®

STRUCTURE A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

April 2011 Concrete

SEI Structures Congress

Las Vegas, Nevada
April 14 – 16
 Version 2.0
Now Includes
Adhesive Anchoring

The newly updated Powers Design Assist

(PDA V2.0) anchor design interface puts technical
data into a dynamic real-time environment to
better help you visualize, consider and specify
anchors in today’s changing engineering climate.
PDA’s simple but unique dashboard allows for
anchor design in just minutes using 5 easy steps.
The user has the ability to create and modify
a 3D model of the project combined with
real-time calculation results in accordance
with ACI 318 Appendix D. The software offers
several choices of post-installed mechanical
and adhesive anchors as well as cast-in-place POWERFUL NEW
INTERFACE FOR
anchor solutions. Supporting approvals, listings, REAL-TIME SOLUTIONS
datasheets, etc. are easily accessed in the
software library and can be attached to
detailed project results.

POWERS OFFERS
THE MOST CODE
LISTED PRODUCTS

PDA Improved and modernized dashboard features include:

• Design of adhesive anchors in addition to mechanical anchors and
cast-in-place anchors (CIP)
• 3 new adhesive anchor systems and 3 new mechanical anchors now
included, with additional systems to come
• User can design using 3 versions of ACI 318 Appendix D:
2008, 2005 or 2002 versions
• New library function allows user to access all
UPDATED needed documents without leaving PDA
FREE PDA
SOFTWARE!
REGISTER TODAY AT:
www.powersdesignassist.com Powers
AND RECEIVE A FREE GYM BAG New 2011
A/E Manual
Coming Soon!
Powers Fasteners, Inc. www.powers.com
2 Powers Lane P: (914) 235-6300
Brewster, NY 10509 F: (914) 576-6483
 CONTENTS
FEATURE April 2011

26 From Office-to-Condominium,
The Park Monroe COLUMNS
By Terry McDonald, S.E., P.E. and Homa Ghaemi, S.E., P.E. 5 Editorial
With the help of structural engineers, the reserve strength Structural Engineering Business
of the building structure can be utilized for dramatic effects, as Unusual
expanding the realm of possibilities for owners and develop- By John A. Mercer, Jr., P.E., SECB
ers. This was the case with the Park Monroe at 55/65 E. 7 InFocus
Monroe in Chicago, Illinois. The Park Monroe renovation The Importance of an
consisted of converting the top ten office floors to condo- Engineering License
minium units, which required numerous structural tasks. By Richard Hess, S.E., SECB
and Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
9 Building Blocks

DEPARTMENTS I-Joist Diaphragm Systems

34 Legal Perspectives
The Structural Engineer’s Risks
During the Construction Phase
of a Project
By David J. Hatem and
David H. Corkum
36 Product Watch
Building Code Compliance of
Structural Concrete with Lightweight
Synthetic Particles
By Mahmut Ekenel, Ph.D., P.E.
®
40 Great Achievements
Theodore Cooper
By Frank Griggs, Jr., Ph.D., P.E.
43 Spotlight
Fox Oakland Theater Renovation
& Seismic Retrofit
By Hratch Kouyoumdjian, S.E.
50 Structural Forum
BIM, CIS/2 and the Future
By Thomas Hartmann, P.E.
By Ned Waltz, P.E., SECB
and J. Daniel Dolan, P.E.
17 InSights
4D BIM or Simulation-Based
Modeling
By Jim Jacobi, P.E.
21 Codes and Standards
Changes in Codes, Standards
and Practices Following
Structural Failures – Part 2
By Robert T. Ratay, Ph.D., P.E.
30 Structural Forensics
Inside Information Through
Real Time Dynamic Structural
Monitoring
By Michael Chusid and

STRUCTURE

Steven H. Miller

ON THE COVER
Overlooking downtown Chicago’s beautiful Millennium Park, the
Park Monroe was renovated from an office building to a mixed-
IN EVERY ISSUE
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

use office and luxury condominium building. Once dubbed a

6 Advertiser Index
“graceless hulk” by a 2006 Chicago Tribune article titled “Edifice
April 2011 Concrete
Wrecks,” the building was transformed taking advantage of 42 Resource Guide
its location and unobstructed views of Lake Michigan and
(Engineered Wood Products)
SEI Structures Congress
Las Vegas, Nevada
April 14 – 16

Millennium Park. See feature article on page 26.

44 NCSEA News
46 SEI Structural Columns
Erratum 48 CASE in Point
The caption for the graphic of March’s 2011 Spotlight article, page 27, was incorrect.
It should have read “The New San Joaquin Administration Building”.

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

STRUCTURE magazine 4 April 2011

editorial Structural Engineering Business as Unusual
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
By John A. Mercer, Jr., P.E., SECB
T
he CASE Winter meeting held in Jacksonville, FL is
now in the books. It was held just prior to the NCSEA
Winter Institute. Hats off to Mike Tylk and the NCSEA
Continuing Education Committee.
CASE Committee meetings culminated in watching the final Space
Shuttle Launch from Cape Kennedy late on Thursday afternoon.
Flaming orange fire 117 miles to the south was visible through a
slight haze in the atmosphere as the Shuttle Launch made its way
streaking out of our atmosphere. A reflecting flash of light was all
we could see as the Shuttle must have been making its roll over, and
then it was gone from sight. About 10 minutes later, a thundering
sound made its way past our location on the beach of the Amelia
Island Plantation Resort drowning out the sound of the Atlantic’s
waves splashing on the beach. Reflections of the 1950’s television
series of Flash Gordon came to mind, proving once again that man
can achieve what he can conceive.
The theme of the Winter Institute was Deferred Submittals: What
the EOR Needs to Know and Show from Design to Construction,
which at first seemed to be not too daunting a subject, but as we got
into the presentations there was an apparent picture of a problem
developing. A lot of presentations centered around coordination
of information between the Engineer of Record (EOR) and the
Specialty Structural Engineer (SSE).
My first job experience out of the university was working for a pre-
stressed concrete company as a SSE. It was there that I learned the
submittal process for shop and placement drawings with the General
Contractor and the A/E for the project. I spent a lot of time educat-
ing the EORs on how to specify loading information needed by the
precast (P/C) industry SSE to properly design P/C members. Many
EORs were intimidated by prestressed design, as this was back when
the Prestressed Concrete Institute’s Handbook was in it’s Version 1.0.
Issues that continued to present themselves were mostly concerned
with the mechanical system loads-to and openings-in the P/C. Getting
the GC, mechanical contractor, and A/E to understand that once the
member was cast, all bets are off on strengthening a member for an
opening or for an additional load.
That all had to happen prior to
placing the concrete that would
®
achieve a compressive strength of
structure
5000 psi plus. Receipt of infor-
mation and changes also had to
a member benefit
meet a plant casting schedule to
insure delivery to a project at a
specified time.
One of the highlights of the
Institute was the visit to the
CANAM steel joist fabrication
plant and GATE Precast Plant in
STRUCTURAL
Jacksonville, FL. The most excit-
ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE ing part of the plant visits was the
loading of a 73-foot, 32-inch DT
STRUCTURE magazine
section to failure. The member held approximately 135,000 lbs. prior
to excessive deflection and flexural failure.
It is apparent that the ongoing challenge for the EOR in the
marketplace is the proliferation of new building and construction
technologies that require a SSE’s experience and oversight. More and
more projects are being constructed with an assemblage of industry
SSEs supplying a specific product for a project, thereby displacing
the apparent importance of the EOR. As a result, the decline in the
EOR’s market share and importance is becoming a concern.
Continuation of this trend to shift market share due to new construc-
tion systems is going to require additional coordination by someone to
insure that the project requirements are met and not misinterpreted,
or misrepresented by the gaggle of SSEs.
Ultimately, I believe Risk Management will surface as the champion
for the need of an EOR at the helm of a project. “Attention to detail”,
an inherent trait of a good SSE, is going to become more important
for the EOR going forward. Many EOR’s do pay attention to the
details, while a few may not. The insurance industry will continue
to be the barometer for these trends, measured with our Liability
Insurance Rates.
CASE to the rescue! The CASE documents and Risk Management
Toolkit committees have successfully focused on these problems,
recently supported by a 2011 CASE survey. The mission of CASE has
been successful in helping mitigate the Risk that CASE structural firms
have faced in the past. Firms concerned about the viability of their
structural engineering practices should consider CASE membership
to receive free CASE documents and tools.
Is it “Business As Usual” in your firm to use contracts with “scope
of services” and systems that “document the coordination” of RFIs
and submittals in-and-out of your office? One goal of CASE is to get
all engineering firms to adopt a culture of risk management and best
business practices to achieve lower insurance rates for all structural
engineering firms.
Is it “Business As Unusual” in your firm?▪
John A. Mercer, Jr., P.E., SECB (Engineer@minot.com), is the
president of Mercer Engineering, PC, in Minot, North Dakota.
He currently serves as Chair of the Council of American Structural
Engineers (CASE) and is a CASE representative on STRUCTURE’s
Editorial Board.
5 April 2011
Advertiser index PleAse suPPort these Advertisers
Anthony Forest Products Co. ................ 18 Integrated Engineering Software, Inc..... 14 Simpson Strong-Tie............................... 11
Bentley Systems, Inc. ............................. 33 ITW Red Head ..................................... 38 StrucSoft Solutions, Ltd. ......................... 3
Canadian Wood Council ......................... 8 KPFF Consulting Engineers .................. 41 StructurePoint ....................................... 29
Computers & Structures, Inc. ............... 52 Meadow Burke ...................................... 15 Struware, Inc. ........................................ 35
CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp........ 23 Ohio State University .............................. 6 Subsurface Constructors, Inc. ................ 20
DBM Contractors, Inc. ......................... 12 Powers Fasteners, Inc. .............................. 2 SYNTHEON, Inc................................. 37
Fyfe Co. LLC ........................................ 27 Redbuilt. ............................................... 31 Tekla ..................................................... 16
Hayward Baker, Inc. .............................. 19 RISA Technologies ................................ 51
The IAPMO Group............................... 39 SidePlate Systems, Inc. .......................... 25

editorial Board Advertising Account MAnAger
Chair Interactive Sales Associates
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
Burns & McDonnell, Kansas City, MO Chuck Minor Dick Railton
chair@structuremag.org Eastern Sales Western Sales
847-854-1666 951-587-2982
Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECB Brian W. Miller
CBI Consulting, Inc., Boston, MA Davis, CA sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
Richard Hess, S.E., SECB Mike C. Mota, P.E.
Hess Engineering Inc., Los Alamitos, CA

Mark W. Holmberg, P.E.

CRSI, Williamstown, NJ

Evans Mountzouris, P.E.

Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc., Marietta, GA
Roger A. LaBoube, Ph.D., P.E.
CCFSS, Rolla, MO
Brian J. Leshko, P.E.
HDR Engineering, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA
John A. Mercer, P.E.
Mercer Engineering, PC, Minot, ND
OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
editoriAL stAFF
The DiSalvo Ericson Group, Ridgefield, CT Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE
execdir@ncsea.com
Greg Schindler, P.E., S.E.
KPFF Consulting Engineers, Seattle, WA Editor Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
BergerABAM, Vancouver, WA Associate Editor Nikki Alger
publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
John “Buddy” Showalter, P.E.
American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA
Graphic Designer Rob Fullmer
graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org
Web Developer William Radig
webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science invites applica-
STRUCTURE® (Volume 18, Number 4). ISSN 1536-4283.
tions for a tenure-track assistant professor position in the area of infrastructure. Research areas sought Publications Agreement No. 40675118. Owned by the
include: sustainable structures, green buildings, smart structures and structural health monitoring National Council of Structural Engineers Associations and
using sensor networks, energy efficiency in buildings, resilient infrastructure, hazard mitigation and published in cooperation with CASE and SEI monthly by C3
improvement of structural performance under extreme loading conditions (such as earthquakes, blasts Ink. The publication is distributed free of charge to members
of NCSEA, CASE and SEI; the non-member subscription
or hurricanes), rehabilitation of existing infrastructure, improvement of structural performance using rate is $65/yr domestic; $35/yr student; $90/yr Canada;
advanced technologies, and urban and regional infrastructure systems. Successful candidates will have $125/yr foreign. For change of address or duplicate copies,
the ability to develop an active research program, effectively teach undergraduate and graduate courses contact your member organization(s). Any opinions expressed
in STRUCTURE magazine are those of the author(s) and do not
in civil engineering, supervise graduate students, form interdisciplinary connections with other areas necessarily reflect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C3 Ink, or the
of the department and university, and be involved in service to the university and the profession. An STRUCTURE Editorial Board.
earned doctoral degree in civil engineering or closely-related field is required and the potential to STRUCTURE® is a registered trademark of National Council of
obtain professional registration is desirable. The Ohio State University, a land grant university, has Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA). Articles may not be
recently been named one of the best places to work in academia and is currently ranked 9th in the reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission
country among public universities in total research expenditures. Ohio State is ranked second in the of the publisher.
nation among all universities and colleges in industry-financed research expenditures, with nearly
half of this research conducted in the College of Engineering. The Department currently has 19 National Council of Structural
faculty members, 650 undergraduate students (majors and premajors), 100 graduate students, and Engineers Associations
$10M in research contracts (see: http://ceg.osu.edu/). Please submit in one single PDF document:
www.ncsea.com
a cover letter, curriculum vita, statement of teaching and research interests, copies of no more than
two publications or manuscripts, and the names and contact information for four references to the
Chair of the Search Committee, Dr. William Wolfe (wolfe.10@osu.edu). Review of applications will C3 Ink, Publishers
A Division of Copper Creek Companies, Inc.
begin on June 1, 2011 until the position is filled. To build a diverse workforce Ohio State encour- 148 Vine St., Reedsburg WI 53959
ages applications from minorities, veterans, women and individuals with disabilities. Flexible work P-608-524-1397 F-608-524-4432
publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
options are available; OSU is an EEO/AA employer. OSU has an ADVANCE grant for institutional
transformation from the National Science Foundation. Visit STRUCTURE magazine
magazine on-line at
Visit STRUCTURE
Visit STRUCTURE online
magazine on-line at at
www.structuremag.org
www.structuremag.org
www.structuremag.org

STRUCTURE magazine 6 April 2011

inFocus The Importance of an
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
Engineering License
By Richard Hess, S.E., SECB and Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
T
o be or not to be… licensed. That is the question; at least,
it is one of the questions prompted by those among the
public who perceive man-made disasters to be attributable
to bad engineering. This question has been raised again in
investigations of the Deepwater Horizon blowout explosion of April
20, 2010 that caused the tragic deaths of eleven workers, economic
challenges for affected communities that rely on tourism, and envi-
ronmental impacts that are still being assessed.
(Fortunately, the near total destruction of the Gulf beaches did not
occur as many anticipated. This is probably because the oil involved
was “light” crude, much of which tends to evaporate, and because
of the little creatures that live off of the oil that naturally flows into
the ocean from deep water fissures in the earth’s crust located around
the globe.)
The question is important, although the reason why it has become
a prominent issue at this time has more to do with national politics
and environmentalism than it does with the state of the engineer-
ing profession. More specifically, the question of whether engineers
responsible for activities involving life safety and environmental impact
should be required to be licensed should receive more attention than
it normally does.
Before addressing the political issues that frame this discussion, we
should point out an important factor that is given scant attention by
the reporting media, the politicians involved and the acclaimed experts
in academia. The term “engineer” includes a great many different
“professions” with widely varying tasks and responsibilities, which
have in common only the fact that the technical basis for their work
is derived from physics and chemistry. These are now understood to
be one subject, as was the case when they were jointly called “natural
philosophy” a couple of centuries ago.
Those of us who graduated in the civil/structural engineering field
usually have very different responsibilities than engineers in other,
more “process-oriented” engineering disciplines. This is due primarily
to the nature of our work. For one thing, the loads and forces that we
design a structure to resist might be expected to occur only once during
its anticipated period of service, and therefore the work of a structural
engineer may never be tested during his or her lifetime. However, it
is also possible that the maximum force could occur tomorrow or the
next day. Each new building–unless it is a tract home or a repetitious
manufacturing facility–is a unique project, never to be replicated,
under the design responsibility of an engineer of record who seals
and signs the construction documents. There is no prototype to be
tested before many more of the same are produced as with airplanes
or electrical components, for example.
Individuals who intend to pursue a career in engineering must
first pass a test in the relevant fundamentals, showing that they
STRUCTURE magazine
have mastered the academic technical subjects that form the basis
of our work. Then they must pass one or more discipline-specific
examinations to demonstrate the ability to apply those fundamen-
tals in the solution of the types of problems dealt with in their field.
Such rigorous qualification is especially critical for those who will
be independently responsible for unique structures with life safety
features present. A building is such a project, and so is an offshore
platform. When a structural engineer designs a building in any local
jurisdiction, that governmental entity first requires submission of
plans with the designer’s seal and signature on it. When the United
States Government is asked to issue a permit for an offshore drilling
platform, why does it not do the same?
Unfortunately, federal agencies appear to be among the worst
offenders in not insisting that professionally recognized and licensed
engineers take responsibility for these kinds of projects. It is one thing
for the military to function that way in a war zone where a landing
field or defensive shelter has to be built immediately to save lives. It
should be recognized that other arms of the government, which either
commission or issue permits for construction or resource develop-
ment, should operate differently and mandate professional licensing
of the men and women who design and supervise those activities.
The bottom line is that all engineering documents, whether intended
for public or private projects, should be prepared and sealed by a
licensed individual with the appropriate technical qualifications as
demonstrated by education, experience and examination. Requiring
certification by someone with a professionally recognized license
not only increases the likelihood of that person’s capability, it also
causes that person to realize that he or she is the only one who will
be held responsible, and that he or she cannot assume that someone
else will take care of a portion of the work. That is a big incentive
for someone to make sure that he or she knows all that is involved,
and not just a part of it.
Indications are that the decisions that led to the Gulf oil spill were not
entrusted to licensed engineers. If they had been, would the outcome
perhaps have been different? We will never know.▪
Richard L. Hess, S.E., SECB is a consulting structural engineer
in Southern California, specializing in the retrofit, repair and
alteration of buildings and other structures. He can be reached at
RLHess@HessEng.com.
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB is an associate structural engineer at
Burns & McDonnell in Kansas City, Missouri. He can be reached
at jschmid@burnsmcd.com.
7 April 2011
 New Design Office 9
Now IBC 2009 and SDPWS 2008 compliant

Shearwalls:
• Shear wall deflection and story drift
• Deflection derived stiffness for force distribution
• Hold-down design using editable database

Sizer:
• Full control over bearing and span lengths
• Supporting member bearing design
• Full, clear or design spans
• Multiple beams and columns in one workspace
• Integration with Autodesk Revit® (optional)

Complete list of features and Demo at

woodworks-software.com
“You can buy more sophisticated wood engineering software, but ...
it’s expensive, takes considerable time to model your structure, and is usually overkill for what engineers
need for the design of most wood structure projects. WoodWorks® Design Office doesn’t have the most
advanced graphics or the latest interface style, but its component-based operation is intuitive, quick and
easy to use, inexpensive, and is produced by the same wood experts that contribute to the development
of Canadian and American wood design standards. While our non-profit organization’s budget means we
need to continue to focus on only our niche of wood design, we are capitalizing on the stengths of other
software packages like Autodesk’s Revit® Structure to help give you the level of sophistication of fully
modelled structures by creating a bi-directional integration with this leading BIM software. A Revit/Sizer link
is now available as a separate purchase.”

Robert Jonkman, P.Eng, Manager, Structural Engineering and WoodWorks Software, Canadian Wood Council

www.woodworks-software.com 800-844-1275
 Load
Chord/Rim
Interior 4x2 blocking
(blocked floors only)
Rail
Floor Sheathing
per Schedule
I-Joists
Chord/Rim
Reaction
Figure 1: Typical Diaphragm Test Configuration (24 x 24 ft., Case 5 shown).
M
odern light-frame roof and
floor systems routinely com-
bine pre-fabricated wood
I-joists with wood structural
panel sheathing. A primary function of a light-
frame floor or roof is to serve as a diaphragm
that collects lateral load and transfers it to
the shear walls and foundations. Diaphragm
design provisions for light-frame wood con-
struction have been successfully employed
for decades and were originally developed
for lumber framing. Designers often wonder
if they are equally applicable to diaphragms
framed with wood I-joists. The objective of
this article is to provide some insight into
how shear capacities are rationalized for I-joist
diaphragms, and to summarize potentially
useful trends observed with full-scale testing.
Diaphragm Design
Diaphragms are typically modeled as deep,
in-plane beams. Perimeter framing is designed
to act as tension/compression chords or struts.
Wood structural panel sheathing combines
with joists to serve as the “web” that transfers
shear. Joists provide out-of-plane stiffening
and load transfer between discrete panel
sheathing elements. This makes sheathing-
to-framing attachment a critical element that
often defines shear capacity of the assembly.
Wood structural panel diaphragms are nor-
mally designed in accordance with provisions
of the International Building Code (IBC)
Load Load Load
Building
4' 4' 4'
24'
Blocks
updates and information
Boundary on structural materials
Nailing
24'
"Other" Edge
Nailing
Boundary
Continous Panel
Nailing
Edge Nailing
Reaction
Parallel to Load
(International Code I-Joist Diaphragm Systems
Council 2009) and
the Special Design
Provisions for Wind and Seismic (SPDWS) Performance Trends Observed
(American Wood Council 2008). Tables,
like 2009 IBC Table 2306.2.1(1), were first
with Full-Scale Testing
developed in the 1950s and have evolved over
By Ned Waltz, P.E., SECB
time. The original rationalizations for these
and J. Daniel Dolan, P.E.
tables were based on an analysis of sheathing
and attachment schedules for lumber-framed
diaphragms with plywood panel sheathing.
They have been subsequently modified based
on results from a variety of full-scale test pro- Ned Waltz, P.E., SECB is the Senior
grams that introduced additional materials, Engineer for Product Evaluation at
failure modes, and design considerations. Weyerhaeuser’s technology center in
Original I-joist framing products used lami- Boise, ID.  He may be reached at
nated veneer lumber (LVL) or sawn lumber ned.waltz@weyerhaeuser.com.
flanges with thicknesses of 1.5 inches or
J. Daniel Dolan, P.E. is a Professor of
greater. These thicknesses were consistent
Civil and Environmental Engineering
with 2-inch nominal material typically used
to “block” a lumber diaphragm and exceeded
and Director of Codes and Standards for
the Composite Materials and Engineering
specified minimum fastener penetration
Center at WSU. He may be reached at
requirements. Provided that the diaphragm
jddolan@wsu.edu.
configuration adhered to the manufacturer’s
fastener spacing recommendations to avoid
splitting, and the flange material could ratio-
nalize equivalent fastener performance to
an appropriate sawn lumber species, it was
judged that application of shear design tables
like 2009 IBC Table 2306.2.1(1) could be
extended to these products.
As I-joist products are optimized, it has
become common to see LVL flange thick-
nesses less than 1.5 inches. The industry
STRUCTURE magazine 9

Figure 2: Illustration of Test Setup (24 x 24 ft., Case 5 shown).
has long recognized that reducing flange
thickness beyond a certain threshold has
the potential to adversely impact sheath-
ing nail embedment and split resistance to
the point where diaphragm capacity may
be influenced. International Code Council
Evaluation Service (ICC-ES) acceptance cri-
terion for I-joists defines that threshold as
15/16 inch (ICC-ES 2010) based primarily
on sheathing nail embedment calculations.
I-joist products with flanges thinner than
15/16 inch are subsequently required to
conduct “full-scale horizontal diaphragm
testing” to rationalize performance.
At present, at least two manufacturers have
conducted full-scale diaphragm testing to inves-
tigate performance of I-joist product lines with
flange thicknesses less than 15/16 inches. Both
manufacturers have developed related design
recommendations and limitations that are
included in their evaluation reports. In general,
the manufacturers have proven equivalence to
a subset of the current diaphragm design tables
for sawn lumber. They generally do not permit
thinner flanged I-joist products to be used in the
highest load applications that require the closest
sheathing attachment schedules.
Full-Scale Testing
At present, Weyerhaeuser has conducted 41
full-scale tests on I-joist diaphragm systems
framed with I-joists with LVL flange thick-
nesses between 1⅛ and 1¼ inches. Figures
1 (page 9) and 2 illustrate test conditions
chosen to be consistent with requirements of
ASTM E455 (ASTM 2004) and benchmark
testing conducted with sawn lumber. A variety
of I-joist materials, sheathing products, dia-
phragm configurations, sheathing fasteners,
and fastening schedules have been tested to
verify shear transfer and deformation perfor-
mance capabilities. Given the high cost and
STRUCTURE magazine
relatively low variability of full-scale assembly
testing, two replicates have typically been
tested for each condition per the requirements
of ASTM E455. Nearly all I-joist diaphragms
have been tested with dimensions of 24 feet by
24 feet to focus on shear transfer capabilities
and to correspond with a benchmark sawn
lumber diaphragm test database.
Regardless of configuration, observed
diaphragm behaviors are fundamentally
consistent. Initially, diaphragms deform
elastically as a deep beam without percep-
tible relative movement between framing
and sheathing. At loads in excess of design
loads, visible relative movement can be
observed between adjacent sheathing panels
and between panels and framing. Figure
3 illustrates these trends for a 2009 IBC
Table 2306.2.1(1) “Case 5” diaphragm con-
figuration that aligns panel joints in both
directions. Shear flow causes panels at the
reactions to rotate in opposite directions
towards the span centerline. The magnitude
Figure 3: Typical Diaphragm Movement Mechanisms (Case 5 Shown).
10 April 2011
of this rotation is typically consistent between
diaphragm tension and compression chords.
Due to panel geometry, the observed move-
ment between adjacent sheathing panels is
typically several times greater along long edge
joints than at short end joints. The large rela-
tive movement between panel edges creates a
tension perpendicular-to-grain splitting force
across the framing at the fasteners for adja-
cent panels. At panel end joints, it induces
perpendicular-to-grain forces into the framing
as panel end joints rotate and the nails induce
perpendicular-to-grain prying forces into the
framing. Ultimately, these deformations lead to
failure in some combination of panel buckling/
crushing, sheathing nail withdrawal, framing
splitting, and/or sheathing edge tear out. The
Case 1 diaphragms tested exhibited similar
behavior with the exception that panel bear-
ing and crushing were also observed between
interlocking panel rows. Figure 4 (page 12)
illustrates the mode of failure observed for
a “blocked” Case 1 diaphragm. However, as
with the benchmark sawn lumber tests, the
dominant failure modes observed with I-joist
diaphragms were tension perpendicular-to-
grain fracture of the framing and sheathing nail
withdrawal. Sheathing related failure modes
played a less significant role. Given that many
of the potential diaphragm failure modes that
limit capacity are not typically addressed by a
connection analysis, the importance of test-
based verification for diaphragm systems that
depart significantly from the historical basis
seems to be confirmed.
Performance Trends
The compiled database of full-scale I-joist
diaphragm tests provides an opportunity to
draw comparisons between similar test sets.
continued on page 12
 Cracked&
Cracked &
IBC
®

Uncracked
CONCRETE 2009
ICC-ES
ESR-3037

Strong-Bolt 2 ™

The ONLY 3⁄8" wedge anchor

for both 3 1⁄4"-thick concrete
and concrete on metal deck.

Sometimes sequels are even better than the original. The new Strong-Bolt ™ 2 wedge anchor features a redesigned
tri-segmented clip made of a special high-strength alloy that enables it to outperform many other cracked-
concrete wedge anchors. The product line includes a 3⁄8"-diameter anchor – the only code-listed, 3⁄8"-diameter wedge
anchor for both 3 1⁄4"-thick concrete and concrete on metal deck. As a Category 1 anchor, Strong-Bolt 2 offers
increased reliability in the most adverse conditions, including performance in cracked concrete under static and
seismic loading. Available in carbon or type 316 stainless steel, the Strong-Bolt 2 wedge anchor is code listed under
the 2009 IBC requirements for post-installed anchors in cracked and uncracked concrete (ICC-ES ESR-3037).
Continue to look to Simpson Strong-Tie Anchor Systems ® for all of your cracked concrete anchoring solutions.
For more information, call (800) 999-5099 or visit www.simpsonanchors.com/cc.

IN THE SPECS
ON THE JOB
© 2011 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. SAS-STB211-R AT YOUR SERVICE™
 While extrapolations beyond tested condi-
tions should be approached with caution,
comparisons in Table 1 suggest trends that
could be useful to the designer:
Flange Species
Douglas-fir LVL flanged I-joists outperformed
their southern pine counterparts in 4 out of
the 5 similar diaphragm configurations tested
(Lines 1-5). This trend contradicts what is
expected based on a sheathing fastener con-
nection analysis that assumes a higher specific
gravity for southern pine. This trend may
be due to the difference in tension perpen-
dicular-to-grain strengths or typical veneer
thicknesses of the LVL fabricated with each
species. How well these particular commercial
species combinations fit the specific gravity-
based fastener design models may also play a
role. Regardless, it highlights that an I-joist
manufacturer needs to evaluate the diaphragm
performance of each primary species used for
flange material. It also suggests that designers
should avoid applying the diaphragm recom-
mendations for one I-joist product to another.
LVL Veneer Thickness
The Line 6 comparison illustrates what a
relatively subtle difference in I-joist product
composition can have on capacity. Diaphragms
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
Design/Build
Earth Retention
Foundation Support
Slope Stabilization
Ground Improvement
Dewatering
800-562-8460 www.dbmcontractors.com
STRUCTURE magazine
framed with LVL flanges that had the same
species and grade but used a slightly thicker
veneer peel had about 15% less capacity. As
with the last item, this would seem to confirm
that diaphragm performance is product depen-
dent. It further emphasizes that extrapolation
of performance recommendations between
seemingly similar manufacturers and products
should be avoided.
Blocking Quality
Line 7 illustrates the influence that blocking
selection can have on capacity. Even with
I-joist materials taken as being a constant
between tests, use of low specific gravity
blocking material (0.45 vs. the intended
0.50) reduced diaphragm capacity by about
15%. This shows that selection of a blocking
material is likely as important as selection of a
joist and should be consistent with the design
assumption. For example, avoid using spruce-
pine-fir blocking if Douglas-fir diaphragm
design values are targeted.
Flange Width
Comparisons on Lines 8-11 illustrate that, as
with sawn lumber, wider framing results in
increased capacity. This is consistent with the
code design provisions and can be attributed
to the fact that wider framing tends to reduce
12 April 2011
Figure 4: Failure Modes – Framing Splitting from
Panel Prying (Case 1 Shown).
splitting and can provide for increased edge
distance and staggered nail patterns that pro-
vide better load transfer.
Nail Size
Line 12 illustrates that a relatively intense
10d sheathing nail pattern resulted in a
16% increase in capacity relative to using 6d
sheathing nails. In contrast, corresponding
shear design capacities for lumber diaphragms
increase by about 70%. This highlights
the importance of flange splitting and
the need for the manufacturer to address
the resulting capacity limitations in
their design guidance. Also, since the
design recommendations provided by
the manufacturer are typically governed
by “worst case” conditions that involve
larger diameter fasteners, there is likely
some relative conservatism associated
with smaller diameter fasteners. As with
most wood connections, it is another
example where more/larger fasteners do
not necessarily improve performance if
they lead to splitting.
Diaphragm Case
The design codes permit six different dia-
phragm configurations to be constructed.
It is not intuitively obvious that they are
all equal when it comes to I-joist dia-
phragm performance. The majority of
tests summarized by Table 1 were under-
taken using the “Case 5” configuration
illustrated by Figures 1-3 that aligns panel
joints in both directions. Since splitting
was a primary concern, this was judged
conservative because it maximized the
number of fasteners and requires the full
lateral load to be transferred through the
I-joist flanges. The Line 13 comparison
confirms that assumption relative to the
Table 1: Peak Strength Comparisons Between Similar Full-Scale Diaphragm Tests1, 2

Sheathing Fastener and Panel Edge Spacing Peak

Comparison Variable3,4
I-Joist Strength
Load Sheath
Item Block Comparison Perimeter Interior Ratio:
Case (in.) Fastener Size5
1 2 No. Spacing Spacing Var. 1
Var. 2
1 1 0.96
5 4 in. 4 in.
2 4x2 DF 19/32 2 1.13
3 DF LVL Flange SP LVL Flange 1 3 10d 4 in. 6 in. 1.22
4 1 1.02
5 No 23/32 6 in. 6 in.
5 2 1.06
6 1/7 in. LVL veneer ⅛ in. LVL Veneer 5 4x2 DF 19/32 1 10d 4 in. 4 in. 0.86
7 0.45 SG Blocking 0.51 SG Blocking 5 4x2 DF 19/32 1 10d 4 in. 4 in. 0.84
8 0.98
5 4x2 DF 19/32 1 vs. 2 4 in. 4 in.
9 1.75 in. wide 2.3 in. wide 0.83
10d
flange flange
10 0.85
5 No 23/32 1 vs. 2 6 in. 6 in.
11 0.86
12 Large nails Small nails 5 No 23/32 vs. 3/8 1 10d vs. 6d 4 in. 4 in. 1.16
1 vs. 4 in. vs.
13 Case 1 Case 5 4x2 DF 19/32 1 10d 4 in. 1.07
5 6 in.
14 4x2 DF 19/32 4 in. 4 in. 1.01
24 x 24 ft. 24 x 12 ft. 5 1 10d
15 No 23/32 6 in. 6 in. 0.84
16 6d ring 8d common 5 No ¾ vs. 19/32 1 8d vs. 6d ring 6 in. 6 in. 1.14
0.131 in. diameter 8d vs.
17 8d common 5 No ¾ vs. 19/32 1 6 in. 6 in. 1.13
proprietary fastener proprietary

Notes:
1
All of the tests summarized in this table used I-joist framing with laminated veneer lumber (LVL) flanges. The “DF” and “SP” species designations
represent Douglas-Fir and southern pine, respectively.
2
All of the tests summarized in this table used either plywood or oriented strand board (OSB) sheathing materials.
3
Except as noted in Lines 14 and 15, all of these full-scale diaphragms had dimensions of 24 ft. x 24 ft.
4
The majority of the comparisons are based on the average of two tests. However, only a single diaphragm was tested in the following cases: Line 3
Variables 1 and 2, Line 14 Variable 2, and Line 17 Variable 1.
5
Sheathing nail sizes were as follows: 6d - 0.113 x 2.0 in., 8d - 0.131 x 2.5 in., 10d - 0.148 x 3.0 in.

“Case 1” configuration that requires fewer fas-
teners and interlocks the panels. It also suggests
that there are some relative benefits for the
designer to, whenever possible, favor specifica-
tion of diaphragm “cases” that use interlocking
panels and fewer fasteners to transfer shear.
Diaphragm Size
The 24-foot by 24-foot diaphragm size used
for most of the testing summarized by Table
1 was chosen to promote shear distortion in
a condition that combined full-size sheathing
elements with at least 2 interior panel joints
in each direction. It also corresponded with
a benchmark database for sawn lumber. As
suggested by Lines 14 and 15, testing other
sizes may result in slightly different answers.
STRUCTURE magazine
This highlights the importance for the man-
ufacturer to evaluate a configuration that
encourages realistic stress flows through the
system if design values are being developed.
The designer should also specify products that
have been rationalized accordingly.
Fastener Type
Lines 16 and 17 provide some insight into the
relative influence of fastener selection. Eight
penny (8d) ring shank (0.120-inch diameter)
and 8d common (0.131-inch diameter) nails
are assumed to provide equivalent perfor-
mance for unblocked diaphragms in some
prescriptive situations. The full-scale tests of
Line 16 suggest that the smaller diameter ring
shank nail actually out-performed the larger
13 April 2011
diameter common nail. Line 17 provides a
similar comparison for a proprietary fastener
that claims superior diaphragm performance
for some configurations based on small-scale
fastener testing and analysis. In reality, the
proprietary fastener performed about the
same as the smaller diameter ring shank nail.
Extra withdrawal and lateral resistance doesn’t
necessarily translate into improved diaphragm
performance if an alternative failure mode not
addressed by the fastener review, such as fram-
ing splitting, governs. The designer should
be cautious when specifying proprietary fas-
teners that claim diaphragm performance
improvements that have not been verified
against all failure modes possible in a full-
scale diaphragm.
continued on next page
 1600

Stiffness Observations 1500

1400
In some cases, a designer will also need to
1300
predict diaphragm deformation. For sawn
1200
lumber diaphragms, this is typically done
using either the traditional “4-term” or simpli- 1100

fied “3-term” diaphragm deflection equations. 1000

Average Reaction (lbs./ft.)

Calculation procedures developed for sawn 900
lumber diaphragms also provide a reason- 800
able means of predicting I-joist diaphragm 700
deformation in the design range. Figure 5 600
illustrates a comparison between calculation
500
methodologies and the measured behavior 24x24 ft. diaphragm

400 3-Term prediction based upon Case 1-4

for a Case 5 I-joist diaphragm configuration 3-Term prediction based upon Case 5/6
that conservatively combined large diameter 300
4-Term SPDWS prediction based upon Case 5/6
fasteners with a tight spacing that tends to 200

promote splitting. For this example, observed 100

performance reasonably approximated mod- 0
eled deformation predictions based on the 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0

tested Case 5 configuration. It should be Centerline Deflection (in.)

noted that the actual deformations are less
than deformations predicted using the default
apparent shear stiffness term in SDPWS. The
SDPWS default is conservatively based on
Case 1-4 diaphragm configurations which
have fewer nails (e.g. greater load per nail)
at panel edges than the Case 5 diaphragm
configuration tested.
Figure 5: Deflection Predictions.
One of the benefits of testing diaphragms illustrated, the disparity between the mea-
with a 1:1 aspect ratio is that it focuses the test sured deformation and the Case 5 predictions
on the shear strength and deformation of the was about 1/16 inch. This absolute differential
assembly. A downside is that deflection mea- arguably falls below the reasonable precision
surements are small. For example, at a load of the full scale test method, and highlights
and resistance factor load for the configuration that the absolute magnitudes of deformation
should be considered when interpret-
ing the accuracy of a predictive model.

Conclusions
Subject to the manufacturer’s recom-
mendations, pre-fabricated wood
I-joists can be used for diaphragm
“I really like the fact that you actively support and communicate construction. However, the per-
directly with your clients on a regular basis, and that you are formance of an I-joist diaphragm
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

regular guys like us…I KNOW that you are accessible.” assembly will be dependent on specific
I-joist product used and its relevant
attributes (i.e. flange geometry, mate-
David D. Kampe, P.E. rial, species, veneer thickness for LVL
ddk Engineering flanges, etc.). Few I-joists can serve
as a direct substitute for sawn-lumber
framing in the full range of appli-
cations addressed by building code
diaphragm design provisions. The
manufacturer’s sheathing nail spacing
and diaphragm design recommenda-
tions should always be considered as
part of the design process.▪

This article was previously pub-

lished in Wood Design Focus, Summer
Wood post and beam / log truss restaurant design by David Kampe 2010. It is reprinted with permission.

The online version of this article

IES, Inc Visit www.iesweb.com contains references. Please visit
519 E Babcock St.
Bozeman, MT 59715 Free-trial downloads, demo www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
800-707-0816
info@iesweb.com movies, and pricing.

STRUCTURE magazine 14 April 2011

 Make your connection
to HALFEN.
Global connections from a global company.
W hether you are designing
curtain wall connections for
an airport; connections for bridge
or tunnel services; or screening
connections for a parking structure;
HALFEN channels provide the
answers.
Easy installation
Halfen Anchoring Systems · Meadow-Burke Products · 8521 F.M. · Road 1976 · Converse · TX 78109 · USA ·
Phone: 800 323 6896 · www.halfenusa.com
Easy use
HALFEN channels are available for casting
into concrete or use as framing. The fast
Individual support
For further information and technical
assistance make your own connection to
bolted connections allow easy adjustment, HALFEN today.
and reduced installation time. Worldwide: www.halfen.com
USA: www.halfenusa.com
Better health and safety
When cast-into the concrete structure,
Many advantages with one result:
HALFEN channels are installed without
HALFEN provides safety,
drilling or welding, and so avoid installer
reliability and efficiency for you
hazards such as noise, dust, vibration,
and your customers.
hot surfaces and high voltages.
Superior performance
HALFEN cast-in channels offer safety and
reliability over the widest load range.
They are available in stainless steel and
high quality galvanized finish.
 Solaris Tekla
Structures Model

To learn more about the Solaris project,

scan this QR code with your smartphone.

Read full case study at:

www.tekla.us/solaris-architect

COLLABORATE
TO REDUCE RISK Wayne Muir, P.E.,
Managing Principal & President,
Structural Consultants, Inc.
*All images courtesy of Structural Consultants, Inc. Denver, CO

Wayne Muir and his team have done it again! Using the Tekla Structures BIM Model, Structural Consultants, Inc. (SCI)
delivered more information to the estimators earlier in the project, lowering the financial risk to the owner and his
contractors. The steel package gave the fabricator, detailer and erector a better understanding of the engineer’s design
intent and put greater certainty into the cost model for a major subcontract early in the project. At the same time,
the architect and SCI successfully exchanged BIM models to collaborate their designs. “Being able to collaborate and
coordinate our design efforts in the Tekla Structural environment was a tremendous asset to this project, that really paid
off during the construction phase,” says Wayne Muir.

Tekla Structures BIM (Building Information Modeling) software provides a data-rich 3D

environment that can be shared by contractors, structural engineers, steel detailers and
fabricators, and concrete detailers and manufacturers. Choose Tekla for the highest level
of constructability and integration in project management and delivery.

Figure 1: Sequential film strip images from video production showing the planned erection
sequence for a pedestrian bridge.
A
s building information model-
ing (BIM) based project delivery
methods continue to take hold in
our industry, an intriguing and
sophisticated modeling technique is begin-
ning to emerge. It is often referred to as 4D
BIM or Simulation-Based Modeling and
relies on integrating components of the 3D
BIM with time- or schedule-related infor-
mation. The use of the term 4D is intended
to refer to the fourth dimension: time. The
construction of these so-called 4D models
enables one to visualize the entire duration
of a series of events and is being used by a
variety of project participants from designers
to contractors.
These 4D models expand the value of
the traditional 3D models developed
during the BIM-enabled design process,
together with a project’s scheduling
systems, by improving understanding
and collaboration for all project par-
ticipants. Some of the key attributes
associated with these models will
improve site planning by enabling “what
STRUCTURE magazine
InSIghtS
new trends, new techniques
and current industry issues
4D BIM or Simulation-Based
Modeling
By Jim Jacobi, P.E.
if ” scenarios to test and improve differ-
ent schemes. Simulations of installation
conflicts, design clashes, and work-
flow management can be performed
Jim Jacobi, P.E. (JJacobi@WalterPMoore.com),
before the work begins. Construction
is a senior principal and the Chief Information
sequences can be simulated to facilitate
Officer at Walter P Moore in Houston, Texas.
quick and effective decision-making by
the contractor, design team, and owner.
They can be performed continuously
for an overview, or stepped through to
show the project at particular points in
time. Because these sequences are linked
to actual project schedules, they provide
valuable context. The same technology
can be used to resource space planning
scenarios and evaluate various equip-
ment placement options, to name but
two examples. Real-time navigation
through the modeled environment is
supported during the simulations to
enhance exploration.
The process of creating a 4D model can
be relatively straightforward so long as
the BIM models have been developed
with sufficient granularity. Individual
17
 elements (or groups of elements) in a
discipline’s BIM model must be linked
with discrete, date-driven construction
activities that are generally contained in
the contractor’s schedule. The 4D model
creator uses a simple process to link model
elements with line items in the construc-
tion schedule. If the 3D model has been
developed in relatively close correlation
with the intended fabrication or erec-
tion plan, then the process of assigning
individual model components (or groups
of components) to time line events can
proceed unencumbered. However, if the
3D model has been created with no regard
for such construction-related segregation,
then some remodeling effort will likely be
required to ensure an accurate linking of
model components to time line activi-
ties. For this reason, it is important for
developers to align the model as close to
actual conditions as possible if it is known
that a 4D model will eventually be needed
for a project.
Modeling for expediency alone may not
serve well if a 4D model is desired. For
example, consider the modeling practice
for the deck of a parking garage structure.
Depending upon the structural configura-
tion of the garage, it may prove expedient
to model a large slab monolithically. If a
construction simulation model is desired
for the project, the monolithic garage
decks will need to be remodeled and seg-
regated to match the placement schedule
envisioned by the contractor. Similarly,
if one models a multistory column as a
single element, instead of several floor-
to-floor elements, rework on the model
may be required in order to obtain
an accurate visual depiction of the
erection process. A good tag line to

POWER PRESERVED GLULAM® remember in this regard is to “model

with the end in mind.”

BEAMS AND COLUMNS Once completed, the animated

simulation of the 4D Model can be
played back to visualize the actual
occurrence of events in the proper
chronological sequence. Current
4D creation technology can sup-
port a wide variety of BIM and
scheduling platforms.
Figure 1 (page 17) illustrates a series
of images rendered from a 4D model
of a circular pedestrian bridge. The
model was constructed to illustrate
the erection of a series of individual
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

section lifts over a major transporta-

n Available in 3 1/2” and 5 1/4”
widths at IJC and dimension
lumber depths
n 24F Industrial Grade - zero
camber - balanced beam and
Power Preserved
Column® combination #50
n Meets FEMA’s guidelines for
“Flood Resistant Materials”
Power Beam®
309 N. Washington
©
Anthony Forest Products Company
Anthony Forest Products - Half Page - 4c Ad - Structure Mag (2-28-11)
n Treated by with
Cop-GuardTM (CuNap) and
Cop-8TM in low odor mineral
spirits for above ground and
ground contact applications
n Environmentally safe and
easy to work with
Power Joist® Treated Glulam Power Log®
El Dorado, AR 71730 800-221-2326
STRUCTURE magazine
n Perfect for deck beams and
columns, raised floor
construction, coastal
construction using piling/
column or pier and beam
foundations
n Backed by a 25 Year Warranty
as strong as our products
n Resistant to fungal decay and
wood-destroying insect
attacks
SYP Lumber
www.anthonyforest.com
18 April 2011
tion thoroughfare. Each section of
the bridge, shown in green, can be
seen coming into its final position.
These images can be annotated and
then streamed together to produce an
animated video showing the actual
erection sequence. The clarity and
enhanced understanding that these
models bring to the project stakehold-
ers provides a significant benefit and
makes a compelling case for the use
of 4D models.
The ability to visualize the con-
struction sequence in the context of
the actual project site provides the
design team, owners, contractors,
municipalities, regulatory agencies,
and other interested parties with a
bird’s-eye view of the process, sim-
plifying their understanding of the
events to occur. In many instances,
this improved understanding can
facilitate the decision-making process
often required when scheduling work
in logistically challenging environ-
ments. It provides visualization that
results in a more intuitive understand-
ing of the process.▪
 This is Part 2 of a series of articles calling attention to the practice and introducing illustrative
examples of changes in structural design and construction codes, standards, regulations and
practices that have followed catastrophic structural failures. Part 1, in the December 2010 issue
of STRUCTURE, focused on bridges. This Part 2 is devoted to buildings.
I
t is a credit to our structural engineering
profession that failures have been, and
continue to be, used to improve design,
construction and regulatory practices.
We do not just pay up, rebuild and walk away
– we delve, we learn, and we improve.
Following a failure, engineers often carry
the forensic investigations to great details, so
as to have reasonable engineering certainty
not only in the cause(s) of the failures but
also in the identification of the responsible
parties, which is needed for resolution of the
frequently inevitable disputes. A valuable
peripheral benefit of the laborious search is
a clearer understanding of structural behavior
and a better appreciation of pitfalls in current
practices. These can provide information and
material to effect eventual changes in design
and/or construction practices, codes, stan-
dards, oversight and regulatory procedures,
and even in local laws.
While the investigations of the causes of
structural failures are performed by engi-
neers, and the subsequent changes in codes,
standards and practices are developed by
engineers, those changes are often influ-
enced or are even driven by economics and
local politics.
The “lessons learned” from failures are inter-
esting but worthless if not heeded and not
acted upon to prevent their re-occurrence.
The author’s intent with this article is to
bring awareness to the fact that changes in
design and construction practices, codes,
standards, oversight and regulatory proce-
dures have and continue to come about as
the result of costly and catastrophic failures,
and to urge our fellow professionals to con-
tinue that trend.
Illustrative Cases
The following are just a few examples of wel-
comed changes in design and/or construction
codes, standards, regulations and practices
Figure 1: Collapsed space frame roof at Hartford
Civic Center.
STRUCTURE magazine
Codes and
standards
that have been initiated in response to struc-
tural failures of buildings that were caused by
design and/or construction errors, oversight
and regulatory practices, as well as by misuse updates and discussions related
and inadequate maintenance. The author has to codes and standards
been an expert consultant/witness in several
of the cases cited.
1) Serious “soul searching”, review and
debate among architectural and struc-
tural design professionals regarding
the need for improved control and
peer review of the design of long-span
structures. An early documentation of
a formal effort was the 1981 report,
Towards Safer Long-Span Buildings,
by the Long-Span Building Panel of
the American
Institute of
Architects
(AIA). It
Changes in Codes, Standards
opined that and Practices Following
“indepen-
dent design Structural Failures
reviews
should not be mandatory,” but
suggested that guidelines be created
Part 2: Buildings
to, among other things, “develop
By Robert T. Ratay, Ph.D., P.E.
comprehensive, coordinated building
code requirements covering long-
span design and construction” and to
“develop guidelines for design review
of the architect’s and engineer’s
structural design and calculations.”
Related activities of the previous and
subsequent years popularized the idea Robert T. Ratay, Ph.D., P.E. is a
and, on many projects, introduced structural engineer in private practice in
the practice of peer review. This effort Manhasset, NY, and an Adjunct Professor
followed the catastrophic collapse of at Columbia University. He has been an
the space-frame roof of the Hartford expert consultant/witness on some 200
Civic Center in Hartford, CT on the cases of structural problems, some of which
evening of January 18, 1978 (Figure resulted in changes of codes, regulations and
1), just hours after the University practices. He is the Editor-in-Chief of three
of Connecticut Men’s Basketball books: Handbook of Temporary Structures
team defeated the University of in Construction, 2 nd ed., Forensic Structural
Massachusetts (the author’s Alma Engineering, 2 nd ed., and Structural
Mater), and was enhanced by other Condition Assessment. He can be reached at
long-span roof collapses at the C. Structures@RobertRatay.com.
W. Post Center Auditorium of Long
Island University in Greenvale, NY
in 1978, the Kemper Memorial
Arena in Kansas City, MO in 1979,
and the Rosemont Horizon Arena in
Rosemont, IL in 1980.
2) Nationwide debate and judicial court
proceedings on the matter of delega-
tion of design responsibility by licensed
21

Figure 2: Collapsed skyways in Kansas City
Hyatt Hotel.
professional engineers to contractors.
Part of the early debate was the article,
The Hyatt Regency Decision – One
View, by Robert Rubin and Lisa
Banick in the August, 1986 issue of
The Construction Lawyer. In this article,
the authors opined that “The Hyatt
collapse should be used as impetus to
modify structural engineering prac-
tices [related to delegation of design
responsibility] in order to avert other
potential tragedies – even though it
is recognized their implementation
might not have averted the Hyatt
collapse. It is a good opportunity for
re-evaluation and remediation.” The
issue is still alive today, as discussed in
the article, Structural Design Delegation,
by David Hatem and Matthew
Tuller in the November 2009 issue of
STRUCTURE. The authors report
that “Over the last decade, national
groups representing structural engineers
have provided guidelines for provid-
ing appropriate contract language to
outline the design services included in
‘normal’ structural design, and those
that are delegated to third-parties.” One
of these organizations is the Council of
American Structural Engineers (CASE),
which developed a series of National
Practice Guidelines. This undying
attention, debate and re-evaluation was
triggered by the catastrophic failure of
two suspended walkways in the Hyatt
Regency Hotel in Kansas City, MO,
on July 17, 1981 (Figure 2), killing
114 and injuring over 216 people;
STRUCTURE magazine
and periodically fueled by catastrophes
attributed in part to inappropriate
delegation of design responsibilities.
3) Temporary ban and tighter design
and construction requirements in
some states on lift-slab construction.
This was the result of the April 23,
1987 collapse during construction
of the L’Ambiance Plaza 16-story
residential building in Bridgeport,
CT (Figure 3), in which 28 workers
Figure 4: Collapsed Berkman Plaza.
of the lift-slab construction project
were killed. The L’Ambiance Plaza
catastrophe also added fuel to the
debate on the matter of delegation
of design responsibility as a result of
the alleged deficiencies in the design
of the post-tensioned slabs that had
been delegated to the contractor.
4) Requirements for an Independent
Structural Engineering Review
(ISER), Connecticut Public Act
88-358 and 89-255, were adopted by
the Connecticut legislature in 1988
and 1989 “to assure the stability and
integrity of the primary structural
support systems” in structures exceed-
ing certain threshold limits. The most
recent documentation of the require-
ments and explanation of the review
process are in the Recommended
Guidelines for Performing an
Independent Structural Engineering
Review in the State of Connecticut,
Document SEC/CT-301-08, pre-
pared and issued by the Structural
Engineers Coalition of Connecticut
on 2008/07/08. These acts were in
response to the three major structural
failures in the State of Connecticut:
Hartford Civic Center, Mianus River
Bridge, and L’Ambiance Plaza.
5) Requirements by the State of Florida
Building Construction Standard,
Chapter 553, effective May 30, 2005,
revised April 28, 2008, of “threshold
inspection” of certain construction
activities in order to ensure structural
6) Buildings Bulletin 2009-011, dated
Figure 3: Collapsed lift-slab buildings at
L’Ambiance Plaza.
22 April 2011
component conformance of large
structures. It defines a “threshold”
building as: “Any building which is
greater than three stories or 50 feet
in height, or which has an assem-
bly occupancy classification that
exceeds 5,000 square feet in area,
and an occupant capacity of greater
than 500 persons. ” The threshold
inspection must also include a final
conformance certification by a quali-
fied Special Inspector. The Florida
Statute 553.79 provides that the
Board of Architecture and the Board
of Engineering certify individuals
as Special Inspectors, and that only
those individuals with experience in
design and construction of buildings
of these specific types and sizes of
buildings may be licensed as Special
Inspectors. This followed a number
of collapses, deaths and injuries in
the 1970s and 1980s, particularly the
Harbour Cay Condominium inci-
dent in Cocoa Beach, FL on March
27, 1981, when a five-story flat-plate
reinforced concrete building col-
lapsed as concrete was being placed
for the roof slab, killing 11 workers
and injuring 23 others. A more recent
case prior to the 2008 revision of the
Standard was that of the multi-level
reinforced concrete parking structure
at Berkman Plaza in Jacksonville, FL
(Figure 4), under construction on
December 6, 2007, where 60% of
the structure collapsed “like a stack
of pancakes”, killing one and injuring
23 others. At the time of this writing,
this project is still in litigation.
June 30, 2009, issued by the New
York City Department of Buildings
(which will soon find its way into the
NYC Building Code) with “require-
ments for using existing structures to
support the weight of concrete during
placement and the inspection proce-
dures and requirements
Figure 5: Collapsed wall adjacent to construction site.
for such concrete placement.” These
requirements have been generated
by the numerous instances of failures
of existing old building walls when
concrete walls of new buildings were
being poured against them (Figure 5).
The final trigger for the action was the
March 6, 2009 collapse of the wall
of a restaurant when workers poured
concrete against an exterior side wall
at 270 West 123rd Street in New
York City, in which eleven restaurant
customers and construction workers
were injured.
7) New Steel Erection Final Rule by the
US Department of Labor, Office of
Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), issued on January 18,
2001, effective January 18, 2002,
mandating the use of four, rather
than two, anchor bolts in structural
steel column base plates, as well
as a minimum design load and
eccentricity in Section 1926.755(a)
General requirements for erec-
tion stability of the Construction
Industry Standards. This rule was
“negotiated” as a result of numerous
construction accidents caused by the
toppling of unbraced steel columns
during erection (Figure 6).
8) New and stricter requirements by
the New York City Department of
Buildings in Section 3306.5 Submittal
documents for demolition of the NYC
Building Code, introduced in Local
Figure 6: Toppled column during erection.
STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 7: Collapsed building during demolition.
Law 57 of 2009, effective December
2, 2009. The new requirements
include that documents signed and
sealed by a registered design profes-
sional shall be submitted for the
Building Department’s review and
approval. The documents shall show
the extent, sequence, means and
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
methods of demolition, the bracing
and shoring necessary to support all
demolition operations, as well as the
description of mechanical equipment
proposed to be used, together with
calculations showing the adequacy of
the existing structure to support loads
imposed by such equipment. This
followed the July 14, 2005 complete
collapse during demolition of a one-
story building at 2633 Broadway in
New York City (Figure 7), injuring
one person, and the complete or
partial collapses of several multi-story
buildings during demolition work in
New York City.
9) Executive Order 12699 – Seismic
Safety of Federal and Federally
Assisted or Regulated New Building
Construction, dated January 5, 1990,
was issued by the President of the
United States with design require-
ments for earthquake safety of new
federal buildings, mandating that
“Each Federal agency responsible for
the design and construction of each
new Federal building shall ensure
that the building is designed and
constructed in accord with appropri-
ate seismic design and construction
standards.” “The purposes of these
requirements are to reduce risks to
the lives of occupants of buildings
owned by the Federal Government
and to persons who would be affected
by the failures of Federal build-
ings in earthquakes, to improve the
23 April 2011

Figure 8: Collapsed wood frame buildings
following the Loma Prieta earthquake.
capability of essential Federal build-
ings to function during or after an
earthquake, and to reduce earthquake
losses of public buildings, all in a
cost-effective manner.” The Order
followed the moderately large (7.1 on
the Richter Scale) October 17, 1989,
Loma Prieta, CA earthquake.
10) Addition of provisions for improved
seismic resistance requirements for
precast concrete structures, in particular
in tilt-up construction, with the inclu-
sion of Section 21.13.5 in ACI 318-08;
improvements of connection details in
steel moment-frame structures in the
1997 AISC Seismic Specifications; and
stricter requirements for wood framed
shear walls in the 2006 IBC. These pro-
visions were the result of the observed
and much-studied damages suffered by
buildings in the 1989 Loma Prieta, CA
and the 1994 Northridge, CA earth-
quakes (Figure 8). It is mentioned here
that the evaluations of damage after
nearly all significant earthquakes in the
United States are followed by re-evalu-
ation of seismic design code provisions,
and often result in the evolution of
improved practices.
11) Stricter and additional requirements
to improve the progressive collapse
resistance of cast-in-place reinforced
concrete structures by providing
Figure 9: Heavily damaged Murrah Federal Office
Building following its bombing.
STRUCTURE magazine
continuity of reinforcement, first in
the ACI 318-02 by the addition of
Section 21.2.6.1(b) for mechanical or
welded butt splices, and later in the
ACI 318-02 and -08 by increasingly
stricter and more detailed minimum
requirements in Section 7.13.2 for
continuity of reinforcement. The intent
of the changes was, as stated in the ACI
318-08 Commentary Section R7.13, to
“improve the ductility and redundancy
of structures so that in the event of
damage to a major supporting element
or an abnormal loading event, the
resulting damage may be confined to
a relatively small area and the structure
will have a better chance to maintain
overall stability.” These actions were
precipitated by the April 19, 1995
bombing of the Murrah Federal Office
Building in Oklahoma City, OK,
which resulted in heavy damage and
collapse of a large part of the building
(Figure 9).
12) Rules, regulations, local laws,
façade ordinances in a number of
cities – including Boston, Chicago,
Columbus, Detroit, Milwaukee,
Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New York,
and St. Louis – to assure public safety
against crumbling façades , falling
appendages and other hazards by
requiring and strongly enforcing
periodic inspection, maintenance
and repair of building façades. Their
developments were influenced by
local politics, economics and engi-
neering practice. (It is noted that
façade failures are often the results
of inadequate maintenance or repair
rather than of design and/or construc-
tion defects.) The façade ordinances
are mostly in response to incidents of
falling materials from buildings onto
sidewalks that had caused damage,
disruption of traffic and serious injury
(Figure 10). In particular, some of
the much-publicized incidents that
triggered the responses included those
of the 1974 falling of a façade tile and
the 1999 falling of a piece of wind-
propelled glass in Chicago that struck
and killed two people; the 1979 fall-
ing of a stone appendage that struck
and killed a college student in New
York; and the 1997 bulging and sub-
sequent partial collapse of the brick
veneer on a wall high above Madison
Avenue in New York, raining bricks
down onto the adjacent building and
onto Madison Avenue.
24 April 2011
Figure 10: Decorative pediment fallen from a
building façade in Brooklyn, NY.
13) Publication of the ASCE/SEI standard
ASCE 37-02 Design Loads for Structures
During Construction specifying design
loads on temporary structures that
provide support and access in the con-
struction process and for permanent
structures during their construction
phases. The standard was developed
starting in 1987, first published in
2002, and is now being revised in
response to the findings that many
construction failures are the result of
improper design considerations.
More to Come
At the time of this writing, a number of
failures that occurred in the past few years
have been or are being investigated, several of
which, in the author’s opinion, will precipitate
changes in codes, standards and practices.
Among them are the August 1, 2007 collapse
of the I-35W highway bridge at Minneapolis,
MN, allegedly caused by the defective design
of a steel gusset plate coupled with stockpil-
ing construction material on the structure;
the July 10, 2006 collapse of the ceiling
support structure in one of the tunnels of
the Central Artery/Tunnel in Boston, MA,
allegedly caused by a questionable design con-
cept, defective construction, and unsuitable
epoxy materials; and a rash of damages in New
York City resulting from the construction of
underpinning of existing buildings in order
to accommodate deeper basements of new
buildings on adjacent lots.▪
Some of the research for this paper
has been done by Andrea Cucchi and
Alberto Guarsie, graduate students in
the Department of Civil Engineering
and Engineering Mechanics at Columbia
University, New York. Their contribution
has been invaluable.
Park Monroe from Millennium Park (Courtesy Goettsch Partners, Inc.)
By Terry McDonald, S.E., P.E. and Homa Ghaemi, S.E., P.E.
O
ften times building owners and developers are not fully
aware of the possibilities when considering renovations
for their properties. With the help of structural engineers,
the reserve strength of the building structure can be
utilized for dramatic effects. This was the case with the Park Monroe
at 55/65 E. Monroe in Chicago, Illinois. Overlooking downtown
Chicago’s beautiful Millennium Park, the Park Monroe was renovated
from an office building to a mixed-use office and luxury condominium
building. Once dubbed a “graceless hulk” by a 2006 Chicago Tribune
article titled Edifice Wrecks, the building was transformed taking
advantage of its location and unobstructed views of Lake Michigan
and Millennium Park (Figure 1).
Built in 1972, 55/65 E Monroe is made up of 8-to10-inch thick light
weight concrete flat slabs supported by 33-inch x 33-inch interior
columns and closely spaced 12-inch x 24-inch perimeter columns. The
lateral force resisting system consists of several 12- to 16-inch thick
shear walls. The lower level of the building houses commercial space
and a 9-story, 300,000 square foot parking garage. Above the garage,
office levels extend to the roof level. The Park Monroe renovation
Figure 1: Balcony view of Lake Michigan and Millennium Park.
STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 2: The existing two-story space at the 48 th floor where the original
cooling tower was placed. This tower and supporting structure were demolished
to allow for the new 49 th floor.
consisted of converting the top ten office floors to condominium
units, which required numerous structural tasks.
New 49th Floor Structure
Originally, the south half of the 48th floor was a two-story open space
where three large cooling towers were located (Figure 2). The cooling
towers were removed to make room for an entirely new 49th floor with
10,000 square foot of space for a swimming pool, hot tub, fitness
center, and landscaped outdoor terraces. The reserve strength in the
existing structure allowed a substantial amount of load to be added
without reinforcement. The logistics of transporting construction
materials to the top of the occupied high-rise building in the heart of
Downtown Chicago were studied by the General Contractor and the
design team, and cast-in-place concrete was selected as the preferred
material. This decision was driven by the fact that use of structural
steel would have necessitated transport via the existing freight eleva-
tor. However, the limited size of the elevator would have required
numerous splices in 30-foot long steel beams.
The swimming pool which contained about 12,000 gallons of water
was framed out with cast in place concrete beams. To make the beam
to existing column connection, a concrete haunch with threaded
“U” rods and a plate washer was designed (Figure 3). To avoid the
reliance on epoxy anchorage for the sustained tension of the top steel
reinforcing bars into the existing columns the beam was assumed to
be simply supported on this haunch.
26 April 2011
 DOWEL — SEE 14/S1Ø1

CONC. BEAM — SEE

SCHEDULE FOR SIZE &
REINF.
EXIST. CONC. COL.

ROUGHEN SURFACE
TO ¼" AMPLITUDE PROVIDE 1 ½" NOTCH

PL /4 x 9x WIDTH OF
3

COL.

1"

1' - 6"
4 - 1" DIA. A36

2' - 3"
THREADED ‘U”

1' - 6"
RODS W/ NUTS &
WASHERS - HOLD
RODS 6" FROM
EDGE OF HAUNCH 6 - #7 - DRILL & EPOXY
4 - #5 TIES - DRILL & 6" 1' - Ø" INTO EXIST. CONC.
EPOXY INTO EXIST. COL. W/ 6" MIN. EMB.
CONC. COL. W/ 6"
MIN. EMB.

Figure 3: New concrete support beam below new swimming pool. Note the cast haunch and plate washer at back side of existing concrete column.

The outdoor terrace, with up to 3 feet of soil in the landscaped
areas, had a combined service load reaction of 250 kips at each slab to
existing column connection. To transfer this large load to the existing
columns, shear collars were designed which relied on a combination
of shear friction and a 1½-inch bearing around the perimeter of the
column (Figure 4, page 28).
Increasing Floor Capacities for the New Use
In an effort to increase the load carrying capacity of the 10-inch 2-way
slabs, 3-inch lightweight structural bonded overlay was utilized. This
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
occurred at several areas: 1) the north end of the 49th floor, where the
use changed from office (70 pounds per square foot) to outdoor terrace
(100 pounds per square foot); 2) the roof of the 50th floor mechanical
level where a portion was upgraded to 100 pounds per square foot for
an outdoor terrace; and, 3) the second floor office space (70 pounds
per square foot) to the tenant storage room (125 pounds per square
foot). In all of the above cases, the structural capacity was increased
effectively by taking advantage of the existing bottom steel reinforce-
ment and the additional top steel reinforcement in areas of negative
moment. This is not always the case as, often the additional weight
of the overlay or floor height restrictions eliminate this approach

Fyfe Ad-Oct 2010.indd 1 12/1/10 10:55 AM

STRUCTURE magazine 27 April 2011
 #6 C BAR @ 6" SPA. (5 EA.
to increasing capacity. As surface prepara- EXIST. COLUMN
FACE) EPOXY - GROUTED
tion was key to ensure proper bond between B W/ 3" EMBED.
NEW FLOOR
the existing 10-inch slab to the new 3-inch SLAB 1 ½" MIN.
B EXIST. 1st FLOOR SLAB
structural overlay, construction documents
and specifications dictated strict and clear
instructions to prepare the surface, based

2' - Ø "
on the guidelines by International Concrete
Repair Institute (ICRI). These guidelines A 8" A
1' - 4"
include roughening the surface, wetting the
substrate to provide a saturated surface dry ROUGHEN SURFACE
TO ¼" AMPLITUDE
(SSD) condition at the time of placement, 4 - #6
application of a neat sand cement slurry, and
proper curing procedures.

Large Openings in
Slabs and Walls 3" 6"

To provide additional outdoor space for the SECTION A - A

residents, large openings were made in the
roof slab at the north half of the 49th floor. Figure 4: Shear collar connection at new 49 floor slab to existing concrete column interface.
th

The openings, which ranged in size from 19

12"
feet by 9 feet to 19 feet by 17 feet, were stra- 5 - ½" DIA.
THREADED ROD
3½" TYP.

tegically placed to avoid column strips. The U-BAR CHIP OUT SLAB TO
ACCOMMODATE NEW
resulting unbalanced moments at columns THREADED RODS
increased the punching shear at several loca- 3" TYP. AND GROUT SOLID THREADED ROD
W/ NUT
tions. To increase the punching shear capacity
and to avoid an underside concrete shear
collar for aesthetic reasons, u-shaped rein-
forcing steel was drilled through the slab on 2-PL ¼ x3 x3 PER
U-RODS
all four sides (Figure 5). The additional steel
pushed the critical shear section away from EXIST. CONC. COL.
- SEE PLANS FOR EXIST. CONC. COL.
the column and thus increased the capacity. COL. SIZES - SEE PLANS FOR
COL. SIZES
This analysis was completed similar to shear
stud reinforcement in new construction.
The redesign and upgrade of the mechanical PLAN SECTION
systems necessitated large duct penetrations
through the existing 12- to 16-inch thick con- Figure 5: Additional shear reinforcement detail to increase the punching shear capacity due to the
crete shear walls. A finite element structural unbalanced moment created by new roof openings.
analysis model was developed to evaluate
various locations and configuration of new openings in the shear walls, In addition, the weight limit on the freight elevator resulted in 1,600
and their effect on the structure’s lateral force resisting system. The round trips for the concrete buggies alone. Needless to say, careful
mechanical engineer was provided with a list of preferred locations review of the reinforcing steel shop drawings was necessary with the
by the Structural Engineer of Record for the new openings, which high number of splices.
helped accelerate the design and coordination process and minimized By employing various methods of strengthening, the architect and
the effect of the mechanical upgrades on the structure’s lateral system. developer were given the freedom and versatility to “dream up”
One of the major challenges of this project was that it took place significant changes and deliver an exceptionally unique urban living
while 40 floors of office and retail space below were occupied. All experience. The new residents can truly live by the lake as they take
construction materials were lifted by using the freight elevator which advantage of all that Downtown Chicago business, theater and shop-
limited the length of the steel reinforcement to 12-foot long sections. ping districts can offer.▪

Acknowledgements Terry McDonald, P.E., S.E. (tmcdonald@kleinandhoffman.com)

is a senior structural engineer with Klein and Hoffman, Inc. and
Structural Engineer: Klein and Hoffman, Inc., Chicago, IL served as project manager for the adaptive reuse of 55 E. Monroe.
Developer: Glenstar Properties, LLC and Walton Street Capital, LLC
Homa Ghaemi, P.E., S.E. (hghaemi@kleinandhoffman.com) is
Architect of Record: Goettsch Partners, Chicago, IL
an Associate Principal with Klein and Hoffman, Inc. and served as
Associate Architect: Papageorge Haymes Partners, Chicago, IL
the Principal in Charge of this project.
General Contractor: Linn-Mathes, Inc., Chicago, IL

STRUCTURE magazine 28 April 2011

 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
Structural
ForenSicS
investigating structures
and their components
Inside Information Through
Real Time Dynamic
Structural Monitoring
Unique Method Allows
Engineers to “See the Unseen”
and Optimize Design
By Michael Chusid, RA, FCSI, CCS
and Steven H. Miller, CDT
Michael Chusid, RA, FCSI, CCS is
the founder and president of Chusid
Associates, a marketing and technical
consulting services firm. He can be
reached via www.chusid.com.
Steven H. Miller, CDT is an award-
winning writer and photographer and an
associate of Chusid Associates. He can be
reached via www.chusid.com.
The jetty consists of 35 sand-filled cylindrical cofferdams, or cells, each 39 feet
in diameter. The space between them is bridged by additional steel piles that
form sand-filled half-cells.
A
n unusual investigation was recently
conducted in a major European
port. A vital structure, a jetty,
was probed to assess its structural
soundness using an innovative, cutting-edge
structural health monitoring technology that
allows engineers to “see” inside a structure and
observe its performance in great detail. This
technique, called “real time dynamic struc-
tural monitoring,” uses some familiar tools
and concepts, but in an unconventional way.
Unlike other structural health monitoring sys-
tems, real time dynamic structural monitoring
records entire structural performance, not just
a measurement of the extent of movement of
individual components. Performance data are
used to derive a detailed picture of the inner
life of the structure.
This process has been termed a structuro-
cardiogram (SKG) because it detects the
inner function of the structure by sensing its
vibrational patterns, in much the same way
an electrocardiogram (EKG) reveals the func-
tion of the human heart. The data is analyzed
using sophisticated computer algorithms to
resolve it into its individual component pat-
terns. Interpretation of these patterns using
3-D computer models can determine how
the structure and its component elements are
performing, what condition led to that perfor-
mance, and whether it is stable or changing.
This approach allowed the owner to assess
conditions of the jetty that could not be seen,
30 April 2011
and measured current performance under
real-world conditions. It gave engineers useful
information about the location, nature, and
extent of potential problems, information
that could not be obtained by any other
cost-effective means. It helped the owner to
prioritize maintenance requirements; enabled
engineers to design appropriate, cost effective
solutions where they are needed; and reduced
upgrade cost estimates by 90%.
The Jetty
The lead-in jetty helps guide ships into and
out of port, sheltering them against a strong
cross-current. It is vital to the continued
operation of the port, which, in turn, is vital
to the local economy. Extending its service
life was a high priority for the owner.
The jetty, constructed in 1974, is 500
meters (1630 feet) long, built on a series of
35 cylindrical cofferdams or cells, each 12
meter (39 feet) in diameter. The cell walls
are constructed of steel sheet piles and are
filled with sand. Additional piles form arcs
from one cell to the next, presenting a more
continuous wall against the sea and creating
additional “half-cells” between the main cof-
ferdams. Large fenders are attached along the
active side of the jetty.
The reinforced concrete deck that runs across
the top of all the cells is 1meter (3.25 feet)
thick. Over the center of each cell, there is
a cut-out in the deck to allow access to the been difficult due to the inaccessibility of period. They are thus called the “resonant fre-
main sand chamber. This cut-out is separated much of the structure. quencies” of the structure. Other frequencies
from the main sand chamber by a 50-mil- The SKG senses standing waves that are gen- reflect chaotically and cancel out quickly.
limeter (2-inch) concrete cap, making the erated in the structure when it is excited. The Excitation of the structure, which induces
cut-out into a small upper chamber. The physical dimensions and material properties of the vibrations to be recorded, was supplied
upper chamber is filled with sand and capped any structural unit will tend to favor certain fre- constantly by wind and waves. Additionally,
at deck level. Beneath the concrete deck, the quencies of vibration, because their wavelengths there were two instances of ships impacting
main chamber of each cell is likewise filled fit within the dimensions of the structural unit the jetty during monitoring, lucky circum-
with sand, approximately 19 meter (62 feet) in neat, whole-number multiples. Vibrations at stances that allowed the jetty’s response to
deep. The half-cells between cofferdams are these special frequencies reflect back and forth such impacts to be recorded from different
sand-filled, too. from the ends of a structural unit in synchro- points on the structure.
The jetty is subjected to battering by both nization, reinforcing each other, allowing the
continued on next page
waves and ships. The tidal range is unusually frequency to persist or resonate for an extended
high – in excess of 12 meter (39 feet) dif-
ference between low and high tide. The RedBuilt—G
configuration of the structure makes the
C
cofferdam walls largely inaccessible to
inspection. The portions that are exposed
on the exterior of the structure are mostly
underwater or within the tidal zone. In
addition, the water is extremely silt-laden,
making it virtually opaque. 4 COLOR Pro
Under these conditions, visual inspec-
tion of the underwater sections was not is
feasible. Some steel sampling of cell walls
was done by divers. Samples were used to
assess corrosion levels. Ultrasound read-
ings were attempted as well. However, COATED Pap
the challenges of tides and visibility made
a complete assessment by this method
prohibitively expensive.

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

UNCOATED P

alue.
A New Form of Monitoring
To supplement the data they had been
able to gather underwater, the owner
engaged STRAAM Corp., New York, NY,
to assess the jetty using real time dynamic
structural monitoring. Readings were INDIGO Pres
taken during one week in September,
2010. Each cell was monitored individu-
ally for 30 minutes.
At RedBuilt™ we help you design and select the most cost-efficient engineered
Real time dynamic structural monitor- wood structural system available—saving you time, money, errors and stress.
ing uses a single sensing device – the SKG
– capable of measuring motion in three You’ll work with one highly-experienced technical representative who knows you
and your building needs, regardless of its location. Backed by a team of design
dimensions with highly sensitive accel-
technicians and licensed engineers, you’ll have the confidence of knowing that the
erometers. Readings were taken simply integrated components and accessory products specified in your structural frame
by placing the SKG on the deck of the package work together seamlessly and efficiently, speed construction and perform
jetty. It was positioned at an optimum better over the long run.
location over each cell, so response would
Unsurpassed technical and job-site support. Innovative, high performance products.
be measured across the deck, along the World-class service. Visit www.redbuilt.com or call 866.859.6757 and learn
deck and vertically. about the value of total support from RedBuilt.
This simple set-up is in sharp contrast
to traditional strain-gage monitoring
used to assess structural health. Strain
gages require more numerous instru-
ment locations and longer monitoring
periods to establish a structure’s com-
plete range of motion. Conventional
static monitoring of the jetty would have www.redbuilt.com // (866) 859-6757

STRUCTURE magazine 31 April 2011

 From Data to Decision
The SKG records all the resonant frequen-
cies produced by a structure, or portion of a
structure. That data must then be separated
into individual frequencies that can be traced
to different elements of the structure. This is
performed using proprietary algorithms coded
into specialized software.
Monitored patterns are then evaluated and
compared in several different ways. The reso-
nant frequencies are one aspect. Changes in
frequency in response to changes in amplitude
(the impact-force of the excitation) can reveal
much about structural health. Damping – the
ability of a structure to absorb energy and
resolve oscillations after impact – is also useful
in tracing structural response.
The measured response patterns can be com-
pared with a huge database of patterns from
other structures, to enhance understanding
of their meaning. The database was collected Steel piles form the cylindrical cofferdams. Between the cofferdams are additional arcs of steel piles, making
over a period of 30 years by one of STRAAM’s much of the cofferdam piles inaccessible.
three founders, Dr. Alan Jeary, a global expert
on structure instrumentation and diagnosis.
Many different types of information were
To utilize the data from the jetty readings,
derived from this data. For example, using
Cost Effectiveness
two computer models were built. A finite
the measured responses of selected cells in Monitoring data was used to generate assess-
element (FE) model of a single cell was made
conjunction with steel sampling data from ments of each cell. The engineer used these
to analyze the individual performance of each
those cells, they were able to determine assessments as a tool in their analysis, to
cell. A global matrix model of the entire struc-
the effect of steel thickness on vibrational confirm the safe stability of the lead-in
ture allowed the STRAAM team to model the
response. They could also differentiate a jetty, and to determine its residual design
behavior of the jetty as a whole, and determine
steel-like response from a soils-like response, life. It is estimated that they will be able to
the effects of any individual cell’s behavior on
indicating the relative participation of sand cost-effectively extend the life of the jetty
the entire jetty.
or steel in resisting loading. by 20-30 years.
In addition to assessing the condition of each “Using real time dynamic structural moni-
cell, they were able to show that the cells were toring,” explains STRAAM chairman Charles
well isolated from each other structurally, and H. Thornton, Ph.D., P.E., “we could see the
the behavior of one had little influence on the exact condition of the jetty. That allowed the
response of the rest of the jetty. engineer of record to eliminate unneeded
The most relevant indicator of a cell’s repairs, and prioritize areas that were eligible
structural health was damping. In this case, for upgrading. The owner could do what was
however, the meaning of damping was the needed in a highly cost-effective manner with
opposite of usual. minimal disruption of operations.”
In most above-ground structures, low damp- Previous estimates for preserving the jetty had
ing values, with oscillations continuing to been made in the absence of complete data, so
resonate for longer periods of time, mean they were based on very conservative assump-
that a structure is responding more like a tions. Potential upgrade costs approached
single element that is structurally cohesive. $24,000,000. Prioritization, based on real time
High damping values indicate that energy is dynamic structural monitoring data, lowered
being dissipated within the structural system, the cost estimates to under $2,400,000, 90%
and that dissipation is often taking place in less than original estimates.
structural connections that are being pulled As work began on the jetty, the conditions
apart bit by bit. of the first cells that were opened proved
In the case of the jetty, however, the desired to be exactly as predicted using real time
response is for the sand fill to absorb and dynamic structural monitoring. As of this
This cross-sectional drawing shows the cell
dissipate most of the impact energy, a high writing, work is on-going and confidence
configuration. The 1 meter concrete deck has a
cut-out in the center to allow access to the main
damping response. Low damping would be an is high.▪
chamber. The cut-out is separated from the main indication that the sand fill was not absorbing
chamber by a 2 inch concrete cap, and capped on energy optimally.
top flush with the deck. Both the main chamber Photos courtesy of STRAAM Corp.
and the small upper chamber are filled with sand.

STRUCTURE magazine 32 April 2011

Intelligent
Structural Design

With RAM™, STAAD® and

Model, Analyze, Design, Document Documentation Center, Bentley
offers proven applications for:
and Deliver…in an Integrated Workflow l Steel/Steel Composite
l Reinforced Concrete
Having all the applications you need for the tasks at hand, along with the ability
l Wood and Wood Products
to easily synchronize your work with the rest of the project information, helps
you get your job done right, fast and profitably. And when the structural project l Foundation Design
workflow can be integrated, the whole team benefits. l Post-Tensioned Design
l Steel Connections
Bentley’s new Passport Subscriptions for structural engineers provide access to l Structural Drawings and Details
the full range of structural software (including upgrades) and training documents
and information that most projects require. These options are available as an … all easily coordinated with the
affordable alternative to traditional licensing. Architect and other team members and
their design applications – such as
Contact us to learn more. AutoCAD, Revit, MicroStation® and more.

www.Bentley.com/Structural
© 2010 Bentley Systems, Incorporated. Bentley, the “B” Bentley logo, MicroStation, RAM, and STAAD are either registered or unregistered trademarks
or service marks of Bentley Systems, Incorporated or one of its direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries. Other brands and product names are
trademarks of their respective owners.
LegaL PersPectives
The Structural Engineer’s Risks During
the Construction Phase of a Project
By David J. Hatem, PC and David H. Corkum
T
he majority of design errors that
result in claims against structural
engineers are detected, analyzed
and resolved during the construc-
tion phase of the project. In addition to the
risk of a failure due to a deficient design, there
is the potential for the construction contractor
to suffer economic losses because of the error,
and finally, the ever present risk of personal
injury or property damage claims that can
and do expose the design professional to sig-
nificant potential liability. As with all other
aspects of a structural engineers’ engagement
on a project, your duties, rights, and respon-
sibilities will be defined by your agreement
with your client. In most circumstances, the
structural engineer functions as a subconsul-
tant to an architect or lead designer who is
either in contractual privity with the owner
on a design-bid-build arrangement or with the
constructor on a design-build project. Your
client’s and your client’s client expectations
regarding the scope of services provided may
vary under the two procurement models. Your
risks during the construction phase, however,
remain essentially the same.
The Claims
Claims for economic losses typically originate
with the contractor alleging a defect in design
has somehow caused him to expend more
money than would have been the case without
the defect. Under a design-bid-build procure-
ment model, the so-called Spearin Doctrine
provides that if a contractor is bound to
explicitly follow the drawings and specifi-
cations, and doing so does not result in a
satisfactory product or result, then the owner
must reimburse the contractor for its addi-
tional costs to obtain the satisfactory results.
Faced with a claim from its contractor, the
owner will often turn to its designer and seek
indemnification for any loss it incurs because
of the design defect. The owner’s rationale for
this demand for indemnification is a simple
one: “but-for the error in your contract docu-
ments, I would not have incurred this cost;
accordingly, you should reimburse me for
that additional payment to my contractor.”
STRUCTURE magazine
discussion of legal issues of interest to structural engineers
Unlike the owner’s Spearin obligation to the
contractor, however, the designer does not –
under normal circumstances – owe the owner
perfect plans and specifications. Rather, the
designer is expected to perform its services
including the development of drawings and
specifications using reasonable care, a standard
that allows for certain errors under certain cir-
cumstances. Similarly, in nearly all jurisdictions
the owner will not be able to recover from its
design professional for the cost of items omit-
ted from the design documents. This so-called
rule of betterments or added value recognizes
that if the omitted item had been included in
the original design, then the owner would have
paid for it as a part of the contractor’s bid. The
rule seeks to preclude the owner from being
put in a better position than it would have
been in the absence of the omission from the
contract documents.
Personal injury and property damage claims
can come from anyone who has been hurt or
damaged as a result of your services. These
claims against structural engineers are often
the result of very attenuated contacts with the
actual event that gave rise to the injury. They
are often also accompanied by unwelcome and
potentially harmful publicity. Personal injury
and property damage claims are more difficult
to defend than purely economic claims. No
one expects a crane to fall on their build-
ing. No one expects that a worker should get
hurt on the job or that a passer-by should be
injured while minding his or her own busi-
ness in the vicinity of a construction project.
Conventional wisdom holds that juries in
these types of litigation are more interested
in compensating the injured than protecting
the rights of the design professional.
The Services Giving
Rise to Claims
The structural engineer provides three essential
services during the construction administra-
tion phase of the project that may give rise
to claims for defective service.
The structural engineer reviews and acts
upon shop drawings that represent the “flesh-
ing out” of the design. Here, the contractor
34 April 2011
has been allowed a degree of flexibility to
select products or means and methods that it
believes it can most efficiently and effectively
incorporate into the project. Shop drawings
are also required for delegated design aspects
of the project such as curtain wall connec-
tions, where the contract documents require
the contractor to retain its own professional
engineer to design some certain aspect of the
project. In the former case, the structural engi-
neer’s role is to review for compliance with
the intent of the design and ensure the owner
that if the contractor complies with the details
provided in the shop drawings then that ele-
ment of the project will be satisfactory. With
delegated design, the structural engineer can
rely on the contractor’s selected professional
engineer’s seal as evidence that the design
complies with the criteria provided by the
structural engineer. Delays in the review of,
or contractor dissatisfaction with, the sub-
stance of the review can result in an economic
claim. Allowing a product or techniques that
the owner later finds unsatisfactory can also
result in a claim.
Requests For Information (“RFIs”) are the
contractor’s opportunity to seek clarification
or ask questions about specific aspects of the
contract documents. When properly admin-
istered and executed, the RFI process allows
inconsistencies and conflicts in the drawings
and specifications to be detected and cor-
rected prior to encountering the problem
during construction. Unfortunately, some
contractors seem to make a game of the
RFI process with the aim of discrediting
the design in order to bolster a Spearin type
claim against the owner.
 Finally, the structural engineer will visit
the project during construction and make
observations at critical times during the execu-
tion of construction. The purpose of these
observations is to confirm that the contrac-
tor has properly interpreted the design, that
the designer’s assumptions were reasonable,
and to generally guard against defects that
might negatively impact the final constructed
structure. Both contractor and owner often
seem to believe that this service is meant to
be more comprehensive.
Practice Tips
The most powerful tool you have available to
manage risks during the construction phase of
the project is a well drafted contract contain-
ing certain, clearly articulated, provisions. Of
primary importance is the acknowledgement
that you will perform your services in accor-
dance with the professional standard of care.
Notwithstanding any puffery or bravado that
may have accompanied your marketing efforts
to secure the engagement, do not agree to
anything other than the applicable standard
of care. Any promises or warranties that the
completed project will perform in accordance
with a certain criteria or that the owner will
be satisfied with the final project should be
scrubbed from the agreement as they can be
construed as your acceptance of heightened
standard of care.
Indemnities are an important topic in the
design and construction industry, and will be
treated in depth in a future article. You will
undoubtly be expected to indemnify your
client and the owner for any losses they incur
as a result of your negligence. You should
avoid broad form indemnifications where you
agree to indemnify your client and owner for
“any and all claims arising out of the project
or services”. You should also expect to enjoy
the benefit of an indemnification by the con-
struction contractor for losses you incur as a
result of personal injury or property damages
that occurred during construction.
A limitation of liability provision, often
difficult to negotiate into a contract and pro-
hibited on most publicly procured projects,
can, if properly drafted, save your firm from
ruin in the face of catastrophic claim. If a
limitation of liability is unacceptable to your
client, then consider provisions that limit
the types of damages for which they may
recover. A waiver of consequential damages,
for example, can eliminate your liability for
lost profits or lost revenues associated with
an otherwise meritorious claim against you.
STRUCTURE magazine
You should also carefully analyze the general
conditions of the owner’s contract with its
construction contractor. Assure yourself that
the construction phase services the owner is
telling the contractor to expect is consistent
with what you have contracted with the owner
to perform. Obviously, this pertains to both
scope of services items and delegated design
items, as well as your authority on the project
and time within which you will respond to
contractor submittals and RFIs. This analy-
sis is greatly simplified if the owner is using
standard form documents such as AIA, CASE
or EJCDC, where terminology and allocation
of duties are carefully coordinated.
With respect to RFIs, your best defense
against a contractor attempting to position
itself for a delay claim arising out of a defec-
tive design allegation is to answer the RFIs
quickly and carefully by pointing back to the
drawings and specifications where the infor-
mation is already available. Advise the owner
only after you have established a pattern of
apparent abuse of the process. Correcting
the contractor’s abusive behavior will take a
joint owner/designer effort. That additional
effort on your part should not go unnoticed
by your client.
Responding to RFIs or shop drawings that
expose an error in your design can be the most
challenging. While your natural tendency
may be to try and mitigate the consequences
without admitting the error, this can back-
fire. The facts and circumstances of the error
will dictate the appropriate response, but the
seriousness of that response should never be
underestimated. The reputation of your firm
can be made or lost based upon how you
respond to your own errors. Your client should
expect certain errors in your work product;
they will also expect a professional response
and correction of those errors. The person
taking the lead in acknowledging the error
and formulating the response should be
someone with management authority
who has the power and ability to muster
the resources required to formulate the
response and to bind the firm to any agree-
ments reached.
Your observations during the course of
construction are meant to be for your and
your client’s benefit. It is an opportunity
to confirm design assumptions and assure
yourself that the work is properly progress-
ing. It is also an opportunity to fulfill your
duty to your client to endeavor to guard
against potential defects in the finished
product. It is not for the benefit of the
contactor, and you are not there to inspect
35 April 2011
or approve his partially completed work. You
should compile a series of site observation
reports documenting each site visit and attest-
ing to construction progress and elements of
the partially completed project that were wit-
nessed. In the event you notice a safety concern
during one of these site visits, call it to the
attention of the contractor’s superintendant
immediately. While you have no power to cor-
rect the situation, you should not ignore or fail
to warn of a situation where you could pre-
vent injury or damage. In some cases, written
follow-up of that safety concern is appropriate.
A final word is about relationships. The
industry is notoriously litigious. Contractors
are taking on work with very slim profit mar-
gins, and simply cannot afford to allow a
project to go bad. Owners, particularly pubic
owners, are being called upon to manage their
budgets more tightly and hold their design-
ers and contractors accountable. Designers
are being driven by competition to provide
and perform their services more efficiently
with leaner staffs then ever before. Despite
this economic pressure, you generally do not
sue your friends. Developing an honest and
sincere relationship with your counterparts on
the project, and being able to discuss disagree-
ments in a professional manner may be the
most effective claims and mitigation strategy
you can employ.▪
David J. Hatem, PC is the founding Partner
of the multi-practice law firm Donovan
Hatem LLP. He leads the firm’s Professional
Practice Group. Mr. Hatem can be reached at
dhatem@donovanhatem.com.
David H. Corkum is a Partner in the
Professional Practices Group at Donovan
Hatem LLP. Mr. Corkum can be reached
at dcorkum@donovanhatem.com.
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
Product Watch
Building Code Compliance of Structural Concrete
with Lightweight Synthetic Particles
By Mahmut Ekenel, Ph.D., P.E.
M
anufacturers are constantly
trying to develop new con-
struction materials that may
enable them to produce
structural systems that are less labor-
intensive, more environmentally friendly,
or easier to construct. One of these inno-
vations is an alternative material used to
produce reduced-density concrete. In recent
years, strength-to-weight ratio of concrete
has been of interest to manufacturers, since
dead weight represents a very large portion
of the design load in concrete construction.
Higher strength-to-weight ratio of con-
crete used in the construction may result
in structural efficiency, reduced dead load
of the structure, reduced project costs, and
easier transportation and handling of the
concrete. Higher strength-to-weight ratio
may even cause a reduction in the number
and size of the steel reinforcements, by
reducing the design load.
Conventionally, reduced-density concrete
can be produced by replacing normal-weight
aggregate with lightweight particles in par-
tial increments or as full replacement, or by
introducing air bubbles into concrete mix-
tures as in the cases of aerated concrete or
air-entrained concrete. Since most of these
techniques require special manufacturing
processes or equipment, new techniques
have been under investigation. One way of
producing simple and relatively inexpensive
reduced-density concrete that does not require
special equipment is to use proprietary light-
weight synthetic particles (polymer spheres) as
a partial replacement for fine or coarse aggre-
gate in the concrete mixture, as the density
of polymer spheres is nearly negligible when
compared to that of conventional aggregate.
Polymer spheres are rigid, closed-cell plastic
materials manufactured by suspension polym-
erization in water. In many cases, the polymer
spheres utilize expanded polystyrene as the
base polymer and are specially formulated and
produced to be used in concrete mixtures. The
advantages of using polymer spheres are that
they are lightweight, have negligible absorp-
tion of water, improve insulating properties,
and are inert with alkalis.
STRUCTURE magazine
updates on emerging technologies, products and services
Because there are no design provisions in ACI
318, which is referenced by the International
Building Code (IBC), for concrete mixtures
with lightweight synthetic particles as aggre-
gate replacement, an acceptance criteria has
been developed to address building code
compliance. The purpose of this acceptance
criteria is to demonstrate that lightweight
synthetic particles can be added to concrete
as a partial replacement for conventional
fine or coarse aggregate, to create a struc-
tural concrete while maintaining mechanical,
durability and fire characteristics of concrete
as defined by the building codes.
Literature Research
The first step in developing the acceptance
criteria was to conduct a literature review
to find out what has been done in regard to
reduced-weight concrete with lightweight
synthetic particles. Some of the research work
can be summarized as follows:
In research conducted by Zaher Kuhail
(2001), concrete with compressive strengths
up to 3000 psi was achieved using poly-
styrene beads as aggregate replacement
at dosages up to 1 lb/ft3. Babu and Babu
(2003) produced lightweight concrete
by using expanded polystyrene beads as
lightweight aggregate and silica fume as
supplementary cementitious material. They
reported that the chloride permeability and
corrosion resistance of these concretes, even
at a minimal silica fume content level, was
observed to be significantly improved.
Yamasaki et al. (1994) produced concrete
using polystyrene beads with a diameter
of less than 1/16 of an inch as an aggregate
having no water absorbability. When pro-
duced with low water-to-binder ratio, this
concrete showed excellent durability and
thermal insulation properties. Miled et al.
(2007) conducted research on particle size
effects on expanded polystyrene (EPS) beads
used in lightweight concrete and reported
that the compressive strength of EPS light-
weight concrete increases significantly with
a decrease in EPS bead size for the same
concrete porosity.
36 April 2011
Chen and Liu (2004) showed that EPS con-
crete with a density range of 50-115 lb/ft3 and
a compressive strength range of 1500-3600 psi
can be achieved by partially replacing coarse
and fine aggregate with EPS beads. Babu and
Babu (2004) studied the use of EPS beads as
lightweight aggregate in both concrete and
mortar containing fly ash replacement of 50
percent in the cementitious material. Their
study indicated that the EPS mixtures pro-
duced with fly ash showed lower absorption
values compared to control mixtures, and
found to have a better chemical resistance.
Bouvard et al. (2007) characterized the micro-
structural, mechanical and thermal features
of EPS concretes with various densities. They
concluded that EPS bead is a practical mate-
rial for the building industry as lightening
component of a supportive structure.
Alternative Materials
Under the Building Code
In the United States, where the power to regu-
late construction is vested in local authorities,
a system of model building codes is used.
The purpose of the model building codes is
to establish the minimum requirements to
safeguard the public health and safety through
structural strength. The IBC is the predomi-
nate model building code in the United States.
The IBC has been adopted in all 50 states, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the
U.S. Virgin Islands, and by the Departments
of Defense, State, and Commerce. The IBC
permits manufacturers to demonstrate the
code compliance of products not specifically
described in the code itself. Section 104.11 of
the IBC allows alternative materials, designs,
methods of construction and equipment,
provided that any such alternative has been
approved by the code official. One common
method of verifying the code compliance of
materials that are alternatives to the materi-
als specified in the code is through product
testing in accordance with an acceptance
criteria. An acceptance criteria outlines spe-
cific product sampling, testing and quality
requirements to be fulfilled in order to obtain
code-compliance verification (an evaluation
report). An evaluation in accordance with ASTM C 128, respectively. A series of tests is
an acceptance criteria is used to develop an also required by AC408 to determine density
Mechanical Properties
evaluation report that offers code officials and compressive strength of concrete that As required by AC408, concrete flexural
an independent resource for demonstrating is to be evaluated under AC408. Concrete strength is to be determined using ASTM
code compliance, and structural design engi- compressive strength measurement is to be in C 78, and average test results are to be equal
neers a resource for preparing a design. An accordance with ASTM C 39. ASTM C 567 to or higher than the value obtained from
evaluation report provides a description of and ASTM C 138 are used to measure the 7.5√fc , where fc is the measured compressive
the material, information regarding its uses, equilibrium concrete density and unit weight, strength of the concrete in accordance with
guidelines for the designer (including seis- respectively. These properties are measured ASTM C 39. The reason measured compres-
mic limitations), installation requirements, and reported to be used for flexural strength, sive strength (fc ) is used in the comparison, as
assembly conditions and curing guidelines for splitting tensile strength and modulus of elas- opposed to specified compressive strength (f'c)
the contractor, and special inspection require- ticity calculations. as required for design by ACI 318, is to take
ments for code officials. Tests required
by the acceptance criteria are to be done
by accredited laboratories selected by
the manufacturer. Test laboratories that
submit test results for evaluation must
be accredited by an accreditation body
in accordance with ISO 17025, and be
accredited for the specific test standards,
under consideration. The accreditation
body must also determine that the labora-
tory has a robust quality system, to assure
accuracy of reported results.

Acceptance Criteria
(AC408) Requirements
The IBC references ACI 318 for design
and production of structural concrete.
Because there are no provisions in ACI

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

318 for design and production of con-
crete mixtures with lightweight synthetic
particles as aggregate replacement, an
acceptance criteria has been developed
as a means to verify building code com-
pliance (AC408: Acceptance Criteria
for Structural Concrete with Lightweight
Synthetic Particles). The purpose of
AC408 is to demonstrate that lightweight
synthetic particles (polymer spheres) can
be added to concrete as a partial replace-
ment for conventional fine or coarse
aggregate, to create a structural concrete
that maintains mechanical, durability and
fire characteristics of concrete as defined
by the building codes.

Material Properties
AC408 gives consideration to maximum
replacement volume, and maximum size
and density of synthetic particles that will
be recognized in the evaluation report.
AC408 requires synthetic particle prop-
erties, including maximum diameter
and gradation, bulk density, and water
absorption to be tested in accordance
with ASTM C 136, ASTM C 29 and

STRUCTURE magazine 37 April 2011

 a conservative approach. Also, for evaluation
of concrete splitting tensile strength in accor-
dance with ASTM C 496, AC408 requires the
average results to be equal to or higher than
the value obtained from 6.7√fc , where fc is the
measured compressive strength. Again, using
measured compressive strength, as compared
to specified compressive strength, is consid-
ered a conservative approach. In order to
evaluate whether the addition of lightweight
synthetic particles adversely affects the con-
crete modulus of elasticity, tests are required
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURE magazine
to be conducted in accordance with ASTM C
469, with the results to be equal to or higher
than the values obtained from the ACI 318
formula: w1.5
c 33√fc , where fc is the measured
compressive strength and wc is the measured
unit weight in accordance with ASTM C 138.
Durability and
Compatibility Requirements
Comparative tests in compliance with
ASTM C 1581 are required by AC408 to be
38 April 2011
conducted to show that concrete with light-
weight synthetic particles can maintain the
same crack resistance as concrete without
lightweight synthetic particles. The accep-
tance requirement is that the average age of
cracking of specimens with lightweight syn-
thetic particles must be at least equal to that
for control specimens.
ASTM C 666 tests are used to determine
the freeze-thaw resistance of concrete with
lightweight synthetic particles, and an 80
percent durability factor is required after 300
cycles. A durability factor of 80 percent is
usually expected from high-performance
concrete samples; therefore, expecting an
80 percent durability factor from light-
weight synthetic particle utilized concrete
is considered conservative.
In order to determine whether the
addition of lightweight synthetic par-
ticles to concrete has an adverse effect
on bond strength of reinforcement,
ASTM C 234 tests are required to
be performed. Comparison tests are
done with concrete specimens having
equivalent compressive strengths. After
the tests, equivalent or better bond
strength is required from specimens
with lightweight synthetic particles, as
compared to control specimens without
lightweight synthetic particles.
Fire-resistance
and Combustibility
AC408 also contains two optional tests:
noncombustible building material eval-
uation by testing in accordance with
ASTM E 136 to show that concrete with
lightweight synthetic particles can be clas-
sified as noncombustible material; and
fire-resistance-rated construction tests
conducted in accordance with ASTM
E 119 to determine the fire-resistance
ratings of assemblies with concrete con-
taining the lightweight synthetic particles
in the concrete mixture.
Acceptance Criteria
Statements
If a product demonstrates through tests
that it satisfies all requirements of AC408,
an evaluation report is issued verifying
that the product can be used as an alterna-
tive to building code-specified materials.
However, evaluation with AC408 of con-
crete produced using polymer spheres,
to show building code compliance, also leads
to the following in the evaluation report:
1) Evaluation reports must state the
maximum replacement amount of the
lightweight synthetic particles that
was utilized during the qualification
tests, along with particle density and
maximum water absorption values.
2) To maintain product consistency,
AC408 requires third-party follow-up
inspections by an approved inspec-
tion agency for the manufacture of
the lightweight synthetic particles.
This is required so that the manu-
facturer will continue to produce
the same product used during the
qualification tests.
3) Concrete quality must comply with
Section 1905 of the IBC.
4) Plain or reinforced concrete systems
must be designed in accordance with
the provisions of Chapter 16 and 19
of the IBC, and ACI 318. However,
for structural design purposes, con-
crete containing lightweight synthetic
particles must be considered as
structural lightweight concrete. This
requires use of ACI 318 parameters
and design coefficients specified
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURE magazine
for structural lightweight concrete.
Because the density of concrete
produced using lightweight synthetic
particles as aggregate replacement
may vary, implementing lightweight
concrete coefficients and parameters
is considered to be a conservative
approach for design of reduced-
weight concrete with synthetic
lightweight particles.
5) In addition to the items noted in
Section 16.1 of ASTM C 94, the
delivery ticket from the ready-mix
plant must include the type and
amount of lightweight synthetic par-
ticles added to the concrete mixture.
6) Because of the presence of com-
pressible EPS beads in the concrete
mixture, the creep of the concrete was
of concern. Therefore, for applica-
tions where computed deflections
contain long-term deflections due to
sustained loads, creep effects based on
creep test results must be considered
in design, which must be submitted
to the code official for approval.
7) Chloride content of EPS beads was
of concern for corrosion of reinforce-
ment. Therefore, the evaluation
39
report holder must disclose to the
registered design professional the
amount of water-soluble chloride
in the synthetic particles for each
project, which must be checked for
maximum allowable amount permit-
ted by the codes.
8) When supported by the results of an
investigation, the evaluation report
must state the need for special or
modified tests to measure the proper-
ties of fresh concrete. This is required
in the criteria because of the light-
weight nature of synthetic particles.▪
Mahmut Ekenel, Ph.D., P.E. is a staff
engineer with ICC Evaluation Service,
LLC. He is responsible for developing
acceptance criteria and issuing evaluation
reports on structural concrete products.
He is a member of ACI 544 and 440
committees. He can be reached at
mekenel@icc-es.org.
The online version of this article
contains references. Please visit
www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
April 2011
Great achievements
Theodore Cooper
By Frank Griggs, Jr., Ph.D., P.E., P.L.S.
T
heodore Cooper was born on
January 13, 1839 in Cooper’s
Plain, New York. He prepared for
college by going back to Easton,
Pennsylvania (his mother’s hometown) and
studying at John Vanderveer’s Academy. In
1855, he entered Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute. Graduating in 1858, he went to
work on the Hoosac Tunnel and the Troy and
Greenfield Railroad. He entered the Navy at
the outbreak of the Civil War and served on the
gunboat, Chocura, throughout most of the War.
After the war, he split his time between being an
instructor at the Naval Academy at Annapolis,
Maryland and served on naval ships.
In 1872, Cooper resigned from the Navy and
went to work for James Eads on the St. Louis
Bridge. After serving as inspector at the plant
making the steel and later for the firm fab-
ricating the steel, he was placed in charge of
construction of the bridge. Eads was away for
long periods of time seeking funding for the
bridge and regaining his strength after several
illnesses. Cooper, along with Henry Flad, C.
Shaler Smith, Jacob Hays Linville and Walter
Katte of the Keystone Bridge Company, was
given a great deal of responsibility for the
actual process of cantilevering the steel arch
pieces out over the river.
After completion of the bridge, Cooper
became its chief engineer before going to the
Delaware Bridge Company at Phillipsburg,
New Jersey to work with Charles Macdonald.
He then went to work for the Keystone Bridge
Company under Jacob Hays Linville.
By 1879, Cooper had established himself
to such a degree that he became a consulting
engineer with offices in New York City. In
this capacity, he consulted on many major
bridge structures throughout the northeast.
These were the Seekonk Bridge in Providence,
Rhode Island, the Sixth Avenue Bridge across
the Allegheny River in Pittsburgh, the Second
Avenue Bridge across the Harlem River in
New York City, the Newburyport Bridge
over the Merrimack River in Massachusetts
and the Junction Bridge across the Allegheny
River. The Sixth Avenue Bridge replaced John
A. Roebling’s twin span suspension bridge
built in 1859, which in turn replaced Lewis
Wernwag’s wooden bridge. It was a two span
bridge with bowstring trusses spanning 439
feet 3 inches. It was built in 1893 around
STRUCTURE magazine
notable structural engineers
the existing bridge by the Union Bridge
Company. It was removed in 1927 and rebuilt
at Coraopolis, Pennsylvania.
In 1884, Theodore published his “General
Specifications for Iron Railroad Bridges
and Viaducts” forming, in the words of the
Engineering News-Record, the “first authorita-
tive specifications on bridge construction that
had been published and circulated.” While he
contributed many articles to the Transactions
ASCE, his two most well received articles, for
which he received the Norman Medal, were
those entitled The Use of Steel for Bridges in
1879 and American Railroad Bridges in 1889.
In 1895, he was appointed a member of a
Board of Consultants by President Cleveland
to determine what the span for a bridge across
the Hudson River should be to maintain river
traffic. Charles Macdonald of the Union
Bridge Company had proposed a 2,400-foot
span cantilever. Cooper, as a member of the
Board, prepared a design for a 3,100-foot
suspension bridge for estimating purposes.
The Board rejected the cantilever proposal of
Union Bridge due to its having a pier in the
river. Union Bridge later prepared plans for
a 3,100-foot span suspension bridge much
like Cooper’s design, but the bridge was not
built due to lack of funding.
In 1899, Cooper was at the pinnacle of a
long and successful career at the age of 60.
If he retired at that point, he would rank
among his contemporaries as one of the great
engineers of the latter part of the 19th cen-
tury. However, he became associated with a
proposal to build a large bridge across the St.
Lawrence at Quebec. He was first approached
by the Quebec Bridge Company to serve as
consulting engineer to review the plans that
were submitted. They used an earlier Phoenix
Bridge cantilever design as a base plan, but
indicated they would entertain other designs.
They received proposals from four of the larg-
est bridge companies. They were the Phoenix
Bridge Company, the Dominion Bridge
Company, the Keystone Bridge Company
and the Union Bridge Company.
Cooper reported on June 30, 1899, determin-
ing “The Phoenix plan was slightly lower in
estimated cost” and he thought it “an exceed-
ingly creditable plan from the point of view of its
general proportions, outlines and its constructive
features” and it was the “best and cheapest plan
and proposal of those submitted to me...”
He was then asked to follow up on the sug-
gestion made earlier that a 1,800-foot span
might be more economical, given the better
foundation sites that would be associated with
40 April 2011
a span of this length.
He reported on May
1, 1900 “after a care-
ful consideration of
all the conditions by
your chief engineer,
Mr. E.A. Hoare, and Theodore Cooper.
myself, it was decided
that an 1,800-foot channel span was most
desirable if the expense was not too great.”
Within a week of submitting his report and
having it accepted, he was appointed con-
sulting engineer to oversee the final design
and construction of the longest cantilever
bridge in the world. Work on the founda-
tions started late in 1899. During mid-1900
to mid-1903, some work continued on the
design and details of the anchor and canti-
lever spans, but funding problems delayed
actual work until 1905.
Government financial support on the
Quebec Bridge was not received until 1903,
at which time a final contract was signed with
the Phoenix Bridge Company. Cooper made
several changes to the specifications that later
would be partly responsible for the bridge
failure. The first was a reduction in wind load
from 56 to 30 pounds per square foot. In
addition, he recommended an increase in
rolling loads and an increase in allowable
working stresses in the members to 20,000
pounds per square inch under a Cooper E-30
loading and 24,000 pounds per square inch
under a Cooper E-50 loading over the entire
length of the bridge.
The Phoenix Bridge Company designed the
bridge in accordance with Cooper’s revised
specifications, and fabrication and construc-
tion of the superstructure began. In June 1907,
Szlapka of the Phoenix Bridge Company
reported to Cooper that the weight of steel
delivered to the site was much higher than was
used for dead weight in the design. It turned
out that Szlapka used dead weight estimates
from the earlier 1,600-foot span design and had
not updated them for the 1,800-foot span. He
reported the total assumed weight for the entire
bridge was low by 7.5 million pounds, and the
weight of half the suspended span plus the
cantilever arm was 3.5 million pounds higher
than the 18 million pounds assumed. This was
a major mistake and should have caused much
greater alarm than it did. Cooper rationalized
it by saying that the error only increased the
stresses by 7 to 10%, and that was still accept-
able. The Board accepted Cooper’s opinion,
and work continued. With this error, the fate
of the bridge was probably already decided.
Within two months the bridge would not be
not over the St. Lawrence River, but in it.
The effect of larger dead weight than assumed,
and a lack of thorough understanding of design
of large compression members built up of angles,
plates and latticing, created visible problems
starting in early August 1907 when the sus-
pended span was under construction. Buckling,
or small scale bending, of the lower chord plates
near the pier was observed. Through a series of
telegrams between the site, Cooper’s office and
Phoenixville, it was clear that few thought the
bridge was in danger of failure. On August 29,
1908 the bridge failed, killing 75 men.
A Royal Commission appointed to inves-
tigate the failure interviewed Cooper
extensively, and one of Cooper’s comments
stood out. He testified, “I had and have
implicit confidence in the honesty and abil-
ity of Mr. Szlapka, the designing engineer
of the Phoenix Bridge Co., and when I was
unable to give matters the careful study that
it was my duty to give them, I accepted the
work to some extent upon my faith in Mr.
Szlapka’s ability and probity.”
Two of the Royal Commission’s conclu-
sions were:
e. The failure cannot be attributed directly to
any cause other than errors in judgment on the
part of these two engineers. (Cooper and Henry
Szlapka of the Phoenix Bridge Company)
f. These errors of judgment cannot be
attributed either to lack of common pro-
fessional knowledge, to neglect of duty, or
to a desire to economize. The ability of the
two engineers was tried in one of the most
difficult professional problems of the day
and proved to be insufficient for the task.
The Engineering Record wrote:
It is seldom that the responsible engineer for
for the discharge of the duties imposed upon him
in his official capacity... When he accepted the
fee, he accepted all of the responsibilities of the
position. No engineer has any right whatever to
consider his responsibilities lessened because his fee
is not as large as it should be... The failure of the
Quebec bridge reflects in no way whatever upon
the American engineering profession; it simply
shows that the exactions of responsibility unfortu-
nately make no compromise with the disabilities
of age and ill health, even when combined with
a meager compensation.
With this report of the Royal Commission
and the sentiment expressed by the
Engineering Record, Theodore Cooper retired
from the active ranks of consulting engineers.
He died on August 24, 1912, approximately
five years after the collapse of the bridge that
was supposed to be the capstone of his profes-
sional career. His memoir in the Transactions
ASCE did not mention his role in the Quebec
Bridge Disaster. The announcement of his
death in the New York Times was headlined,
“THEODORE COOPER, ENGINEER,
DIES AT 81; Builder of Great Bridges and
Assistant on First Manhattan Elevated.
FORESAW QUEBEC DISASTER–His
Warning Message Would Have Saved Lives—
Helped Captain Eads on St. Louis Span.”
While this series commemorates the great
works of bridge engineers of the 19th and early
20th century, it is important to learn lessons
from experiences of some of the failures that
happened in the same period. Cooper was
aware during the construction process that he
was not able to give the project the attention
it needed, and tried to resign. His resignation
was not accepted, so he remained Consulting
Engineer while relying more and more on the
Phoenix Bridge Company to make sure the
design, fabrication and erection of the bridge
was safe. Theodore Cooper was a great engi-
neer, who due to age and infirmity, failed in
his responsibility to protect the public health
and safety. His bridge collapsed, and the repu-
tation of the entire profession was tarnished
in the eyes of the public.▪
Dr. Griggs specializes in the restoration of
historic bridges, having restored many 19th
Century cast and wrought iron bridges.
He was formerly Director of Historic
Bridge Programs for Clough, Harbour
& Associates LLP in Albany, NY, and is
now an independent Consulting Engineer.
Dr. Griggs can be reached via email at
fgriggs@nycap.rr.com.

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

any work great or small has more authori-
tatively or more effectively impressed his
engineering judgment upon the work in his
charge than in this case... Perhaps the most
painful part of the evidence is that in which
the Consulting Engineer makes the plea of
impaired health for not exacting from both
the contractor and the Quebec Bridge Co.
certain requirements of design and plans in
the one case, and the necessary organization
for the proper performance of the work on the
other. Unfortunately, such pleas are admis-
sions of official shortcoming: however much a
man may feel the disability of ill health, they
give him no relief from official responsibility.
There is one only clear way by which he can
divest himself of the responsibilities of official
position and that is by a formal withdrawal
from it... The Consulting Engineer makes
a further point in his evidence that the fee
he received was quite insufficient to enable
him to maintain a proper office work force

STRUCTURE magazine 41 April 2011

ENGINEERED WOOD PRODUCTS GUIDE
Associations
APA
Phone: 253-565-6600
Email: marilyn.lemoine@apawood.org
Web: www.apawood.org
Description: APA is the leading resource for
product and design information related to
structural wood panels, glulam, I-joists, and
structural composite lumber.
Canadian Wood Council
Phone: 613-747-5544
Email: info@csc.ca
Web: www.cwc.ca
Description: CWC is the national association
representing manufacturers of Canadian wood products
used in construction. Through its member Associations,
the Council represents those manufacturers.
Connectors
Simpson Strong-Tie
Phone: 925-999-5099
Email: web@strongtie.com
Web: www.strongtie.com
Product: TSBR Truss Spacer-Restraint
Description: For wood and CFS framing, the new
TSBR Spacer Restraint reduces time and material cost
while satisfying the prescriptive recommendations of
the WTCA/TPI BCSI. Featuring an easier minimum
nailing option, the TSBR captures the on-center truss
spacing and alignment and remains in place to be
sheathed over.
Zone Four
Phone: 951-245-5140
Email: rlofranco@zonefour.com
Web: www.zonefour.com
Product: Z4 Continuous Tie-Down Solution
Description: Z4 is now part of the Hardy Frame
family of products. Z4 features the Quick-
Connect system which is the most economical
and comprehensive continuous tie-down solution
utilizing the patented Cinch Nut design. The Z4
Quick-Connect system has unparalleled performance
and reliability and is simple to install.
Engineered Lumber
Anthony Forest Products Company
Phone: 870-862-3414
Email: info@anthonyforest.com
Web: www.anthonyforest.com
Product: Power Beam and Power Preserved, Glulam
Beams™, and Columns™
Description: Power Beam – Automatic substitute for
PSL and LVL. Stock Power Preserved Glulam Beams
and Columns – treated with Hoover Cop-Guard and
Cop-8 and covered by a 25 year warranty.
STRUCTURE magazine
a definitive listing of wood product manufacturers and their product lines
iLevel by Weyerhaeuser
Phone: 888-453-8358
Email: iLevel@weyerhaeuser.com
Web: www.iLevel.com
Product: Parallam® PSL
Description: Parallam PSL from iLevel provides
predictable performance and its superior strength
makes longer clear spans possible. Ideal for multi-
family and light commercial applications, Parallam
PSL offers design flexibility, easier installation, and
lower overall installed cost. Other iLevel® products
include Trus Joist® TimberStrand® LSL, Microllam®
LVL and iLevel Shear Brace.
RedBuilt™
Phone: 866-859-6757
Email: brianh@stoltzgroup.com
Web: www.redbuilt.com
Product: Open-Web Trusses and Red-I™ Joists
Description: Open-Web trusses provide architectural
freedom for commercial and light-industrial
applications and offer high strength-to-weight ratios
and long span capabilities that allow you to design and
build large, open spaces over 100 feet wide. Red-I Joists
offer uniform, predictable strength and consistency that
makes them an integral part of floors, ceilings and roofs
in commercial applications. Series includes a wide range
of sizes and depths in lengths up to 80 feet.
TrimJoist Corporation
Phone: 800-844-8281
Email: marty.hawkins@trimjoist.com
Web: www.trimjoist.com
Product: TrimJoist
Description: TrimJoist is the combination of an
open web floor truss and a wood “I” joist, bring both
together to form a trimmable floor truss.
Wood Structural Panels
Hardy Frame Shear Wall System
Phone: 805-477-0793
Email: kathy.ellis@mii.com
Web: www.hardyframe.com
Product: Hardy Frame Shear Wall System
Description: Hardy Frames manufactures and
markets the revolutionary Hardy Frame shear wall
system which includes pre-fabricated shear wall panels
and moments frames. The Hardy Frame system
allows Building Designers to economically and safely
minimize wall space and maximize wall openings
while resisting high wind and earthquake loads.
Premier Building Systems
Phone: 800-275-7086
Email: info@pbssips.com
Web: www.pbssips.com
Product: Premier SIPs
Description: Premier Structural Insulated Panels
(SIPs) by Insulfoam are an advanced building
alternative to stick-built framing and other methods.
The large-size panels help create a tight, well-insulated
building envelope and reduce thermal bridging for
superior energy performance in a range of residential,
commercial and institutional structural applications.
42 April 2011
Software
Bentley Systems
Phone: 800-236-8539
Email: structural@bentley.com
Web: www.bentley.com
Product: Structural Modeler V8i
Description: Bentley Structural Modeler V8i provides
comprehensive documentation and building information
modeling (BIM) serving the needs of structural engineers,
designers and BIM practitioners through accurate
document generation and integrated project delivery.
IES, Inc.
Phone: 800-707-0816
Email: sales@iesweb.com
Web: www.iesweb.com
Product: VisualAnalysis
Description: IES VisualAnalysis automates the design
of steel, wood, concrete, aluminum, and cold-formed
beams, columns, and framing for anything from
simple members to complete, complex structures.
A modern and intuitive user interface simplifies
modeling, analysis, design, and reporting.
RISA Technologies
Phone: 949-951-5815
Email: info@risatech.com
Web: www.risa.com
Product: RISAFloor
Description: RISAFloor and RISA-3D form the
premiere software package for wood design. Create 3D
models of your entire structure and get full design of
wood walls (with and without openings), flexible wood
diaphragms, dimension lumber, glulams, parallams,
LVL’s, joists and more. Custom databases for species,
hold-downs and panel nailing offer total flexibility.
Structural Soft, LLC
Phone: 650-813-9500
Email: contact@structuralsoft.com
Web: www.structuralsoft.com
Product: BuildingWorx 2011
Description: The most comprehensive whole house
structural design platform in the market specifically
for wood construction. Allows both gravity and
lateral systems design as complete load path in a
single model. Import CAD architectural plans,
export complete calculations, engineering layouts and
schedules to CAD or PDF.
WoodWorks Software
Phone: 800-844-1275
Email: sales@woodworks-software.com
Web: www.woodworks-software.com
Product: Design Office 9 Suite
Description: WoodWorks® – produced by the
Canadian Wood Council with technical guidance
from the American Wood Council of the American
Forest & Paper Association. Quickly design
light-frame or heavy timber structures based on
2005 edition of the AF&PA’s National Design
Specification® (NDS®) for Wood Construction.
All Resource Guides and Updates for the 2011
Editorial Calendar are now available on the website,
www.STRUCTUREmag.org. Listings are provided
as a courtesy. STRUCTURE® magazine is not
responsible for errors.

Fox Oakland Theater Renovation & Seismic Retrofit
By Hratch Kouyoumdjian, S.E., LEED AP
The KPA Group was an Award Winner for the Fox Oakland Theater Seismic Retrofit project in the
2010 NCSEA Annual Excellence in Structural Engineering awards program (Category – Forensic/
Renovation/Retrofit/Rehabilitation Structures)
T
he successful completion of an
$87 Million Seismic Retrofit and
Renovation of the Historic Fox
Oakland Theater revitalized the
“Uptown” district of Oakland, where it attracts
large audiences for every event.
The 3,400 seat theater opened in 1928, but
was closed in 1966 and remained boarded up
until 2009 when it reopened after an extensive
seismic retrofit and complete restoration to its
original splendor as a Performing Arts Theater
and home to The Oakland School for the Arts.
As originally constructed, gold paint and other
multicolored accents were lavishly applied on
many parts of the theater giving the entire faci-
lity an opulent glow, enhanced by rich carpeting,
drapes, light fixtures and decorative elements
in what is often described as a “Moorish” or
“Mystical” character. All theater walls were
extensively ornamented with painted plaster
decorative elements. Ceilings incorporated large
decorative plaster elements integrated into an
intricate pattern. Massive urns, statues, balcony
rails, ramparts, and other intricate decorative
elements were created from plaster and then
positioned at various levels of the theater as part
of the original ornamentations.
Ornaments were typically attached by an
organic webbing of coconut husks and plaster
wrappings. Interior walls were constructed
from plaster supported off of rods or suspen-
ded from structural elements.
As an important historic theater, all painted
surface, plaster details and ornamentations were
deemed historic, and were to be preserved and res-
tored as part of the seismic retrofit and renovation.
The Fox was constructed as a main thea-
ter building surrounded partially with two
wrap-around wings that support a massive
entrance dome. The theater was framed with
a steel skeleton of riveted girders, trusses and
columns that supported multiple levels. The
theater floor slab was supported on subter-
ranean walls forming heating tunnels and
utility spaces. The balcony was framed with
two-way cantilevered trusses.
The wrap-around buildings are steel framed
structures with wood floors and brick exterior
walls. A large concrete entrance dome pro-
jects above the roof and is supported on two
STRUCTURE magazine
award winners and outstanding projects
intersecting steel trusses, resting on four margi-
nally braced columns that originally formed a tall
open entrance that was in-filled during the 1950s.
Roof construction was of steel trusses sup-
porting a thin cast-in-place concrete slab
over the theater and wood trusses over the
wrap-around buildings.
Typically, all columns and walls were supported
on individual concrete spread footings bearing
on a well compacted sand layer. Concrete was
extensively employed as floor slabs, seating
levels, walls and fire proofing for the theater.
Wood framing and plaster were extensively used
in the wrap-around buildings.
The Fox is located between two known major
earthquake fault lines, the San Andreas and
Hayward Faults. Major structural elements
would be significantly overstressed and/or
unstable if subjected to strong earthquakes
that periodically strike the San Francisco Bay
Area. Ensuring a reasonable level of seismic
performance in different parts of the Fox,
while preserving the historic elements, called
for a number of unique solutions tailored for
the particular areas.
Due to the unique characteristics of the ori-
ginal construction, and the wide variety of
materials and details, several different retrofit-
ting elements were developed and introduced
to brace the different building parts. New
elements were carefully placed such that the
grandeur of the theater and its historic status
was not adversely impacted.
Significant retrofitting elements included:
• New buttresses hidden in the adja-
cent wrap-around building on each
side of the roof to stabilize the roof,
and also connected to the balcony
to resist seismic forces and reduce
demands on diaphragms.
• A new steel frame behind the prosce-
nium wall braced back diagonally to
the main building corner columns.
• New shotcrete walls behind prosce-
nium side walls, theater back wall,
balcony side walls and other locations
to enhance wall capacities.
• Two new U-shaped concrete walls
constructed immediately to the north
and south of the entrance structure and
43 April 2011
Spotlight
doweled into the existing walls to brace
the trusses supporting the Dome to
resist earthquake forces.
• New concrete slabs to enhance dia-
phragm capacities at selected locations.
• Changes of the theater floor from fixed
seating to multiple open platforms
called for a series of elevated platforms
over historic designated floors, and
also resulted in a doubling of the floor
live loads. A series of light gage steel
supported platforms were devised to
transfer loads off of existing floor slabs
and on to tunnel side walls.
• New steel diagonal trusses below the
roof and floor levels of the wrap-
around buildings.
• New interior shear walls in the warp-
around building.
• New structural tubes epoxy bolted into
the back of the walls and connected to
new floor diaphragms.
• New steel channels added to reinforce
brick pilasters and interconnected to
new diaphragms.
• New shear walls anchored against over-
turning by micro piles.
• New floor diaphragms in wrap-
around buildings.
Since opening, the Fox has become a pro-
minent large music venue, attracting near
sell-out crowds and transforming the newly
invigorated “Uptown District”.▪
Hratch Kouyoumdjian, S.E., LEED AP is
Founder and Principal of The KPA Group
in Oakland, California and Structural
Engineer of Record. He can be reached at
hratchk@thekpagroup.com.
 Structural Licensing:
The Current State of US Practice, Part 2
By Susan M. Frey, P.E., S.E., LEED® AP, Member, NCSEA Licensing Committee
News form the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
Structural Engineering Practice
Restriction versus Title Restriction
One must be aware of the difference in the two types of state-adopted
legislation or regulation in order to understand the following state
by state (US territories) discussion. Both types of licensees may place
“SE” after their name for practice in that jurisdiction.
1) Under a structural engineering practice restriction, one
must possess a valid structural engineering license in
order to provide state-defined structural engineering
services. The scope of such a limitation can vary from
certain types of structures (hazardous, high occupancy,
fire suppression, etc) to any and all structures within the
state that require design by a professional engineer.
2) Under a structural engineering title restriction, an engi-
neer must pass the state-designated structural engineering
exam in order to be titled as having an SE license, but
this designation is not required to design any given type
of structure. Anyone with a civil PE license may do so.
Practice Restrictions
The most straightforward requirements for structural engineers
are in states that have adopted a full SE practice restriction. To
design any type of structure that requires design by a professional
engineer, the person must be licensed as a structural engineer by
either having already passed the previous Western States Exam, the
previous NCEES SE I and II exams, and/or the SE II/ SE III exam
or the new NCEES 2011 exam. Other states have adopted partial
practice SE restrictions where those who hold a civil PE license may
design any structure except those specific types of structures that
are legally required to be designed by a licensed SE. No two states
with a partial practice restriction have adopted that same language.
Illinois and Hawaii: Hawaii and Illinois have adopted a full
SE practice act as described above. California and Nevada:
Both of these states have had partial SE practice restrictions in
place for many years as either a licensing restriction (California)
or a licensing rule (Nevada).
Oregon, Washington, and Utah: Partial practice acts have
NCSEA News
been legislated in these states over the last 15 years for hazard-
ous and essential facilities, special occupancy structures, and
larger/taller structures and/or bridges of a designated length and
size. Each of the three states has different restrictions identified.
Title Restrictions
In the following states, the title of structural engineer (SE) may
be legally used by the licensed practitioner, in addition to, or
instead of, professional engineer (PE), after his/her name, to
designate a licensed professional who has passed a state-approved
16-hour SE exam (previously the NCEES I and II SE exam, but
now the 16-hour SE exam). However, there is no restriction of
design practice of any type of structures associated with the title.
Idaho and Nebraska: Idaho and Nebraska recognize the SE
designation. However, Idaho requires that the applicant already
hold an Idaho PE license prior to applying to take the previous
SE I and II exams/2011 16-hour SE exam.
STRUCTURE magazine 44
Arizona, Vermont, Louisiana, Guam and
North Mariana Islands: These states and
territories specifically license engineers by
branch or discipline and recognize structural engineers in this way.
However this is not considered separate licensure because there is
no restriction in the states’ statutes or regulations that explicitly
distinguishes structural engineers from other professional engineers.
New Mexico: The state allows an “R” on the state’s licensed
professional engineer roster indicating structural engineering is
the/a discipline in which the licensee is competent to practice.
Beginning in April, the state will administer the 16-hour SE
exam to obtain the R certification.
Other Structural Exam Use and Restrictions
39 states offered the SE I and SE II in 2010 but do not have an
in-state SE practice or title restriction. It is unclear yet if all these
states will continue to offer the new NCEES 16-hour SE exam.
Many states previously offered the SE I exam as an option to
the 8-hour PE exam. The applicant who passed this test then
held a civil PE license. Starting in 2011, there will not be an
8-hour-portion-of-the-SE-exam option for a PE alternate exam.
New Mexico may require certain educational backgrounds
in addition to testing requirements in order to receive comity.
Comity
For the “mature” structural engineers, all states accept the origi-
nal Western States 16-hour SE exam as a basis of comity, without
other testing for the SE portion of the requirement. While the
new 2011 16-hour SE exam will greatly improve the equality
of testing as a basis for future comity, California, Oregon,
Washington, Nevada and Idaho will still require a civil PE be
obtained prior to an SE license and, additionally, California will
require the NCEES PE exam to be supplemented by 5 hours
of survey and seismic testing. Therefore, examination totals to
receive a structural engineering license by comity can vary, from
an additional 5 hours (WA/OR to CA) to 16 hours (State X to
WA/OR) or 21 hours (State x to CA) of testing, depending on
where the original PE or SE license was obtained.
Path Forward
From the information provided above, it is clear that struc-
tural engineering licensing requirements are complicated.
No more than any two states currently come close in the
combination of exam requirements and practice restric-
tions. Comity restrictions based on past requirements are
not changed in any way by the new exam being put into
place. Clearly, there is also a need for greater uniformity and
consistency in what a structural engineer may design in any
given location. Each new state practice restriction varies the
language and requirements, usually due to political compro-
mise as well as building upon what was used in the states
that had previously put practice restrictions in place. State
licensing boards need to have the same baseline requirement
for title and practice restrictions.
April 2011
 NCSEA News
2011 Winter Institute in Jacksonville, Florida

News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

NCSEA Webinars
April April Code Issues in Existing

7 Crane Runway Design 26 Buildings–Archaic and

This webinar will focus on the design crane runway systems
for top running bridge cranes, underhung bridge cranes and
monorails. However, the emphasis of the webinar will be on
crane runway systems for top running bridge cranes.
John Rolfes is a Vice President of Computerized
Structural Design (CSD), a consulting engineer-
ing firm headquartered in Milwaukee, WI. Mr.
Rolfes has been with CSD for 24 years and
has participated in and managed the design of
many major projects throughout the United
States. He has specialized in the design of large industrial
buildings and crane runway structures, including many large
steel mill facilities.
Call for Entries
NCSEA 2011 Excellence in Structural
Engineering Awards Program
NCSEA announces the 14th annual Excellence in Structural
Engineering Awards Program. Entries are due July 22. Awards
will be presented at the Renaissance Hotel in Oklahoma City
on October 22, at the conclusion of the NCSEA Annual
conference, and winning projects will be featured in future
Obsolete Structures
Current building codes represent our best understanding of struc-
tural action: Formulas are derived from experiments starting in
the eighteenth century and continuing today. However, they are
often a poor guide to the structural materials and systems extant
in buildings constructed before the mid-twentieth century. Older
buildings may contain materials and systems no longer used
(unreinforced masonry, cast iron, or wrought iron), designed with
methods no longer in use (patented concrete reinforcing such as
the Hennebique and Kahn systems, frames designed using the
portal method, or catenary floors), or whose material properties
have changed substantially (wood, steel, concrete, and masonry).
By reviewing the basic principals which engineers used in design-
ing now-obsolete structures, links can be made to current codes.
By reviewing the differences between code provisions as applied
to new construction and as applied to alteration, the context of
code review within a project can be made clear.
Donald Friedman, P.E., SECB, is president
of Old Structures Engineering, PC, a structural
engineering consulting firm for historic and old
buildings, and has over 20 years experience in
the investigation, analysis, and restoration of
landmark buildings. He holds a B.S. in Civil
Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and an M.A.
in Historical Studies from the New School for Social Research.
Each course will award 1.5 hours of
AL

EN

issues of STRUCTURE magazine. For awards program

UR

GIN
CT

continuing education. The times will be

EE
RU

RS
ST

rules and eligibility, as well as entry forms, see the Call for NCSEA
10:00 am Pacific, 11:00 am Mountain,
G

N
UIN

Entries on the NCSEA website: www.ncsea.com.

IO
AT
IN

12:00 pm Central, and 1:00 pm Eastern.

NT

UC
CO

ED

Diamond
Reviewed Approved in All 50 States.

STRUCTURE magazine 45 April 2011

 2011 Structures Congress – Don’t forget to register now!
April 14-16, 2011 Save the Date:
Green Valley Ranch, Las Vegas, NV
Go to www.seinstitute.org
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE

for all the Congress information

Committee News and Calls for New Members

Dynamic Analysis Of Nuclear
Structures Committee Update
ASCE 4, Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and
Commentary, has been a nuclear industry standard for over 20
years. A proposed revision to ASCE 4-98 is working its way through
the standards process by the Working Group of the Dynamic
Analysis of Nuclear Structures Committee. The proposed revi-
sion, if adapted, will bring state-of-the-art engineering practices
to the design community for use in the design of the next genera-
tion of nuclear facilities. See the full report on the SEI Website:
http://content.seinstitute.org/files/pdf/UpdateofASCE4.doc.
ASCE Standards Committee
on Seismic Rehabilitation
The ASCE/SEI Standards Committee on Seismic Rehabilitation
is in the midst of updating ASCE 31-03 and ASCE 41-06. The
first committee ballot is in progress, with the two main items
under consideration being the combination of the two standards
into one overarching standard on seismic evaluation and upgrade,
and reformatted ASCE 31 Tier 1 Checklists. The next meeting
of the standards committee will be on May 6 in San Francisco.
Anyone interested in the committee activities and getting involved
should contact Bob Pekelnicky (RPekelnicky@degenkolb.com),
the Committee vice-chair and secretariat.

New Zealand: First-hand accounts from SEI Members

During the recent earthquake, several SEI members were on site in New Zealand
on educational assignments.
SEI member and ASCE Distinguished Member, David T. Biggs, P.E., S.E.,
Dist.M.ASCE, HTMS, was in Christchurch, coincidentally delivering a semi-
nar lecture on structural engineering and seismic
forensics when the earthquake struck. In an exclu-
sive to ASCE, Biggs provides a diary detailing his
experiences as the quake struck, and how he joined
fellow engineers in applying his expertise to assessing the safety of buildings in Christchurch.
www.asce.org/Disaster-Preparedness-and-Response/Biggs-New-Zealand-Earthquake-Diary.aspx
Structural Columns

Also in Christchurch at the time of the earthquake was Structural Engineering Institute president
Roberto T. Leon, P.E., Ph.D. The professor of structural engineering, engineering mechanics and
materials at Georgia Institute of Technology was a week into the start of a teaching fellowship at
the University of Canterbury in Christchurch. Read Leon’s report to ASCE about his experience of
what it was like during and after the quake, on and around
campus. www.asce.org/Disaster-Preparedness-and-Response/
Errata Leon-New-Zealand-Earthquake-Diary.aspx
SEI posts up-to-date errata information for our
publications at www.SEInstitute.org. Click on
“Publications” on our menu, and select “Errata.” If you
have any errata that you would like to submit, please
Conference Spotlight
email it to Paul Sgambati at psgambati@asce.org. The aim of IABMAS 2012 is to bring
IABMAS 2012
together all the very best work that has
July 8-12, 2012
Have You Been Missing Important Lake Como, Italy
been done in the field of bridge main-
tenance, safety and management and
SEI News and Information? related topics, to stimulate and promote research into this
field, and to bridge the gap between theory and practice. The
SEI uses e-mail as the primary method of communicating 6th International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and
with members. Since a number of our members don’t have a Management (IABMAS 2012) is organized on behalf of the
current e-mail address on file, they are not receiving the SEI International Association for Bridge Maintenance and Safety
Update, calls for papers, announcements about conferences, (IABMAS) under the auspices of Politecnico di Milano, Milan,
programs, etc. Please take a few minutes to update your email Italy. SEI Members Fabio Biondini and Dan Frangopol will serve
at www.asce.org/myprofile, or call 800-548-ASCE ext. 2723 as Conference Chairs for IABMAS 2012. Visit the conference
or 703-295-6300, or email member@asce.org. website for more information: www.iabmas2012.org/.

STRUCTURE magazine 46 April 2011

 Structural Columns
Call For Sessions And Proposals Opens For Structures 2012
Congress and 20 th Analysis and Computation Specialty Track
Authors are invited to submit session proposals and/or paper abstracts
for the March 29-31, 2012 Structures Congress including the 20th
KEY DATES
Analysis and Computation Specialty Track, which will be held at the All Abstract and Session Proposals due June 6, 2011
Fairmont Chicago Millennium Park, in Chicago, Illinois. 20th A&C Notification of Acceptance August 19, 2011
Abstracts and session proposals must be submitted online through Structures Congress Notification
the Structural Engineering Institute’s website at www.seinstitute.org. of Acceptance September 9, 2011
Suggested technical paper topics include Bridge and Transportation 20th A&C Draft Papers due September 20, 2011
Structures; Buildings; Non Building and Special Structures; Non No draft papers required for 2012 Structures
Structural Systems and Components; Education and Research; Business
20th A&C Comments to
and Professional Practice; Blast, Impact Loading and Response of
Authors on Draft Papers October 15, 2011
Structures; Construction Engineering and for the 20th Analysis and
All Final Papers due December 20, 2011
Computation Specialty Track topics include Education Challenges,
(extensions not possible)
Advanced Analysis-Based Design, Emergent Computing Technology in
Structural Engineering, Practical Applications of Structural Optimization. For all the details visit the
All submissions are due June 6, 2011. conference website www.seinstitute.org.

Announcement of the 2011 O.H. Ammann

Research Fellowship Award
The SEI Technical Activities Division Executive Committee developing design equations. When Ms.

The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE

awarded the 2011 O.H. Ammann Research Fellowship in
Structural Engineering to Ms. Rachel Howser, a Ph.D. student
in the Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering at
the University of Houston. The fellowship was awarded for
her research entitled Development of Self-Consolidating Carbon
Nanofiber Concrete Sensors for Structural Health Monitoring. The
overall objective of Howser’s research is to develop a carbon
nanofiber aggregate (CNFA) that can measure the damage in
a concrete structure. The findings of this study will be used
for structural health monitoring in concrete structures. Ms.
Howser’s full report will be posted when it becomes available.
Rachel Howser obtained her Bachelors Degree in Civil
Engineering at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology (RHIT)
in 2008. While earning her undergraduate degree, Ms. Howser
was very active in the RHIT ASCE student chapter. She served as
chapter secretary and planned several community service projects.
In 2007, she won the national ASCE Daniel W. Mead Student
Essay Contest on professional ethics. In 2008, Ms. Howser won
the RHIT ASCE Alumni Award. This award is given to the student
in the student chapter that contributed the most to the chapter’s
success during the school year awarded. During the summer of
2007, Ms. Howser was part of a National Science Foundation
(NSF) Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program
at the University of Houston (UH). During that summer, she
became very interested in research and attending graduate school.
Her research consisted of studying the relationship between
flexural ductility and shear capacity in reinforced concrete (RC)
columns through modeling over 100 nonlinear RC columns and
Howser graduated in 2008, she moved
to Taiwan to do research on an NSF
International Research and Education
in Engineering (IREE) grant. While in
Taiwan she modeled an unsymmetric,
three-dimensional, RC building. In
the fall of 2008, Ms. Howser moved to Houston, Texas to begin
graduate school at UH. While pursuing a master’s degree, she
modeled prestressed concrete bridge girders, researched the self-
sensing abilities of carbon nanofiber (CNF) reinforced concrete
and studied the structural behavior of traditional RC columns
compared to steel fiber and CNF reinforced concrete columns. Ms.
Howser earned her master’s degree in civil engineering in 2010. She
immediately began her Ph.D. work, developing a CNF aggregate
that can measure localized damage in concrete structures. While in
graduate school, Ms. Howser has continued to be active in ASCE.
She serves as a graduate advisor to the UH student chapter and
serves as the Engineering Week chairperson. In 2010, she received
the ASCE Outstanding Civil Engineering Award sponsored by
Freese and Nichols, Inc. The purpose of the award is to recognize
an outstanding civil engineering student from each Texas university
based on strong academic performance, ASCE activity and high
moral and ethical character. While in graduate school, she has
also participated in the NSF GK12 program that sends graduate
students in science and technology majors into middle and high
school classrooms to teach them about advanced science and
technology. Ms. Howser spends ten hours per week teaching sixth
graders about engineering and nanotechnology.

2012 Ammann Call for Nominations

The O. H. Ammann Research Fellowship in Structural Engineering is bestowed annually to a member for the purpose of encourag-
ing the creation of new knowledge in the field of structural design and construction. The O. H. Ammann Fellowship was endowed
in 1963 by O. H. Ammann, Hon.M.ASCE, and was increased in 1985 by Klary V. Ammann (widow of O. H. Ammann).
The deadline for 2012 Ammann applications is November 1, 2011.
For more information and to download an application visit the SEI website at: http://content.seinstitute.org/inside/ammann.html.

STRUCTURE magazine 47 April 2011

 CASE Survey Shows Impact Of Economic Slowdown
The Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE)
recently met in Amelia Island, FL for their Annual Winter
Planning Meeting. At the top of CASE’s agenda was laying the
groundwork for an upcoming strategic planning session. CASE
surveyed its members – 169 in total – on the CASE mission,
dues structure, products and what the future of the organization
should be, and received a whopping 33% response rate. Among
The Newsletter of the Council of American Structural Engineers

many things, we learned that nearly 50% of CASE firms have

less than 30 employees and are considered small businesses.
An overwhelming majority thought that the CASE mission
is relevant and successful, especially in business practices. In
this economy, competition, both for business and for cost, is a
major concern for CASE Members.
CASE Chairman John Mercer is confident that this strategic
planning session will see “a bright and successful future for
active CASE members using best business practices available for
structural engineering firms.” Mercer stresses that the member
response shows not only what a willing and able group CASE
is, but what a bright and successful future it will create for the
structural engineering practice.
For more information about CASE’s strategic planning effort,
contact Heather Talbert, htalbert@acec.org.

ACEC Government Affairs

House Poised To Endorse 1099 Repeal

CASE in Point

The House of Representatives is expected to approve legisla-
tion to repeal a new tax requirement that would dramatically
expand the circumstances under which companies would be
required to file IRS Form 1099s.
ACEC has been active in opposition to the 1099 mandate,
which will require that businesses file 1099s for purchases of
both goods and services valued at more than $600 annually
from any vendor.
The Senate has already passed 1099 repeal language as an
amendment to the FAA reauthorization bill. The two cham-
bers must still reach agreement on how to offset the costs
of the repeal.

House Passes Extension of Federal Highway, Transit Programs

The House passed legislation (H.R. 662) to extend federal sur-
face transportation programs authorized under SAFETEA-LU
through September 30, 2011.
The Senate is expected to act quickly on the bill, which
will prevent the cutoff of federal transportation funding to
the states.
ACEC was active in building the support necessary for pas-
sage. “ACEC members did a great job in connecting with their
representatives,” said ACEC President Dave Raymond. “Support
for an expanded new federal program to replace SAFETEA-LU
will be a core theme for our grassroots lobbying effort during the
Annual Convention.”

STRUCTURE magazine 48 April 2011

 CASE in Point
ACEC Education Information

Strategies to Address Fee Reduction Demands

Now Available for Download

CASE is a part of the American Council of Engineering Companies

More than 160 ACEC members participated in the online seminar, Responding to Requests for Discounts or Unilateral Fee
Reductions, to learn effective responses to many state DOTs’ demands for unilateral fee reductions for engineering services.
P. Douglas Folk of Folk & Associates outlined various ways that firms can deal with these client requests, includ-
ing legal challenges and applications of Federal Acquisition Regulations. The popular online seminar is now
available on download. For complete details and to purchase: https://netforum.acec.org/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?
Site=ACEC_STORE&WebKey=9a4351f7-c89a-4018-b274-02062e728757.

Build Skills to Manage Change with

2011 Business of Design Consulting
May 11-14, Las Vegas, NV

The Business of Design Consulting (BDC) program addresses
the challenging realities of the current business environment,
providing the strategic insights and best-practice management
skills fundamental to success for design professionals.
This intensive four-day course offers engineering firm execu-
tives and managers the collective state-of-the-art expertise of
the A/E industry’s leading practitioners. The curriculum delivers
essential 2011 updates on the real-world business topics not
offered by engineering schools, including business management,
finance, marketing, risk management, contracts, leadership,
human resources, and information technology.
BDC is recommended for owners, senior executives, principals,
business administrators, project managers at all levels, human
resources managers, and managers of facilities and infrastruc-
ture projects.
For complete details on course content and to register:
www.acec.org/education/eventdetails.cfm?eventid=1237.

Leading Industry Experts Present Ten Top Legal Issues Course

May 12-13, Philadelphia, PA

Get a solid framework of information to help you address
legal and contracting issues, recognize and mitigate potential
risks and protect your firm’s bottom line from three of the A/E
industry’s leading experts.
Ten Top Legal Issues Facing Engineers, May 12-13, Philadelphia,
offers valuable and practical details on a range of critical legal
issues facing Member Firms, including contract provisions,
insurance of all types, human resources issues, litigation disclo-
sure and privacy issues, non-standard contracts, public/private
partnerships, professional ethics and licensure issues, LEED
and green liability, doing business overseas, BIM and electronic
documents, and more.
Serving as faculty are legal counsels and long-time advocates
of major ACEC firms: Bernard Sacks, The Louis Berger Group,
Inc.; Peter J. Coote, Pennoni Associates; and Gerard P. Cavaluzzi,
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Their joint knowledge of the business of
engineering is unsurpassed in the industry.
For complete details on course content and to register:
www.acec.org/education/eventdetails.cfm?eventid=1242.

STRUCTURE magazine 49 April 2011

Structural Forum
BIM, CIS/2 and the Future
Retooling the Steel Industry to Add More Value
By Thomas Hartmann, P.E.
T
he structural engineering and steel
construction industry (SESCI) had
a jump on the building informa-
tion modeling (BIM) industry
before BIM was even born. It is called CIS/2,
and it came into being in the 1990s with the
development of personal computers.
For the sake of argument, I will propose
that the term “BIM” first appeared around
2004. It is rooted in an earlier term, “Building
Product Model,” which was discussed by
Charles Eastman of Georgia Tech in the
1970s. In the United Kingdom, the Steel
Construction Institute holds copyrights to
CIS/2 publications that date back to 1993.
Comprehensive information under the
banner of CIMsteel Integration Standards
Release 2: Second Edition (2003) is available
at www.cis2.org, which reports that it was
last modified on Thursday August 14, 2003
– seven years ago.
So CIMsteel/2 was fully developed and
documented before the word BIM was
ever spoken. “CIM” stands for Computer
Integrated Manufacturing, which is undoubt-
edly the first cousin of today’s BIM. CIS/2
is an acronym for Computer Integration
(Manufacturing of ) Steel, Release 2. The steel
industry was progressively articulating a com-
puter integration strategy long before CIS/2;
in fact, more than 35 years of thinking has
gone into solving the problem that we now
call “BIM” inside the construction industry.
AISC has, in fact, supported the adoption of
CIS/2 to aid the economy and efficiency of
producing structural steel.
So what happened? Why is the SESCI
not leading the development of BIM in the
design and construction community? The
answer is that CIS/2 has not added enough
value to improve the business of those who
try to adopt the standard. It is simply not
“standard” enough.
As a thought exercise, imagine the changes
in the SESCI compared to the changes in
the computer industry. Many U.S. software
vendors adopted CIS/2 as a part of their steel
detailing and structural engineering prod-
ucts. There are CIS/2 import and export file
functions in many of the engineering soft-
ware packages, so the technology is available
to share at a detailing level. A structural
STRUCTURE magazine
opinions on topics of current importance to structural engineers
engineer in the past could
and still can share very capa-
ble CIS/2 models with the
owner, architect, contractors,
fabricators and detailers. In
the computer industry, in the
same timeframe, IBM devel-
oped a new computer called
a “PC” and even wrote an
operating system – ironically
called OS/2 – to compete
with Microsoft DOS, which
became the de facto stan-
dard. The computer industry
advanced and advanced, yet the steel industry
somehow managed to continue with “busi-
ness as usual.”
“Business as usual” is the problem with
CIS/2, and with BIM in general, for the
steel industry. The differences, one can argue,
must be within the economic and competitive
environments of each industry. The com-
puter industry flourished, but the SESCI
languishes in its traditional delivery methods
and approach.
We can identify the parallels and differences
in the two developments to understand what
happened. DOS, the disk operating system,
along with the IBM PC hardware specifica-
tions, became the standards adopted by an
entire industry. CIS/2 was developed by an
international consortium inside the steel
industry. European and US companies par-
ticipated and contributed to the base of CIS
knowledge. One difference is that the steel
industry was already mature, with lots of active
organizations and competing companies. The
introduction of CIS/2 required a business to
adapt to a new practice. It also needed a form
of vertical integration, that is, data-sharing
between businesses that in fact may be rivals.
Personal computers were new to business; there
was no retooling of an existing operation. PC
technology enhanced business operations – and
from the perspective of computer technology
supporting the business, one can argue that
the SESCI is as progressive with computer
technology as any other industry.
Lack of vertical integration is one problem in
the steel industry. This is another important
and essential difference in the adoption out-
comes. The construction industry is made up
50 April 2011
of mostly small players. As a result, no SESCI
participant is willing to give away any pro-
prietary knowledge. Examples include CAD
drawings, engineering analytical models, BIM
models, steel detailing models, CNC files
output for the control of steel fabrication
machines – the list goes on. Recognize, on
the other hand, that there is no problem with
sharing a letter or email. The sharing issue is
related to the expert knowledge. If this special-
ized knowledge is given away, it diminishes
the economic advantage of one firm over
another. It tends to create a more competi-
tive environment than currently exists, and
that environment is already too competitive.
Given this background, is it possible to
adapt CIS/2? Secondly, does it remain valu-
able in the current business environment? The
answer to both of these questions is, “Maybe.”
Ultimately, there is one driving force: market
and customer needs determine what is valu-
able. Given that new BIM standards are
currently emerging, CIS/2 may not, in fact,
provide the value necessary to compete.
Retooling the SESCI is absolutely necessary
to compete globally. A second option is to
change the business environment. One idea is
to integrate projects vertically using Integrated
Project Delivery (IPD) contracts ... but that is
a whole new topic for another time.▪
Thomas W. Hartmann, P.E. is an U.S.
expatriate structural engineer working for
Aurecon in their Vietnam office. He may be
reached at twhartmann@gmail.com.