®

STRUCTURE A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

September 2011 Concrete

Special Section
NCSEA
19 Annual Conference
th

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

 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
 Design spiralling out of control?
Use connections with teeth!

Dieter Schütz/pixelio.de
Rehberger Pedestrian Bridge, Germany

Multifunctional
Whether you are working on, bridge struc-
tures, multi-storey offices, factories or utility
structures, HALFEN Cast-in Channels are
the safe and reliable alternative to drilling
or welded connections.
Experienced versatile technology
Toothed HALFEN HZA Dynagrip HALFEN Cast-in Channels have evolved over
Channels cast into the precast bridge 80 years, due to extensive experience with
deck for the adjustable connection thousands of global projects. HALFEN HZA
to the spiral bridge structure and Dynagrip toothed cast-in channels are the
pedestrian handrails. latest state of the art technology providing
high dynamic and static load capacities in all
three-dimensions. The interlocking teeth of
the channels and matching T-head bolts allow
them to support vertical or longitudinal shear
loads combined with installation adjustment.
Applications include: steel beam, heavy pipe-
work and machinery connections
Reliable, easy, fast, safe
Toothed HALFEN HZA Dynagrip ▪ Suitable for cracked concrete
Channels cast into slab edge for the ▪ Hot rolled, hot dip galvanized or stainless
vertical leveling of brick shelf angles. ▪ High tension/shear/longitudinal loads
Toothed HALFEN HZA ▪ Suitable for high cycle dynamic loads
Dynagrip Channel and ▪ Easy twist-in HALFEN T-bolts for fast
matching HALFEN HZS adjustable connections
toothed T-bolt ▪ No welding sparks, drilling vibration,
silica dust, fumes, or invasive noise.

Toothed HALFEN HZA Dynagrip

Channels cast into slab for transverse
adjustment of curtain wall support
bracket.
HALFEN Anchoring Systems · Meadowburke Products · PO Box 547 · Converse · TX 78109
Phone 800.323.6896 or 210.658.4671 · Fax 888.277.1695 or 210.658.7908 · info@halfen.com · www.halfen.com · www.halfenusa.com
 15
Features
UT’s New Hackerman
CONTENTS September 2011

Experimental Science Building

Inspires Teamwork
By Michael Brack, P.E. Columns
With space at a premium, the University of Texas has had to
7 Editorial
make tough choices about how to handle aging and obsolete
Affordable Construction to Resist
facilities. As a result, engineers had the rare opportunity to
Extreme Events
design a new building to replace the old Experimental Science By Donald Dusenberry, P.E., SECB
Building. The end result is the eight-story, 294,000-square-foot,
9 InFocus
$115 million Norman Hackerman Building.
The Case for Structural Licensure
By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
18 An Affordable and Sustainable 10 Professional Issues
Building Design in New York City Passing the New Structural Exam
By Dominick R. Pilla, P.E., S.E and Xiaoli Tong, P.E. By Thomas A. Grogan, Jr., P.E., S.E.
Fox Point is a 48-unit affordable housing development pursuing
a USGBC LEED Silver rating. The main challenge facing the
team was to develop a proper building construction type to
meet the requirements of affordability and sustainability.
Departments
33 Product Watch
Self-Consolidating Concrete
23 Mac To Matt (SCC): Today and Tomorrow
By Ali A.K. Haris, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. and Guohui Guo, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. By William S. Phelan
In January 2011, the University of Oregon’s basketball 36 CASE Business Practices
program made the move from McArthur Court, their CASE Contract Documents:
beloved 85-year old facility, to the new Matthew Knight Which one do I use?
Arena, a multi-purpose arena. This state of the art venue By Ronald R. White, P.E.
will soon become known as a premier college basketball 40 Great Achievements
arena in the United States. Walter Parker Moore, Sr.
By Richard G. Weingardt, P.E.
43 Spotlight
28 NCSEA 2011 Conference Section Construction Collapse Case
Special The National Council of Structural Engineers Associations Studies – What Engineers
Section will host its 19 th Annual Conference at the Renaissance Should Know
By Craig A. Copelan, P.E. and
Convention Center in Oklahoma City, OK, on October 20 th
Joyce E. Copelan, P.E.
through the 22nd. Read about conference, program and
50 Structural Forum
vendor information in this Special Conference Section, and
10 Years Later: Most Settled
plan to attend this exciting event! Victoria Arbitrio, P.E., SECB

on the Cover
®

STRUCTURE

In January 2011, the standards for college basketball arenas were In every Issue
elevated. Specifically, University of Oregon’s basketball program
made the move from McArthur Court, their beloved 85-year old 6 Advertiser Index
facility, to the new Matthew Knight Arena, a multi-purpose arena. 38 Resource Guide
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

The new facility has a seating capacity of 12,500 screaming fans, (Anchoring)
which will ensure its future as an NCAA Division I Arena. This 44 NCSEA News
state of the art venue will soon become known as a premier college
September 2011 Concrete
46 SEI Structural Columns
basketball arena in the United States. See feature article on page 23.
48 CASE in Point
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 5 September 2011

 ADVERTISER INDEX
Bentley Systems, Inc. ............................. 39
Computers & Structures, Inc. ............... 52
CTP, Inc................................................ 35
CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp........ 11
Fyfe Co. LLC ........................................ 24
Hayward Baker, Inc. .............................. 14
The IAPMO Group............................... 19
ICC....................................................... 22
editorial Board
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
Burns & McDonnell, Kansas City, MO
chair@structuremag.org
Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECB
CBI Consulting, Inc., Boston, MA
Richard Hess, S.E., SECB
Hess Engineering Inc., Los Alamitos, CA
Mark W. Holmberg, 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
Concrete Foundation Design
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
IES, Inc
519 E Babcock St.
Bozeman, MT 59715
800-707-0816
info@iesweb.com
STRUCTURE magazine
PLEASE SUPPORT THESE ADVERTISERS
Integrated Engineering Software, Inc....... 6 RISA Technologies ................................ 51
ITW Red Head ..................................... 26 SidePlate Systems, Inc. .......................... 25
KPFF Consulting Engineers .................. 12 Simpson Strong-Tie........................... 8, 21
Magnusson Klemencic Associates .......... 43 StrucSoft Solutions, Ltd. ......................... 3
Meadow Burke ........................................ 4 Structural Engineers Assoc. of Illinois .... 42
NCEES ................................................. 13 StructurePoint ....................................... 32
ProSpec ................................................. 17 Struware, Inc. ........................................ 41
Powers Fasteners, Inc. .............................. 2
Advertising Account MAnAger
Chair Interactive Sales Associates
Chuck Minor Dick Railton
Eastern Sales Western Sales
847-854-1666 951-587-2982
Brian W. Miller
Davis, CA sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
Mike C. Mota, Ph.D., P.E.
CRSI, Williamstown, NJ
Evans Mountzouris, P.E.
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
STRUCTURE® (Volume 18, Number 9). ISSN 1536-4283.
Publications Agreement No. 40675118. Owned by the
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations and
published in cooperation with CASE and SEI monthly by C3
Ink. The publication is distributed free of charge to members
of NCSEA, CASE and SEI; the non-member subscription
rate is $65/yr domestic; $35/yr student; $90/yr Canada;
$125/yr foreign. For change of address or duplicate copies,
contact your member organization(s). Any opinions expressed
in STRUCTURE magazine are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C3 Ink, or the
STRUCTURE Editorial Board.
STRUCTURE® is a registered trademark of National Council of
Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA). Articles may not be
reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission
of the publisher.
National Council of Structural
Engineers Associations
www.ncsea.com
C3 Ink, Publishers
A Division of Copper Creek Companies, Inc.
148 Vine St., Reedsburg WI 53959
Visit www.iesweb.com P-608-524-1397 F-608-524-4432
publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
Download your free trial today! 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
6 September 2011
editorial Affordable Construction to
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
Resist Extreme Events
By Donald Dusenberry, P.E., SECB
O
ver the past few years, our news seems to have been filled
with stories of regional devastation caused by natural
effects on the built environment. We have seen stories
about hurricane and storm surge damage along the Gulf
coast, tornadoes in many regions of the US, and earthquakes, along
with some related tsunamis, in regions from the Caribbean Ocean
to the Indian Ocean.
In general, the outcome of these events has been as we might expect:
structures designed and constructed in accordance with modern
technologies have performed well. If that was the only outcome, the
stories we have read probably would not have been newsworthy on an
international scale. These events have been newsworthy because of the
contrasting expected outcome: structures that have not been designed
in accordance with modern technologies have suffered severely.
But that is not the real story. The real story is that much of the
devastation has occurred in regions where economies and cultures
have not allowed for structures to be designed for the extreme envi-
ronmental effects that we, as a profession, have developed the capacity
to anticipate reasonably. Many of the victims that have suffered the
most have been from regions that do not have building codes that
define appropriate standards for construction, technical capability to
design and construct robust structures, or financial resources to put
into practice the technologies that will enhance resistance.
Most of us practice in regions where the standards for design and the
quality of construction are well-understood, and robust designs are
achievable. Of course, we still have losses when the design-base events
occur, and we learn something new each time we have a severe storm
or earthquake. But we generally do not feel that we are under-serving
our clients or our society. At the same time, it is easy to read with
sadness the news about devastation elsewhere, but to move on and
continue to serve clients that have the resources to develop projects
that incorporate the technologies that we have learned will lead to
satisfactory performance.
Who serves the regions where economies are poor and appro-
priate technology is not available? Generally speaking, of course,
the answer is “nobody.” Most
of the buildings impacted by
the recent Indonesian tsunami
®
and Caribbean earthquake, for
structure
example, were not constructed
in accordance with designs devel-
a member benefit
oped for reasonable resistance to
these events. In most cases, this
was not by choice, but rather by
necessity because the resources
simply were not available.
Is this the best we can do?
Certainly not – and by the way,
STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING
some of our colleagues are doing
INSTITUTE much more. Researchers, consul-
tants, and advocates are working
STRUCTURE magazine
to develop and promote affordable means to respond to a need for
robust structures in regions without strong economic foundations.
Approaches developed by these organizations can substantially reduce
the suffering of communities in vulnerable areas.
An example is the work of the Buoyant Foundation Project
(BFP), which is sponsored by the University of Waterloo School of
Architecture. The concept involves placing pontoons under buildings
that normally rest at grade. The pontoons, and the rest of the build-
ing for that matter, can be fabricated from locally available materials.
When flood waters reach the building, it floats rather than floods,
guided in place vertically by piles. The concept is not new, but it is
being extended by BFP to new applications and initiatives.
Another example is the work of Build Change, headquartered in
Denver, Colorado. This organization promotes education about detail-
ing structures for robustness, using materials and construction skills
that are indigenous to the region of construction. This organization’s
message is capsulized in its Six Steps to Safe Homes, paraphrased here as:
1) learn from failures,
2) identify low-cost improvements in construction,
3) disseminate the knowledge,
4) convince developers to improve construction,
5) help find capital, and
6) measure success.
Architecture for Humanity is dedicated to bringing together design
professionals interested in sustainable development, often for disaster-
prone regions where residents normally would not be able to afford
design services. This organization has a stable of volunteers poised to
provide professional services when warranted.
Then there is Engineers Without Borders (EWB). As it says on its
website, this organization envisions a world in which communities
have the capacity to sustainably meet basic human needs. EWB sup-
ports community-driven development worldwide by collaborating
with local partners to design and implement sustainable projects.
These are just a few examples of ongoing initiatives that are intended
to alleviate the plight of those who have not had access to the resources
available to most of us. These organizations, and others like them, are
using research, training, outreach, and direct collaboration to imple-
ment cost-effective approaches to improve the built environment for
vulnerable populations in vulnerable regions.
It should be a message to all of us that the entire world is in our
backyard, and that we have the capacity to do more than our often-
narrow vision might reveal. We are civil engineers, after all. We need
to broaden our definition of clients to be served and look for ways
to improve the quality of life anywhere we can.▪
Donald O. Dusenberry, P.E., SECB is a Senior Principal of
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. Consulting Engineers in
Waltham, Massachusetts. He chairs ASCE/SEI standards committees
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures and
Blast Resistant Design of Buildings.
7 September 2011
 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™
inFocus The Case for Structural Licensure
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
A
n engineer’s primary obligation is to hold paramount the
safety, health, and welfare of the public. This is precisely
what motivates advocates of separate licensure for struc-
tural engineers (SEs) – the conviction that such a step is
necessary for the sake of the people who rely on structures to remain
standing every day.
All fields of engineering have become increasingly complex and
specialized over time – none more so than structural engineering. In
fact, several states have had some form of structural licensure for many
decades; Illinois introduced it in 1915, even before implementing
professional engineering licensure. The trend in recent years has been
the adoption of partial practice restrictions, with thresholds based on
size and/or occupancy type beyond which design by a licensed SE
is required. Rather than the typical 8-hour test, 16-hour structural
examinations have been administered in all jurisdictions with separate
SE licensure for at least 25 years. They have consistently included essay
problems for evaluating a candidate’s methodology, assumptions, and
exercise of judgment, instead of just checking answers.
The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying
(NCEES) has now adopted this higher standard nationwide. Its
Model Rules include detailed education, experience, and examina-
tion requirements for a Model Law Structural Engineer. Beginning
with the April 2011 administration, the separate 8-hour Structural
I and Structural II exams – which were always intended to be taken
as two parts of one test – have been replaced by a single 16-hour
Structural exam with multiple-choice questions during the morn-
ings and essay problems during the afternoons. Its specification
(www.NCEES.org/ Exams/SE_exam.php) reflects a comprehensive
survey of SEs around the country and covers the full range of knowl-
edge and skills required for competent practice.
As I have argued previously (“Incompetent and Unaware of It,”
March 2011; “The Case for Discipline-Specific Licensure,” July 2011),
licensed engineers should only work within the technical areas in
which they have demonstrated minimal competence by means of an
exam. Based on the test specification, someone who passes the new
Structural exam has shown the ability to undertake just about any
aspect of structural engineering. NCEES currently offers three other
exams that include at least some structural content:
• 20% of the 4-hour breadth module of the Civil exam covers
determinate analysis and design of concrete and steel beams,
slabs, footings, and earth retaining structures subject to dead,
live, and construction loads.
• The 4-hour Structural depth module of the Civil exam adds
wind, earthquake (equivalent static), moving, snow, and impact
loads; indeterminate analysis; prestressed concrete, timber,
masonry, and composite construction; columns, trusses, braces,
frames, connections, shear walls, diaphragms, and bearing walls;
codes and standards; and various other topics.
• 25% of the 8-hour Architectural Engineering exam covers
similar subjects as they pertain specifically to buildings.
At best, someone who passes one of these exams has only shown the
ability to undertake those aspects of structural engineering that are
included in the corresponding test specification. Obviously, someone
who passes any of the 17 other NCEES exams has not shown the
ability to practice structural engineering at all.
STRUCTURE magazine
It is important to note that opponents of struc-
tural licensure do not claim that it will somehow
have an adverse affect on the safety, health, and
welfare of the public. Instead, they usually cite one or both of the
following reasons for maintaining the status quo:
• Personal discretion – each individual engineer should have
complete latitude to determine which assignments to accept
and which to decline.
• Professional unity – special recognition of one discipline would
further fragment engineering, which already lacks a unified
voice in the social and political realms.
Neither of these considerations is integral to the most fundamental
duty of all engineers. Modest constraints on those who are genuinely
competent and ethical are a reasonable trade-off for protecting the
unwary from those who are incompetent and/or unethical.
That is why those who are working toward structural licensure in
all United States jurisdictions often come across as uncompromising.
For example, the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE)
has proposed roster designation as a potential middle ground. Several
states now publish online lists of licensed engineers that indicate the
particular discipline(s) in which each individual is qualified. However,
there are still no practice or title restrictions, so it is clear that such a
measure does not meaningfully raise the bar.
Physicians are sometimes suggested as a model that engineers should
emulate; they are licensed generically in every state, while specialties
are recognized by private certification boards, rather than govern-
ment agencies. Despite the lack of legal constraints, no one would
intentionally go to a family practitioner for a brain operation, rather
than a neurosurgeon.
The analogy breaks down because doctors take a uniform test to
become licensed, while every engineering licensure exam is discipline-
specific. In addition, unfortunately it is all too common for clients to
retain licensed professional engineers to provide specific services for
which they are not adequately qualified, perhaps without realizing it.
Unlike generic medical licensure, generic engineering licensure seems
to create the false impression that anyone legally authorized to practice
is inherently competent in any and every specialty.
One thing that physicians and SEs have in common is that they both
save lives. However, doctors generally deal with problems that already
exist, while SEs are expected to prevent problems from happening
in the first place. Furthermore, physicians can inform their patients
about the risks associated with the treatments that they prescribe,
but everyone takes it for granted that structures will not fail under
most circumstances. Finally, a single mistake by a doctor can cause
one person’s injury or death, while a single mistake by an SE can lead
to an even greater tragedy.
This unique responsibility that SEs have for the safety, health, and
welfare of the public – over and above that borne by all disciplines
of engineering – is the single most significant component in the case
for structural licensure.▪
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB (chair@STRUCTUREmag.org), is an
associate structural engineer at Burns & McDonnell in Kansas City,
Missouri, and chairs the STRUCTURE magazine Editorial Board.
9 September 2011
Professional
issues
issues affecting the structural
engineering profession
Passing the New Structural
Exam
You Too Can Do It after
Turning 40
By Thomas A. Grogan, Jr., P.E., S.E.
Thomas A. Grogan, Jr., P.E., S.E.
(Thomas.Grogan@haskell.com),
is the Director of Quality and
Chief Civil/Structural Engineer at
Haskell Architects and Engineers
in Jacksonville, Florida.
A
s more states move toward separate
licensure for structural engineers,
proving your competency means
taking the new NCEES Structural
exam. For those of us who are later in our careers,
the requirement to pass such a test can bring
extreme anxiety and prompt comments such as:
“I’ve been doing this all my career, I don’t need
another exam to prove my competency;” “I spend
most of my time managing my office and staff,
I’m not sure my experience is current enough to
pass the SE exam;” and, “I just don’t have the
time to study for the SE exam.”
This article is intended to take the “fear” out of
the new SE exam, which can be passed no matter
how old you are or how long it has been since you
passed your original PE exam. I am proof that it can
be done. Although I live in Florida, I do a signifi-
cant amount of work in the western United States,
especially California, and I realized that obtaining
SE registration there would be very helpful in secur-
ing future projects. In April
2009, I made the decision
to take both the NCEES
Structural II and California
Structural III exams.
Almost immediately, I
felt a knot begin to form in pit of my stom-
ach. What if I did not pass either exam? How
embarrassing would that be? More importantly,
what would my colleagues think of my structural
engineering capability? I had taken the Structural
II exam in 2005 and did not pass it then; what
made me think that I could pass it now?
As I look back, there are three components that
I believe are critical to passing the exam. The
first is commitment. Once you have made the
decision to take the exam, you need to be “all
in” and devote yourself 100% for a minimum of
two months leading up to the test date. Think
about it – you have been designing buildings or
bridges for many years now, so you clearly have
the expertise; you just need to convince yourself
that you can and will pass the exam. You use the
codes on a regular basis, and you know how to
design with steel, concrete, masonry and wood –
well, maybe not all of them, but hopefully at least
two of them. In my case, I believed that my steel
and concrete experience was adequate, but I had
limited masonry and almost no wood experience.
Even so, the general concepts are similar and, with
adequate preparation, you can fill in the gaps.
In fact, preparation is the next step to passing
the exam. When I reflected upon why I did not
pass the Structural II exam in 2005, I realized that
my preparation was inadequate. I spent too much
of my time lightly reviewing the subject matter
and not enough time working detailed problems.
How you prepare for the exam is critical to your
success. I suggest the following:
10 September 2011
1) Go to the NCEES website and look
up all available information on the
Structural exam. There you will find
specific information on each section
including content, design standards,
study materials, exam day policies and
scoring information.
2) Obtain copies of all applicable codes
and standards to which the exam will
be written.
3) Obtain several good reference books to
study, and verify that they are written
to the version of the codes being tested.
Studying ASCE 7-02 will be of little
value if the test is written around ASCE
7-05. There are numerous materials out
there, some of which are very good. It
is up to each examinee to determine
which ones work best for him or her.
Each fall, the Structural Engineers
Association of Illinois conducts a six-
month seminar series which covers all
topics included in the Structural exam.
This series is currently being upgraded
to include the new high seismic
component. NCSEA has recently
partnered with Kaplan AEC Education
to produce a similar seminar series.
4) Find a location away from your regular
workstation where you can lay out these
materials for a long period of time.
Make this your “Study Area”. Set a rule
for yourself that when you are in the
“Study Area”, you cannot be interrupted
for any reason. You will need to get used
to being in this environment for four
hours at a time to mimic the length of
the exam segments.
5) Prepare a work plan and stick to it.
When I first began studying, I created
a rough schedule of which subjects I
would study and when. After a week
or so, I found that I needed to stick to
that plan if I was going to be adequately
prepared. It was not long before I found
myself following it religiously. I suggest
something along these lines:
a. General structural analysis: Re-learn
how to do calculations by hand that
you typically rely on the computer to
perform, such as the portal method
for frames. Know how to quickly
determine the shears and moments
in beams and columns due to gravity
loads; how to distribute lateral loads
via diaphragms to resisting elements
(element rigidity for rigid diaphragms
vs. tributary area for flexible
diaphragms); and how to determine the
worst-case load combinations.
b. Wind loads: Be prepared to answer
questions for hurricane-prone
regions and areas requiring design
for windborne debris. Know how
to quickly determine the wind
pressures on enclosed, partially
enclosed and open structures and
parapets at various heights using
proper values for Kh, Kz,and GCpi.
Understand the differences between
main wind force resisting systems
and components and cladding, and
include the importance factor based
on occupancy type.
c. Earthquake loads: Know how
to calculate seismic forces and
understand the design spectral
curves. Understand the implications
of the various Site Classes and
Seismic Design Categories. Know
the difference between buildings
and non-building structures.
Remember the importance factor
and the event for which you
are designing: MCE or Design
Earthquake. Develop a basic
understanding of how to deal with
non-structural components. Be
familiar with high seismic design
requirements for all four building
materials as defined in AISC 341,
ACI 318 Chapter 21, ACI 530
Chapter 3, and AF&PA Special
Design Provisions for Wind and
Seismic. Devote at least 30% of all
your study time to this area, and be
ready to answer questions regarding
Seismic Design Category D, E or F.
d. Wood: Understand the general
content of the NDS. Work
problems to become familiar with
all Load Adjustment Factors (Cx)
and how to quickly eliminate those
whose value is unity. Understand
shear and diaphragm capacities
for various decking types and
nailing patterns. Understand the
provisions of Chapter 23 of IBC
and the relevant sections of ASCE
7, especially those addressing
seismic considerations.
e. Masonry: Understand how to
calculate capacities using ACI 530.
Learn shear wall design methods
and the special seismic provisions.
Understand the provisions of
Chapter 21 of IBC and the relevant
sections of ASCE 7, especially those
addressing seismic considerations.
f. Concrete: Familiarize yourself
with ACI 318. Know how to
STRUCTURE magazine
quickly calculate the flexural and
shear reinforcing in beams and
walls, including retaining walls.
Understand axial and biaxial
column bending and reinforcing
requirements, and be able to check
for minimum and maximum
reinforcing limits. Understand
the provisions of Chapter 19 of
IBC and the relevant sections of
ASCE 7, especially those addressing
seismic considerations. Spend
significant time understanding the
seismic provisions of Chapter 21
in ACI 318. Understand how to
design and detail both shear walls
and moment frames in high seismic
zones; you may be asked to sketch a
detail as part of your solution.
g. Steel: Familiarize yourself with both
AISC 360 (steel manual) and AISC
341 (seismic manual). Be able to
size beams and columns for a variety
of loading conditions. Know all the
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
steel seismic lateral force resisting
systems and how to design each of
the elements using AISC provisions.
Understand the provisions of
Chapter 22 of IBC and the relevant
sections of ASCE 7, especially those
addressing seismic considerations.
It is very likely that you will be
required to design or evaluate a high
seismic joint detail.
Review these subjects in order of familiarity,
with the most familiar element coming first.
I focused on doing the seismic components
last so it would be freshest in my mind during
the exam. Exam preparation is daunting, but
done systematically and with diligence it will
be the largest contributing factor for success.
6) Ask for help, especially in areas where
your experience is lacking. Other
structural engineers will gladly share
shortcuts and other tips and tricks
with you that are not provided in
exam preparation materials.
7) If you get stuck on a subject or do
not understand a concept, go to a
different subject and come back to
it later. If necessary, get up and walk
away from your “Study Area”; you
will be amazed at how taking a break
will relax you and help you refocus
on a difficult topic.
8) As the week of the exam approaches,
take some practice exams under test
conditions. Use four-hour blocks of
time and try to answer questions as if
the exam was really taking place.
continued on next page
11 September 2011
 With commitment and preparation behind
you, and exam day around the corner, what
can you expect? The most important thing
the examinee must realize is that the exam
is very long, and while you are taking it you
will feel like you are racing against the clock.
Remember, because of your preparation, you
have sharpened you expertise and can solve
almost all of the questions; you just need
to focus, put on your game face, and work
quickly. Here are some tips:
1) If possible, visit the exam site the day
before. Know where to park and how
to get to the room where the exam
will be held.
2) On exam day, arrive early; give
yourself plenty of time to set up for
the exam. Organize your reference
materials for quick accessibility. I
have seen examinees bring in plastic
milk crates filled with books that they
set up library-style, which struck me
as very efficient.
3) The exam materials will require you
to fill out some information prior
to starting the exam; this will not
count against your testing time. For
the essay questions you will have to
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURE magazine
place your answers in the solution
pamphlet. There is a separate solution
pamphlet for each essay question.
4) If you get stuck, skip the question
and come back to it later. For the
essay questions, if you get stuck on
one part, simply state an assumption
for that portion and continue
accordingly. If you make a mistake
in an early portion of a problem and
solve the rest of it correctly, you may
only lose points for that part and still
earn full credit for the later portion.
5) Do not over-think the problem. The
exam committee is testing if you
understand the fundamentals, so do
not make the problems harder than
they really are. I found myself doing
this repeatedly when I took the exam,
and lost precious time as a result.
6) On the multiple-choice section,
remember to guess if you do not
know the answer, especially if you
can eliminate an option or two. It is
important to recognize that the exam
writers likely established the incorrect
choices based on typical mistakes
that an examinee might make. Make
12 September 2011
a note of the problems you guessed
at in case there is time to come back
later. Pace yourself; if there are 40
questions in 4 hours, that gives you
6 minutes to answer each problem,
so make sure you are near problems
10, 20, 30 and 40 at the end of each
hour. If you get behind in the first
hour, you have three more hours to
pick up the pace; just make sure that
you stay on track.
7) At the end of each exam session, you
will be given 15, 5 and 1 minute
warnings. When time is called,
you must put your pencil down
immediately, so use the warning time
effectively. At the 15-minute warning
of the essay questions, I had to decide
whether to finish the problem on
which I was working, or go back and
review my work on problems where I
was not sure of the answer.
Once the exam is over, what happens next?
1) Try to put the test out of your mind.
You will constantly think of mistakes
that you made during the exam, but
just let it go. This is much more easily
said than done!
2) It takes several months to grade
the exam and provide results to the
examinee. April results typically come
out in July and October results in
January. Although it takes a while,
when you finally are notified that you
passed, you will realize that the time
investment was well worth it.
3) I have had the opportunity to be
an exam grader, and the one thing
I learned is that this group will
do everything they can to give the
examinee the benefit of the doubt.
The main goal of the grading
process is to ensure that those who
demonstrate an adequate level of
knowledge are given a passing grade.
You can pass the new Structural exam
no matter how long it has been since you
passed the PE exam. It requires serious
commitment, preparation and effective
use of exam time. I wish each of you who
attempt the new Structural exam the
very best. Demonstrating your capabili-
ties to your peers and the public through
this examination serves to strengthen
our profession.▪
 Keep your professional license
as mobile as you are.

To practice in multiple states, professional

engineers need their licenses to be mobile.

NCEES records are recognized by licensing boards

nationwide. Once established, your records can
quickly and easily be transmitted to any state
board to simplify and expedite your application
for comity licensure.

You don’t have time for unnecessary paperwork.

Let NCEES keep track of your record so you can
focus on what’s ahead.

ncees.org/records
records@ncees.org
800–250–3196
 UT’s New Hackerman Experimental
Science Building Inspires Teamwork
By Michael Brack, P.E.

The $115M Norman Hackerman Experimental Science Building sets a new

standard for design on the UT Austin campus. Courtesy of Tom Bonner, 2011.

T
he University of Texas first opened its doors in 1883, having
been granted 40 acres of land just north of the state capitol
in what was then the tiny town of Austin. Since then, the
main campus has expanded to over 400 acres, but Austin
has grown up around it. As a result, this campus of 50,000+ students
is landlocked.
With space at a premium, UT has had to make tough choices about
how to handle aging and obsolete facilities. As a result, Datum Gojer
Engineers had the rare opportunity to design a new building to replace
the old Experimental Science Building originally designed by Datum’s
founder in the 1950s.
The structural bones of the old Experimental Science Building (ESB), The old Experimental Science Building, while handsome, had become obsolete,
where many current Datum employees had classes when in school at inefficient, and expensive to retrofit.
UT, were in good shape. But the mechanical systems had largely failed,
causing large portions of the building to be abandoned in its final years, Resource Center, a Nuclear Magnetic Resonance suite, and a vivarium
and the 12-foot floor-to-floor heights would not accommodate new for keeping and raising animals or plants for observation or research.
systems. On top of this, the 20- by 27-foot bays were very inefficient The building is 500 feet long and 88 feet wide, filling the site of the
for modern laboratory layout, making reuse of the 200,000 square old ESB and then some. To keep the interior from feeling like a long
foot building on this land-starved campus a non-starter. tunnel, the architects organized the facility into thirds, with atrium/
The owner selected Los Angeles-based CO Architects, along with mixing spaces at the third points.
the Austin firm Taniguchi Architects, to lead the design team. The The 88-foot width allows for a 31-foot lab bay, a 33-foot lab prep
Austin office of The Beck Group was selected as the Construction bay, and a 22-foot office/corridor bay. In the long direction, an 11-foot
Manager at the outset of the project. Together, with Datum Gojer lab module is carried the entire length of the building.
Engineers (structural), this team would tackle a myriad of challenges
along the road to completing the project.
The end result is the eight-story, 294,000-square-foot, $115 million
Structural System Selection
Norman Hackerman Building, home to organic chemistry research labs, Vibration performance of this building would be critically important,
neuroscience research labs, teaching labs, an auditorium, the Imaging and UT Austin has had struggles with the performance of some of its

STRUCTURE magazine 15 September 2011


The story-height penthouse trusses cantilever up to 33 feet to overhang the
expansion joint.
buildings over the last decade. At the outset of the project, Datum
Gojer engineers met with the owner, the users, and other consultants
to establish the criteria for the building design. Labs had typically
been limited to 2000 micro-inches per second (VC-A) in the past,
although some buildings were not performing up to this level. Based
on research and input from consultants, UT decided to design this
building to a 300 micro-inch peak-to-peak total vibratory motion
criterion. Based on apples-to-apples comparisons, this results in about
a 40% decrease in velocity.
The engineers worked through several structural framing options
with the design team and settled on a wide-pan joist system with
20-inch deep pans, a 5-inch thick slab, and joists spaced at 5 feet
6 inches on center to correlate with the lab module. A distribution
rib at midspan of the long bays helps individual joists redistribute
isolated footfalls to adjacent joists. This simple addition to the design
further improved the system’s vibration performance for sensitive lab
equipment. Concrete was more economical than steel because of the
ability to use a deeper system for much greater stiffness, with very
little premium in formwork and material costs.
Datum Gojer performed an analysis of the structural system to
confirm its compliance with the vibration criteria, and the Guelph,
Ontario, office of RWDI performed an independent analysis to verify
the design. Just before the project opened for the spring semester
of 2011, RWDI measured the performance of the actual building
structure and confirmed that it was acceptable in accordance with
the design criteria.
The design team decided to locate a critically vibration-sensitive
imaging suite in the basement so that it would sit on a thickened
slab-on-grade over the limestone substrata, rather than trying to create
STRUCTURE magazine
The setback at the west entry afforded an opportunity to conceal the expansion
joint in a re-entrant corner.
a super-stiff suspended slab on an elevated level. The design team also
made the decision to stagger the joists from the lab module, centering
the pans on the column grids rather than centering the joists on the
column grids. This allowed plumbing, gas, and electrical services for
the lab benches to feed through sleeved or cored holes in the slab,
rather than through joists, which sped the construction process as
it made getting all the sleeves in place less critical. It also allows any
future services that come up in partitions or lab benches to be cored
through the slab, rather than the joists. The coordination of the
structural framing system with the very regular architectural layout
and lab planning module created a versatile, flexible building for an
owner with a long planning horizon.
Datum Gojer indicated to the architects that it would be most effi-
cient to locate the exterior masonry shelf angles within the depth of
the flush-bottom perimeter beams to save forming or miscellaneous
metal costs. CO Architects was able to do this, resulting in simple
loose lintels above the punched window openings.
Due to the structure’s length of 500 feet, a horizontal expansion
joint was required. Datum Gojer and CO worked together to find
a location that would be as simple as possible for the construction,
while minimizing the visual impact on the exterior. The team decided
to locate the joint in a setback in the building at the west entry, at
about the 1/3 point of the building. Locating it in the setback enabled
the joint to be detailed inconspicuously in the re-entrant corner.
The tradeoff for this expansion joint location was the need to can-
tilever 33 feet of the penthouse floor and roof over the joint. To
accomplish this, story-height steel-framed cantilever trusses were used
in the exterior walls of the penthouse. The trusses were designed to
accommodate a future 22-foot extension of a shade canopy over a
potential green roof area on the west wing. Because of the appearance-
critical nature of the canopy as an extension of the initial canopy,
deflection control was critical. The trusses, which cantilever in two
directions, were designed to limit the total deflection to less than 1.5
inches at the tip of the future canopy addition.
16 September 2011
 Michael Brack, P.E. is President of Datum Engineers,
Inc., a Texas-based structural engineering firm. Credit for
this fantastic project is rightfully shared with his in-house
team of Jeremy Klahorst, P.E., Igor Teplitskiy, P.E., Emily
Cleland, and Kelly Thibodeaux, as well as the good people
of CO Architects, Taniguchi Architects, The Beck Group,
and The University of Texas. Michael can be reached at
michaelb@datumengineers.com.

Part 2 of this article, in a future issue of STRUCTURE,

will describe some of the additional challenges posed by
this project and the innovative solutions that the design and
construction team developed.
The UT Hackerman Building Team assembled
in front of the completed building for an
evening celebration to dedicate the building
and honor its namesake.

Schedule Challenges
Due to funding and budget delays
during the design process, Datum Gojer
had less than 60 days to produce a foun-
dation and basement wall package from CityCenter, Las Vegas
the time of authorization to move ahead a 67 acre complex built with ProSpec products
at the end of the Design Development
phase. With material prices soaring in a
super-heated economy at the time, The
Beck Group needed a concrete package
a month later in order to avoid huge
increases in concrete and rebar prices;

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

this was no small matter for a large con-
crete building. Shortly after that, Beck
would need to start building the first
elevated framing levels.
These challenges required a high level of
trust and teamwork among the construc-
tion manager, architect, owner, structural
engineer, and subcontractors. The stake-
holders held regular meetings to discuss
the progress of design versus construction,
and made plans for an orderly delivery of
phased, fast-tracked structural packages
to meet the project needs.
Datum Gojer focused design efforts
first on completing the basement and
foundation design. Next, a concrete
scope package was issued so that The
Beck Group could lock in their concrete
and rebar subs at certain unit pricing
Total Confidence.
Our complete line of Level Set underlayments is engineered for
for the duration of the project. Then superior performance.
design efforts focused on completing • Superior bond strength
the documentation for the lower levels • Expansion stabilization technology (EST) eliminates shrinkage
of the building, saving the upper levels • Ph blocking capabilities contribute to better air quality*
for last to keep in sequence with the It’s the material you don’t see that matters most. This is why the
construction schedule. As a result, the Las Vegas City Center used ProSpec for its underlayment needs.
owner realized material cost savings and For product specification and information go to
an accelerated design schedule kept con- www.prospec.com
struction moving to meet the opening
date of January 2011.▪ ProSpec is a trademark of Bonsal *Lower alkaline binder system creates an alkali barrier from the
American, an Oldcastle Company underlying concrete when installed at > 3/16” (5MM) thick.

STRUCTURE magazine 17 September 2011


An Affordable and Sustainable Building Design in New York City
By Dominick R. Pilla, P.E., C.E., S.E., R.A. and Xiaoli Tong, P.E.
F
ox Point is a 48-unit affordable housing development pursu-
ing a USGBC LEED Silver rating. Located in the Foxhurst
section of the Bronx, this affordable apartment building is
sponsored by the Midtown-based nonprofit Palladia, Inc. and
aimed at providing housing for low income families with disabilities.
In 2005, Palladia selected the design team of Oaklander Coogan &
Vitto Architects(OCV) and Dominick R. Pilla Associates (DRPILLA),
structural engineer, to design the project.
Fox Point is developed on a site which accommodates an L-shaped
seven-story building above grade and a full cellar below, with a central
Figure 2: Green roof.
STRUCTURE magazine 18
Figure 1: Fox Point residence.
stair shaft and an elevator core (Figure 1). The building has a typical
floor height of 9 feet 4 inches, and a sloped mansard roof above the
seventh floor with an average building height of 70 feet. Two green
roofs are located on the fifth floor at the west wing and the seventh
floor at the south part of the main building, respectively (Figure 2).
The 48 units of studio and apartment comprise a total of 47,300
square feet of residential space. A public corridor is located in the
building center, and a typical room depth is 25 feet.
As an affordable building, the main challenge facing the team was
to develop a proper building construction type to meet the require-
ments of affordability and sustainability.
Building Construction Type
Three key factors were considered to determine a building construc-
tion type: code compliance, cost estimation and site condition.
Before 2008, the governing design code was the 1968 building code of
the City of New York with yearly amendment. In this code, all build-
ings are classified into two construction groups: I – Noncombustible
(masonry, concrete or steel building) and II – Combustible (timber
building). Each group was further divided into 5 classes from A to
E, dependent on its design fire rating. For the Fox Point residence,
the permitted construction types are classes I-A to I-D (minimum 2
hours fire rating for exterior bearing wall, enclosure of vertical exits,
passageway and shaft; 1 hour fire rating for other members) and classes
II-A (heavy timber) and II-B (protected wood joist) with a sprinkler
system. Therefore, the structural system choices included: masonry
bearing wall building with protected/fire-treated wood/metal joist
floors or precast plank floors; steel framing building with metal joist
September 2011

Figure 3: Corbels for wall set-back.
floors or precast plank floors; and concrete frame building with cast-
in-place flat slab floors.
Construction cost, field labor and equipment rental form a large
part of the overall construction cost, since local costs in New York
City are much higher than the national average. As a result, labor
for masonry block and precast members cost less than cast-in-place
members; masonry and concrete members cost less than metal or
wood members in regard to fire protection work. Furthermore, the
higher the building construction class, the lower the cost of insurance.
The site condition was investigated and the results showed the build-
ing’s footing could bear on soft or intermediate rock. As a result, the
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 4: Plank strengthening.
footing design would not be significantly different between a heavy
plank floor building and a light joist floor type under the same
framing plan.
As a result of a comprehensive comparison of the above-mentioned
factors, the selected construction type consisted of reinforced masonry
bearing walls and precast hollow core plank floors. With floor planks
shop constructed and assembled on site, the labor cost in the field
is minimized and consequently a faster construction is achieved.
A shorter construction duration is beneficial to budget control for
overall construction cost. An additional advantage is that the selected
construction type could be classified as IBC type IA with the highest
19 September 2011
fire resistance, for which the lowest insurance
premium is possible, reducing the building’s
maintenance cost.

Building Structural Design

To ensure an efficient building system, the
project team kept close coordination through
the overall design process, and the architecture
allowed incorporation of structural elements
in optimum locations – thereby allowing cost-
effective structural design.
The seven-story building’s foundation was
designed using spread footings to bear on
soft rock under load bearing walls and piers.
The perimeter foundation walls were designed
to retain the earth pressure as well as the
walkway surcharge. In order to minimize the
amount of site excavation of the hard rock,
some part of the foundation walls were set
back and corbels were installed to support
the masonry walls above (Figure 3, page 19).
Except for exterior walls and shaft walls, one
of the longitudinal middle corridor walls and
one transverse partition wall at the west side
of the main building were designed as load-
bearing reinforced concrete masonry walls. Figure 5: Typical floor plan.
Most walls are 8 inches thick above the 2nd
floor, and 12 inches thick below. The west-side exterior walls vanish when performing the diaphragm chord/drag member design and wall
below the 2nd floor, and the walls above are picked up by precast concrete connection design per code. The stair and elevator shaft cores at the
beams and cast-in-place concrete columns. re-entrant corner decrease the torsional irregularity of the L-shaped
Because only one interior load-bearing wall is used, the east portion of plan. As the 1st floor shear walls at the west wing disappear, the story’s
main building floors are framed by two rows of simply-supported planks stiffness and strength are compensated by increasing the interior shear
with center to center spans of 31 feet and 25 feet, respectively. The west walls’ thickness to avoid a weak/soft story irregularity.
wing, as well as the west portion of the main building, is framed by one
row of planks with a maximum span of 26 feet 6 inches. The building’s
floors consist of 523 pieces of 4-foot wide and 8-inch thick, no-topping,
Conclusion
Elematic hollow core planks. The selected masonry wall and floor plank system yielded a shorter con-
The floor planks are adaptable for varied equipment layouts. In the struction duration as expected. The 7-story building itself was topped
boiler room, the layout of mechanical equipment was adjusted prior out in approximately 4 months once the foundations were in place,
to installation, so that the in-placed planks’ capacities were under- approximately one week per floor. The fast construction of the building
mined by approximately 8.5% in flexural strength and 6.3% in shear made it possible to control the actual construction cost to $10.5 million,
strength. A simple strengthening method was proposed to install equivalent to a unit construction cost of approximately $222 per square
2-inch concrete topping to increase the effective depth and 2 cores foot, less than a local similar residential building. The use of precast planks
infilling per plank to increase effective shear area (Figure 4, page 19). and steel contributed 3 points to the LEED Silver rating of the building,
The green roofs comprise 18 pieces of 10-inch thick planks and 12 based on the use of recycled content and regional materials.
pieces of 12-inch thick planks at the seventh floor and the fifth floor, Designed to promote health and well being of its occupants, Fox
respectively. The sloped mansard roof was framed by metal joists and Point was opened in 2009. It currently provides permanent housing
corrugated decks. to 31 formerly homeless families and is renting to 17 low-income
The building’s lateral force-resisting system is reinforced masonry shear families or individuals from surrounding neighborhoods.▪
walls with rigid diaphragms at each floor formed by planks, which are
connected together by U-bars spaced at 4 feet on center as shown in Dominick R. Pilla, P.E., C.E., S.E., R.A. owns and operates
Figure 4. In the main building, two intersected interior shear walls are Dominick R. Pilla Associates, P.C. In addition, Mr. Pilla is
placed to reduce the offset of the mass center to stiffness center. One an associate professor in the Bernard & Anne Spitzer School of
of the interior shear walls connects to the west wing exterior shear Architecture at City College of New York. He can be reached at
wall so that it can continue the shear force transfer. The elevator and dominick@drpilla.com.
stair shaft cores are specially located as shown in Figure 4 to reinforce
Xiaoli Tong, P.E. is an Engineer with DRPILLA. Prior to joining
the re-entrant corner. Planks are linked with shear walls at end joints
DRPILLA, Mr. Tong gained most of his professional experience while
by L-shaped bars (Figure 5), and (2) #5 reinforcement is placed in the
working in a prominent national research institute on building
cast-in-place end joint to form continuous bond beams at each floor
technology in China. He can be reached at xiaolit@drpilla.com.
level. The plan irregularity, due to the re-entrant corner, was considered

STRUCTURE magazine 20 September 2011

Make it a double.

It’s time to celebrate the new two-story Strong Frame™ ordinary moment frame. This latest solution
from Simpson Strong-Tie has the same great benefits as our one-story frame, but can span up to
35' high within a 2x6 wall space – an industry first. Accommodating openings up to 18' high per story
and 24' wide, our new two-story ordinary moment frame is ideal for projects featuring tall ceilings,
expansive windows and other customized designs. With 100% bolted connections and a streamlined
anchorage design, our pre-engineered frames are easier to double up for the designer and the installer.
Learn more and download our new literature, call (800) 999-5099 or visit www.strongtie.com/strongframe.

© 2011 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. 2SF11-E

 THE SOLUTION
FOR INNOVATIVE
BUILDING PRODUCTS

ICC EVALUATION SERVICE

ICC Evaluation Service (ICC-ES), a subsidiary of the International Code Council, has been the industry leader in performing technical
evaluations for code compliance for more than 80 years. In accordance with the International Building Code® (IBC®) Section 104.11,
approved ICC-ES Evaluation Reports facilitate acceptance of new technologies in the marketplace. Establishing a baseline against
which innovative products can be objectively measured, ICC-ES Acceptance Criteria (AC) provide technical guidance when evaluating
innovative products resulting in ICC-ES Evaluation Reports.

Contact us today for more information:

1.800.423.6587 (x42237) 104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of
es@icc-es.org construction and equipment. The provisions of this code
is not intended to prevent the installation of any material
www.icc-es.org or to prohibit any design or method of construction not
specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such
alternative has been approved.

The Trusted Marks

of Conformity!
#1000
Subsidiary of ICC
11-04965
 FORD ALUMNI
CENTER
PARKING
MAC TO MATT
A State of the Art Arena for University of Oregon
By Ali A.K. Haris, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. and Guohui Guo, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., LEED AP
I
n January 2011, the standards for college basketball arenas were
elevated. Specifically, University of Oregon’s basketball program
made the move from McArthur Court, their beloved 85-year
old facility, to the new Matthew Knight Arena, a multi-purpose
arena. The new facility has a seating capacity of 12,500 screaming fans,
which will ensure its future as an NCAA Division I Arena. The fund-
ing was made possible through a donation from Nike’s Phil Knight,
in addition to expected ticket revenues, corporate sponsorships, and
other donations. This state of the art venue will soon become known
as a premier college basketball arena in the United States.
The project included three distinct components: the new multi-
purpose arena with a practice court to the south, the five-story Ford
Alumni Center and the two-story underground parking garage (Figure
1). Both the Alumni Center and parking garage were funded and
constructed separately from the Arena.
Several criteria affected the arena design, such as the desire to keep
a low profile, constraints of a tight site, and reflection of the letter
“O” for Oregon within the plan geometry. TVA Architects, the design
architects, and Ellerbe Becket, the sports specialty architects, arrived
at the current design that satisfied such criteria. The elliptical sloping
high roof tops off the facility’s elegant design. Haris Engineering, Inc.
Figure 2: Arena typical elevation view.
STRUCTURE magazine 23
ARENA
PRACTICE COURT
Figure 1: Arena during construction.
Courtesy of Hoffman Construction.
was selected as the structural engineer, bringing their experience in
sports facilities, including the previous successful completion of the
Autzen Football Stadium expansion in Eugene, Oregon.
Consistent collaborations enabled the completion of this structure
on time and within budget. As the owner’s representative, JMI Sports
provided on-site construction management through all phases of
development to construction closeout. Hoffman Construction, the
general contractor, and their on-site staff played a major role resolving
construction issues with continual communication with structural
engineers and architects.
Foundation and Soil Retention System
To address the need for a low profile exterior, the court was lowered
to 25 feet below the natural grade. The water table indicated in the
geotechnical report is approximately 10 feet below the natural grade.
Therefore, excavation needed to address the potential underground
water issue. Two possible schemes were considered and designed by
Haris engineers:
Scheme 1 designed the structure as a waterproof tub with hold-down
piles at 15 feet on center to resist the hydrostatic pressure. The tub
consisted of 24-inch event floor slab and 36-inch perimeter walls.
This scheme was considered only if dewatering in Scheme 2 was
prohibitive for the city storm water capacity.
Scheme 2 includes a complete drainage system to dewater under-
ground soil and eliminate hydrostatic pressure on walls and floor slabs.
This scheme was selected after it was determined that the amount
of water to be pumped was manageable. For this scheme, the soil
retention system consists of steel soldier piles with timber lagging
and temporary tiebacks. The foundations included spread footings
and cast-in-place concrete walls.
Structural Systems
Many structural systems were investigated and the two major systems
with extensive studies were as follows: (a) reinforced concrete framing
to concourse level and steel framing above; or (b) concrete framing to
upper concourse level including concrete rakers and steel framing for
low roof/mechanical floor and high roof. The latter framing system
September 2011
 On the arena north and south sides, 18- and 14-inch round HSS
members were used to provide supports for the building façade. Those
members are architecturally exposed structural steel and filled with
reinforced concrete.
Above the loading dock located on the west of the arena, 10-foot
deep post-tensioned girders span more than 100 feet between arena
and parking garage. Those girders were designed to support double
tees, topping slab, heavy planters, and AASHTO HS20 truck loads.
Based on Seismic Design Category D assigned to the arena, a combina-
tion of lateral systems provided seismic force resistance: special reinforced
concrete shear walls below the concourse level, special reinforced concrete
moment frames for the concrete portion above the concourse level, and
special steel moment frames (SMF) to support the mechanical level and
high roof. For steel framing, either SMF (response modification coefficient
R = 8) or special steel concentrically braced frames (SCBF, R = 6) could
have been used. However, the R value used for design at any story below
shall not exceed the lowest value of R that is used in the same direction
at any story above that story. Thus, if the SCBF system was used, the
special reinforced concrete moment frame would require an R value of 6
instead of 8 designated for this system. This would significantly increase
the seismic load for the structure below.

Figure 3: Roof truss erection. Courtesy of Hoffman Construction. Structural Design

was chosen for efficiency in material, fast schedule and budget. Figure Two separate SAP2000 models were developed for concrete frame anal-
2 (page 23) shows a typical building section of the arena. ysis, the lateral model and the gravity model. In the lateral model, only
The floor framing system consists of one-way reinforced concrete concrete moment frames are able to resist lateral loads and moment
slab and beam system at concourse and upper concourse levels. The frames were designed and detailed using this model. The remaining
steel framing at the mechanical level consists of 3-inch concrete on concrete members were pinned at their ends in this model. In the
2-inch metal deck. continued on page 26
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

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

STRUCTURE magazine 24 September 2011
 gravity model, all members were modeled with moment connections
and designed accordingly.
The seismic lateral analysis was performed using the two-stage equiva-
lent lateral force procedure outlined in ASCE 7. Two separate models
were created, one for the upper structure using the special concrete
and steel moment frames, and the other for the lower portion using
special reinforced concrete shear walls.
The vibration performance of the arena is crucial during sporting
events, especially with some raker beams cantilevering out 17 feet and
some seating units spanning 40 feet. According to the 1990 National
Building Code of Canada (NBCC) and AISC Steel Design Guide No.
11, a dynamic forcing function coupled with a live load of 30 psf was
used for the vibration analysis in the SAP2000 model. The vertical
acceleration at the cantilever end of raker beams and mid-span of
precast seating units were kept below 5 percent of the acceleration of
gravity, the maximum value recommended by NBCC.
The Prequalified Reduced Beam Sections (RBS) per AISC 358-05
was selected for SMF. To satisfy the code specified story drift require-
ments, heavy members, W14x550 columns and W36x256 beams,
were required due to the inherent low lateral stiffness of SMF system.
Arena Roof
The roof consists of six Pratt trusses with spans ranging from 218 to
265 feet, and span-depth ratios between 6 and 8. The truss chords are
wide flange members ranging from W14x74 to W14x370.
Geometric complexities of the roof – a
sloping surface and elliptical shape in the

Give Us Your
horizontal plane – posed great challenges
to the design of truss connections. In addi-
tion, connections for members that are
part of the seismic load resisting system
are required to be configured such that

Best Shot! a ductile limit state controls the design.

Thus it was critical that connections be
designed and detailed in conjunction with
the design of the members and seismic
requirements. As a result, Haris engineers
ITW elected to design all truss connections for
Red Head such a complex structural framing system.
The majority of the truss connections
Challenge were field-bolted; field-welded connec-
tions were kept to an absolute minimum
to speed truss erection. Having truss con-
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

nections fully detailed on the drawings

expedited the shop drawing approval
process tremendously.
Roof trusses were pre-assembled at the
steel fabrication plant, W&W Steel of
Oklahoma City, to identify any potential
detailing, fabrication, fit-up, and toler-
ance issues. Erection of each truss took
approximately one week, including truss
assembly in the field, shoring tower relo-
cation, truss erection, and installation of
fill beams and braces (Figure 3, page 24).
WIN A FREE After all roof members were erected,
Apple IPAD2! it was discovered that the scoreboard
load was much greater than had been
Vist our Facebook page and upload anticipated in the original design. The
your coolest ITW Red Head scoreboard assembly weighs about 62,000
application photo or video by lbs, in addition to the hoist weight of
September 30, 2011. about 24,000 lbs. As a result, the whole
roof structure was reanalyzed, and sev-
eral members and their connections were
required to be strengthened accordingly
(Figure 4).

REVIT Model
Concrete Anchoring Solutions During design, 3-D REVIT models
(Figure 5) were developed by the team to
Securing America’s Infrastructure Since 1910 www.itwredhead.com enable a more interactive design between
architects and consultants. Responsibilities

RdHd iPad-1/2 Pg Isld 2.2-SM.indd 1 7/18/11 10:52 AM

STRUCTURE magazine 26 September 2011
 Figure 6: The completed Matthew
Night Arena. Courtesy of
ericMaxwell Photography.

for portions of the model were divided between the architects and
structural engineers. For example, the precast elements were shown
in the architectural REVIT model, while the raker beams were in
the structural REVIT model. During design, REVIT models were
exchanged between consultants and all parties collaborated effectively
to identify conflicts and highlight areas that needed changing in the
design. Also REVIT models were shared with the general contrac-
tor to conduct material quantity take off, facilitate construction by
speeding erection, and identify conflicts at an early stage.
REVIT models were particularly useful when dealing with the com-
plicated roof framing and shroud wall framing. The mid-roof slopes
down from east to west, while the high roof slopes in the opposite
direction. In addition, the mid-roof and high roof drum wall fram-
ings lean towards the inside of the arena. With REVIT models, Haris
engineers were able to collaborate with TVA architects to coordinate
numerous framing details successfully.

Conclusions
The journey of the Matthew Knight Arena began with schematic
Figure 4: Opening game night. Courtesy of ericMaxwell Photography.
design in January 2006, continued with the ground-breaking in
February 2009, and began an entirely new chapter with the grand
opening in January 2011 (Figure 6).
The arena design and construction team provided University of
Oregon with one of the most advanced college basketball facility in
the country. University alumni, students, and enthusiastic fans can
be proud to host their basketball rivals at the arena for many seasons
to come. Go Ducks!▪

Ali A.K. Haris, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. is President of Haris

Engineering, Inc. in Overland Park, KS. Ali may be reached
at aharis@harisengineering.com.
Guohui Guo, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., LEED AP is a Senior Project
Engineer of Haris Engineering, Inc. Guohui may be reached at
cguo@harisengineering.com.
Figure 5: REVIT structural model.

STRUCTURE magazine 27 September 2011

Oklahoma City is proud to host this year’s NCSEA Annual
Conference. Held at the Renaissance Convention Center, the NCSEA Forums
preliminary program follows:
1:00 pm Ethics in Structural Engineering
THURSDAY – October 20 Barry Arnold, Vice President ARW Engineers,
Ogden, UT
Concurrent Sessions 3:15 pm Speaking to the Media
NCSEA Committee Meetings Gerry Bond, Emmy winning journalist and TV personality,
Oklahoma City, OK
10:30 – 12:00 Licensing Committee
11:00 – 4:00 Basic Education Committee Software Presentations
1:00 – 4:00 Code Advisory Wind Engineering Subcommittee 1:00 – 1:30 RISA Technologies
1:00 – 5:00 Code Advisory General Engineering Subcommittee 1:40 – 2:10 CSC, Inc.
1:00 – 5:00 Code Advisory SI/QA Subcommittee 2:20 – 2:50 Structural Desktop, Inc.
3:20 – 3:50 Bentley Systems
6:00 – 8:00 Welcome Reception for Exhibitors and Attendees 4:00 – 4:30 S-FRAME Software, Inc.
Exhibit Hours on Thursday: 1:00 – 8:00 p.m. 4:40 – 5:10 Design Data

FRIDAY – October 21
7:00 am Registration & Breakfast
7:30 am Breakfast Sponsor Speaker
8:15 am Roll Call & Introduction of Candidates for NCSEA
Board of Directors
8:30 am Keynote Address: International Structural
Engineering Practice – It’s Not Just About the Calcs
James R Cagley, 1st President of NCSEA, Cagley &
Associates, Rockville, MD
Designing structures for a number of years, in a number of foreign
countries, teaches you that structural engineering encompasses
so much more than just calculations and drawings. How it can
sometimes be interesting, sometimes fun, but not always both at
the same time, will be the subject matter of this keynote address by
the founder of NCSEA.
9:15 am Making Sense of the Rubble through Forensic
Investigation after the Oklahoma City and 9/11
Bombing Attacks
Gene Corley, 4 th President of NCSEA, CTLGroup,
Skokie, IL
After any structural damage occurs, there is an opportunity to
increase knowledge and improve future designs. In many cases,
damaged structures are partially intact, and the determination of
the cause of destruction may be easy. For the Oklahoma City and
World Trade Center bombings, however, damage was extreme,
thereby making investigation difficult. Results of the forensic inves-
tigations and the code changes that followed will be discussed.
10:00 am Break & Exhibitor Visits
10:45 am Forensic Design Panel Discussion
Tim Slider, 5 th President of NCSEA, Slider &
Associates, Richardson, TX
Ron Hamburger, 12 th President of NCSEA, Simpson
Gumpertz & Heger, San Francisco, CA
Ed Huston, 15 th President of NCSEA, Smith & Huston,
Seattle, WA
11:45 am Lunch, Sponsored Speaker, & Exhibitor Visits
STRUCTURE magazine
Concurrent Sessions
Session 1
1:00 pm The Building Code Process Today
Ron Hamburger, 12 th President of NCSEA, Simpson
Gumpertz & Heger, San Francisco, CA
Most structural design criteria in today’s building codes are adopted
by reference to national standards developed by ACI, AF&PA,
AISC, ASCE, TMS, and other industry groups. While the building
codes are updated and adopted every 3 years, the standards are
more typically updated and revised on a 5-year schedule. The 2006
IBC referenced 2005 editions of most standards. However, as time
goes by, the lag between standards publication and building code
adoption is increasing. Should engineers design to the latest standard
or that referenced by the building code? A look at some upcoming
changes to the code may provide some insight into this question.
1:45 pm Building Code Panel Discussion
Gene Corley, 4 th President of NCSEA, CTLGroup,
Skokie, IL
Greg Schindler, 8 th President of NCSEA, KPFF
Consulting Engineers, Seattle, WA
Ed Huston, 15 th President of NCSEA, Smith & Huston,
Seattle, WA
3:15 pm Specialty Structural Engineering – What I Learned
After College
Bill Bast, 17 th President of NCSEA, Thornton Tomasetti,
Chicago, IL
This talk will focus on structural engineering for vintage and new
building facades, construction means and methods, and structural
repairs. Case studies of each will be presented and discussed in detail.
4:00 pm Specialty Engineering Panel Discussion
Craig Barnes, 3 rd President of NCSEA, CBI Consulting,
Boston, MA
Emile Troupe, 6 th President of NCSEA, Structural Steel
Fabricators of New England
Mike Tylk, 9 th President of NCSEA, TGRWA, Chicago, IL
28 September 2011
Spouse Program
Contact Lisa Joyce, Coordinator (ljoyce3@cox.net) for
information. Program will include Oklahoma Memorial &
Museum, shopping in Bricktown Entertainment District
as well as Classen Curve, Red Earth Museum, Bricktown
dining and canal cruise, National Cowboy & Western
Heritage Museum, tour of Boathouse Row on Oklahoma
River, Myriad Botanical Gardens & Crystal Bridge Tropical
Conservatory, Trolley transportation.

Register online at www.ncsea.com

Conference Hotel
Renaissance Oklahoma City Convention Center Hotel Courtesy of Joseph Mills Photography
10 North Broadway Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK 73102
OKC Museum of Art Reception and Dinner
405-228-8000. Use Group Code NCSNCSA for special $149
rate, good only until September 27. 6:00 – 7:00 Roof Terrace Reception
7:00 – 8:30 Dinner
American Airlines 8:30 – 10:30 Open Galleries
Group Code #53H1BA for a 5% discount Exhibit Hours on Friday: 7:00 a.m. – 3:15 p.m.
Taxicab cost to the hotel: $24 – $26
OKC Rooftop Terrace: Located atop the three-story Donald W.
Best Deal on Airport Shuttles
Reynolds Visual Arts Center, the Roof Terrace offers a spectacular
Oklahoma Shuttle/Lightning Express 405-428-4441
view of downtown Oklahoma City.
Across the street from baggage claim, look for a sign that says
OKC Museum of Art: The Museum’s collection covers a period of
“Public Vans”. The cost for these orange and burgundy vans
five centuries, with highlights in European and American art from
is $16.00 one way and $2.00 for each additional person to
the eighteenth through twenty-first centuries and a growing collec-
the same hotel. No advance reservation necessary.
tion of contemporary art. Located atop the three-story Donald W.
Avis Car Rental Code Reynolds Visual Arts Center, the Roof Terrace offers a spectacular
view of downtown Oklahoma City.
#GO27999

SATURDAY – October 22
Session 2 7:00 am Breakfast and Presentation by Sponsor
8:00 am Roll Call and MO Reports
1:00 pm Investigation, Design, and Construction for
9:15 am Code Advisory Committee Report,
Renovation Projects is NOT an Off Shore Function
Ronald Hamburger, Chair
Craig Barnes, 3 rd President of NCSEA, CBI Consulting
Many renovation projects require a combination of services that
9:30 am Advocacy Committee Update, Bob Durfee, Co-Chair
can be provided most efficiently by an experienced structural 9:45 am Basic Education Update, Craig Barnes, Chair
engineer. Often that engineer must guide the architect, mechanical 10:00 am Continuing Education Update, Mike Tylk and
engineer, and even the client. Engineers not experienced in renova- Carrie Johnson, Co-Chairs
tion may come to grief in the process; and engineers without close 10:15 am Morning Break
proximity to the project are at a severe disadvantage. 10:30 am Licensing Committee Report, Susan Jorgensen, Chair
1:45 pm Renovation Panel Discussion 10:45 am Publications Committee Report, Tim Mays, Chair
John Joyce, 11th President of NCSEA, Engineering 11:00 am SEER Committee Report, Scott Nacheman, Chair
Solutions, Oklahoma City, OK 11:15 am Executive Director Report, Jeanne Vogelzang
Bob Paullus, 16 th President of NCSEA, Paullus 11:30 am Communication and Partnering Ad Hoc Committee,
Structural Consultants, Memphis, TN Jim Malley, Chair
Bill Bast, 17 th President of NCSEA, Thornton Tomasetti, 11:45 am SECB Report, Marc Barter, Board Member
Chicago, IL 11:50 am Treasurer’s Report, Ben Nelson, Treasurer
2:30 pm Break, Exhibitor Visits, and Raffle 12:00 pm Lunch and Sponsored Speaker
3:15 pm How to Make Money in Structural Engineering 1:15 pm NCSEA Proposed Licensure Policy,
Marc Barter, 7 th President of NCSEA, Barter & Susie Jorgensen, Licensing Committee Chair
Associates, Mobile, AL 1:30 pm Discussion and Vote on Licensure Policy
This presentation will be a general overview of the business of 2:00 pm Breakout sessions announced
structural engineering consulting. Topics such as client selection, 2:15 pm Breakouts
accounts receivable, insurance, and quality will be discussed.
3:00 pm Break
4:00 pm Business Issues Panel Discussion 3:15 pm Breakout sessions continued
James R Cagley, 1st President of NCSEA, Cagley & 4:00 pm Reconvene to Summarize Results
Associates, Rockville, MD 4:30 pm Adjourn
Sanjeev Shah, 10 th President of NCSEA, Lea+Elliott, 4:35 pm NCSEA Board of Directors Meeting
Inc., Miami, FL 6:00 pm Reception and Awards Banquet – Formal attire requested

STRUCTURE magazine 29 September 2011

 Back Hallway

M5 8 9 M4
NCSEA Ninteenth
Annual Conference

Sponsors & Exhibitors 7 25 26 35 47 10

24 27 AZZ 48
Platinum Sponsor

Pasta Station
Bar
Wallace Engineering Structural
Consultants, Inc. Bar and/or
www.wallacesc.com
Carving Station
Wallace Engineering is a structural and civil engineering firm
with engineers licensed in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, District
of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. They provide full service
engineering services to architects, contractors, corporations,
institutions and public entities, with offices in Tulsa, Kansas 4 13
City, Oklahoma City and Castle Rock. 51

Gold Sponsors
Nucor-Vulcraft Group
www.vulcraft.com
Vulcraft is the largest steel joist, girder and deck producer in
the United States. We have 7 joist plants and 9 deck plants
that service the entire US as well as Mexico and Canada. A
division of Nucor, we share the same #1 goal of Taking Care
of Our Customers!
Star Building Systems
www.starbuildings.com
Star Building Systems, founded in 1927, is a leader in
the custom metal building industry with a reputation for
performance and quality. Star prides itself on maintaining
state-of-the-art, computerized processing systems in all phases
of design, drafting and manufacturing. Star products are
proven in more than 300,000 Star buildings worldwide.
Silver Sponsors
Alliance Steel Inc.
www.allianceokc.com
A leading manufacturer of complete metal building
package, specializing in the design and manufacturing of
complex and regular buildings. 40+ years of experience
designing and fabricating conventional structural steel
and metal buildings for Agricultural, Auto Dealerships,
Churches, Banks, Hangars, Industrials, Mini Storage,
Offices, Recreational, Retails, and Schools.
Bronze Sponsors
B&T Engineering, Inc.
www.btengineering.com
B&T Engineering is a Structural Engineering firm specializing
in telecommunications tower designs, as well as traditional
structural engineering on commercial and industrial projects.
We have project designs nationwide, and are licensed to
practice engineering in all 50 states.
Engineering, Inc.
www.engineeringincorporated.com
Engineering Inc. performs inspections of commercial and
residential properties for damage-cause determination –
specializing in roof covering damage, structural, drainage/water
intrusion investigations, and construction analysis. Issuance
of detailed and comprehensive engineering analysis reports
including cause determination(s) and the nature and extents of
damage. Litigation support including research and testifying.
TM
3 52
M1
1 16
19
Entrance
Copper Sponsors
ATG USA (Applied Technology Group)
www.atgusa.com
ATG USA is recognized as the most progressive partner in
the industry. We offer customers comprehensive technology
solutions that help make them more profitable and
competitive in the marketplace by leveraging technology
and best in class business practices. Specialties: Autodesk
Gold Partner, AEC Industry, Autodesk Training &
Implementation, Technology Partners
B & R Engineering
B & R Engineering provides structural and foundation
inspections for commercial and residential customers. B & R
Engineering also provides structural inspections for manufactured
homes’ permanent foundation requirements to meet VA and/or
FHA standards.
Crafton Tull
www.craftontull.com
Crafton Tull is a fully-integrated design firm providing
architecture, interior design, structural engineering, MEP
engineering, civil engineering, survey, planning, and landscape
architecture. With over 47 years in the built community, we
have grown to become a firm of more than 270 professionals
in six offices serving a national market area.
Kirkpatrick Forest Curtis PC
Kirkpatrick Forest Curtis is an Oklahoma City structural
engineering consulting firm providing services to building
owners, architects, general contractors, steel fabricators and
government agencies. Services provided include the design
of structural systems for new and renovated facilities,
forensic investigations, structural condition assessments,
construction support services and steel connection design.
14
M3
18
Entrance
Linde Process Plants, Inc.
www.LPPUSA.com
Linde Process Plants, Inc. (LPP), a member of The Linde
Group, has combined expertise of Natural Gas, Refining,
and Deep Cryogenics. The LPP Integrated Advantage is the
result of in-house Technology, Engineering, Fabrication, and
Construction capabilities implemented by a team of skilled
employees throughout all phases of each project.
White Engineering Associates, Inc.
http://weainc.com/
White Engineering Associates, Inc. (WEA) offers structural/civil
engineering services relating to the construction of bridges, roads,
buildings and special structures. Clients served include architects;
other engineers; contractors; building owners and leasing agents;
large corporations; and city, county and state governments.
Exhibitors
American Institute of Steel Construction
www.aisc.org
The AISC Steel Solutions Center (SSC) is the one-stop shop
for the structural steel industry. The SSC answers technical
questions and provides complimentary conceptual studies in
structural steel for buildings and bridges. The SSC facilitates
a file sharing and networking site (www.steelTOOLS.org) for
the design and construction community.
AZZ Galvanizing Services
www.azzgalvanizing.com
AZZ Galvanizing Service owns and operates 33 hot dip
galvanizing plants strategically located across the US, with
kettles ranging in size from 25 to 62 feet. They accommodate
the largest projects with customized turnaround time at a
competitive price. The company serves the after-fabrication
steel market with corrosion protection.

STRUCTURE magazine 30 September 2011

Exhibitors (continued)
Bekaert
www.bekaert.com
Dramix steel fibers, by Bekaert, are a practical alternative for
®
traditional reinforcement. Its principle advantages are reduction
in construction time, material and costs. Bekaert has received its
ICC-ES certification for Dramix in concrete footings, slabs on
ground, and elements. Dramix also meets the requirements of
“steel fiber-reinforced concrete” per ACI318.
Bentley Systems Inc.
www.bentley.com
Bentley’s flexible and scalable products, including RAM,
STAAD and ProSteel, allow seamless workflow of analysis,
design, detailing, documentation, and BIM for building,
plant, and civil applications. Completely integrated solutions
are available for steel, composite steel, cold-formed steel,
cellular beams, as well as reinforced concrete, post-tensioned
concrete, wood, aluminum, and masonry.
CMC Steel Products
www.cmcsteelproducts.com
CMC Steel Products manufactures the cellular and castellated
SMARTBEAM® – an innovative, economical and sustainable
alternative for floor and roof framing systems. Manufactured
from recycled materials, the beams are lightweight, have superior
deflection properties, and can integrate MEP systems through the
web openings. SMARTBEAM® – The Intelligent Alternative
CSC Inc
www.cscworld.com
CSC has developed innovative structural
engineering software for over 35 years. Tedds
automates daily structural designs by providing a comprehensive
library of calculations with the flexibility to create and
customize calculations within Microsoft Word. Fastrak is the
definitive software for the design, documentation and BIM
interoperability of structural steel buildings.
Delta Structrual Technology
www.fiberwrap.com
Delta is an industry leader in the design and installation of
externally bonded Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) systems
for strengthening, repair and restoration of masonry, concrete,
steel and wooden structures. We provide state-of-the-art
structural composite design and installation, delivering
the most professional, cost effective solution for the most
challenging projects.
Design Data
www.sds2.com
Design Data’s SDS/2 software solutions provide automatic
detailing, connection design, engineering information, and
other data for the steel industry’s fabrication, detailing and
engineering sectors. As a BIM software, SDS/2 allows for
the sharing of data between all partners, reducing the time
required to design, detail, fabricate and erect steel.
Ecospan Composite Floor System, by Vulcraft
www.ecospan-usa.com
The ECOSPAN® Composite Floor System by Nucor-Vulcraft
is a light weight, economical open web steel structural system
for elevated concrete floor construction requiring no shoring
or temporary forming. ECOSPAN® utilizes over 80% recycled
steel materials produced at Nucor Steel mills that will assist in
obtaining LEED accreditation for buildings.
Fabreeka International, Inc
www.fabreeka.com
Fabreeka’s experience in vibration control includes the
dynamic response of steel fabrications and support structures.
Services include measuring building floor vibration,
displacement response of floors/mezzanines and modeling
of structures to predict performance. Fabreeka’s capabilities
include NASTRAN and finite element analysis programs to
analyze the static and dynamic conditions.
Fyfe Co. LLC
www.fyfeco.com
A leader in the manufacturing of advanced
composites used for civil and structural
applications. The Tyfo® Fibrwrap® Fiber Reinforced Polymer
(FRP) system is used on concrete structures including bridges,
buildings, industrial facilities and pipelines, is the only FRP
system available in the world with an ICC ES Report, ESR-
2103, which meets 2009 IBC standards.
Register online at
www.ncsea.com
STRUCTURE magazine
Grace Construction Products
www.graceconstruction.com
Grace Construction Products offers a wide range of specialty
construction chemicals and materials: concrete admixtures,
macro synthetic fibers, surface retarders for decorative
concrete, metakaolin, silica fume, cement processing additives,
concrete masonry products, air and vapor barriers, roofing
underlayments, window, door, and deck flashings, structural
waterproofing systems, and fire protection products.
Hardy Frames, Inc
www.hardyframe.com
Hardy Frames Inc. manufactures and markets the Hardy
Frame shear wall system, and is the leader in the pre-fabricated
shear wall industry. The Hardy Frame system allows Building
Design Professionals to economically and safely minimize wall
space and maximize wall openings while resisting high wind
and earthquake loads.
Hayward Baker
www.haywardbaker.com
Hayward Baker provides geotechnical construction techniques for
structural support, ground improvement, and earth retention. We
assist structural engineers to ensure a solid understanding of our
techniques and how they can best be applied to solve geotechnical
problems. Hayward Baker is the #1 Excavation/Foundation
Contractor, ranked by Engineering News-Record.
Hilti, Inc.
www.us.hilti.com
Hilti is a world-leading manufacturer of quality, innovative
tools and fastening and protection systems. With more than
190 highly trained engineers and technical team members,
Hilti provides both onsite technical expertise and back office
support. Hilti also offers PROFIS design software to assist
design, specifying consultants and professional contractors.
(www.us.hilti.com/profis_download).
ITW Red Head
www.itwredhead.com
ITW Red Head is America’s largest manufacturer of fastening
products used in concrete construction. Since the invention of
the original “self-drill” anchor in 1910 and the first “powder-
actuated tool” in 1947, Red Head has led the industry with
time saving, high performance products.
LNA Solutions
www.LNASolutions.com
LNA Solutions provides Structural Steel Connection Solutions
without the need of field drilling or field welding. These
methods are very cost effective, especially in cases where
secondary steel is added to existing structures. LNA Solutions
provides full service design of your connection without
additional charge. Call 888-724-2323 for consultation today.
Nucor-Vulcraft Group
www.vulcraft.com
(see Gold Sponsor)
Powers Fasteners
www.powers.com
Powers Fasteners is a privately held company specializing in
global marketing of quality anchoring and fastening products
for concrete, masonry and steel. Powers has been providing
innovative fastening solutions for more than 85 years. Powers
can provide answers to all of your construction fastening needs.
RISA Technologies
www.risa.com
RISA has been developing leading edge structural design
and optimization software for over 20 years. Our products
are used around the world for buildings, stadiums, bridges
and everything in between. The seamless integration of
RISAFloor and RISA-3D creates a powerful structural design
environment, ready to tackle your next design challenge.
SECB
www.secertboard.org
The Structural Engineering Certification Board was formed
to identify those professional engineers with the additional
education, experience, and skills that are particular to the
practice of Structural Engineering.
S-FRAME Software Inc.
www.S-FRAME.com
Structural engineers choose S-FRAME®, S-CONCRETE®, S-
STEEL® and S-PAD® on the simplest and most complex projects
in terms of geometry, material models, loading conditions, analysis
and design requirements because of the products’ depth of capabili-
ties, ease-of-use, accuracy and detailed reports coupled with the
industry’s most dedicated and responsive customer support teams.
31 September 2011
SidePlate Systems, Inc.
www.sideplate.com
Steel frame solutions for structures in all design
environments without CJP welds. With the advent of
SidePlate FRAME™ connection technology, superior
performance now comes with the least cost, saving time and
money on virtually any project when compared to alternative
structural systems, regardless of whether wind, seismic or
blast/progressive collapse governs.
Simpson Strong-Tie
www.strongtie.com
For more than 50 years, Simpson Strong-Tie®
has led the industry in product solutions that increase the
structural integrity of homes and buildings, making them
stronger and safer. Products include Wood and Steel Strong-
Wall® shearwalls, Strong Frame® ordinary moment frames,
products for Cold-Formed Steel, and Simpson Strong-Tie
Anchor Systems®.
Star Seismic
www.StarSeismic.net
Star Seismic designs and manufactures buckling restrained braces,
the most rapidly growing seismic system. Not only do you get a
superior seismic performance, but you save construction time and
money as well. Let Star Seismic reduce your risk by assisting you
through the design of your next project.
Steel Cast Connections LLC
www.SteelCastConnections.com
Steel Cast Connections provides the Kaiser Bolted Bracket SMRF
connection, which is now prequalified in the ANSI/AISC 358
code. The retrofit and new construction versions are bolted,
requiring no field welding to provide substantial erection cost
savings. We also specialize in custom design castings.
Structural Desktop Inc.
www.structuraldesktop.com
Structural Desktop (SDT) integrates STAAD Pro, RISA 3D/
RISAFloor, GT STRUDL, and SAP2000 with AutoCAD. The
user can build an analytical model inside AutoCAD, import
that model into their analytical program for analysis/design, and
then import that model back into SDT for automatic creation
of annotated AutoCAD “DWG” contract drawings.
TurnaSure, LLC
www.TurnaSure.com
TurnaSure LLC is the manufacturer of Direct Tension
Indicators strictly adhering to the ASTM F959 Standard.
TurnAnut™ DTI fastener is an ingenious new tensioning
device linking a TurnaSure® DTI to an ASTM A563 DH nut.
Now the nut, hardened washer and Direct Tension Indicator
become one piece.
Unbonded Brace
www.UnbondedBrace.com
Unbonded BraceTM is the original, and most widely-used
buckling-restrained brace (BRB) in the world, with more
than 20 years research and development and 1,000 projects
worldwide. Now offering a trio of welded, pinned and bolted
connections, Unbonded Brace (UBB), continues to set the
standard for product quality and high-end applications.
USP Structural Connectors
www.uspconnectors.com
United Steel Products Company, a division of Mitek, is one
of the world’s leading fabricating manufacturers serving the
residential and commercial building industries throughout
the United States and Canada. Our full-range product line
is backed up by an in-house engineering staff, technical
assistance team and a customer service call center.
Valmont Tubing
www.hsssuperstruct.com
Custom HSS Superstruct tube sections manufactured to meet
unique architectural and engineering needs. With capabilities
of producing square and rectangle HSS tubes ranging from 12
inches up to 50 inches, wall thicknesses from .313-inches to
1.00-inch and lengths up to 60 feet.
Vector Corrosion Technologies
www.vector-corrosion.com
Innovative solutions for concrete corrosion repair and
protection include electrochemical chloride extraction,
cathodic protection, and an array of galvanic protection
systems like embedded galvanic anodes, galvanic jackets
and activated arc spray zinc metalizing. Vector also provides
corrosion evaluation, repair/mitigation services for post-
tension corrosion and temperature resistant composite
strengthening systems.
 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
 updates on emerging technologies, products and services Product Watch
Self-Consolidating Concrete (SCC): Today and Tomorrow
By William S. Phelan

S
elf-Consolidating Concrete (SCC)
originated and gained initial accep-
tance in Japan in the late 1980s. It is
used successfully today throughout
the world in both precast and cast-in-place
concrete. It is increasingly being specified and
used in North America.
SCC is a highly flowable, non-segregating
concrete with a slump/flow of 20 inches
to 30 inches that can be easily placed and
completely fills forms under its own weight,
without mechanical vibratory consolidation.
It is produced using high-range water-reduc-
ing admixtures (HRWRA, also known as
superplasticizers), viscosity-modifying admix-
tures (VMA), and well-graded aggregates.
Polycarboxylate-based HRWRAs are the typ-
ical type used; they are significantly different
from the older naphthalene-based HRWRAs.
HRWRAs and VMAs provide the required
fluidity and viscosity. VMAs are commonly
used in mixes with slump/flows above 24
inches, and in mixes with less than optimum
combined aggregate gradation. Mix designs
are initially prepared in accordance with the
project specifications, expected slump/flow
range, and a setting time based on climatic
conditions at the time of placement. The pro-
posed mix must be verified by a successful
onsite placement to confirm the optimum
slump/flow, pumpability, finish, and setting
time. Excessive form pressure can result from
retarded concrete, too rapid placement of
concrete, or both.
Slump/Flow of 28 inches.
Formwork must be designed with slump/
flow, rate of placement, and setting time Self-Consolidating Concrete, held September
established. SCC has thixotropic proper- 26-29, 2010 in Montreal, Canada, provide
ties which tend to minimize form pressures. valuable information on slump/flow, setting
Thixotropy is the property of certain gels or time, and resulting form pressure.
fluids that are thick (viscous) under normal SCC is currently used in precast concrete,
conditions, but flow (become thin, less vis- architectural concrete, heavily reinforced con-
cous) over time when shaken, agitated, or crete and formed repairs. SCC in the plastic
otherwise stressed. The proceedings from SCC state offers the benefits of speed of place-
2010, Design, Production and Placement of ment, ease of consolidation, deformability,

Freedom Tower 301 Mission Street Michigan State LNG Storage US Mission @
Successful SCC Mix Designs. 1,776 Feet High San Francisco, CA University Tanks The United
New York, NY 60 Stories Arts Center Freeport, Texas Nations
Cement 300 lbs. 470 lbs. 560 lbs. 582 lbs. 550 lbs.
Microsilica 25 lbs.
Fly Ash Class F 65 lbs. (Class C) 240 lbs. (Class C) 190 lbs.
Slag (Grade 120) 483 lbs. 470 lbs. 250 lbs.
Sand 1370 lbs. 1417 lbs. 1374 lbs. 1404 lbs.
Coarse Aggregate 1640 lbs., ¾” 1417 lbs., ½” 1597 lbs., 3/8” 1439 lbs., 1” 1550 lbs., 3/8”
Water 270. lbs. 292 lbs. 272 lbs. 294 lbs. 275 lbs.
Air-Entraining Admixture – – As required – 4.0 oz.
HRWR 70 oz. 94 oz. 34 oz. 108 oz. 49.0 oz.
Viscosity Modifier 10 oz. 25 oz. 2 oz. 4 oz. 2.0 oz.
Hydration Control Admixture 30 oz.
Site added Admixture, HRWR As required As required As required As required 30.0 oz.
Air Content < 3% < 3% 3% – 6% 2% 3% – 6%
Slump Flow 23” – 27” 20” – 24” 28” – 30” 29” +/- 2” 24” +/- 2”
Water/Cementitious Ratio 0.27 0.31 0.34 0.38 0.34
14,000 psi 10,000 psi 6,000 psi 5,000 psi 8,000 psi
Compressive Strength , f'c
@ 56 days @ 56 days @ 28 days @ 28 days @ 28 days
16,149 psi +
Average Strength 10,000 psi + 11,000 psi +
@ 56 days

STRUCTURE magazine 33 September 2011

University of California, Merced, CA. Mirror Finish Wall. Architectural Concrete. SCC is pumped from the bottom in this wall.

and resistance to bleeding and segregation Successful SCC Mix Designs Major Projects in the US
in both the dynamic and static states. The
Successful SCC concrete projects have the The United States Mission at the United Nations
hardened concrete benefits include improved
following characteristics: was the Grand Award Winner at the Concrete
appearance and finish, as well as higher early
• The specification is clear as to usage, Industry Board awards dinner in 2009. This
strength than conventional superplasticized
water/cementitious ratio, air content, structure is 28 stories of buff-colored, archi-
concrete, with slumps of 7 to 10 inches when
the necessity for a pre-placement tectural SCC concrete (8000 psi @ 28 days).
a polycarboxylate admixture is used. SCC
conference, and successful test The Freedom Tower (Tower 1) at the World
has higher bond strengths to steel because
placement onsite. Trade Center site is 1,776 feet tall. Concrete
vibration in conventional concrete can cause
• The pre-placement conference is above 60 stories now. The shear walls were
bleeding that result in some voids under
agenda requires representatives from 16,149 psi @ 56 days (modulus of elasticity
reinforcement. SCC can also achieve these
the designers, contractors, concrete of 7,700,000 psi) from the foundation to 70
additional benefits:
producers, admixture manufacturers, feet above street level. 12,000 psi concrete
• Faster placing, finishing, and stripping
and testing lab personnel to was used for the next 330 feet. (Modulus of
of forms.
discuss thoroughly the mix design elasticity is a key requirement for high-strength
• Reduced equipment costs.
requirements in both the plastic and concrete used for construction of tall buildings).
• Faster turnaround time of
hardened state, climatic conditions, The Trump Tower in Chicago, Illinois was a
concrete trucks.
form design, form release agent, major user of SCC. It is a 92-story reinforced
• Significant cost savings because of the
schedule, rate of placements, test concrete project that required 4,600 cubic
elimination of vibration and increased
placement location (s), and target yards of SCC to be cast-in-place continuously
rate of placement.
slump-flow. for 22 hours to construct the mat foundation
• Reduction in patching and repair.
When the planning and preparation that supports the finished structure. The mix
• Increased safety for the work force with
are thorough, and appropriate Quality had a 7-day compressive strength of 9,950
the elimination of vibration.
Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) psi and a 28-day strength of 12,000 psi. This
The benefits of SCC are recognized by many
procedures are followed, very successful single pour is the largest ever recorded to date
owners, designers, and concrete producers
projects are the result. in North America using SCC.
throughout the country. Most structural engi-
Key requirements for SCC include:
neering firms today include SCC in their
master specifications. The following mix
• Acceptable slump/flow range based on Major Projects
the successful test placement onsite.
designs have been used successfully.
• Testing procedures at the concrete
around the World
plant and in the field with respect to The Burj Khalifa is the tallest building in the
water and air content. world. SCC was used throughout the build-
• Acceptable architectural finish ing and was pumped 166 stories above the
requirements regarding uniformity ground. The slump/flow was 24 to 28 inches.
of finish, color and limits on The Mori Tower in Shanghai, China used
“bug hole” size and number. A SCC for its structural frame. The foundation
bug hole is a small void generally is composed of 48,000 cubic yards of SCC. It
resulting from air trapped on the was cast-in-place in three phases, with the last
form surface. ACI describes them phase made up of 36,000 cubic yards being
in Sections 3.7 and 4.9.6 of its poured continuously for 40 hours using 19
Guide to Cast-In-Place Architectural pumps. This 1,614-foot tall, 101-floor build-
University of California, Merced, CA. Concrete Practice. ing consumed over 390,000 cubic yards of
Architectural Concrete Measured for Slump/Flow. concrete before completion.

STRUCTURE magazine 34 September 2011

Architectural Concrete with knife edge corners and openings Architectural Concrete. Close up of knife edge openings.

In Neuchatel, Switzerland, the La Maladiere Summary William S. Phelan is Senior Vice President
Football Stadium was made up of 78,000
SCC greatly expands the possibilities of suc- of Marketing & Technical Services for
cubic yards of SCC placed in 10 months. The
cessful high-performance concrete placements the Euclid Chemical Company. He is an
slump flow required was 26 inches, with a
with difficult and demanding requirements. Honorary Member and Fellow of ACI.
28-day compressive strength of 6,400 psi. This
In fact, the goal in North America is “15 by ACI 212.3R-10, Report on Chemical
development contains a football stadium with
15” – to have SCC become 15% of all ready- Admixtures for Concrete, was chaired by
11,500 seats, a mall with 270,000 square feet
mixed concrete by 2015.▪ William S. Phelan. He may be reached at
of retail space and a parking structure with 930
euclidchem@att.net.
spaces. The structure was completed in 2007.

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

Restoration Team Experience Since 1978

Masonry Façade Re-Anchoring Solutions

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

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

STRUCTURE magazine 35 September 2011

CASE BuSinESS PrACtiCES business issues

CASE Contract Documents: Which one do I use?

By Ronald R. White, P.E.

T
he Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE) has CASE Document 5
developed several very useful documents for structural An Agreement for Structural Peer Review Services ©
engineers to use when entering into agreements with clients
A request to perform a peer review of another structural engineer’s
for structural engineering services. The agreements are
design brings with it a different responsibility than that of the SER.
tailored for specific services that structural engineers may provide.
This agreement addresses the responsibilities and the limitations of
All structural engineers need to be aware that these documents exist
performing a peer review. This service is typically performed for an
so that they can use them when applicable. Several years ago, when
Owner, but the document may be altered to provide peer review
Lance Atkins became chairman of the CASE Contracts Committee,
services for others.
he prepared a brief summary of each contract document for the com-
mittee’s benefit, which are listed below:
CASE Document 6
Commentary on AIA Document C401 Standard Form of
CASE Document 1 Agreement Between Architect and Consultant, 2007 Edition
An Agreement For the Provision of Limited
Professional Services © This document includes a commentary on AIA Document C401, a
sample proposal letter for use with AIA Document C401, a matrix of
Providing structural engineering for a small project with a limited
standard services, a matrix of additional or extra services and an exhibit
duration will sometimes necessitate the use of a simpler and shorter
to add exceptions, clarifications or additions to the AIA standard terms
agreement. A simple and uncomplicated form is presented that will
and conditions. It is very useful in defining structural services before
assist the SER in this situation. The CASE document provides an
the SER and Architect sign AIA Document C401. The structural
abbreviated agreement that may be used for those projects.
engineer may find that no matter what contract form is being used, a
simplified listing of the services that are to be performed will benefit
CASE Document 2 all parties involved. Included in this document is a matrix which will
An Agreement Between Client and Structural Engineer reduce or eliminate confusion as to what services are or are not to
of Record for Professional Services © be provided. The matrix outlines the majority of services that may
be required. By marking those services that are to be provided and
This contract form may be used when the Client wishes to retain the
reviewing it with the client, a mutual understanding may be achieved.
SER directly. The contract contains an easy to understand matrix of
The listing of services is also very beneficial in negotiating fees.
services that will simplify the “what’s included and what’s not ques-
tions” in negotiations with a prospective client. This document is not
suitable when the SER is the Prime Professional. CASE Document 6A
Commentary on AIA Document B-141, Standard Form of
Agreement Between Owner and Architect with Standard
CASE Document 3 Form of Architect’s Services, 1997 Edition
An Agreement Between Structural Engineer of Record and
Consulting Design Professional for Services © Providing services to an architect who is in contract with the owner
by using the standard AIA documents requires the SER to be aware
The SER may find it necessary to retain the services of a sub-consultant
of the provisions of that contract. The Architect is agreeing to fur-
or architect when the SER is in direct contract with the Owner. This
nish services in his contract that will have an impact on the scope of
agreement provides a form that outlines the services and requirements
services that the SER will be required to provide. This commentary
in a matrix so that the services of the sub-consultant may be readily
gives guidance on items that require special attention, or may be of
defined and understood. A separate matrix is provided for use when
a nature to require changes to the SER –Architect contract.
the sub consultant is an architect.

CASE Document 4 CASE Document 7

Commentary on AIA Document A295-2008, General
An Agreement Between Client and Structural Engineer
Conditions of the Contract for Integrated Project Delivery,
for Special Inspection Services ©
2008 Edition.
Special Inspection services provided by a structural engineer are nor-
The Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) approach is a collaborative
mally contracted directly by the Owner of a project. The original SER
process involving all participants through all phases of the project.
or another structural engineer may use this agreement for providing
Document A295 does not directly involve the SER, but the conditions
these services. The responsibility for coordinating laboratory testing
contained therein may be incorporated by reference into the SER’S
work is also included within this agreement.
agreement with the Architect. If IPD is the chosen approach, the SER
must be familiar with the IPD general conditions when developing

STRUCTURE magazine 36 September 2011

the Scope of Services and fees. Building Information Modeling (BIM)
is required, therefore the SER must produce documents using BIM.
Project phases are different than the traditional phases. The SER’S
level of effort is shifted to earlier phases. During all phases, there will
be input from the contractor which may increase the SER’S time
for meetings and changes all of which should be reflected in the fee.
CASE Document 8
An Agreement Between Client and Specialty Structural
Engineer for Professional Services ©
When structural engineering services are provided to a contractor or
a sub-contractor for work that is to be included in a project where
the SE is a specialty engineer and not the SER, the contractual rela-
tionship differs from the norm and typical contract forms will not
suffice. The CASE 8 document is tailored to this particular situation.
CASE Document 9
An Agreement Between Structural Engineer of Record
and Testing Laboratory ©
The structural engineer may be required to include testing services as
a part of its contract. When a Testing Laboratory subcontracts for this
service, the CASE Document 9 may be used. It can also be altered
for use between an Owner and a Testing Laboratory.
CASE Document 10
An Agreement Between Structural Engineer of Record and
Geotechnical Engineer of Record ©
The structural engineer may be required to include geotechnical engi-
neering services as a part of its contract. If a geotechnical engineer &
laboratory is subcontracted for this service, the CASE Document 10
may be used. It can also be altered for use between an Owner and a
Geotechnical Engineer.
CASE Document 11
An Agreement Between Structural Engineer of Record (SER)
and Contractor for Transfer of Computer Aided Drafting
(CAD) Files on Electronic Media©
Electronic files provide a level of detailing and dimensioning that was
not previously available on the old hand prepared drawings. Fabricators
and suppliers are requesting electronic files from the designer. By
electronically preparing models or drawings, changes may be made
by the fabricator that would not be distinguishable without a critical
review and dimensional checks may not be conducted. The CASE
11 Agreement can be used so that both the SER and recipient of the
electronic files understand the limitations and extent to which the files
may be used. This is a guideline for allowing the transfer of electronic
files to contractors, fabricators and material suppliers.
CASE Document 12
An Agreement Between Client and Structural Engineer
for Forensic Engineering (Expert) Services ©
Structural engineers may be requested to perform services related to
the analysis, review, or investigation of structural failures or problems.
These services are typically performed for attorneys and may include
the writing of reports, the giving of depositions and trial testimony.
This CASE document will provide the necessary agreement for this
STRUCTURE magazine
situation. It may also be used with some alterations for providing
forensic services directly to a client.
CASE Document 13
An Agreement Between Owner and Structural Engineer as
Prime Design Professional ©
Clients with projects that are primarily structural in nature may be better
served if the structural engineer is the Prime Professional. This agree-
ment form may be used to specifically address these types of projects.
CASE Document 14A
Additional Services Form
Occasionally, situations arise which were not foreseen prior to sign-
ing an agreement for structural services. These situations sometimes
require significant additional structural effort. This form, signed by
the structural engineer and client, is intended as a simple means to
describe the additional services and fees.
CASE Document 14B
Standard Form for Request for Information (RFI)
Standardization of a Request for Information form prior to the com-
mencement of a project will benefit all involved in the construction
process. This form is intended for inclusion in the contract bid docu-
ments. It assists in the control of the type of request that is being
presented, and also helps to classify the information that could cause
delays and cost increases.
CASE Document 15
Commentary on AIA Document A201, General Conditions
of the Contract for Construction, 2007 Edition
AIA Document 201 is frequently adopted by reference in other AIA
documents, which may directly impact the structural Engineer’s
practice. This document provides a commentary to alert the Structural
Engineer of the various sections and paragraphs which may affect their
position and responsibilities during the construction of the project.
CASE Document 16
An Agreement Between Client and Structural Engineer for A
Structural Condition Assessment ©
A structural condition assessment of an existing structure is a common
service provided by Structural Engineers. This document provides a sample
agreement for Structural Engineers to use when providing this service.
One of the great benefits of becoming a member of CASE is that
these Contract Documents, as well as various guideline documents and
tool kits, become freely available to help you function more effectively
in the business of Structural Engineering. These CASE documents
can be purchased by non-members from the online bookstore at
www.acec.org. The CASE Contracts Committee may be contacted
through Brian L. Schmidt, P.E., Chairman of the Case Contracts
Committee, at Bschmidt@gcwallace.com.▪
Ronald R. White, P.E. is a member of the CASE Contracts
Committee. He is President of White Engineering Associates, Inc.
of Oklahoma City and a Past Chairman of CASE. Ron can be
contacted at rwhite@weainc.com.
37 September 2011
ANCHORING GUIDE

Gen. Hardware &Ties

Geotechnical Anchors

Reinforcing Anchors
Masonry Anchors
Concrete Anchors

Façade Anchors

Post-Tensioning

Utility Anchors
Anchor Bolts
Company Product
American Wood Council
Phone: 202-463-2766
Email: info@awc.org
2008 SDPWS X
Web: www.awc.org

Bentley Systems ProStructures V8i X X X

Phone: 800-236-8539
Email: structural@bentley.com
Web: www.bentley.com RAM Connection V8i X X

CHANCE-Hubbell Power Systems

Phone: 573-682-8414
Email: civilconstruction@hubbell.com
CHANCE® Helical Piles ATLAS Resistance® Piers X X
Web: www.abchance.com
CSC
Phone: 877-710-2053
Email: melanie.maclaren@cscworld.com
Tedds and Fastrak X
Web: www.cscworld.com
Decon® USA Inc.
Phone: 866-332-6687
Email: frank@decon.ca
Jordahl Anchor Channels and Studrails X X X X X X X
Web: www.deconusa.com
Dimensional Solutions, Inc.
Phone: 281-497-5991
Email: Info@DimSoln.com
DSAnchor X
Web: www.DimSoln.com
Hardy Frames, Inc.
Phone: 805-477-0793
Email: dlopp@mii.com
Hardy Frames, Inc X
Web: www.hardyframe.com

Hayward Baker Inc.

Phone: 800-456-6548 Anchors X
Email: info@HaywardBaker.com
Web: www.HaywardBaker.com
Heckmann Building Products Inc.
Phone: 708-865-2403
Email: info@heckmannanchors.com
Wing-Nut Pos-I-Tie® Brick Veneer Anchors X
Web: www.heckmannanchors.com
Hilti, Inc.
Phone: 800-879-8000
Email: us-sales@hilti.com
Hilti Mechanical and Adhesive Anchors x x x x X x
Web: www.us.hilti.com

IES, Inc.
Phone: 800-707-0816 VisualAnchor X
Email: sales@iesweb.com
Web: www.iesweb.com

ITW Red Head

Phone: 630-350-0370 Epcon GS X X X X X X X X X
Email: Erin.Haberman@itw-redhead.com
Web: www.itwredhead.com
Kelken Construction Systems
Phone: 732-416-6730
Email: dick@kelken.com
Keligrout Structural Adhesive Anchor Systems X X X X X
Web: www.kelken.com

Powers Fasteners
Phone: 985-807-6666 Post-installed Concrete Anchors X X X X X X X
Email: jzenor@powers.com
Web: www.powers.com

RISA Technologies
Phone: 949-951-5815 RISABase X
Email: info@risatech.com
Web: www.risa.com

Simpson Strong-Tie Anchor Systems

Phone: 800-999-5099 Simpson Strong-Tie Anchor Systems for Concrete and Masonry X X X X X X
Email: web@strongtie.com
Web: www.simpsonanchors.com
Strand7 Pty Ltd
Phone: 252-504-2282
Email: anne@beaufort-analysis.com
Strand7 X X
Web: www.strand7.com

STRUCTURE magazine 38 September 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.
Great achievements
Walter Parker Moore, Sr.
The Founding Father
By Richard G. Weingardt, P.E.
A
mong the many noteworthy
American family-owned busi-
nesses born during the dark days
of the Great Depression that are
still in operation and thriving today is a
Texas-based engineering design firm known as
Walter P Moore (WPM). It is now a corpora-
tion with diverse ownership and far-reaching
projects. Its founder, after whom the firm
received its name, was a true son of Texas – a
dedicated Houstonian his entire life. Said
his oldest son, Walter, Jr., “My father didn’t
especially like to travel, but when he did, he
could hardly wait to return. He never failed to
compare his hometown to where he had just
been and was always delighted and reassured
that Houston was the best place in America
to live, and have an engineering company.”
Born in Hillsboro, Texas, on December
10, 1903, Walter Parker, Sr. was the middle
child of Walter (without a middle name or
initial) and Mary (Hill) Moore. His older
sister Minnie and younger brother Thomas
Robert were also born in Texas. Their father
was from Illinois while their mother was a
native of Texas. In the 1920 U.S. Census,
Walter’s age was listed as 50 and his occupa-
tion was listed as farmer.
Walter P. was the first in the family to gradu-
ate as a civil engineer from college, which
he did two years before the horrendous
Stock Market Crash of 1929. He was 25 at
graduation, and clearly more mature than
his classmates.
Rice Stadium, Houston, Texas. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons-Jyardley.
STRUCTURE magazine
notable structural engineers
After receiving his Bachelor of Science
degree, conferred with distinction from Rice
Institute (now Rice University) in central
Houston, Walter P. joined a local consulting
engineering firm headed by H.M. Sanford,
whose operations were not far from the Rice
campus. Among Sanford’s significant Texas
projects was the Brooks Federal Building in
Beaumont. Named in honor of long-time
U.S. Representative Jack Brooks – who today
is much admired by the U.S. architecture
and engineering community for instigat-
ing the Brooks Act legislation that required
designers of federal projects to be selected
by qualifications, rather than low bid – the
monumental structure has been a prominent
Texas landmark since its opening in 1933.
It was listed on the National Register of
Historic Places in 1977.
Suddenly, in 1931, Sanford pulled up stakes
and moved to California, leaving a surprised
Moore unemployed. The country was by then
totally in the grips of the Great Depression,
and prospects looked bleak indeed. The young
bachelor engineer was still living at home
with his 62-year-old mother and 24-year-old
brother, and since his father had passed away
by then, he was the family’s only money-earner
at the time. With no other real opportunities
available, he decided to take the plunge and
open his own structural engineering practice.
He sold his fancy car, a Stutz Bearcat, for
capital and boldly launched Walter P. Moore
and Associates (WPMA).
40 September 2011
Walter P. Moore, Sr. Courtesy of Walter P Moore.
At first, and for several years after, things were
a struggle. Many of Moore’s earliest projects
involved designing foundations for large homes
in the new River Oaks neighborhood for $5
apiece, $7.50 if they were particularly com-
plicated. Semi-skilled construction or factory
workers at the time, if they could find work,
were making $10 to $15 a week. Residents of
River Oaks, situated in the center of Houston,
were among those with better paying jobs,
and the upper-class development would in
time become one of the most exclusive and
wealthiest communities in the country.
A year after he opened his office, on February
20, 1932, 29-year-old Moore married Zoe
Alma McBride. She had attended Rice at the
same time as he in the late 1920s. Walter and
Zoe would have two sons, Walter Parker, Jr.
and Robert Laurence. Following in his father’s
footsteps, Walter Jr. would become a structural
engineer and join his father’s firm, while Robert
(Larry) would become a professor of history at
Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.
Among Moore’s clients were several talented
young architects who, like he, were weather-
ing the challenges of the Depression as best
they could. Many of them eventually estab-
lished some of Houston’s most important
architectural practices and prospered. Few of
them forgot the structural engineer who had
worked with them and helped them survive
those difficult early years. Included in the
core group that Moore counted as his lifelong
and close personal friends were S.I. Morris
(founder of Morris Architects), George Pierce
(founder of Pierce and Pierce, now PGAL),
Herman Lloyd (co-founder of Lloyd Jones

Hyatt Regency Hotel, Houston, Texas. Courtesy of
Wikimedia Commons-WhisperToMe.
Brewer), and Irving Klein (founder of Klein
Partnership, now FKP Architects).
By the conclusion of World War II in 1945,
the shackles of the Depression were being
quickly shed and America was building again.
With this economic revitalization came more
and more construction, and Moore and his
architectural clients were favorably affected.
In 1950, Moore landed a plumb project that
would mark the turning point for his firm:
Rice Stadium. The massive concrete structure,
located between some of Houston’s most beau-
tiful tree-lined boulevards, is still regarded as
one of the most elegant and functional sports
facilities in the country. It was an important
achievement because of its scale and impor-
tance to the city and to the university.
The second major commission for Moore’s
firm was another innovative sports facility,
the Harris County Domed Stadium, now
known nationally and internationally as the
Astrodome. It opened on April 9, 1965. It
Other significant Texas facilities completed
by WPMA during Moore’s active involvement
with the firm included:
• The Houston Hyatt Regency Hotel
• 1100 Milam Office Tower
• Jesse Jones Hall for the Performing Arts
• Houston Center Complex
• Miller Outdoor Theater
• The 52-story Gulf Tower
• The Brown & Root Building
• Parkland Plaza Condominiums
Among Moore’s many health-care facilities
were 50 major buildings for the Texas Medical
Center (including MD Anderson Cancer
Center), Texas Children’s Hospital, Baylor Reliant Astrodome, Houston, Texas. Courtesy of
College of Medicine, Ben Taub Hospital, Library of Congress, HAER TX-108-11.
Houston’s Veterans Administration Medical
Center, and the original Methodist Hospital. and nationally. He served as president of the
Moore was sole owner and head of his firm for Houston Knife and Fork Club, and as a trustee
three and a half decades, from 1931 until 1967, for the Harris County Heritage Society.
when it was incorporated. At the time, Moore Moore was named Engineer of the Year in
employed more than 100 people in offices in 1974 by the Texas Society of Professional
Houston, San Antonio and Dallas. He served Engineers, San Jacinto Chapter, and was pre-
as president of the corporation from 1967 until sented with an honorary membership in the
1971, and as chairman of the board until 1982. Texas Society of Architects in 1979. In 1980,
He was then chairman emeritus until his death. he was honored by the Houston Chapter of the
About Walter, Sr.’s legacy, Ray Messer, current American Institute of Architects and, in 1982,
president of Walter P Moore, said, “Mr. Moore he received the Fourth Firm Honor Award
built the firm’s reputation through good ser- from the Texas/Oklahoma/Arkansas region
vice and dependability. Given his hardscrabble of the Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute.
roots, he took on all the work he could obtain From Rice, Moore was awarded an
and dominated the Houston market from the Outstanding Engineering Alumnus Award in
late 1940s well into the 1970s.” After that, his 1974 and, shortly before his passing in 1983,
son Walter, Jr. took over the leadership of his its Distinguished Alumnus recognition.▪
father’s company, and when Walter, Sr. died
on July 30, 1983, at age 80, WPMA had active Richard G. Weingardt, P.E.
projects in 20 states. (The firm’s considerable (rweingardt@weingardt.com), is the
growth outside of Texas will be reviewed in a Chairman of Richard Weingardt Consultants,
future “Great Achievements” article.) Inc. in Denver, Colorado. He is the author
Moore held Texas registration number 116, of ten books, including three that feature
which he received in 1938, the first year that the exploits of great American structural
Texas officially began licensing engineers. He engineers: Engineering Legends, Circles in the
was also a registered professional engineer (PE) Sky, and (coming soon) Empire Man.
in nine other states.
Moore became an ASCE Fellow in 1959
and a Life Member in 1963. He was
a long-time member of the American
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

was the world’s first covered, air-conditioned,
domed stadium, paving the way for a new
generation of modern, multi-purpose sports
venues and instantly creating an icon associ-
ated worldwide with Houston to this day.
By the late 1970s, Moore and his firm
had been responsible for more than 15,000
projects throughout Texas, including sev-
eral at his alma mater; among them, Rice
Memorial Center, Fondren Library, Rayzor
Hall, Hamman Hall, Allen Center, and five
of the institution’s eight colleges: Will Rice,
Hanszen, Jones, Wiess, and Brown.
Concrete Institute, National and Texas
Societies of Professional Engineers,
Consulting Engineers Council of Texas,
American Consulting Engineers Council
(now American Council of Engineering
Companies), Houston Engineering and
Scientific Society, American Association
of Port Authorities, and executive board
of the Rice Alumni Association.
Moore was active in Houston’s Central
Presbyterian Church and in Masonic
organizations, and held many offices
in the Kiwanis Club locally, statewide
The easiest to use software for calculating
wind, seismic, snow and other loadings for
IBC, ASCE7, and all state codes based on
these codes ($195.00).
Tilt-up Concrete Wall Panels ($95.00).
Floor Vibration for Steel Beams and Joists
($100.00).
Concrete beams with torsion ($45.00).
Demos at: www.struware.com

STRUCTURE magazine 41 September 2011

 award winners and outstanding projects Spotlight
Construction Collapse Case Studies –
What Engineers Should Know
Best Presentation at the 2011 Structures Congress
By Craig A. Copelan, P.E., M. ASCE and Joyce E. Copelan, P.E., M. ASCE, SEI
Chair, Sacramento Section SEI

At the 2011 SEI Structures Congress in Henderson, Nevada, participants selected the presentation they found to be the “Best of
the Best” among those offered during the three days of technical sessions. This year’s winner for best presentation was “Construction
Collapse Case Studies – What Engineers Should Know” presented by Jon Magnusson of Magnusson Klemencic Associates, an
engineering firm which maintains its headquarters in Seattle, Washington with offices in Chicago and Riyadh. Mr. Magnusson
is a licensed professional engineer in 23 states.

A
t the 2011 Structural Engineering
Congress, Mr. Magnusson shared
the insights he has gained from
his 35 years of experience by
providing an excellent presentation which
included a case study of a construction crane
collapse during the early phases of construc-
tion. Beginning with the core technical and
communication issues which caused the col-
lapse, he went on to discuss the issues which
then grew out of a work site incident of this
kind and how firms and their staffs could
best respond to these issues. The presenta-
tion provided a number of excellent practical
examples of how communication can be
improved between the general contractor
and the engineers performing “means and
methods” construction engineering, to help
prevent problems of this kind. There was
a discussion of how various claims stem-
ming from an incident should be dealt
with from the beginning of the incident
on through the process of its resolution.
The presentation provided a primer on the
in 47 states and 48 countries. Jon joined
the firm, then known as Skilling Helle
Christiansen Robertson, in 1976. Jon arrived
on the scene after completing his bachelors’
degree in civil engineering at the University
of Washington, where he graduated summa
cum laude, and a master’s degree at the
University of California Berkeley. He was
named a principal at the age of 30, CEO at
age 34, and Chairman at age 44. In 2003,
the firm was renamed Magnusson Klemencic
Associates (MKA). Nationally, he has con-
tributed his engineering expertise to many
significant projects, most recently to the
design of a new football stadium on the
University of Minnesota campus, as well as
convention centers in Phoenix, Honolulu,
and Minneapolis. Current projects include a
Now Hiring
complete reconstruction of the University of
Washington Stadium and a new stadium for
the San Francisco 49ers. He has contributed
to the skyline and culture of his home in
Seattle, providing structural engineering for
the Experience Music Project, Safeco Field,
Qwest Field, Key Arena, the Seattle Central
Library and many other projects. He has pre-
viously served on the SEI Board of Governors
and was recently recognized as a Distinguished
Member of ASCE, has been “Engineer of
the Year” for the State of Washington, is a
Lifetime Honorary Member of the National
American Institute of Architects, a Fellow
of the Institution of Structural Engineers in
London, and is a past recipient of the ASCE
Ernest E. Howard Award for contributions to
the advancement of structural engineering.▪

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

response to a major construction claim, Structural Engineering
and provided those in attendance with Project Managers
insights to consider in their future proj-
ect development efforts. Mr. Magnusson
10 or more years of experience
has a gift for communicating complex Licensed S.E. with MSCE degree
subjects in a straightforward and clear Managed projects over $50 million
manner that the members of the audi- FOR MORE INFO: WWW.MKA.COM
ence were able to easily grasp and find
relevant to their own work experience.
The appreciative audience responded
to this excellent presentation by select-
ing it as the 2011 ASCE SEI Structures
Congress Best Presentation.
Jon Magnusson is the Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer of Magnusson
Klemencic Associates. Originally founded
in 1923, the firm has completed projects

STRUCTURE magazine 43 September 2011

 Letter from the President: Communication and Partnering
N
CSEA is composed of 43 Member Organizations
(MO’s) which generally represent state based
Structural Engineering Associations. The NCSEA
Board of Directors is guided by a “Rules of Policy
News form the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
and Procedure” document, which describes the activities of the
Council as follows:
1) The Council shall strive to augment the activities of the
Member Organizations and shall strive not to duplicate
or cause conflict with those activities. The Council
shall assist the Member Organizations in disseminating
information to the other members.
2) If the Council determines the need for activities or
functions that are not currently being accomplished by
a Member Organization, it may elect to perform those
functions through the committee structure and provide
the resulting information to the members.
3) The activities of the Council shall not be limited
in scope and may encompass all aspects of the
structural engineering profession including
technical, business practice, professional, ethical,
licensing and legislative issues.
The size and activity level of the 43 MO’s varies widely. The
largest MO, the Structural Engineers Association of California,
has over 3,000 members and four local chapters. Other large
MO’s, such as the Structural Engineers Associations of Illinois,
Florida, Texas and Washington, have hundreds of members
and local chapters. The large MO’s often carry out significant
activities, including continuing education seminars, statewide
conferences, publications on topics of interest to their members,
and pursuit of statewide Structural Engineer (SE) Practice Acts;
and many of them retain professional staff to support and assist
with these activities.
At the other end of the spectrum are the smaller MO’s, which
range in size down to approximately 30 members. Relying
almost exclusively on volunteer efforts from small pools of
members, these MO’s are challenged to reach anywhere near
the level of activity of the larger associations.
Since its inception, NCSEA has developed programs and activi-
ties to meet the guidelines listed in the Policy and Procedure
document, trying to balance the differing needs of each of the
MO’s and to maximize the value of these programs to the great-
est extent possible. For example, the NCSEA Code Advisory
NCSEA News
Committee participates at the national level on codes and
standards development, supported by parallel state committees
as needed. The Licensing Committee of NCSEA is extremely
active in assisting and supporting MO’s that are pursuing SE
Licensing in a number of states, recognizing that such efforts
must be led by the local organization. The Advocacy Committee
Oklahoma City is proud to host this year’s NCSEA Annual Conference at the
Renaissance Convention Center. See this month’s special insert, to read more about it.
STRUCTURE magazine 44
is developing documents and other tools to assist in raising the
awareness and appreciation of our profession, for use by MO’s
and their individual members. The Continuing Education
Committee has developed a successful webinar program that
provides high-quality training opportunities on topics of great
interest to practicing engineers in a format that is accessible to
all members, including those from smaller MO’s and those in
larger MO’s that reside in remote areas that may not be able to
easily participate in local seminars. The SEER Committee is
about to digitally publish the second edition of their manual
for post-disaster emergency response, for use by MO’s in sup-
port of their local jurisdictions. The Publications Committee is
developing a series of publications that address issues of national
interest and that will be of great assistance to practicing structural
engineers, e.g., the upcoming Guide to Design for Serviceability.
As NCSEA’s programs have grown and developed over the past
decade, the interactions with MO’s have naturally increased.
The economic downturn of the past few years has posed chal-
lenges to our MO’s in both membership levels and revenue from
seminars, meetings and other activities. In an effort to continue
to meet the goals of both NCSEA and our MO’s, the NCSEA
Board has decided to form an ad hoc committee to focus on
the interaction between all MO’s and the national organization.
This committee will be composed of MO Delegates, NCSEA
Board Members, and other interested parties, with input from
MO leaders, NCSEA committee chairs, and staff. Our vision
for this effort is to provide the NCSEA and MO Boards with a
series of recommendations to increase the communication and
partnering, between MO’s and between MO’s and NCSEA,
that will be mutually beneficial to all parties. This effort will be
kicked off at the NCSEA Annual Conference this October in
Oklahoma City (please consider joining us for this event) and
will extend over the coming year, culminating with a workshop
of all Delegates at the 2012 Conference in St. Louis.
If you are interested in this topic, I hope you will con-
sider either volunteering to assist the ad hoc committee or
submitting your ideas and suggestions to me via email at
malley@degenkolb.com.
Thank you for your continued participation in our profession
and for your support of your MO and NCSEA. It has been
my great honor to serve as your President for the past year. I
sincerely hope that the new effort I have described above results
in significantly increasing both the value provided to all of our
individual members and the effectiveness of our organizations
at the local, state and national levels.
James O. Malley
NCSEA President, 2010-2011
September 2011

NCSEA Fall Webinars
September Seismic Design of Steel Special Moment Frames:
8 A Guide for Practicing Engineers
This is the 4th webinar in a 4-part webinar series on the NEHRP
Seismic Design Technical Briefs, which are published by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and
intended to help reduce the nation’s losses from earthquakes. This
guide on the Seismic Design of Steel Special Moment Frames was
written to assist practicing engineers with their understanding
and application of ASCE 7, AISC 341 and AISC 358 as they
relate to the design of steel Special Moment Frames (SMF). It
emphasizes code requirements and accepted approaches to their
implementation, with background information and sketches to
illustrate the requirements. Analysis, behavior, proportioning and
detailing requirements, and constructability issues are addressed.
NCSEA News
Note: The times for this webinar will
be 12:00 pm Pacific, 1:00 pm Mountain,
2:00 pm Central, and 3:00 pm Eastern.
James O. Malley, S.E., is a Senior
Principal with Degenkolb Engineers. He
was responsible for the analytical and test-
ing investigations performed as part of the SAC Steel Project
in response to the Northridge earthquake damage, was named
the 2010 T.R. Higgins Lectureship Award winner for his work
on the AISC Seismic Provisions, and is currently President of
the NCSEA Board of Directors.

September Emerging Trends in Steel

20 Reinforced Concrete Mike Mota, Ph.D., P.E., is the Atlantic
Region Manager for the Concrete
Mitigating reinforcement congestion in concrete structures is Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI) and

News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

a continuous challenge to designers and builders. This seminar
provides technical information on emerging materials and trends
intended to reduce reinforcement congestion and improve con-
structability. Several types of high strength steel (75/80 Ksi) and
ultra-high strength (97Ksi) reinforcing steel will be discussed,
including the provisions of the new ACI ITG-6 “Design Guide
for the Use of ASTM A1035/A1035M Grade 100 (690MPa)
Steel Bars for Structural Concrete”. Other emerging techniques
such as use of headed bars (terminators) and mechanical splices
will be discussed, with case studies where these materials were
successfully used to reduce congestion in column/beam joints.
is responsible for providing technical
assistance in all areas of building design
and construction to engineers, architects,
owners and contractors. Prior to Joining
CRSI in 2007, Mr. Mota worked for
the Portland Cement Association in a similar capacity since
2001. He is Chair of ACI Committee 314 on Simplified
Design of Concrete Buildings, serves on the Board of Directors
of the Concrete Industry Board of New York City and the
NYC ACI Chapter and is a member of the editorial board of
STRUCTURE magazine.

September High Performance Concrete Mix October Modern Concrete Repair

29 Design Analysis and Current Design
Requirements for Floor Slabs
6 Technology – From Failure to
Completed Repair
This seminar guides the participant through proper concrete This seminar will guide the participant through the ABC’s
slab design, including subgrade issues, concrete mix design of concrete repair, including the causes of concrete deterio-
analysis, chemical admixtures, hot and cold weather concreting ration, owner requirements, repair material requirements
and ACI design requirements. Current industry standards are and selection, bonding agents and proper repair techniques.
referenced, including ACI 360 “Design of Slabs on Ground” Current ICRI standards are referenced and many case
and ACI 302 “Guide for Concrete Floor Slab Construction.” studies are discussed, including parking decks, bridges,
Key issues, including vapor retarder location, tolerances, joint highways and slabs on ground. Cathodic protection will
issues, high performance slab treatments and the necessity of also be addressed.
the pre-concrete meeting prior to placement, are also addressed.
Philip Brandt is Vice President of the National Business Development Group for The Euclid Chemical
Company, Cleveland, Ohio. A thirty year veteran of the construction industry, Mr. Brandt’s experience
includes quality control of ready mix concrete, commercial construction, material sales, technical services
and concrete repair. Originally from Tennessee, Mr. Brandt holds a Degree in Construction Engineering
and is a national member of The American Concrete Institute, Secretary of ACI 360 “Design of Slabs on
Ground,” Past Chairman of ACI 305 “Hot Weather Concrete”, and a member of ACI 546 “Repair of
Concrete.” Mr. Brandt is also a member of the International Concrete Repair Institute and has spoken at
many NCSEA events.

Each course will award 1.5 hours of continuing education. Note: The times for the above webinars, except for
AL

EN
UR

GIN

the September 8 webinar, will be 10:00 a.m. Pacific, 11:00 a.m. Mountain, 12:00 p.m. Central, and 1:00 p.m.
CT

EE
RU

RS
ST

NCSEA
Eastern. Cost: $250 per internet connection. Each webinar awards 1.5 hours of continuing education. Several
G

N
UIN

TIO

people may attend for one connection fee. There will be a $5 fee for each continuing education certificate requested.
IN

A
NT

UC
CO

ED

Approved in all 50 states. Diamond

Reviewed

STRUCTURE magazine 45 September 2011

 Call for 2012 SEI/ASCE
Award Nominations
Did you know there are almost 20 different structural awards
available to SEI and ASCE members each year? These awards range
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
from lifetime achievement to recognition of outstanding papers.
Awards will be presented during the 2012 Structures Congress,
March 29-31, 2012, in Chicago. Honor a colleague or fellow
committee member by beginning the nomination process today.
Download the SEI Awards flyer available on the SEI Website:
www.asce.org/SEI. Nomination deadlines for some awards begin
October 1, 2011 with most deadlines falling on November 1, 2011.
For more information and nomination procedures, visit the
SEI Awards and Honors page at:
http://content.seinstitute.org/inside/honorawards.html.
2012 O.H. Ammann Research
Fellowship Call for Nominations
The O. H. Ammann Research Fellowship in Structural
Engineering is awarded annually to a member of ASCE or SEI
for the purpose of encouraging the creation of new knowledge
in the field of structural design and construction.
All members or applicants for membership are eligible.
Applicants will submit a description of their research, an essay
about why they chose to become a structural engineer, and their
academic transcripts. This fellowship award is at least $5,000
and can be up to $10,000. 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.
Structural Columns
According to the National Hurricane Center, Hurricane
Andrew was the costliest Atlantic hurricane in U.S. history
prior to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. It has been 20 years since
Andrew plowed through Florida and Louisiana in August 1992,
and what have we learned since? Significant advances in wind
and flood design for buildings and other structures, as well as
evolutions in coastal engineering, have been made by engineers,
architects, building officials, and researchers. If you have a vested
interest in hurricane engineering, you are invited to join us in
building an exciting program.
The ATC-SEI Advances in Hurricane Engineering Conference
will be held October 24-26, 2012 in Miami, and conference
organizers are currently accepting abstracts for individual pre-
sentations and proposals for complete sessions. All proposals
are due September 9, 2011.
STRUCTURE magazine 46
Electrical Transmission
Structures 2012
Call for Abstracts
Help build the grid of tomorrow and be a part of the program
by submitting your abstract today!
Suggested topics include the following:
• Aesthetic Design Principles
• Construction Challenges
• Emerging Technologies
• Extreme Loading Events
• Foundations
• Lifeline Reliability and Performance
• Line Design, Re-rating and Upgrading 
• Line and Substation Siting
• Managing Aging Infrastructure
• Project Management
• Regulatory Compliance
• Structural Analysis and Design
• Substation Design and Upgrading
Project case studies are encouraged on all of the above topics.
A poster session format may also be provided. Abstracts are
due September 15, 2011, and must include the title of the
paper, a 200-word maximum description of the content of the
paper, relevant graphs and photos, names of all authors, mailing
address, phone number, and email address of the main author.
Questions – contact Debbie Smith at dsmith@asce.org or
703-295-6095.
Save the date – November 4-8, 2012 Columbus, Ohio.
Visit the SEI website for more information: www.asce.org/SEI.
Errata
SEI posts up-to-date errata information for our publications
at www.asce.org/SEI. Click on “Publications” on our
menu, and select “Errata.” If you have any errata that you
would like to submit, please email it to Paul Sgambati
at psgambati@asce.org.
Call for Papers
Review the list of topics below as you prepare your submission.
A complete list of topics and subtopics can be found on the
Call for Papers page of the conference website.
• Wind Engineering – General
• Coastal Flooding
• Engineering for the Building Envelope
• Low-Rise Buildings – Wind
• High-Rise Buildings – Wind
• Infrastructure – Wind and Flood
• Meteorology and Oceanography
• Risk Modeling and Forensic Engineering – Wind and Flood
The conference is organized by the Applied Technology Council
and the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE.
Questions – Contact Debbie Smith at dsmith@asce.org or
703-295-6095.
Save the date – October 24-26, 2012 Miami, Florida.
Visit the SEI website for more information: www.asce.org/SEI.
September 2011

SEI Local Activities
You are invited to join the events and activities
of your local SEI Chapter or Structural Technical
Group. Local groups offer a variety of opportu-
nities for professional development, student and
community outreach, mentoring, scholarships,
networking, technical tours, and more. To con-
nect with your local SEI Chapter or STG, visit
the SEI Local Activities Division webpage at:
www.seinstitute.org/committees/tadjoin.cfm.
SEI invites each ASCE Section and Branch to form
an SEI Chapter to ensure that the local area is ade-
quately served by SEI. If your area has a Structural
Technical Group, consider upgrading to an SEI
Chapter. Or if there isn’t a local group, gather indi-
viduals to form an SEI Chapter and name a local SEI member
to communicate with SEI about ways we can better serve needs
and strengthen local activities and events.
Some of the benefits of becoming an SEI Chapter include:
• Use of SEI name and branding
• Chapter announcements published on SEI web site and
in SEI Update
SEI Sustainability Committee
Call for New Members
The SEI Sustainability Committee is currently accepting
applications for committee positions. We seek enthusiastic
team members motivated to enhance the structural engineer’s
contribution to sustainable design. The current membership is a
dynamic group with a broad spectrum of interests and expertise.
The committee meets monthly via conference call and annu-
ally for a face-to-face meeting at the SEI Structures Congress.
In addition, individual “working groups” meet during the
month as necessary to coordinate efforts. Active members
participate on at least one working group, attend the major-
ity of monthly committee meetings, and are able to attend at
least one face-to-face meeting every three years. Additional
committee efforts go into outreach via articles and education.
Due to the popularity of sustainability in our industry, we
often receive numerous applications for a limited number of
vacancies. Please consider this in your application. Be sure to
convey your experience and trajectory in sustainable design
and what you hope to contribute to the committee. Applicants
without previous committee experience are most welcome:
your motivation to dedicate at least 5 hours per month is
among the most important criteria.
Please visit our website for more information on our mission
and current working groups at www.seisustainability.org.
The committee will pay particular attention to the “Are there
any other contributions you feel you can make to the work
of the committee?” section of the application. Use this sec-
tion to state how you could help an existing working group,
or what new working group you would like to champion.
New working group proposals should have clearly defined
goals and deliverables. We are particularly interested in new
members who have expertise in life-cycle assessment and/or
timber environmental issues. 
STRUCTURE magazine
Structural Columns
• One discounted ASCE webinar sponsored by the SEI
Endowment Fund
• Funding for Chair to attend annual SEI Local Activities
Leadership Conference to learn about SEI initiatives,
training, Continuing Education and networking oppor-
tunities, etc.
• SEI outreach supplies
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
Fill out the committee application online
(www.seinstitute.org/committees/tadjoin.cfm). Applications
should be submitted no later than Friday, September 16, 2011.
Applicants can expect to hear back from the committee in late
September. The upcoming term starts on October 1, 2011,
with a capped term limit of six years.
2011 SEI LAD
Leadership Conference
Each local SEI Chapter or Structural Technical Group Chair
is invited to attend the 2011 SEI LAD Leadership Conference,
October 28-29 in New Orleans, to share insights from your
local group, learn about new initiatives, and network. The pro-
gram will also include leadership training and a technical tour.
SEI sponsors one representative from each local SEI Chapter
or STG to attend the meeting. Sponsorship follows standard
ASCE travel reimbursement policy, which covers airfare (with
14 day advance purchase) plus $100 in daily expenses for each
of the two meeting days. If the Chair cannot attend, he or she
may nominate a representative from the local SEI Chapter or
STG to participate in their place. RSVP to sfisher@asce.org
by Thursday, October 6. A block of sleeping rooms has been
reserved at the Doubletree New Orleans. To make your room
reservation, contact Andrenese Smith at 1-800-222-TREE or
and renese.smith@hilton.com to request the $179 a night
SCE rate, or visit www.neworleans.doubletree.com to book
online. The cut-off date for making your room reservation is
Thursday, October 6.
47 September 2011
 CASE Summer Planning
Meeting ReCap
The CASE Summer Planning Meeting took place on Tuesday
and Wednesday, August 9-10 in Chicago, IL. On the agenda
were committee breakout meetings for National Guidelines,
Contracts, Programs & Communications, and Toolkit com-
mittees which continued work on their respective assignments
The Newsletter of the Council of American Structural Engineers
and planning for future CASE products. The CASE Executive
Committee held its meeting on Wednesday.
At this meeting, CASE officially launched its Insurance
Committee. The Insurance Committee will work closely with
CASE’s existing committees to strengthen the risk management
aspects of their products, liaise with the insurance industry, and
be the clearing house for risk management with CASE and the
structural engineering community.
CASE is also moving forward with its strategic planning initia-
tives. CASE’s top priorities are to modernize its digital presence
and to bolster its membership. Are you interested in joining
CASE? Contact Heather Talbert (htalbert@acec.org or 202-
682-4377) if your firm is interested in joining CASE or getting
more involved in the committees.
CASE Business Practice Corner
If you would like more information on the items below, please contact Ed Bajer, ebajer@acec.org.
New SBA Size Standard; ACEC Proposes
Program Reforms
ACEC has recommended to the Small Business Administration
(SBA) that the small business size standard for engineering firms
be increased to $10 million in annual gross receipts, rather than
the SBA’s proposed $19 million. The current limit is $4.5 million.
The Council is also calling on the agency and Congress to revamp
its contracting policies for small firms to better track both prime
and subcontracts, as well as give agencies more flexibility to utilize
teams of small, medium and large firms. You can review ACEC’s
comments at www.acec.org/publications/newsreleases/small_
business_size.cfm.
Concrete Group Forms Seismic Task Force
CASE in Point
The Tilt-Up Concrete Association (TCA) has announced
the formation of a seismic design task group. Responding to
concerns about the performance of tilt-up structures during
earthquakes in high seismic regions – largely due to incomplete
information on both design and performance characteristics
– this group is charged with identifying the state-of-the-art
tilt-up design procedures and standards for seismic perfor-
mance, and developing modifications to the current building
code provisions based on these procedures and standards.
For more information on the committee, contact Jim Baty at
319-895-6911 or jbaty@tilt-up.org.
What Contractors Want
There are a number of things, of course. One of them is handling
the numerous regulatory requirements that must be complied
with during design and construction. Costly delays can result if
STRUCTURE magazine 48
SAVE THE DATE!
CASE Risk Management Convocation Coming
To Chicago, IL!
The CASE Risk Management Convocation will be held in
conjunction with the SEI Structures Congress at the Fairmont
Chicago, Millennium Park, Chicago, IL, March 29-31, 2012.
For more information and updates go to www.seinstitute.org.
The following CASE Convocation sessions are tentatively
scheduled to take place on Friday, March 30, 2012:
• Profitability Killers and How to Avoid Them – Michael
DeSantiago, Primera Engineers, LTD
• Financial Key Indicators to Look for When Running a
Structural Firm – Scott Braley, Braley Consulting
and Training
• Making the Transition from Project Manager to Principal
(Panel Discussion)
• Ownership Transition and Different Methods of Valuing
Your Firm (Panel Discussion)
these are not considered in advance. Owners and design profes-
sionals need to specifically identify the requirements for permits
and environmental constraints that could affect the outcome of
the project. As most engineers know, the cost of advance plan-
ning and coordination are just a fraction of the cost of delays.
Age Discrimination Act Kicks in at 40
Have you ensured that only the birth day and birth month are
revealed for employee birthdays? While HR professionals should be
aware that an employee’s birth year should never be shared, many
managers may not realize that this could lead to age discrimination
allegations. HR professionals should ensure that managers under-
stand this and never include an employee’s age in announcements,
on cakes or on cards. Turning 40 may be a milestone, but it also
means the employee is covered by the federal Age Discrimination
in Employment Act. And, a date of birth is valuable information
for identity thieves, so employers should consider having monthly
celebrations without mentioning specific dates.
3% Withholding Mandate Delayed
Even though the Administration has announced it will delay
implementation of the 3 percent withholding mandate until
January 1, 2013, ACEC is spearheading an aggressive lob-
bying effort of more than 100 business associations focused
on swift and full repeal of the onerous regulation. The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, which organized the repeal coalition,
has turned to ACEC to lead the coalition’s legislative advo-
cacy team. “Having killed the expanded 1099 filing provision
just this past month, we have now put the 3 percent threat
in our sights,” said ACEC President Dave Raymond. Visit
www.acec.org/publications/newsreleases/repeal.cfm to
join the effort!
September 2011

Upcoming ACEC Education Opportunities
For more information on any of the below programs, please contact Deidre McKenna at dmckenna@acec.org or
202-682-4328 or visit the ACEC Education Website www.acec.org/education/index.cfm.
OCTOBER 4
Writing the Perfect FONSI–Finding
of No Significant Impact
Federal agencies reportedly review over 50,000 FONSIs per
year. This instructive how-to webinar focuses on the difficult
problem of giving reasons why impacts are not significant, and
thus, why an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not
be prepared. Owen Schmidt, formerly senior counsel, USDA,
demonstrates a model FONSI that will account for “all that
science can tell us, all that the law requires,” and gives you
the rules for when to cut it off safely – both what is necessary,
and what can be left out to get to perfect.This webinar is a
must for planners, environmental specialists, project managers,
decision-makers, attorneys, and those in related fields who are
responsible for the preparation or review of Environmental
Assessments (EAs) and FONSIs prepared under the National
Environmental Policy Act.
OCTOBER 12
Mergers and Acquisitions 101
A vital part of A/E practice management includes knowing
whether it is appropriate for your firm to consider merging
with another firm or to entertain a merger offer from another
firm. Mergers and Acquisitions 101 is a valuable and timely
CASE and SEI release BIM
White Paper
CASE and SEI recently released a white paper entitled Building
Information Modeling for the Engineer of Record. Building
Information Modeling (BIM) is no longer the system of the
future, but the system of now. Clients expect it to be a part
of services, and it has far reaching applications for any size or
manner of firm. As with any emerging technology, though, the
legal and contractual frameworks remain largely undefined. The
American Institute of Architects (AIA) addressed this by releas-
ing a series of “digital practice documents” to guide its members.
In this white paper, CASE and SEI explore the implications of
AIA’s guidelines on the Structural Engineer of Record (SER). It
provides commentary and sample model element tables to assist
SERs in developing a scope of services for BIM that is consis-
tent with CASE Document 962 (National Practice Guideline
for the Structural Engineer of Record) and 962-D (Guideline on
the Coordination and Completeness of Structural Construction
Documents).
To read the white paper, go to www.acec.org/case and click
on Publications.
As a special to SEI and NCSEA members, we are offering a
complimentary copy of CASE Document 962. To receive your
copy, go to www.acec.org/case and click on SEI & NCSEA
Members Only.
STRUCTURE magazine
CASE in Point
webinar conducted by experienced industry experts, attorneys
Bill Mandel, CPA, and his partner, Laura Howard, MBV Law,
who have represented both target and acquiring companies in
small and large mergers and acquisition transactions. Although
every transaction is different with respect to its economic and
legal terms, they all follow the same process. This focused webi-
nar will give participants an understanding of the market terms
of a merger-acquisition deal in today’s economic environment
and the process of a transaction – crucial for a firm considering
a merger-acquisition opportunity.
OCTOBER 18-19
Human Resources Forum
The HR Forum is being held immediately before ACEC’s Fall
Conference. If you opt to attend the ACEC Fall Conference,
CASE is a part of the American Council of Engineering Companies
the HR Forum is free (with full conference registration). Be a
part of this dynamic group and discuss issues that matter to you
and the engineering industry. The meeting will have speakers
and roundtable discussions on topics such as HR legal trends,
social media and other generational issues in the workplace-
practical applications, and what’s changed in your firm since
2009. We will also have a networking event on Tuesday evening,
and plenty of time on the agenda for sharing of best practices
and open discussion.
Viva Risk Management!
The CASE Risk Management Convocation heads to Las Vegas next
month in conjunction the ACEC Fall Conference at Caesar’s Palace.
Even though you’ll be in Vegas, don’t gamble with your business.
Join CASE on October 20th for these risk management sessions:
• BIM and the Bottom Line – David Odeh, Odeh Engineers
• What to Watch Out for in the Consensus Documents –
Stephen “Hobie” Andrews, Vandevender and Black
• Risks Associated with Technology – Gregg Bundshuh,
Greyling Insurance Brokerage and Risk Consulting, Inc.
If you want to extend your stay in America’s Playground,
ACEC’s Fall Conference has a jam-packed program of educa-
tion sessions, tours, speakers, and entertainment.
Highlights include:
• Mike Huckabee on the 2012 Presidential Race
• John Hofmeister, former Shell Oil President, on
America’s Energy Future
• Keynote Address from Jacobs CEO, Craig Martin
• Nevada Governor, Brian Sandoval, on Economic Recovery
• CDM CEO Richard Fox, AMEC President Hisham
Mahmoud, and Sargent & Lundy CEO Bud Wendorf
on Growth and Profitability
• Tour Hoover Dam and Its New Bypass Bridge – Winner
of the 2011 Grand Conceptor Award
• Elton John Concert
For more information on the Fall Conference and to register,
follow this link: www.acec.org/conferences/fall-11/index.cfm.
49 September 2011
Structural Forum opinions on topics of current importance to structural engineers

10 Years Later: Most Settled

But, what will happen next time….?
Victoria Arbitrio, P.E., SECB

O
n November 19, 2010, Judge
Alvin Hellerstein announced
that over 95 percent of Plaintiffs
in the World Trade Center disas-
ter site litigation had opted in, accepting the
settlement proposal to end the lawsuits against
the City of New York.
But these suits were not just against the
faceless bureaucracy of city government.
The suits named businesses – large and small,
contractors, subcontractors and engineers –
who worked for the city to rescue, recover
and clean up downtown Manhattan after
planes destroyed the World Trade Center on
September 11, 2001. Twenty-two of these
businesses are Structural Engineering firms,
hired to assess the structural stability of the
surrounding buildings and the massive debris
pile that, in areas, reached the height of a
ten-story building. They performed this task
successfully, as no serious injury or fatality
resulted from structural instability.
Unfortunately, the fewer than 100 remain-
ing lawsuits against these firms do not relate
at all to their work as professional engineers;
rather, the plaintiffs allege illness due to toxic
exposures. Understanding that air quality has
been subsequently linked to certain lung and
heart diseases in the disaster workers, and that
these individuals may be entitled to be rec-
ompensed for their resulting health problems,
how is it that structural engineers can be held
liable for work performed well outside their
normal scope of work?
The engineering profession is committed
to public safety and integrity, but its respon-
sibility to the public can only extend to the
areas in which they are knowledgeable. The
lawsuits pertaining to air quality at Ground
Zero are exacerbating to these firms, hired
to assess structural matters. Not only are the
lawsuits themselves expensive, but they also
called into question whether firms can afford
to offer their services in the event of future
catastrophes. Following Hurricane Katrina,
there were virtually no engineering volun-
teers from New York because of their fear
of litigation. It is unfortunate that litigation
regarding health effects at Ground Zero would
prevent engineers from aiding in catastrophic
World Trade Center, New York 9-13-2001. Smouldering fires continue amidst the wreckage at the World
Trade Center. Courtesy of Andrea Booher/FEMA Photo News.
“The time to push is now; we cannot
afford to wait for the next disaster.”
situations, where their expertise is not only entirely outside their assigned responsibility.
helpful, but necessary. Unlike Good Samaritan Laws, which pro-
In aggregate, engineering firms have spent tect only unpaid volunteers for a brief period
countless dollars in legal fees and lost hours of time from liability for work performed
providing materials to defend their actions at during state or national disasters, emergency
Ground Zero. They did not have the luxury responder legislation would provide design
of evaluating potential risks and factoring firms immunity from lawsuits that attempt to
them into whether or not they should respond make engineers responsible for work outside
to the attack. Instead, they were on-site their scope. Emergency responder legislation
immediately after the attacks and provided would ensure that engineering firms would
professional expertise relating to structural be available and able to respond to future
matters, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, emergencies. The time to push is now; we
for close to ten months. It was an amazing cannot afford to wait for the next disaster.▪
and heroic effort, with not one fatality during
the arduous recovery and cleanup process.
Victoria Arbitrio, P.E., SECB
The need for an Emergency Responder
(vickiarbitrio@gmsllp.com), is currently
Legislation has not diminished since
a Director for the Applied Technology
November. Knowing the inevitability of peri-
Council (ATC), the American Council
odic catastrophes, the American Council of
of Engineering Companies of New York
Engineering Companies of New York (ACEC
(ACEC-NY) Metropolitan Region Board
New York) and SEAoNY strongly support
of Directors and a Past-President of the
emergency responder legislation to prevent
National Council of Structural Engineers
future misguided lawsuits against engineer-
Associations (NCSEA).
ing firms for on-site conditions that are

STRUCTURE magazine 50 September 2011

 Re
vi Com
tS
tr pa
uc tib
tu le
re
20
12
Are You Connected?

Visit www.risa.com/revitstructure to
download your free link today!

www.risa.com 800.332.RISA
© 2010 RISA Technologies, LLC