
University of Michigan. Prof. Schafer is the Swirnow Family
Faculty Scholar, an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department
of Civil Engineering at Johns Hopkins University.
STRUCTURE magazine 30
Moisseiff Award
The 2010 award is presented to Joseph Yura, Ph.D., P.E.,
M. ASCE; Todd Helwig, Ph.D., P.E., M. ASCE; Chong Zhou,
Ph.D., P.E., A.M. ASCE; and Reagan Herman, Ph.D.,
A.M. ASCE for the paper “Global Lateral Buckling of I-Shaped
Girder Systems,” published in the September 2008 issue of the
Journal of Structural Engineering. Prof. Yura is Professor Emeritus
in Civil Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin; Prof.
Helwig is an Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering at the
University of Texas at Austin; Dr. Zhou is a Senior Specialist at
Technip USA; and Dr. Herman is a Resident Assistant Professor
in Civil Engineering at Johns Hopkins University.
Raymond C. Reese Research Prize
The 2010 prize is presented to Donald White, Ph.D., M. ASCE.
He is receiving the prize for the paper “Unified Flexural Resistance
Equations for Stability Design of Steel I-Section Members:
Overview,” published in the September 2008 issue of the Journal
of Structural Engineering. Prof. White is a Professor in the School
of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Georgia Institute
of Technology.
Structural Engineering Institute Awards
Dennis L. Tewksbury Award
The Tewksbury award recognizes distinguished service to SEI.
The 2010 Award is presented to Tom Williamson, P.E., F. ASCE.
Mr. Williamson has a long and distinguished history of service to
SEI, ASCE, and the profession, including leadership of the stan-
dard committee on LRFD for wood, the technical committee on
wood, the codes and standards executive committee of SEI, and
the codes and standards committee of the board of ASCE. He also
served on several Structures Congress organizing committees and
chaired one. His work has made a real difference for the better in
our practice of structural engineering. Mr. Williamson is currently
the Vice President of Quality Assurance and Technical Services at
APA-The Engineered Wood Association.
Walter P Moore, Jr. Award
This award is presented for significant contributions to the
development of codes and standards. The 2010 recipient is John
Kulicki, Ph.D., P.E., M. ASCE. Dr. Kulicki is commended for
his significant and career long contributions to the development
of structural codes and standards which have advanced the
science of bridge engineering. He has devoted considerable time
to research, teaching, authoring technical publications and
presentations, and has been a major force in the development of
structural codes and standards which have advanced the science of
bridge engineering. His work in organizing and leading the devel-
opment of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications is
a significant accomplishment, and is a testament to his skills and
abilities as an engineering leader. Dr. Kuliki is the Chairman and
CEO of Modjeski and Masters.
Gene Wilhoite Award
The 2010 Award recipient is Wesley J. Oliphant, P.E., F. ASCE
for his significant contributions to the advancement of the Art
and Science of transmission line engineering. Mr. Oliphant has
served as a member or chair on several ASCE committees and
holds multiple patents related to transmission structures. He has
been in the profession for over thirty years and has authored/co-
authored numerous technical papers, guides, and standards. He
is President and CEO of ReliaPOLE Solutions Inc.
July 2010

2010 Award Recipients, left to right: Roberto Leon, Wesley J. Oliphant,
Mike Ritter, Joseph Yura, Donald White, Todd Helwig, Gustavo Parra-
Montesinos, Chong Zhou, Jon Peterka, and Reagan Herman.
Ed DePaola, P.E., M. ASCE is Presi-
dent/CEO of Severud Assoc. Consulting
Engineers PC, New York. Over the past
30 years, he has designed many projects
including high-rise buildings, long-span
facilities and special structures requiring
innovative structural solutions. He has
a B.S. in Civil Engineering and M.S. in
Structural Engineering from the Univ.
of Notre Dame, and a J.D. from Seton Hall School of Law. He
is one of the Founding Members and Past President of the Struc-
Structural Columns
SEI Election Announcement
Deadline: July 31, 2010
There are ten Governor positions on the SEI Board of Governors:
two representatives from each of the four Divisions (Business &
Professional, Codes & Standards, Local Activities, and Technical
Activities), one appointed by the ASCE Board of Direction, and
the most immediate and available Past President of the SEI
Board. The representatives from the Divisions each serve a four-
year term. This year SEI is conducting an election for a Business
& Professional and a Codes & Standards representative on the
Board of Governors.
The BPAD and CSAD Executive Committees have nominated
Pat McCormick and Ed DePaola as their respective candidates.
In accordance with the SEI Bylaws, each ballot provides a space
for a write-in vote. If you are a member of ASCE/SEI please
complete and mail the ballots to the address provided. Either
vote for the named candidate OR provide a write-in candidate.
Because we must confirm SEI/ASCE membership, ONLY
SIGNED BALLOTS WILL BE ACCEPTED. DEADLINE
JULY 31, 2010.
Patrick McCormick, P.E., M. ASCE is
President/CEO of Brander Construction
Technology, Inc., a structural engineer-
ing firm in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Mr.
McCormick has been practicing struc-
tural engineering for over 25 years. Pat

The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE

tural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY), Chairman
of the ASCE Tensile Membrane Structure Standards Committee,
and a professor at NYU School of Continuing Education. He
is Co-Chair of the Building Department’s New York City Model
Code Program for the adoption of the structural portions of the
IBC Building Code. He was Principal-in-charge of the American
Airlines Terminal Redevelopment Project at JFK International
Airport, and the roof and enclosure structures at the Denver
International Airport. Currently, he is Principal-in-Charge of One
Bryant Park, the 1,200-foot tall office building nearing comple-
tion in midtown Manhattan. It is the second tallest building in
NYC and will be the first high-rise office structure in the world
to receive a LEED Platinum rating.
has analyzed structures and designed
rehabilitation projects for heavy industrial
facilities across the United States. After
joining Brander in 1986 as a staff engineer
and holding numerous positions over the years, he was promoted
to his current position in 2000. Pat currently divides his time
between practicing engineering, and promotion and business
development for the company. Pat holds a B.S. in Civil Engineering
with a structural emphasis from the University of Wisconsin.
He is a registered S.E. in Illinois. Pat volunteers his time with
the American Red Cross, the YMCA, and his local church. He
is married, has two children, and enjoys hunting and fishing
in his free time.

Full Name: _____________________________________Member’s ASCE/SEI ID No:________________

(Please print)

Date:______________ Signature: _______________________________________________________________

Return postmarked no later than July 31, 2010 to:
SEI Board Election, 1801 Alexander Bell Dr., Reston VA 20191.

Business and Professional Activities Division

SEI 2010  Pat McCormick
Board of  Write-in vote:_______________________________
Governors Election Codes and Standards Activities Division
Official Ballot  Ed DePaola
 Write-in vote:_______________________________

STRUCTURE magazine 31 July 2010

 CASE Spring Risk Management Convocation
in Orlando Scores Big with Attendees!
The CASE Spring Risk Management Convocation took place
on May 14th during the first-ever combined NASCC/Structures
Congress in Orlando, Florida. All of the CASE sessions were
well received and had considerable attendance, including
the CASE Breakfast which featured David Ratterman, AISC
The Newsletter of the Council of American Structural Engineers

Secretary and General Counsel. His talk centered on the AISC

Code of Standard Practice. Other CASE sessions held during
the afternoon included Steel Design Dos and Don’ts, A Project
Manager’s Day, and Managing Expectations and Risk during the
Steel Detailing Process.
Next year the CASE Spring Convocation will be held in
conjunction with the Structures Congress in Las Vegas, NV,
April 14-16, 2011.

CASE Risk Management Convocation

Comes to Puerto Rico This October
The next CASE Risk Management Convocation will take
place during the ACEC Fall Conference, October 17–20, 2010,
at the El Conquistador Resort in Fajardo, Puerto Rico. On
October 18th, the CASE Convocation will include the following
confirmed sessions:
• Avoiding the Pitfalls in Working with Architects Using an innovative trade show, a full complement of tours, and
AIA C401 entertaining networking events. The Conference will address
• Effective Use and Pitfalls of Building Structural Design industry trends, markets, and business practices in a continued
Commercial Software challenging economy. For more details and to pre-register go to
• Lessons Learned from Actual Claims (Key Cases) www.acec.org/conferences/fall-10/registration.cfm. You will
The ACEC Fall Conference will feature a panel discussion of receive a discounted registration price if you pre-register prior to
top engineering firm CEOs, world class educational sessions, July 31st so don’t delay!

New CASE Tool Available on Website Resources

CASE’s Toolkit Committee has just released its newest tool,
Tool 3-3 – Website Resource Tool. If you have ever wondered what
websites are available for the business of Structural Engineer-
CASE in Point

ing, wonder no more. This tool contains website links and

descriptions of those websites that could be useful in running a
structural engineering business.
Examples of website links are CASE, where you can download
contracts, publications and tools, CONTRACTS AND RISK
MANAGEMENT CENTRAL where you can get information
on business laws, doing business across state lines, and sealing
and stamping requirements, and other helpful websites.
A few years ago, CASE set out to improve the practice of
structural engineering by reducing the frequency and severity of
claims. One of the ways CASE planned to accomplish this was
through the production of software-based tools that are made
available to CASE members through e-mail and on the CASE
website at www.acec.org/CASE. A summary for each tool can
be found at www.acec.org/case/tools.cfm.

STRUCTURE magazine 32 July 2010


CASE Summer Meeting Planned for Boston in September
The CASE Summer Meeting will take place on Thursday
and Friday, September 16-17, 2010, Boston, Massachusetts.
On Thursday, the CASE committee breakout meetings will
be held for the National Guidelines, Contracts, Programs &
Communications, and Toolkit committees to continue work
on their respective assignments and planning for future CASE
products. The CASE Executive Committee will meet on Friday.
A CASE roundtable on structural engineering issues will
be held in conjunction with the Boston Association of
Structural Engineers (BASE) dinner/meeting on Wednesday,
September 15th at the MIT Faculty Club. The theme of the
evening will be Risks for Engineers and the roundtables will
focus on the following:
• Risk vs. Award with Integrated Project Delivery
• BIM Investment vs. Payback
• Sustainable Design and the Risk for Structural Engineers
• How to Collect Your Money Without Getting Sued
More details will follow in the August edition of CASE-
in-Point.
Government Affairs Update
‘Retainage’ Now Optional in Federal A/E
Contracts; ACEC Says Eliminate It
ACEC has won a substantial change in the longstanding federal
requirement that A/E contracts include a retainage of 10 percent
of payments. Under the revised Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) policy adopted in April, retainage is no longer mandatory,
but optional (up to 10 percent) and at the discretion of the
federal contracting officer.
The new rule states that no retainage is required if the contract-
ing officer determines that the work performed by the firm is
satisfactory. Additionally, withheld payments for A/Es are to be
paid at the successful completion of the design contract. This
will, in many cases, significantly reduce the time firms must wait
for full payment. The new policy stems from an ACEC-backed
recommendation included in the Small Business Administration’s
Regulatory Review and Reform initiative in 2008, calling for
the elimination of retainage as an unnecessary burden on cash
flow and overhead.
“While the new rule is a step in the right direction, we would
like to see this practice eliminated altogether,” said ACEC President
Dave Raymond. “The Government has many other remedies
for ensuring satisfactory completion that are less damaging
to our businesses.”
The new rule can be viewed at this link:
www.acquisition.gov/far/fac/Looseleaf_FAC%202005-39.pdf
STRUCTURE magazine
CASE in Point
CASE committees have been the reason behind CASE’s
success for over 20 years and they remain vital to CASE’s
future. As part of the committees’ ongoing activities, face-to-
face meetings and informal discussions are held twice a year
to explore current issues, and work on projects like new and
revised Risk Management Tools, Guidelines and Contracts, as
well as Publications, and Risk Management Convocations.
These meetings also allow the various CASE committees to
interact across all of CASE’s activities. For more information
on the CASE committees and CASE in general visit
their website at www.acec.org/CASE. Contact CASE
Executive Director Heather Talbert at htalbert@acec.org
or 202-682-4377 if interested in joining.
CASE is a part of the American Council of Engineering Companies
ACEC Endorses Bill to Reduce
Paperwork Burden on Firms
ACEC is backing legislation to repeal a provision in the
recently enacted health care law that will significantly expand
the paperwork burden facing A/E firms.
Under current law, a business must issue a Form 1099 to
any service provider whom it pays more than $600 in a year,
unless that service provider is a corporation. Starting in 2012,
the new law expands this requirement to include services or
property purchased from any business, including corporations.
For example, a firm that purchases $1,000 in office supplies
from a retail supplier will have to issue a 1099 to the business
reflecting the purchase. The provision is designed to improve tax
compliance, but its primary effect will be to burden businesses
with a new paperwork requirement. ACEC has endorsed
legislation (H.R. 5141) introduced by Rep. Dan Lungren (R-
CA) that would repeal the new mandate.
For more information on the new health care law, contact
Katharine Mottley at kmottley@acec.org.
33 July 2010
 The Case for System-Based Structural Design
By Avinash M. Nafday, Ph.D., M.B.A., P.E.
The current code approach for structural
design is member-based, where designs are
checked for the safety of individual mem-
bers. There is very little guidance on the
overall safety, design and integrity of their
assemblage except broad statements regard-
ing the need for an arrangement that
provides stability to the entire structural
system, along with continuity, redundancy
and ductility. U.S. codes do not specify
how to achieve this goal, leaving its imple-
mentation to the discretion and ability of
the engineer.
Observations from actual projects show
that competent structural engineers do in-
corporate empirical strategies to limit adverse
consequences to the structural system from
member failures, depending on their under-
standing, knowledge and experience, as well
as the structure type and its vulnerability.
However, there are many examples where
seemingly highly redundant structures have
failed due to a lack of system integrity.
There are also cases where individual
members that are expected to fail do not,
because of interaction among members in
the system. Therefore, it is of paramount
importance to study structural system
integrity and develop system-based design
procedures, including specific code guidance
to limit adverse consequences.
Structural Forum
Measuring Structural Integrity
Efforts to pin down the structural integ-
rity concept have been thwarted due to its
elusive nature, precluding development of
an objective, simple and practical metric,
opinions on topics of current importance to structural engineers
which is a pre-requisite for rational design
of systems and comparison of alternatives.
Quantification of structural integrity has
also proved difficult due to the diversity
of systems and the various contributing
causes of initiating damage. The myriad
ways in which structural integrity is influ-
enced – from configuration, member sizes,
material properties, connection types,
applied loads etc. – are all captured in the
structural stiffness matrix K, where the
singularity of K represents the extreme case
of loss of general structural integrity.
Recent research has used this fact to
quantify structural system integrity as a
metric ∆ ranging from 0-1 (higher value
denoting better structural integrity), defined
by the determinant | KN | of the normalized
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
stiffness matrix KN, where KN is obtained
by dividing each row of matrix K by the
square root of the sum of squares of the
terms in that row. This metric is easily com-
puted and accounts for the contributions of
configuration, geometry of members, their
importance or criticality in alternative load
paths, material behavior and applied loading
on the structures to the system safety perfor-
mance. This metric can serve as the linchpin
for system-based structural design.
System-Based Design
Structural design for natural and man-
made hazards or specified loads has two
components: the likelihood of the postu-
lated hazard or load event (probabilistic
aspect) and what happens when such an
event actually occurs (consequences). Risk
is determined by the combination of these
factors. System-based design would neces-
sarily be secondary. In the primary stage, the
structure would be proportioned using the
current probability-inspired, member-based
code provisions, including appropriate
minimum joint resistance and continuity.
Thereafter, the members would be examined
and, if necessary, re-designed to ensure
adequate structural system integrity, based
on their role and importance in contributing
to adverse system consequences. These
consequences can be characterized in terms
of collapse or any other pre-defined per-
formance criterion.
The level of modification for a member is
identified through the Member Consequence
Factor, Cf, which accounts for its contri-
bution to the undesirable system response.
The consequence factor for the ith structural
member is defined as the ratio of | KNi | to
| KN |, where KNi is the normalized stiffness
matrix after removal of the ith member from
the system. These consequence factors for
all n members range from 0 to 1; the lower
the factor, the more critical the member is
for system safety. A consequence factor of
0 indicates that removal of the member
results in immediate structural failure.
Cf can be used as an additional partial safety
factor on the resistance side of the member-
based code equations for implementation
of system-based structural design. It is
also possible to investigate various failure
strings comprised of multiple member
failures (with Cf still in range 0-1) with a
®
34 July 2010
similar approach, except for the additional
complexity involved in the calculations.
In this formulation, even though over-
all system design is consequence-based,
the design of individual members is still
probability-based and all requirements in
current codes would still apply, with the
additional proviso for consequence factors.
Benefits
An advantage of the system-based approach
is the possibility of optimizing robustness to
prevent minor damages from causing
disproportionately large consequences.
Robustness, a subset of structural integrity,
is an important property about the form
and/or connectedness of the structure and
a major governing factor in system behavior,
but has been neglected in modern codes
due to a lack of theoretical understanding
of its contribution to capacity. It provides
a measure of the quality of system configu-
ration and may be obtained by separating
geometrical/topological properties from
material properties through decomposition
of the stiffness matrix K.
This approach provides a tool to optimize
the assembly of members through innovative
configurations, resulting in new designs
limited only by the creativity of the
designer. It is also possible to use member-
based, probability-oriented design for
service requirements and high-likelihood
environmental events, while using
consequence-oriented, system-based design
for low-likelihood events (e.g., multi-
hazard occurrence) to leverage the
robustness property of configurations.
This can reduce the design cost without
compromising overall safety.
The system-based approach is also appro-
priate for brittle materials like glass, which
fail suddenly without prior warning, or for
temporary structures with limited service
life. Finally, the consideration of failure
consequences at the design stage helps to
mitigate the impact of building misuse, or
design and construction errors.▪
Avinash M. Nafday, Ph.D, M.B.A.,
P.E., is with the California State Lands
Commission, Marine Facilities Division,
Long Beach, California. He can be
reached at nafday@yahoo.com.
The online version of this article
contains references. Please visit
www.STRUCTUREmag.org.