Sep 12

Special Section
NCSEA
20
th
Annual Conference
St. Louis, Missouri
A

J
o
i
n
t

P
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

N
C
S
E
A

|

C
A
S
E

|

S
E
I
S

T

R

U

C

T

U

R

E

September 2012 Concrete
cover-Sept12.indd 1 8/20/2012 2:13:56 PM
R E V O L U T I O N A R Y WAY T O A N C H O R S E I S MI C S E N S I T I V E E Q U I P ME N T
Finally, An Upside For
Anchoring Equipment
To Steel Decking.
Anchoring into the top of
concrete-filled steel deck
assemblies has been a challenge...
but not any longer!
Powers is the first to bring to the
industry concrete anchors
specifically listed for this
application: Power-Stud+ SD1
and Wedge-Bolt+. Both are code
compliant solutions qualified for
seismic loads and for use in
cracked and uncracked concrete.
Powers Fasteners, Inc.
2 Powers Lane
Brewster, NY10509
www.powers.com
P: (914) 235-6300
F: (914) 576-6483
Wedge-Bolt+ and
Power-Stud+ SD1
were specifically
designed to anchor
equipment to steel
decking from the topside.
Powers, first to
bring an ICC
Code Compliant
anchor for top
and bottom
concrete filled
steel deck.
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
CAN BE FOUND IN
ICC-ES REPORTS
ESR-2818 &
ESR-2526
POW1948 structure apr deck ad_Layout 1 4/2/12 4:38 PM Page 1
Blank.indd 1 4/3/2012 1:18:48 PM
Intelligent
Structural Design
www.Bentley.com/Structural
Having all the applications you need for the tasks at hand, along with the ability
to easily synchronize your work with the rest of the project information, helps
you get your job done right, fast and proftably. And when the structural project
workfow can be integrated, the whole team benefts.
Bentleys new Passport Subscriptions for structural engineers provide access to
the full range of structural software (including upgrades) and training documents
and information that most projects require. These options are available as an
affordable alternative to traditional licensing.
Contact us to learn more.
Model, Analyze, Design, Document
and Deliverin an Integrated Workfow
With RAM
, STAAD
and
Documentation Center, Bentley
offers proven applications for:
l
Steel/Steel Composite
l
Reinforced Concrete
l
Wood and Wood Products
l
Foundation Design
l
Post-Tensioned Design
l
Steel Connections
l
Structural Drawings and Details
all easily coordinated with the
Architect and other team members and
their design applications such as
AutoCAD, Revit, MicroStation
and more.
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.
Blank.indd 1 7/2/2010 2:37:37 PM
2011 Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary
NOW AVAILABLE!
ACI 318 is a must-have standard for all professionals engaged in
concrete design, construction, and inspection, containing the latest
code requirements for structural concrete. The companion commentary,
in a side-by-side column format to match the corresponding code
requirements, provides background information for code provisions.
The ACI 318-11 edition features some key changes, including design
requirements for adhesive anchors, reinforcement detailing requirements
for seismic application, and much more.
Over 20 countries worldwide have adopted ACI 318 for use in their
national codes.
Order Code: 31811.SPEC $192.50 (ACI members $116.00)
New Adhesive Anchors
Boston, MAOctober 4, 2012
Milwaukee, WIOctober 9, 2012
Salt Lake City, UTOctober 16, 2012
Cleveland, OHOctober 30, 2012
Atlanta, GANovember 6, 2012
Omaha, NENovember 13, 2012
San Antonio, TXNovember 27, 2012
Seattle, WADecember 4, 2012
Charlotte, NCDecember 11, 2012
Los Angeles, CADecember 18, 2012
Revised Simplied Design
St. Louis, MOSeptember 26, 2012
New York, NYOctober 3, 2012
Louisville, KYOctober 17, 2012
Detroit, MINovember 14, 2012
Pleasanton, CANovember 28, 2012
Orlando, FLDecember 5, 2012
Austin, TXDecember 12, 2012
Troubleshooting Concrete
Construction
Oklahoma City, OKOctober 11, 2012
Toronto, ON, CanadaOctober 25, 2012
Phoenix, AZNovember 29, 2012
Troubleshooting Concrete
Forming & Shoring
Philadelphia, PASeptember 27, 2012
Chicago, ILNovember 15, 2012
Washington, DCDecember 6, 2012
ACI seminars are developed and
presented by industry leaders from each
topic area and backed by documents
recognized as the go-to standards for the
concrete industry. Many seminars even
come with free publications worth over
half the registration price. But dont take
our word for it, over 96% of attendees at
2011 seminars would recommend them
to their peers!
ACI can also bring these outstanding
seminars directly to your office.
To learn more about ACI seminars and to
register, visit www.concreteseminars.org.
248-848-3800www.concrete.org
Blank.indd 1 8/6/2012 10:29:47 AM
STRUCTURE magazine September 2012
5
CONTENTS
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.
FEATURES
COLUMNS
DEPARTMENTS
IN EVERY ISSUE
September 2012
James Buchanan Eads designed and built
the bridge that bears his name across the
Mississippi River at St. Louis. e bridge
is featured on the cover of this issue of STRUCTURE
magazine in recognition of NCSEAs 20
th
Annual
Conference. Photo courtesy of Paula Bernhardt.
22
26
Special
Section
NCSEA 2012 Conference Section
The National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
will host its 20
th
Annual Conference at the Hilton Frontenac
in St. Louis, MO, on October 3
rd
through the 6
th
.
Bridge Service Life Extension Study
By Christopher A. Ligozio, S.E., P.E., Scott T. Wyatt, S.E., P.E.
and Ernst H. Petzold, P.E.
Service life evaluation methodologies and other diagnostic
tools were applied to the 50-year-old concrete substructures
of the Blanchette Bridge in St. Charles, Missouri.
7 Editorial
Professional Scholarships to
Structures 2012 Congress
By Taka Kimura, P.E.
9 InFocus
The Rationality of Practice
By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
11 Guest Column
ACI Resources for Concrete
Buildings of Moderate Size
and Height
By Mike Mota, Ph.D., P.E.
15 Structural Practices
Strawbale Construction Part 1
By Martin Hammer, Architect,
Mark Aschheim P.E. and
Kevin Donahue P.E., S.E.
31 Construction Issues
Modular Stay-In-Place Formwork
By James L. Ryan, P.E.,
Neha Gidwani, P.E. and
Luis M. Moreschi, Ph.D., P.E.
20 InSights
Construction Quality
Management
By Richard L. Hess, S.E., SECB
35 Great Achievements
William LeMessurier
By Richard G. Weingardt,
D.Sc. (h.c.), P.E.
38 CASE Business Practices
Too Many Codes Spoil
the Design?
By Kirk A. Haverland, P.E., SECB
43 Spotlight
The Case of the Sagging Floors
What Engineers Should Know
By Craig A. Copelan, P.E. and
Joyce E. Copelan, P.E.
50 Structural Forum
Developing the Next Generation
of Structural Engineers Part 1
By Glenn R. Bell, P.E., S.E., SECB
8 Advertiser Index
37 Noteworthy
41 Resource Guide
(Anchoring)
44 NCSEA News
46 SEI Structural Columns
48 CASE in Point
Special Section
NCSEA
20th Annual Conference
St. Louis, Missouri
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI
S

T

R

U

C

T

U

R

E

September 2012 Concrete
ON THE COVER
A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T

-
F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
Table of Contents-Sept12-edited.indd 5 8/20/2012 2:20:07 PM
(1) 615.217.6061 www.PolyguardProducts.com/aat
Innovation based. Employee owned. Expect more.
photo courtesy of constructionphotographs.com (File Name: concrete_pour_rebar_cement_truck_010.jpg) Graphics Modifed
2,220 grams
failure
GEOTEXTILE
15 MIL
84 MIL
+
+
SEALANT
GEOMEMBRANE
Class A Vapor Barriers
Underseal

Underslab
Waterproof Membrane
by Polyguard
PUNCTURE
RESISTANCE
PRODUCT
DESIGNED
FOR
PRODUCT
PROFILE
224,000 grams
concrete
construction
Underseal protected by US Patent Nos. 7,488,523 B1 & 7,686,903 B2
underslab moisture protection- pick one
Blank.indd 1 8/3/2012 9:01:04 AM
7
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
Editorial
Professional Scholarships to Structures
2012 Congress
By Taka Kimura, P.E., M. ASCE, F. SEI
S
ustainability is a buzzword applied to a variety of practices
from recycling to smart forestry but have you ever thought
about how the term applies to our profession? Like the lumber
in smart forestry, engineering expertise is a resource that must
continually be replenished and nurtured. While a good engineering
education provides a solid base of knowledge, an engineer must con-
tinually keep abreast of the current state of practice and have a wide
network of colleagues to be truly efective. Developing these traits is
a daunting task, especially for those who are new to the profession.
To assist young structural engineers in their eforts to continu-
ally progress beyond book knowledge, the Structural Engineering
Institutes (SEI) Young Professionals Committee has developed a
scholarship program for attendance at the annual Structures Congress.
Trough the scholarship program, SEI granted eight recipients fnan-
cial assistance fve recipients received complimentary registration and
three received partial travel assistance in addition to complimentary
registration. Te scholarships were awarded based on fnancial need,
professional involvement, and an essay. Tis was the programs pilot
year, with scholarships awarded to Andy Coughlin, Rafael Gomes
de Oliveira, Emily Guglielmo, Linda Kaplan, Chad Schrand, Ashley
Trall, Laura Whitehurst, and Frances Yang.
In addition to providing scholarships to the 2012 Structures Congress,
the Congress planners placed an emphasis on increasing the involve-
ment of all young professionals and students in attendance by ofering
the following programs and events directly aimed at engaging them:
Welcome and Walking Tour After a brief overview of the
conference, students participated on a walking tour of two
local structural engineering ofces.
Meet the Leaders Breakfast SEI leaders introduced themselves
and joined the students and young professionals for breakfast.
School to World 101 Session Experienced engineers gave real
world advice and answered questions for students through an
engaging and fun speed dating format.
Young Professionals Mixer A cocktail hour provided the
students and young professionals an opportunity to network
with SEI leaders.
Student Structural Design Competition Presentations Winning
teams from the annual SEI Student Structural Design
Competition presented their award-winning projects.
Panel discussion on Creative, Collaborative, and Communicative:
Perspectives on Developing a Future Generation of Engineering
Leaders A panel of young professionals discussed the leadership
challenges for the next generation of structural engineers.
Te scholarships and the targeted events were a resounding suc-
cess, with record numbers of students and young professionals
attending this years Congress. I had the pleasure of participating
in most of the above Congress activities and was impressed with
the insightfulness, ambition, and overall caliber of the young
professionals and students with whom I interacted. Tey wanted
to gain knowledge, build their networks, and learn from others;
and they wasted no time in making the most of their opportunity.
Feedback from the scholarship recipients was overwhelmingly
positive, and included the following:
I feel that my participation at Structures Congress was a poten-
tially career altering experience for me. My involvement with
other professionals and on ASCE committees would never have
evolved without the Young Professional Scholarship.
Emily Guglielmo, Martin/Martin, Inc.
I hope that this involvement will allow me to continue to attend
conferences in the future with the support of my company, but
I also plan to petition our leadership to allow other young
engineers the chance to experience national conferences early
in their careers. I truly believe that this is an important facet
of a young engineers career development.
Laura Whitehurst, Walter P Moore
Te Meet the Leaders Breakfast and Young Professionals Mixer on
Tursday made the Congress much more approachable for those new
to the profession and will make it more likely for them to return.
Chad Schrand, CCS Group
With this years success, SEI intends to continue the Structures Congress
Scholarship Program, and to improve it for future Congresses. (If you
are a young professional interested in applying for the Structures
2013 Congress scholarship, visit www.asce.org/sei for details.) In
fact, I was glad to discover that Linda Kaplan, one of the scholarship
recipients and an ambitious bridge designer with Gannett Fleming,
will be chairing the committee planning the student and young pro-
fessional events for the 2013 Structures Congress in Pittsburgh. Her
experiences at this years Congress provided her with good insight
toward improving the program for next year.
So the next time youre at the Structures Congress or any other
conference for that matter do yourself and the profession a favor. If
youre just starting out as a structural engineer, do more than just attend
sessions and listen to presentations. Gaining technical information is
important, but you can always read the conference proceedings when
you get home. Te real beneft of any conference lies in the industry
leaders with their wealth of experience, who are there in the same room.
Take the extra step to meet these people. If you enjoyed a presentation,
talk to the presenter during one of the breaks. At meals and receptions,
sit with people you dont know and get to know them. Attend a com-
mittee meeting that deals with a topic of interest. Make the efort to
meet people and get actively involved in the host organization.
If you are a seasoned structural engineer, do more than just reconnect
with old colleagues. Search out young, talented individuals looking
for a foothold in the profession. Make time for those who approach
you. If you dont have the time to spare at the moment, give them
your contact information or ofer to contact them later and be sure
to follow through.
Whether youre a seasoned veteran or new to the profes-
sion, the contacts you make will be invaluable. It takes
time and efort, but its well worth it!
Taka Kimura, P.E., M. ASCE, F. SEI is a Senior Principal Engineer
at Parsons Brinckerhof. Taka currently serves as Vice President of
the Structural Engineering Institute.
C-Editorial-InFocus-Sept12.indd 7 8/20/2012 2:21:37 PM
8
Visit STRUCTURE magazine on-line at
www.structuremag.org
Visit STRUCTURE magazine online at

STRUCTURE
(Volume 19, 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 C
3

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 refect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C
3
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.
C
3
Ink, Publishers
A Division of Copper Creek Companies, Inc.
148 Vine St., Reedsburg WI 53959
P-608-524-1397 F-608-524-4432
publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
AdvErtising Account MAnAgEr
Interactive Sales Associates
Chuck Minor Dick Railton
Eastern Sales Western Sales
847-854-1666 951-587-2982
sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
EditoriAL stAFF
Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE
execdir@ncsea.com
Editor Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
Associate Editor Nikki Alger
Graphic Designer Rob Fullmer
graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org
Web Developer William Radig
webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org
www.ncsea.com
STRUCTURE magazine
inFocus
ADVERTISER INDEX PLEASE SUPPORT THESE ADVERTISERS
Chair
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
Editorial Board
Brian W. Miller
Davis, CA
Mike C. Mota, Ph.D., P.E.
CRSI, Williamstown, NJ
Evans Mountzouris, P.E.
The DiSalvo Ericson Group, Ridgeeld, CT
Greg Schindler, P.E., S.E.
KPFF Consulting Engineers, Seattle, WA
Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
BergerABAM, Vancouver, WA
John Buddy Showalter, P.E.
American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA
Bolted, Pinned, and Welded Connections
Fully Qualifed and Exceeding AISC 341 Requirements
Real-Time Engineering Assistance
Non-linear Modelling Design Guides
Maximum QA/QC and Scheduling Control
Integration with RM Structural System and REVIT
New! Near Fault Efect Testing
B U C K L I N G R E S T R A I N E D B R A C E S
W W W . C O R E B R A C E . C O M 8 0 1 . 2 8 0 . 0 7 0 1
A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T

-
F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
American Concrete Institute ................... 4
AZZ Galvanizing .................................. 41
Bentley Systems, Inc. ............................... 3
Computers & Structures, Inc. ............... 52
CTP, Inc. ............................................... 13
CoreBrace, LLC ...................................... 8
CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp........ 17
DBM Contractors, Inc. ......................... 37
Fyfe Co. LLC ........................................ 12
GT STRUDL........................................ 34
Hohmann & Barnard, Inc. .................... 21
Te IAPMO Group ............................... 39
Integrated Engineering Software, Inc. ...... 5
ITW Red Head ..................................... 40
JMC Steel Group .................................. 30
KPFF Consulting Engineers .................. 36
NCEES ................................................. 14
Polyguard Products, Inc. .......................... 6
Powers Fasteners, Inc. .............................. 2
RISA Technologies ................................ 51
Structural Engineers Assoc. of Illinois .... 42
Simpson Strong-Tie............................... 19
StructurePoint ....................................... 10
Struware, Inc. ........................................ 43
Unbonded Brace ................................... 25
I
n the July issue, I introduced the concepts of theoretical knowl-
edge (episteme), technical rationality (techne), and practical
judgment (phronesis) as identifed by Aristotle, along with the
thesis that Western culture has largely abandoned the frst and
third in favor of the second. Tis month, I would like to focus on the
last two categories and how they bear on practice in the sense specifed
by Alasdair MacIntyre (Rethinking Engineering Ethics, November
2010). Joseph Dunne paraphrases it as follows in a 2005 paper (An
Intricate Fabric: Understanding the Rationality of Practice, Pedagogy,
Culture and Society, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 367-389):
a coherent, complex set of activities that has evolved coopera-
tively and cumulatively over time, that is alive in the community
who are its practitioners, and that remains alive only so long as
they remain committed to sustaining and creatively developing
and extending its internal goods and its proper standards of
excellence (this commitment constituting them as a community).
Dunne helpfully clarifes that the internal goods of practices are those
whose intended achievement defnes them as the particular practices
that they are, including both competencies proper to each practice
and virtues of character that transcend any particular practice. Te
latter are necessary to ensure that the former are not treated merely
as means for acquiring external goods, such that the practice [is]
made instrumental to the point that violation of its internal fabric
is allowed. A practice is thus something that can succeed or fail in
being true to its own proper purpose.
With this in mind, Dunne draws attention to the hegemony that
technical rationality has established in modern societies. Its allure
comes from its perceived objectivity and the apparent mastery over
matter that humans have accomplished by employing it, as exemplifed
by todays technology. As a result, it is no longer seen as a form of
rationality, with its own limited sphere of validity, but as coincident
with rationality as such. (Dunne and others resist this by contend-
ing that practices like engineering have their own legitimate form of
rationality, which deserves to be acknowledged accordingly, but I still
prefer to emphasize intentionality for the sake of maintaining a sharp
distinction; see Engineering as Willing, May 2010.)
Te efect on practices is pressure to conform by disembedding the
knowledge implicit in the skillful performance of the characteristic
tasks of the practice, so that what is essential in the knowledge and
skill can be abstracted for encapsulation in explicit, generalisable for-
mulae, procedures, or rules . . . Te ideal to which technical rationality
aspires, one might say, is a practitioner-proof mode of practice. (Tis
is evident from the trend toward ever more detailed and prescriptive
codes and standards, a well-meaning but misguided attempt to ensure
competent engineering by providing an increasingly elaborate set of
instructions; see Te Nature of Competence, March 2012.)
By contrast, the key features of practical judgment include:
its role as an action-orientating form of knowledge, its irreduc-
ibly experiential nature, its non-confnement to generalised
propositional knowledge, its entanglement (beyond mere
Visit us at the NCSEA conference Booth #8
September 2012
Visit STRUCTURE magazine online at

STRUCTURE
(Volume 19, 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 C
3

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 refect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C
3
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.
AdvErtising Account MAnAgEr
Interactive Sales Associates
Chuck Minor Dick Railton
Eastern Sales Western Sales
847-854-1666 951-587-2982
sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
EditoriAL stAFF
Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE
execdir@ncsea.com
Editor Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
Associate Editor Nikki Alger
Graphic Designer Rob Fullmer
graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org
Web Developer William Radig
webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org
www.ncsea.com
9
inFocus
The Rationality of Practice
By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
I
n the July issue, I introduced the concepts of theoretical knowl-
edge (episteme), technical rationality (techne), and practical
judgment (phronesis) as identifed by Aristotle, along with the
thesis that Western culture has largely abandoned the frst and
third in favor of the second. Tis month, I would like to focus on the
last two categories and how they bear on practice in the sense specifed
by Alasdair MacIntyre (Rethinking Engineering Ethics, November
2010). Joseph Dunne paraphrases it as follows in a 2005 paper (An
Intricate Fabric: Understanding the Rationality of Practice, Pedagogy,
Culture and Society, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 367-389):
a coherent, complex set of activities that has evolved coopera-
tively and cumulatively over time, that is alive in the community
who are its practitioners, and that remains alive only so long as
they remain committed to sustaining and creatively developing
and extending its internal goods and its proper standards of
excellence (this commitment constituting them as a community).
Dunne helpfully clarifes that the internal goods of practices are those
whose intended achievement defnes them as the particular practices
that they are, including both competencies proper to each practice
and virtues of character that transcend any particular practice. Te
latter are necessary to ensure that the former are not treated merely
as means for acquiring external goods, such that the practice [is]
made instrumental to the point that violation of its internal fabric
is allowed. A practice is thus something that can succeed or fail in
being true to its own proper purpose.
With this in mind, Dunne draws attention to the hegemony that
technical rationality has established in modern societies. Its allure
comes from its perceived objectivity and the apparent mastery over
matter that humans have accomplished by employing it, as exemplifed
by todays technology. As a result, it is no longer seen as a form of
rationality, with its own limited sphere of validity, but as coincident
with rationality as such. (Dunne and others resist this by contend-
ing that practices like engineering have their own legitimate form of
rationality, which deserves to be acknowledged accordingly, but I still
prefer to emphasize intentionality for the sake of maintaining a sharp
distinction; see Engineering as Willing, May 2010.)
Te efect on practices is pressure to conform by disembedding the
knowledge implicit in the skillful performance of the characteristic
tasks of the practice, so that what is essential in the knowledge and
skill can be abstracted for encapsulation in explicit, generalisable for-
mulae, procedures, or rules . . . Te ideal to which technical rationality
aspires, one might say, is a practitioner-proof mode of practice. (Tis
is evident from the trend toward ever more detailed and prescriptive
codes and standards, a well-meaning but misguided attempt to ensure
competent engineering by providing an increasingly elaborate set of
instructions; see Te Nature of Competence, March 2012.)
By contrast, the key features of practical judgment include:
its role as an action-orientating form of knowledge, its irreduc-
ibly experiential nature, its non-confnement to generalised
propositional knowledge, its entanglement (beyond mere
knowledge) with character, its need to embrace the particulars
of relevant action-situations within its grasp of universals, and
its ability to engage in the kind of deliberative process that can
yield concrete, context-sensitive judgements.
Practical judgment is manifested as the cultivated capacity to make
[particular judgment calls] resourcefully and reliably in all the complex
situations that they address, as well as an ability to recognise situations,
cases or problems . . . and to deal with them adequately and appropriately.
Dunne does not deny that technical rationality has a rightful place
within practices; in fact, he afrms that one can grant the valid-
ity and indeed the desirability of technicising even in practical
domains everything that can without loss be technicised. Why,
then, is practical judgment necessary? Because practices often present
us with a problematic situation where there is no discrete problem
already clearly labelled as such, so that we might better speak of a
difculty or predicament rather than a problem. When confronting
such circumstances,
one is not calculating the efciency of diferent possible means
towards an already determined end. Rather, one is often delib-
erating about the end itself: about what would count as a
satisfactory, or at least not entirely unacceptable, outcome to
a particular case.
At frst glance, engineering might seem like the kind of practice that
almost exclusively utilizes technical rationality. To a casual observer,
it appears that managers and clients generally specify the ends, and
engineers are charged primarily with selecting the means (Te Social
Captivity of Engineering, May 2010). What profession, other than
perhaps accounting, is more closely associated with calculation?
Anyone familiar with my previous writings on this subject should
know better. Technical rationality is only operative when the assign-
ment at hand consists of following a detailed series of steps in order to
achieve an already specifed outcome. Engineering certainly includes
some tasks that conform to this pattern structural analysis is an
obvious example, hence its suitability for execution by a computer
but it also routinely involves making choices from among multiple
viable options despite considerable uncertainty.
Furthermore, these decisions pertain not only to means, but also to
ends. While the ultimate product or project that results from an engi-
neers work may be dictated by someone else, it is up to the engineer
to ascertain what exactly will be accomplished within the range of his
or her direct responsibility. In other words, engineering
should be treated as an end in itself a form of action
or doing (praxis), which requires practical judgment; not
just production or making (poiesis), for which technical
rationality is sufcient.
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB (chair@STRUCTUREmag.org), is
an associate structural engineer at Burns & McDonnell in Kansas
City, Missouri. He chairs the STRUCTURE magazine Editorial
Board and the SEI Engineering Philosophy Committee.
STR_2_12
New! Upgraded to ACI 318-11. StructurePoints suite
of productivity tools are so easy to learn and simple to use that
youll be able to start saving time and money almost immedi-
ately. And when you use StructurePoint software, youre also tak-
ing advantage of the Portland Cement Associations 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.
Analysis, design
& investigation of
reinforced concrete
beams & slab systems
Finite element analysis & de-
sign of reinforced, precast
ICF & tilt-up concrete walls
Analysis, design
& investigation of
reinforced concrete
beams & one-way
slab systems
Design & investigation
of rectangular, round
& irregularly shaped
concrete column sections
Work quickly.
Work simply.
Work accurately.
Finite element analysis & design of reinforced concrete
foundations, combined footings or slabs on grade
StructurePoints Productivity Suite of powerful software tools for
reinforced concrete analysis & design with ACI-318-11 code
StrPt Ad FEB12 STR:SRTPT AD Nov08-STR 3/1/12 3:48 PM Page 1
Blank.indd 1 3/2/2012 4:58:28 PM
STRUCTURE magazine
11
dedicated to the dissemination
of information from other
organizations
Guest
Column
Mike Mota, Ph.D., P.E., F. ASCE
is the Atlantic Region Manager
for the Concrete Reinforcing Steel
Institute (CRSI). He is an Adjunct
Professor at Drexel University, an
active member of several ACI and
ASCE committees, and Chair of
ACI Committee 314 on Simplifed
Design of Concrete Buildings. He
also serves on the Board of Directors
of the Concrete Industry Board of
New York City/NYC ACI Chapter
and is a member of the editorial
board of STRUCTURE magazine.
By Mike Mota, Ph.D., P.E.,
F. ASCE
ACI Resources for Concrete
Buildings of Moderate Size
and Height
Te online version of this
article contains detailed
references. Please visit
www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
T
he goal of this article is to highlight
several technical resources developed
by American Concrete Institute
(ACI) Committee 314 Simplifed
Design of Concrete Buildings. Tis committee
was formed in 2004 with a specifc mission to,
develop and report information on the sim-
plifed design and economical construction of
concrete buildings of limited height.
Te resources discussed in this article include a)
Newly released ACI 314.R11 Guide to a Simplifed
Design for Reinforced Concrete Buildings, and b)
Case studies for three projects (16-story hotel in
Illinois, and two multi-story post-tensioned park-
ing garages located in California and Maryland).
ACI 314.R11
Tis is intended to provide the more salient
features of the newly published ACI document
ACI 314.R11 Guide to a Simplifed Design for
Reinforced Concrete Buildings (referenced as the
Guide) available through the ACI website. In
short, this document presents simplifed methods
and design techniques that facilitate and expedite
the design of low-rise reinforced concrete build-
ings of moderate size and height.
Te Guide meets the minimum requirements
of ACI 318-11; however, it is not a deem to
comply document. Te chapters have been orga-
nized to follow the typical design process, with
procedures introduced to follow the typical course
of a building design.
As presented, the information is derived
from the following documents: Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-
11) and Commentary (ACI 318R-11); Minimum
Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures
(ASCE 7-10) by the American Society of Civil
Engineers; and International Building Code (IBC
2009) by the International Code Council.
Although many of the tables, charts, and values
are based on the referenced documents, the
information has been modifed or reorganized
to be more conservative, to match design process
fow, or better support the holistic and simplifed
design approach.
It should be clear to the reader that the manu-
script is a guide and not a standard; therefore, it
cannot be adopted by the Building Code. Te
information is presented in such a manner that
a structure designed using this document will,
in principle, comply with the minimum require-
ments of the Codes and Standards on which the
Guide to a Simplifed Design for Reinforced Concrete
Buildings was based.
Te Guide is a self-contained document and must
be applied in its entirety. Because the simplifed
provisions are interdependent, it would be unsafe
to employ only a portion of the document and
disregard the rest. As the Guide is intended to be
used as a design aid, it is the licensed design profes-
sionals responsibility to ensure the requirements of
the applicable Building Code are satisfed.
Background
Te Guide was pre-
ceeded in 2002 by
the frst International
Publication from
ACI, known as
IPS-1 (International
Publication Series-1),
Essential Requirements for Reinforced Concrete
Buildings. IPS-1 was the result of an agreement
between ACI and two Colombian Institutions:
the Instituto Colombiano de Normas Tcnicas y
Certifcacin (Colombian Institute for Technical
Standards and Certifcation) and the Asociacin
Colombiana de Ingeniera Ssmica (Colombian
Association for Earthquake Engineering).
Te motivation of ACI 314.R11 and the parent
document IPS-1 was a result of frequent discus-
sions with design professionals that reinforced
concrete codes might be unnecessarily compli-
cated for most types of applications, such as small
Figure 1: Reinforcement for beams and joists supported by beams or girders.
negative moment reinf. cut-
o points based on greater
of the adjacent spans
negative moment
reinf. at interior face
of external support
negative moment
reinf. interior support
positive moment
reinf. end span
positive moment
reinf. interior span
splice according
to 5.8.2
splice according
to 5.8.2
greater of cantilever
negative moment
reinf. or required for
internal support
n1
n1/8
n1/4 n1/3 n3/3 n1/3
n1/8 n1/8
n2 n3
0 in. 0 in.
C-GuestCol-Mota-Sept12.indd 11 8/20/2012 2:22:32 PM
12
STRUCTURE magazine
low-rise buildings. A survey of the construction
industry conducted by the Portland Cement
Association in the early 1990s showed that
approximately 90% of structures in the U.S.
are fve stories or less and, as a result, the design
can be simplifed through a small amount of
conservatism without impacting the overall
economy of the structure.
Te design guidelines in IPS-1 were tested
in Latin America where reinforced concrete
is the framing system most commonly used.
IPS-1 was also successfully tested at Purdue
University, where the students found it
extremely useful as a design aid in the comple-
tion of homework assignments.
To properly use the Guide, it is important
to understand the limitations associated
with scope. Low-rise buildings within this
scope are expected to have a normal rectan-
gular footprint, with simple geometries and
member dimensions in both the plan and
vertical directions.
Other limitations include:
Maximum number of stories must be
fve or less above ground and no more
than one basement level.
Maximum area per foor not to
exceed 10,000 square feet (1000
square meters).
Story height, measured from foor
fnish to foor fnish, should not exceed
13 feet (4 m).
Te span length for girders, beams, and
slab-column systems, measured from
center-to-center of the supports, should
not exceed 30 feet (10 m).
Spans should be approximately equal,
and the shorter of two adjacent spans
should be at least 80% of the larger
span, except in elevator and stair cores.
Tere should be at least two
spans in each of the two principal
directions of the building in plan.
Single spans may be permitted in
one- and two-story buildings if the
span length does not exceed 15
feet (5 m).
For girders, beams, and slabs
with overhangs, the length of the
overhang should not exceed 1 of
the length of the frst interior span
of the member.
Buildings with ofsets, reentrant
corners, and vertical and/
or horizontal irregularities are
considered outside the scope of
this Guide.
Additional limitations, including
use and occupancy, can be found in
Chapter 1 of the Guide.
Simplicity in the design process,
along with practical construction con-
siderations, have been implemented
throughout the Guide. An example of
this is the limitations of bar sizes from
#3 to #8 (3-inch to 1-inch nominal
diameter) for both ASTM A615 and
A706 (weldable reinforcement) grades.
In addition, issues such as minimum
development lengths and lap-splices
are simplifed to consist of one value
equal to 50d
b
. Given the simple types of
structures considered in the Guide, this
simplifcation also facilitates feld instal-
lation without signifcantly impacting
overall economy.
One of the main features displayed
throughout the document is the ability
to convey the guidelines through well-
conceived graphics. A sample graphic
(Figure 1) shows that short descriptions
have been inserted to explain the rea-
soning behind the drawing. Although
this may be viewed as redundant to sea-
soned engineers, this information has
been found extremely useful by young
engineers and students.
oor
diaphragm
lateral-force-
resisting
structural
walls
prescribed oor
lateral loads
A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T

-
F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
September 2012 STRUCTURE magazine September 2012
13
Brief Overview of Lateral-Force
Resisting System Guidelines
Within the scope of the Guide and in zones
of low and no seismic risk, the total lateral
story shear at any story should be distributed
to the frames through the columns, and rein-
forced concrete walls are not required to resist
lateral forces.
In Moderate or High seismic risk zones,
the Guide requires that 100% of factored
lateral loads are resisted by reinforced con-
crete walls. Tese elements are proportioned
through simple design guidelines that pre-
clude the need for special analyses, including
slenderness and second order
efects. Additionally, frames
should be proportioned to resist
a minimum lateral force equal to
25% of the factored lateral force
in each direction in plan, to
account for efects such as base
rotation of the walls or a decrease
in stifness and strength due to
inelastic response (Figure 2).
Brief Overview of Floor
Systems Guidelines
Several types of common concrete
foor systems are covered in the
Guide. Tese include both one and two-way
systems as follow:
Flat plate and Flat slab,
Slab-on-girder system with and without
intermediate beams,
One-way joist systems, and
Wafe slab system.
Guidelines are also included for struc-
tural integrity for both perimeter and
non-perimeter beams. Guidelines for mini-
mum member thicknesses are included for
deflection sensitive elements associated
with the different types of floor systems
mentioned above.
Figure 2: Lateral-force-resisting structural system.
oor
diaphragm
lateral-force-
resisting
structural
walls
prescribed oor
lateral loads
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
Design Case Studies
Developed By ACI 314
In order to assist engineers in the design of typical
structures, ACI 314 developed three case studies
based on actual designs. Te case studies include a
16-level hotel in Illinois, a post-tensioned 6-level
parking garage in California, and a 5-level post-
tensioned parking garage located in Maryland.
Te case studies consist of fve sections that
discuss: project information, structural analysis,
member design and detailing, miscellaneous
design and detailing, and sample drawings. Te
information presented in these sections is refer-
enced to the provisions of ACI 318-05, and is
organized to include detailed calculations with
explanations intended to ofer designers insight
into the design of the particular structure.
Te case studies can be found in the Concrete
Knowledge Center of the ACI website
(www.concrete.org) where many other excel-
lent technical resources on a variety of topics
can be found.
As current Chair of ACI Committee 314,
I would like to thank the many volunteer
members of this committee that have helped
create and review the design aids produced
to date. I would also like to recognize prior
Committee Chairs, Luis Garcia and JoAnn
Browning, for their leadership.
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 dont have time for unnecessary paperwork.
Let NCEES keep track of your record so you can
focus on whats ahead.
ncees.org/records
records@ncees.org
8002503196
Keep your professional license
as mobile as you are.
Blank.indd 1 7/27/2012 10:47:10 AM
STRUCTURE magazine
15
practical knowledge beyond
the textbook
Structural
PracticeS
Martin Hammer, Architect,
and Kevin Donahue, Structural
Engineer, have practices in Berkeley,
California. Mark Aschheim
is Professor and Chair of the
Department of Civil Engineering at
Santa Clara University.
By Martin Hammer, Architect,
Mark Aschheim P.E. and
Kevin Donahue P.E., S.E.
Part 1: Overview
and In-plane Behavior
and Design
Strawbale Construction
An expanded version of this
article, including references,
is available online at
www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
Te proposed code provisions
along with an archive of
important tests, research
reports, and analyses of
system behavior is available at
www.ecobuildnetwork.org.
Tis is the frst of a two-part series examining the engineering and design of strawbale buildings.
Tis part provides an overview of the structural system and best practices for the design and detailing
of strawbale walls to resist in-plane lateral loads. Te second part will address out-of-plane response,
uplift, and support of gravity loads.
What is Strawbale Construction?
Strawbale construction uses baled straw as stack-
able blocks in wall systems. Plaster is typically
applied to the interior and exterior surfaces of
the bales (Figure 1). Clay, lime, or cement-lime
plasters may be used, often with reinforcing mesh.
Te bales, plaster, and mesh can work together
to create a composite structural system, similar in
concept and performance to a structural insulated
panel (SIP). Te plaster and its reinforcement
form a skin that is strong, stif, and durable,
bonding to the softer bales and protecting them
from moisture, fre, and wear. Te bales brace
the plaster skins against buckling and tie them
together, forming a composite section capable
of resisting out-of-plane loads. Strawbale wall
systems are used as load-bearing walls and as infll
in post and beam framing.
History
Strawbale construction originated in Nebraska
(Figure 2) in the late 1800s, shortly after the
invention of baling machines. Some of these early
buildings, over 100 years old, are still in service.
Te practice was abandoned in the 1940s, but
enjoyed a rebirth in the American southwest in
the 1980s. Interest spread rapidly in this rediscov-
ered building method, valued for its resource and
energy efciency, and aesthetic qualities. Plastered
strawbale walls have substantial structural capacity
when properly detailed, both as load-bearing and
lateral load resisting systems.
Strawbale buildings now exist in 49 States, and
variations of strawbale construction are practiced in
over 45 countries, in virtually
every climate. Tere are over 500 strawbale build-
ings in California alone. U.S. strawbale buildings
include residences, schools, ofce buildings, wineries
(Figure 3, page 16), multi-story buildings, and large
buildings (over 10,000 square feet in foor area). In
many of these structures, strawbale walls are used as
load-bearing elements or shear walls, even in areas
of high seismic risk.
Testing and Research
Te testing of strawbale construction goes back
to the early 1990s, and includes structural, mois-
ture, fre, and thermal tests. Plastered strawbale
Figure 1: Te essential
components of a strawbale wall.
Courtesy of David Mar.
Figure 2: Simonton house, Nebraska, 1908.
C-StrucPractices-Hammer-Sept12.indd 15 8/20/2012 2:23:31 PM
16
STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 4: Behavior observed in a full-scale test of a
strawbale wall built with reinforced cement plaster skins.
(a) Load-displacement response. (b) Flexural cracks at a
displacement of 2.40 inches (2.5% drift).
walls have high thermal resistance (R-30 for
a typical wall) and are very resistant to fre
(full scale walls passed 1-hour and 2-hour
ASTM E-119 tests). Moisture is the notable
challenge for strawbale walls, but with good
design, detailing, and maintenance, strawbale
buildings can last indefnitely.
Since 1993, wall specimen and component
structural tests have been performed. Tese
tests include vertical load-bearing, reversed
in-plane cyclic, monotonic, and out-of-plane
wall specimen tests, as well as component tests
on bales, plasters, and mesh anchorage. A full-
scale shake table test of a small building using
a system tailored to post-earthquake Pakistan
was conducted in 2009 at the University of
Nevada, Reno.
Strawbale Construction
and Building Codes
Over the last 20 years, most strawbale build-
ings have been permitted under the alternative
materials and methods section of the building
code. Only New Mexico (1996) and Oregon
(2000) have adopted statewide strawbale
codes. In 1995, California legislated straw-
bale construction guidelines for voluntary
adoption by local jurisdictions. Since 1997,
nine cities or counties in four other states have
adopted strawbale building codes.
Most strawbale building codes are derived from
the frst such code, created for and adopted by
the City of Tucson and Pima County, Arizona
in 1996. Subsequent experience, testing, and
research have shown these codes to be greatly
defcient. Tey are often too restrictive or not
restrictive enough, and are silent on many
important issues.
In 2009, a strawbale code proposal was sub-
mitted by strawbale building practitioners
to the International Code Council (ICC) in
response to its request for alternative materials
provisions to be considered for the International
Green Construction Code (IgCC). Te pro-
posed section was included in the Second
Draft of the IgCC but was subsequently dis-
approved in 2011, with opponents advising
that strawbale construction belongs instead
in the International Building Code (IBC)
and International Residential Code (IRC). In
January, 2012, a further developed proposal was
submitted for consideration for the 2015 IBC.
Te proposal is based on testing results and 20
years of feld experience by strawbale design and
building professionals. Te proposal includes a
two-story limit for structural use of strawbale
construction. Te IBC review process continues
through its fnal action hearings, scheduled for
October 24-28, 2012.
Materials
Straw is an agricultural waste product remain-
ing after the harvest of grains such as rice,
wheat, barley and oat. Straw is baled after
harvest, using mechanical baling equipment,
at moisture contents less than 20%. Two-
string bales are typically 14 x 18 x 36 inches.
Tree-string bales are typically 15 x 23 x 46
inches. Consequently, bale size, density and
moisture content are fairly consistent. Typical
densities are 7-8 pcf, resulting in a three-string
bale weighing 75-80 pounds.
A prescribed set of plasters are addressed
in the proposed 2015 IBC chapter. Critical
details (e.g. reinforcement, lap splices, anchor-
age, and sill plates) and design values are based
on behavior observed in testing. So-called
hard plasters use a binder of Portland
cement with lime or with soil, or a binder of
lime alone, while soft plasters use clay as a
binder. Typical compositions of these plasters
are described in Table 1 along with typical
cube compressive strengths. Baseline compres-
sive strengths relied upon for the development
of allowable gravity loads and allowable shears
are also shown in Table 1.
Diferent types of mesh are recognized as
plaster reinforcement in the proposed provi-
sions. A high-density polypropylene mesh
(e.g. Cintofex C) may be used to reinforce
the soft plasters. A welded wire mesh (2-inch
x 2-inch x 14 gauge) is recognized for use in
both soft and hard plasters.
Behavior of Walls
Under In-plane Shear
In-plane shear tests were conducted to establish
the reversed cyclic load-deformation behavior
of strawbale walls designed and detailed for
Plaster Type Typical Composition
(parts by volume)
Typical Range of
Compressive Strengths
(psi)
Baseline Strength
in Proposed
Provisions (psi)
Clay 1 clay: 1 sand: 1 straw 80250 100
Soil-cement
1 cement: 9 soil-sand
1
6001500 1000
Lime 1 hydraulic lime: 3 sand 600 1400 600
Cement-lime 1 cement: 1 lime: 6 sand 10001600 1000
Cement 6 cement: 1 lime: 21 sand 14002400 1400
1
minimum cement: soil-sand ratio
Table 1: Plaster types and typical cube compressive strengths.
Figure 3: A contemporary strawbale building.
Ridge Winery, CA. Interior before plaster.
Exterior fnished. Courtesy of Freebairn-
Smith & Crane Architects.
17
lateral load resistance. Details were established
using a capacity design philosophy to encour-
age ductile behavior in the feld of the plaster.
Walls made with reinforced clay and cement
plasters were tested at full scale; a superimposed
gravity load of 200 plf was applied.
Figure 4a shows the recorded load-dis-
placement response of Wall E, having
cement-plaster skins, while Figure 4b shows
the condition of this wall at a drift of 2.5%.
Te tests demonstrated that moderate duc-
tility could be obtained without risk of loss
of gravity support. Te reinforced plasters
provide a stif load path on par with that
available from wood shear panels. However,
hold-downs are not needed because the rein-
forced plasters provide both fexural and shear
resistance. Well-anchored, robust sills carry
these loads to the foundation. In this way,
the reinforced plasters act much like thin
reinforced concrete walls, which are braced
laterally by the straw. At low displacement
amplitudes, fexural behavior was dominant,
with tensile and compressive zones present
on either side of a neutral axis. As imposed
drift levels increased, the individual wires of
the mesh or their connections gradu-
ally failed, leading to a reduction in
strength and the gradual development
of rocking. At larger drifts, visible
gaps between the individual bale
courses opened and closed. Because
the walls are relatively stocky (height
to thickness ratios between 4 and 6
are common), and because the plaster
skins help to maintain the verti-
cal alignment of the bales, the soft
strawbale core provides a redundant
mechanism to support gravity loads
as the skins fail. No sign of instability
was apparent even through two cycles
of drift to 7%.
Longer walls would be governed by
shear failure rather than fexural fail-
ure. An 8-foot high by 8-foot 7-inch
long strawbale wall was tested at Cal
Poly San Luis Obispo. Te plaster
was restrained along its edges, forc-
ing deformation predominantly in
shear. Just as would be expected for a
longer wall, the cement plaster skins
failed in shear. Following the V
n
=
V
s
+ V
c
formulation defned for rein-
forced concrete walls indicates V
c
=
3.4'
c
b
w
d, just above the nominal
3'
c
b
w
d that would be accorded walls
of this aspect ratio in ACI 318. Tis
reference strength level is used to ensure
that the proposed allowable shears,
derived based on fexural behavior, are
well below the true shear strengths.
Design Parameters
for In-plane Loading
Allowable shears and seismic design param-
eters (R,
o
, and C
d
) were developed for use in
wind and seismic design. Proposed allowable
shears are provided in Table 2 (page 18). Te
allowable shears are for walls composed of
two- or three-string bales having reinforced
plaster on both sides of the wall.
The derivation of allowable shears was
constrained by the need to obtain elas-
tic behavior under wind loading and to
achieve seismic performance on par with
other structural systems. The derivation
accounts for differences in the ductil-
ity capacity of clay and cement plaster
walls, limitations in the number of test
specimens, the use of plasters having
compressive strengths conforming to the
proposed code minimums, and the use of
different mesh reinforcement.
R-factors for use in seismic design were
developed by three approaches: a conven-
tional approach that considers overstrength
Figure 4: Behavior observed in a full-scale test of a
strawbale wall built with reinforced cement plaster skins.
(a) Load-displacement response. (b) Flexural cracks at a
displacement of 2.40 inches (2.5% drift).
(a)
(b)
Plaster Type Typical Composition
(parts by volume)
Typical Range of
Compressive Strengths
(psi)
Baseline Strength
in Proposed
Provisions (psi)
Clay 1 clay: 1 sand: 1 straw 80250 100
Soil-cement
1 cement: 9 soil-sand
1
6001500 1000
Lime 1 hydraulic lime: 3 sand 600 1400 600
Cement-lime 1 cement: 1 lime: 6 sand 10001600 1000
Cement 6 cement: 1 lime: 21 sand 14002400 1400
1
minimum cement: soil-sand ratio
A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T

-
F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
18
and ductility, a comparison with established
materials (e.g. light-framed walls with wood
shear panels), and initial FEMA P-695 analy-
sis results. On the basis of available results,
the authors recommend R = 3.5 for bearing
wall systems and R = 4.0 for building frame
systems. Tese can be used together with
o

= 3 and C
d
= 3 for bearing wall and C
d
= 3.5
for building frame systems. Similar to other
instances of allowable stress design, seismic
forces should be multiplied by 0.7 while
allowable design values should be increased
by 40% for resisting wind loads.
Detailing for In-plane Loading
A schematic wall section for a one-story load-
bearing shear wall is shown in Figure 5. Along
the base of the wall are 4x4 sill plates attached
to the foundation with 5-inch diameter anchor
bolts at relatively close spacing (as little as 2
feet). A gravel bed is used at the base of the wall,
in between the sill plates, to provide both a
capillary break and a vapor-permeable support
surface for the bales. Along the top of the wall
is typically a wood box beam, composed of ply-
wood skins sandwiching horizontal 4x4s. Te
box beam provides for attachment of roof or
foor framing and transfer of lateral loads into
the wall. Te mesh reinforcement is anchored
at the top and bottom of the wall by stapling
into the horizontal wood members. Typically,
16-gauge staples are applied diagonally over
every wire intersection. Stainless steel staples
are used when stapling into pressure-treated
lumber; electro-galvanized staples may be used
in untreated lumber.
Alternatively, plastered straw bale walls may be
used as infll within a post and beam system. In
this application, lateral loads may be transferred
into the wall as shown in Figure 6a. For two-
story construction, connections are designed
and detailed to provide for load transfer from
the upper level wall to the lower level wall via
the frst foor. In Figure 6b, blocking between
the joists provides a load path between the
plaster skins, where the joists are perpendicular
to the wall. Where the joists are parallel to the
wall, a joist is provided under each 4x4 plate.
Load transfer across the foor assembly must
be provided. Plaster and mesh reinforcement
on the exterior may be made continuous across
the foor assembly with the mesh stapled to the
rim joist and lapped as necessary.
Figure 6: Schematic infll shear wall sections. (a)
One-story shear wall. (b) Detail at second foor.
MESH
POST AS OCCURS
STRAW BALES
PLASTER APPLIED DIRECTLY
TO BALES
BEAM PER STRUCTURAL PLANS
DSA Architects - 7/2012
www.dsaarch.com
4X4 PLATES WITH
ANCHOR BOLTS
PLASTER SUPPORT
STAPLE MESH TO BEAM
AND BLOCKING
PLASTER
STAPLE
MESH TO
BLOCKING
VAPOR
BARRIER
GRAVEL
SUPPORT
STAPLE MESH
TO PLATES
ML5H
PO5T A5 OCCUR5
5TRAW BALL5
PLA5TLR APPLIED DlRLCTLY
TO BALL5
BLAM PLR 5TRUCTURAL PLAN5
BLAM
(OR BLAM BLLOW JOl5TS,
NOTCHLD lNTO BALL5)
D5A Architects - 7/Z01Z
www.dsaarch.con
4X4 PLATL5 WlTH
ANCHOR BOLT5
PLA5TLR 5UPPORT
FA5TLN ML5H TO BLAM
AND BLOCKlNG
LAG 5CRLW
FOR 5HLAR
TRAN5FLR
FA5TLN
ML5H TO
BLOCKlNG
VAPOR
BARRlLR
GRAVLL
5UPPORT
5TAPLL ML5H
TO PLATL5
PLA5TLR
5TAPLL ML5H
TO BLOCKlNG
(a)
(b)
Plaster Type Plaster
Thickness
(min)
Plaster
Reinforcement
Shear Strength
(kips)
Factor of
Safety
Proposed
Allowable
Shear (plf)
Clay 1.5 none 1.27 2.78 60
Clay 1.5
2 in. by 2 in.
high-density
polypropylene
3.05 2.78 140
Clay 1.5 2x2x14 ga. 4.10 2.78 180
Soil-cement 1 2x2x14 ga. 16.26 3.87 520
Lime
7
/
8
17ga. woven wire 10.18 3.87 330
Lime
7
/
8
2x2x14 ga. 13.97 3.87 450
Cement-lime
7
/
8
17ga. woven wire 11.71 3.87 380
Cement-lime
7
/
8
2x2x14 ga. 16.07 3.87 520
Cement
7
/
8
2x2x14 ga. 16.70 3.87 540
Cement 1.5 2x2x14 ga. 17.45 3.22 680
Table 2: Development of allowable shears.
STRAW BALES
DSA Architects - 7/2012
www.dsaarch.com
PLASTER SUPPORT
VERTICAL LOAD
TRANSFER INTO
PLASTER SKINS
VAPOR
BARRIER
GRAVEL
SUPPORT
BOX BEAM
MESH
PLASTER APPLIED DIRECTLY
TO BALES
4X4 PLATES WITH
ANCHOR BOLTS
STAPLE MESH
TO BOX BEAM
STAPLE MESH
TO PLATES
Figure 5: Schematic section of a load-
bearing shear wall.
2012 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. TC12-E
When designing to the latest code provisions that include seismic design
categories A through F, you need an anchor that will perform. Our code-listed
Torq-Cut
self-undercutting anchor provides high-load capacity and is a ductile

solution in higher-strength concrete. The Torq-Cut anchor is engineered so that
pullout is not a failure mode. It is a Category 1 anchor, and designed to resist
static, wind and seismic loads in cracked and uncracked normal-weight concrete
and sand light-weight concrete.
Listed under ESR-2705, the Torq-Cut is evaluated under ICC-ES AC 193
(Acceptance Criteria for Mechanical Anchors in Concrete Elements) and ACI 355.2.
For more information, call (800) 999-5099 or visit www.strongtie.com/torqcut.
The anchor that
makes the cut.
Cracked &
Uncracked
CONCRETE
IBC

2012
ESR-2705
ICC-ES
IN THE SPECS
ON THE JOB
AT YOUR SERVICE
Available at
dealers nationwide
SAS_TC12-E_8_3-8x10_7-8.indd 1 7/25/12 4:01 PM Blank.indd 1 7/26/2012 1:19:32 PM
20
InSIghtS new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
Construction Quality Management
By Richard L. Hess, S.E., SECB, F. ASCE, F. SEAOC
B
efore construction physically begins,
quality in construction depends
on the architectural, structural
and mechanical, electrical, and
plumbing drawings that accurately convey
the clients intention to a contractor who is
capable of constructing what is required.
When a Mechanical Engineer designs an
automobile, an airplane or a toaster, the
cost for design will not have to be recovered
in one unit. When a Structural Engineer
designs a building or an industrial support
structure, usually it will be only one of a
kind. It has to solve a unique need of a client,
based on site and time consideration that
will not be duplicated.
When the design involves an automobile,
airplane, or a toaster, it will be fabricated
or constructed under controlled conditions
by people who are probably trained and
supervised by the same people who employ
the engineer.
In the type of construction that we are
involved with, the Structural Engineer usu-
ally does not know who will construct the
item that was designed, or their ability to
understand the plans. In addition, will they
be supervised? Will they have access to the
engineer on site when conditions change
during construction or when something is
unclear or missing on the plans?
In many cases, there is a budgeted amount for
structural engineering site visits and consulta-
tion with the contractor that is negotiated by
the Architect with the owner. Te Structural
Engineer will not be paid for work with the
contractor unless it is approved in advance by
the Architect. I know this. I have lost work
on jobs involving unknown site and exist-
ing construction conditions because I would
not agree with some of these limitations. I
have also witnessed large, difcult-to-resolve
lawsuits that have resulted from the contrac-
tor proceeding because of a tight schedule,
without input from the Structural Engineer
to resolve unplanned-for problems.
Construction quality, therefore, depends
on many things that may be unforeseen and
outside of the control of the engineer during
design. However, the following question must
also be raised: Does the engineer even want
to understand the construction or the appli-
cation of his or her design to the fnished
product? Or does the engineer believe that
responsibility extends only to the mathemati-
cal accuracy of his or her calculations, and
that the drawings need only extend to the
capacity of the CAD program used to produce
them? Without understanding their role in
construction quality, engineers will do noth-
ing to assure it.
Technology in all felds of engineering has
advanced dramatically in the past two cen-
turies; and it is advancing at an accelerated
pace. While building and manufacturing per-
formed in 1800 could be comprehended and
performed by ancient Roman engineers, now it
depends on scientifc discoveries, mathematical
developments, new synthetic materials, and
precision tools, as well as enormous quantities
of available energy that could not be foreseen
even a few decades ago.
Tis increase in the level of technology has
created the need for specialization in design
based on years of intense education. When
the implementation of that design is per-
formed in a controlled environment, such as
a manufacturing assembly line, then there is a
direct link for quality assurance to take place
in the same process.
In our case, however, the implementa-
tion consists of construction at an outdoor
site, which is served by a unique set of utili-
ties, weather, and existing trafc conditions,
using material obtained by an independent
contractor. Te contractor may have never
worked with these designers before, and his
workforce may consist of individuals of vary-
ing experience and education. Ten, quality
assurance is more complex because it involves
the actions of diferent parties who are not
under the control of the design engineer; and
then it depends on something more from
the designer than specialized knowledge in
structural analysis.
In structural engineering, construction
quality assurance requires a design based on
constructability as well as structural analy-
sis. It also requires the involvement of the
Structural Engineer during construction.
Constructability can be defned as the
integration of construction knowledge and
experience by the design engineer into the
construction of the project.
This is why mandatory Structural
Observation site visits and reports by the
responsible Structural Engineer are necessary.
Structural Observation does not take the place
of regular inspection by the applicable govern-
mental jurisdiction, nor of the other special
inspection and testing personnel involved
in Quality Control. Its purpose is to ensure
proper interpretation of the construction
documents and to detect and resolve ques-
tions of constructability before they become
a costly problem.
To summarize, what is necessary for obtain-
ing quality in construction is an understanding
of construction and implementation of con-
structability in design and the involvement
of the Structural Engineer at the site during
construction. Without both of these, there is
no way to prevent or to control questions at
the site before they become problems.
Richard L. Hess, S.E., SECB, F. ASCE,
F. SEAOC is a consulting structural engi-
neer in Southern California. Richard is a
Past President of the Structural Engineers
Association of Southern California and
Chair, Existing Buildings Committee. He
is a member the STRUCTURE magazine
Editorial Board. He can be reached at
RLHess@HessEng.com.
D-InSights-Hess-Sept12.indd 20 8/20/2012 2:26:12 PM
HOHMANN & BARNARDS
SHARKTOOTH INSERT
CONTACT US FOR MORE INFORMATION
www.h-b.com | 800.645.0616
H&Bs SHARKTOOTH INSERT is an innovative
anchoring system for Releif Angles, Partition Top and
Precast Anchoring Systems. It is capable of developing
working loads up to 8,000#/ft. in both shear and tension.
It is adjustable along virtually its entire length, as well
as in and out adjustments. It is fabricated in lengths
from 3 to 12-0 long, and can be custom designed
for project-specific applications, such as radii or
specific lengths.
SHARKTOOTH FEATURES:
. Serrated shark-tooth design allows insert to resist
high vertical shear loads
. Allows for substantial vertical adjustment along
full length of insert
. Rebar interface not an issue (no additional hairpins
required to develop published working loads)
. Easy installation with nut and bolt connection
PATENTS PENDING
structure_september.indd 1 7/30/12 10:37 AM
Blank.indd 1 7/30/2012 10:57:11 AM
22
STRUCTURE magazine
Bridge Service Life Extension Study
I-70 Blanchette Bridge Concrete Substructures
By Christopher A. Ligozio, S.E., P.E., Scott T. Wyatt, S.E., P.E. and Ernst H. Petzold, P.E.
B
ridge rehabilitation vs. replacement decisions are more
challenging when highway funding is scarce. For older,
critical highway corridors, decisions are infuenced by struc-
tural condition and capacity, durability of components,
safety standards, future traf c projections, efects on environment,
construction-related traf c disruption, and economic considerations.
Service life evaluation methodology and diagnostic tools were applied
to the 50-year-old concrete substructures of the westbound Blanchette
Bridge, carrying I-70 across the Missouri River in St. Charles, Missouri.
Tis article summarizes the substructure service life model and reha-
bilitation plan developed through a program of hands-on inspection,
nondestructive testing, and methodical material sampling and testing.
Te plan provided a basis for achieving adequate performance for the
rehabilitated westbound bridge over an additional 50 years of service
life, meeting Missouri DOT project objectives.
Overview
Traditional bridge management practice is often reactive to the needs
of aging bridges. When routine inspection identifes that structural and
durability conditions have degraded suf ciently, a more detailed inspec-
tion and study is sought and performed, to correct observed defciencies.
Tis reactive inspection/maintenance approach rarely addresses
latent durability issues in a rational, cost-efective manner, and when
applied in a rehabilitation context, tends to favor lower initial capital
investment over lower life cycle cost options. When durability con-
cerns are addressed, the method tends to favor full replacement over
rehabilitation following extended periods of neglect.
Te 4,083-foot long, westbound I-70 Blanchette Bridge (Figure 1),
consists of 23 steel girder and truss spans, supported on reinforced
concrete piers. Te structure was originally constructed in 1958 and
underwent a signifcant rehabilitation in the 1980s, including deck
replacement, substructure repairs, and strengthening. Te bridge
presently carries 70,000 vehicles daily.
Te reinforced concrete piers are comprised of a cap beam supported
on two columns. Pier geometry varies along the length of the bridge.
Te substructure service life extension study was conducted by the
authors, under contract with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. of St.
Louis, MO, from July 2009 to March 2010. Te Jacobs scope of work
included inspection, preliminary and fnal design, and consultation
during construction. Te project will restore the condition of the
older westbound bridge and develop a maintenance plan to provide
a 50-year extension to its service life.
Inspection & Testing
Te feld investigation consisted of a hands-on detailed inspection,
nondestructive testing, concrete cover profling, and concrete sampling
and testing to document the condition of the concrete piers above
ground, and above water. Inspection access to the piers was provided
using a combination of aerial lifts, under-bridge inspection vehicles
and work boats.
Inspection revealed the condition of the piers was highly dependent
on their location with respect to deck joints. Piers beneath continuous
deck sections were generally in good condition, with minor, local-
ized deterioration and isolated areas of delaminated concrete. Piers
beneath or adjacent to deck joints had been subjected to deck runof
and were in poor condition (Figure 2). Signifcant cracking, localized
to widespread spalling, and widespread areas of delaminated concrete
(as much as 50% of area) were evident in these latter piers.
Corrosion potential measurements were used to evaluate the likeli-
hood of active corrosion (Figure 3). Measured potential values were in
general agreement with the inspection results: piers away from deck
joints indicated a high probability that no corrosion was occurring
at the time of testing; measurements of sound areas of piers under
or adjacent to deck joints indicated signifcant areas of active corro-
sion, signifying a strong potential for additional delaminations and
accelerated deterioration in these piers.
Figure 1: I-70 Blanchette Bridge.
SF-BlanchetteBridge-Sept12.indd 22 8/20/2012 2:27:56 PM
23
During inspections, concrete cores were extracted from areas represen-
tative of sound concrete. In the laboratory, chloride ion concentration
analyses of concrete samples indicated that in piers under or adjacent
to deck joints, chloride ion levels at the depth of the reinforcing steel
were higher than the threshold at which corrosion of embedded steel
is known to initiate.
Petrographic examination and compressive strength testing of the
concrete cores demonstrated that outside of areas of observed damage,
the concrete appeared sound and generally of good quality, with no
additional durability concerns.
Service Life Evaluation
Based on the project scope and plan, bridge operating environment
and results of the inspection and testing program, the following
parameters were candidates to pose potential vulnerabilities, which
could impair the piers remaining service life (these were addressed
during the service life study):
Concrete deterioration due to expansive reaction of siliceous
aggregate with cement paste in concrete (ASR).
Concrete deterioration due to repeated cycles of freezing and
thawing while concrete is wet.
Corrosion of steel reinforcement due to carbonation of
concrete, which alters the protective qualities of concrete paste.
Corrosion of steel reinforcement due to the presence of chlorides.
Of these factors, corrosion of steel reinforcement due to the presence
of chlorides was found to be the controlling vulnerability. Remaining
service life was estimated based on a statistical evaluation of measured
cover depth and chloride content profles.
High levels of chloride ion, in the presence of moisture and oxygen,
result in corrosion of reinforcement, even in the highly alkaline condi-
tions of non-carbonated concrete. Te American Concrete Institute
(ACI) Committee 201 specifes that water soluble chloride contents
greater than 0.15% by weight of cement are likely to result in cor-
rosion of reinforcement.
Due to the observed diferences in environmental exposure among
substructure elements and variation in concrete cover, chloride content
and reinforcement cover data were subdivided into 4 categories, based
on statistical evaluation of results.
Chloride content was evaluated for piers under joints separately from
piers without joints, since chloride levels were an order of magnitude
greater for piers under joints. Within each group of piers, critical cover
depth (Figure 4, page 24) was determined separately for the cap beams
and columns, as average cover in the columns was generally an inch
greater than in the cap beams.
Chloride migration and resulting service life was modeled from
the normalized data using Ficks second law of difusion. Measured
chloride profles were used to calculate the difusion coefcient, D,
for each substructure element evaluated. Te element-specifc D value
was used to calculate the time needed for chloride ions to reach the
corrosion initiation threshold for the assumed concrete cover.
Results of the evaluation demonstrated that chloride levels have
reached critical values at the level of the reinforcement for both
columns and cap beams of piers under joints. In these areas, it was
inferred that the resulting corrosion of the reinforcement has reached
critical levels. Tese piers had reached the end of their service life and
require a signifcant rehabilitation to extend service life and maintain
structural capacity.
Estimated remaining service life of piers away from deck joints was
better, requiring only minor to moderate rehabilitation, to achieve
an additional 50 years of service life.
Rehabilitation Options
Given the difculty and cost of full pier replacement and the adequate
strength and durability qualities of core concrete, rehabilitation was
recommended.
For piers under continuous deck sections, rehabilitation recom-
mendations include repair of observed damage, sealing of cracks,
and application of a penetrating sealer to the full surface of the piers.
Figure 1: I-70 Blanchette Bridge.
Figure 2: Pier Deterioration beneath deck joint.
Figure 3: Measuring corrosion potential.
Continued on next page
24
Tis approach would slow chloride contamination and result in an
additional 50 years of service life for all elements.
To achieve an additional 50 years of service life in piers under deck
joints, a more extensive rehabilitation was necessary. Two rehabilita-
tion options were evaluated, based on cost, constructability, and risk.
Option 1Tis alternative included removing all delaminated and
chloride contaminated concrete to a specifed depth behind the inner-
most bar level, replacing corroded reinforcement, and repairing with
low permeability concrete. Chloride difusion models were used to
determine the required depth of removal beneath the innermost bar
to protect reinforcement from the potential for migration of chlorides
remaining in core concrete.
Te benefts of this approach are its practicality within the context
of standard bridge concrete construction procedures, i.e., no need for
advanced concrete additives, including corrosion inhibitors, resulting in
low permeable concrete that is known to reliably provide good protection.
Tis alternatives principal drawback is the difculty/cost of removing
concrete below the innermost reinforcing bar level.
Option 2Tis alternative was developed as a lower initial cost option
and involved removal and replacement of all delaminated concrete fol-
lowed by implementation of an impressed current cathodic protection
system. Cathodic protection can prevent corrosion in the presence
of chloride contaminated concrete. Tis option provided a 50%
reduction in the volume of concrete to be removed and replaced, but
some chloride contaminated concrete would remain. Unfortunately,
this option requires continuous maintenance of the active cathodic
protection system for the life of the structure, to provide ongoing
corrosion protection.
Value Engineering Study Alternatives
Following review of the proposed alternatives, the DOT commis-
sioned a value engineering study of the project, which identifed
passive cathodic protection (PCP) as a means to reduce costs by
providing corrosion protection to the reinforcement in sound but
chloride contaminated areas thus allowing this concrete to remain
and reducing the amount of concrete to be removed and replaced by
approximately 50%, compared to option 1.
Te authors conducted a study and identifed several PCP systems
suitable for protection of reinforcement in existing structures. Te
team recommended use of a thermal spray zinc anode, applied to the
full surface of the piers following repair of delaminated areas. It was
determined that this PCP system could be used to save sound, but
chloride contaminated concrete, with approximately $2 or 3 million
in initial cost savings when compared to Option 1. Te savings were
ofset by a reduction in likely service life, to approximately 20 years
before the next rehabilitation.
Selected Alternative
Te DOT selected a combination rehabilitation approach that
included both removal and replacement of the full concrete surface
of chloride contaminated piers, including all chloride contaminated
and deteriorated concrete to a depth of 1 inch below the rebar (con-
sistent with DOT standards), along with the use of PCP consisting of
anodes embedded in repaired concrete to provide added protection.
Primary protection will be provided by the high-performance, low
permeability concrete specifed for replacement concrete.
Te use of PCP with a low permeability replacement concrete will
result in low initial anode consumption rates as the concrete has a
high electrical resistance. As chloride content increase over time, due
to ongoing exposure to deicing solutions, the electrical resistance of
the concrete will be reduced, resulting in increased efectiveness of
the PCP. It is anticipated that the rehabilitated piers will provide an
additional 50 years of service life, with minimal maintenance, exceed-
ing the target established by the DOT.
Conclusion
With proper modeling and application of statistical principles, service
life-based evaluation techniques permit engineers to perform life cycle
cost analysis, and reduce the cost of repairs and the overall life cycle
cost of a structure.
For the Blanchette Bridge, the service life evaluation resulted in a
forecast of performance for the re-habilitated structure, looking ahead
50 years. By evaluating particular vulnerabilities in conjunction with
potential rehabilitation alternatives, it was possible to more confdently
project additional service life and tailor the rehabilitation to the needs
of the piers, based on observed conditions.
For piers in good condition, the team was able to justify minor
rehabilitation. For piers at joints with signifcant levels of existing
deterioration, the ability to evaluate the durability of rehabilitation
options provided the State with critical information for
selecting a rehabilitation scheme. Tis helped the owner
efectively reuse the substructure, accumulating consider-
able bridge life cycle savings.
Figure 4: Collecting concrete cover profle data.
Christopher A. Ligozio, P.E., S.E. (chris.liqozio@kpf.com), is a
Senior Engineer with KPFFs Chicago Ofce.
Scott T. Wyatt, P.E., S.E. (scott.wyatt@kpf.com), is a Senior
Engineer with KPFFs Chicago Ofce. He is an agency-certifed
bridge inspector, including fracture critical assessment, and an
inspection team leader.
Ernst H. Petzold, P.E. (ernest.petzold@jacobs.com), is a Senior
Project Manager, Bridge Structures, in the St. Louis, MO ofce of
Jacobs Engineering Group.
Superior Seismic Performance.
Quality. Innovation. Experience.
Design & Realization. Economy.
PROUDLY MADE IN THE USA BY
Foresthill Road Bridge
Seismic Upgrade
Placer County, CA, 2012
The most widely used BRB in
the world now protects the
tallest bridge in California.
Full-scale testing of 1000-kip
braces verified precise
performance within 1%.
Working with the Unbonded Brace
team we got the

buckling-restrained braces and the expert support that
we needed to meet the projects stringent technical
requirements. Coordination for design, detailing,
fabrication and delivery was seamless.
Paul Lukaszewicz, P.E.
Vice President, Golden State Bridge, Benicia, CA
S
E
E

Y
O
U

A
T

N
C
S
E
A
O
C
T

2
0
1
2
Blank.indd 1 8/14/2012 2:00:34 PM
26
STRUCTURE magazine
NCSEA Annual Conference
and ICC-ES Committee Meeting
at the Hilton Frontenac
St. Louis, MO October 1- 6, 2012
of the building types that were damaged by the tornado. As a result
of this investigation, the committee found commonalities in damage
patterns, regardless of building type.
Randall Bernhardt, P.E., S.E., is Chief Structural Engineer
for the St. Louis region at Burns & McDonnell Engineering
Company, St. Louis, MO. He has served as a member of
NEHRP Technical Subcommittee 5, Masonry, and is a
member of the NCEES Structural Exam Committee.
Malcolm Carter, P.E., S.E., is a consulting structural engi-
neer in Lenexa, Kansas. During his 43 years in the profession,
he has been responsible for numerous structures located
throughout the world.
4:30-5:00 p.m. Speakers Forum
Thursday Night, October 4
5:30 6:30 p.m. Presidents Reception for Delegates
6:30 8:30 p.m. Welcome Reception with Exhibitors
Friday, October 5
8:00 9:45 a.m. Roll call and Member Organization
Reports
10:30 12:30 p.m. ATC Cliff Notes: What you Should
Know but Dont Have Time to Read
is session will present key ndings, conclusions, and discoveries
from recently completed and ongoing projects funded by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST). ese projects will include:
ATC-63: Quantication of Building Seismic Performance Factors
(FEMA P-695).
ATC-71-1: Seismic Evaluation and Retrot of Multi-Unit Wood-
Frame Buildings With Weak First Stories (FEMA P-807).
ATC-72-1: Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Design
and Analysis of Tall Buildings (PEER/ATC 72-1).
ATC-82: Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions
for Performing Response-History Analyses (NIST GCR
11-917-15).
ATC-83: Soil-Structure Interaction for Building Structures
(NIST GCR 11-917-15).
e session will also include a detailed overview of the ATC-58
project report, Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings (FEMA
P-58), and associated products such as the Performance Assessment
Calculation Tool (PACT).
Jon Heintz, P.E., S.E., is Director of Projects at Applied
Technology Council in Redwood City, California.
Ronald Hamburger, S.E., SECB, is Senior Principal at
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger in San Francisco, California.
Mr. Hamburger serves as Chair of the ASCE 7 Committee,
the AISC Connection Prequalication Review Committee,
and the NCSEA Code Advisory Committee.
1:30 3:00 p.m. Diaphragms and Wall Anchorage
Dr. Timothy Mays will present major components of NCSEA design
guides titled Guide to the Design of Diaphragms, Chords and Collectors
and Guide to the Design of Out-of-Plane Wall Anchorage. e presen-
tation will focus on example problems and appropriate hand and
computer modeling techniques.
Monday Tuesday, October 1-2
ICC-ES Committee Meetings:
Environmental Committee on Monday.
Evaluation Committee on Tuesday.
NCSEA Board Meeting on Tuesday afternoon.
Wednesday, October 3
Concurrent Sessions
Committee Meetings
8:00 12:00 NCSEA Board
8:00 12:00 CAC General Engineering
9:00 1:00 SECB Board
11:00 1:00 SEAKM Licensing
1:00 5:00 Advocacy
1:00 5:00 Basic Education
1:00 5:00 Structural Engineering Licensing Coalition (SELC)
1:00 4:00 CAC Wind Engineering
11:30 1:30 AZZ Plant Tour Includes Lunch
Vendor
Presentations Software Non-Software
1:40 2:10 Bentley Systems AZZ Galvanizing Services
2:20 2:50 Fabreeka Internat. Fyfe Co. Inc.
3:20 3:50 CSC World Vector Corrosion Tech.
4:00 4:30 STRAND7 Pty Ltd SidePlate Systems
4:40 5:10 RISA Tech. Hayward Baker
5:30 6:30 Kaplan/NCSEA SE Exam Review Course Social Hour
6:30 8:30 SECB Reception
Thursday, October 4
e Spirit of St. LouisDesign Trends for the Future
8:00 8:15 a.m.
Ronald Hamburger, S.E., SECB, NCSEA Code Advisory
Committee (CAC) Chair and Senior Principal at Simpson
Gumpertz & Heger in San Francisco, California, will provide
an overview of 2012 Codes and Standards.
8:15 8:45 a.m. Where ASCE 7 Wind Provisions Might
Go in 2016
Don Scott, S.E., CAC Wind Subcommittee Chair and
Director of Engineering for PCS Structural Solutions, will
summarize the results of last years NCSEA membership survey
of wind design practices, provide an update on the present
ASCE 7 Wind Design Provisions, and speculate on the future direction
of these provisions.
8:45 9:15 a.m. Seismic Anchorage and Appendix D
Kevin Moore, P.E., S.E., SECB, CAC Seismic Subcommittee
Chair and President, Principal and co-founder of Certus
Consulting, Inc. in Oakland, California, will provide an
update on changes to ACI 318 Appendix D for anchorage
to concrete, focusing on the implications to seismic applications.
9:15 9:45 a.m. Strength Design of Masonry
Ed Huston, S.E., CAC General Subcommittee Chair and
Principal, Smith & Huston, Inc., Consulting engineers, in
Seattle, Washington, will provide an update on the new code
provisions on Strength Design of Masonry and how they will
impact design practice.
9:45 10:15 a.m. ICC-ES Collaboration, Process, and
Effect on Structural Engineers
Bill Warren, S.E., SECB, CAC Evaluation Services
Subcommittee Chair and Principal with SESOL, Inc., in
Newport Beach, California, and Jim Collins, Ph.D., P.E.,
Director of Engineering for ICC Evaluation Service, LLC,
in Whittier, CA, will provide a description of how the ICC
Evaluation Services (ICC-ES) program works, the eect this
program has on Structural Engineering practice, and an ongo-
ing program of collaboration between ICC-ES and NCSEA.
11:00 12:00 noon Structural Engineering Practice
Instilling A Culture of Discipline
Keynote Speaker: Lawrence Gri s, P.E.
e practice of structuring engineering today involves working on
projects with tight budgets, fast-track schedules and dwindling mate-
rial resources. To achieve success, engineers must learn and practice a
certain culture of discipline.
Lawrence Gri s, P.E., is a Senior Principal and President of the
Structures Division of Walter P Moore and Associates, Inc. He
serves on the code committees for both AISC and ACI and also
as an on-going member of the ASCE 7 Standards Committee.
1:00 2:00 p.m. Snow Load Provisions in ASCE 7-10
is seminar will provide practicing structural engineers with an
understanding of the new snow load provisions and will cover all 12
sections of ASCE 7-10.
Michael ORourke, P.E., Ph.D., has authored snow load
publications for ASCE on ASCE 7-02, ASCE 7-05, and
ASCE 7-10, has written numerous snow-load-related journal
articles, and has been the recipient of several snow-load-
related research grants and contracts.
2:00 3:00 p.m. The Performance of New Englands
Buildings in the Winter of 2010-2011
Hundreds of buildings in New England suered structural damage or
collapsed during the winter of 2010-2011. Mr. Zona will discuss lessons
learned, with emphasis on the primary factors that lead to collapse.
Joe Zona, P.E., SECB, is a senior principal with Simpson
Gumpertz & Heger Inc. and chairs the Structural Advisory
Committee to the Massachusetts Board of Building
Regulations and Standards.
3:30 4:30 p.m. The 2011 Joplin Tornado
e Joplin Tornado of May 22, 2011 was one of the most damaging
events to hit the state of Missouri in regards to casualties and costs.
In light of the magnitude of devastation to the built environment, a
SEAKM committee was formed to investigate the performance of some
F-NCSEAconference-Sept12.indd 26 8/20/2012 2:29:46 PM
27
of the building types that were damaged by the tornado. As a result
of this investigation, the committee found commonalities in damage
patterns, regardless of building type.
Randall Bernhardt, P.E., S.E., is Chief Structural Engineer
for the St. Louis region at Burns & McDonnell Engineering
Company, St. Louis, MO. He has served as a member of
NEHRP Technical Subcommittee 5, Masonry, and is a
member of the NCEES Structural Exam Committee.
Malcolm Carter, P.E., S.E., is a consulting structural engi-
neer in Lenexa, Kansas. During his 43 years in the profession,
he has been responsible for numerous structures located
throughout the world.
4:30-5:00 p.m. Speakers Forum
Thursday Night, October 4
5:30 6:30 p.m. Presidents Reception for Delegates
6:30 8:30 p.m. Welcome Reception with Exhibitors
Friday, October 5
8:00 9:45 a.m. Roll call and Member Organization
Reports
10:30 12:30 p.m. ATC Cliff Notes: What you Should
Know but Dont Have Time to Read
is session will present key ndings, conclusions, and discoveries
from recently completed and ongoing projects funded by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST). ese projects will include:
ATC-63: Quantication of Building Seismic Performance Factors
(FEMA P-695).
ATC-71-1: Seismic Evaluation and Retrot of Multi-Unit Wood-
Frame Buildings With Weak First Stories (FEMA P-807).
ATC-72-1: Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Design
and Analysis of Tall Buildings (PEER/ATC 72-1).
ATC-82: Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions
for Performing Response-History Analyses (NIST GCR
11-917-15).
ATC-83: Soil-Structure Interaction for Building Structures
(NIST GCR 11-917-15).
e session will also include a detailed overview of the ATC-58
project report, Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings (FEMA
P-58), and associated products such as the Performance Assessment
Calculation Tool (PACT).
Jon Heintz, P.E., S.E., is Director of Projects at Applied
Technology Council in Redwood City, California.
Ronald Hamburger, S.E., SECB, is Senior Principal at
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger in San Francisco, California.
Mr. Hamburger serves as Chair of the ASCE 7 Committee,
the AISC Connection Prequalication Review Committee,
and the NCSEA Code Advisory Committee.
1:30 3:00 p.m. Diaphragms and Wall Anchorage
Dr. Timothy Mays will present major components of NCSEA design
guides titled Guide to the Design of Diaphragms, Chords and Collectors
and Guide to the Design of Out-of-Plane Wall Anchorage. e presen-
tation will focus on example problems and appropriate hand and
computer modeling techniques.
3:30 5:00 p.m. Serviceability and Foundation Systems
Dr. Timothy Mays will present major components of newly released
NCSEA design guides titled Guide to the Design of Building Serviceability
and Guide to the Design of Foundation Systems. e presentation will focus
on practical example problems, 2012 IBC Chapter 18, ASCE/SEI 7-10,
and all areas of building serviceability.
Timothy Mays, Ph.D., P.E., is President of SE/ES and
an Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at e Citadel
in Charleston, SC. Dr. Mays currently serves as NCSEA
Publications Committee Chairman. He has received two
national teaching awards (ASCE and NSPE) and both national (NSF)
and regional (ASEE) awards for outstanding research. He is a prolic
speaker who sits on several code writing committees.
Friday night, October 5
2012 NCSEA Awards Banquet
6:00 7:00 p.m. Reception
7:00 10:00 p.m. Banquet and Award Presentations
e National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA)
will be announcing the 2012 Excellence in Structural Engineering
Awards on Friday evening, October 5, during the 20
th
NCSEA Annual
Conference in St. Louis, Missouri. ree awards will be given in
eight categories, with one project in each category being named the
Outstanding Project. Categories for 2012 were as follows:
New Buildings under $10 Million
New Buildings $10 Million to $30 Million
New Buildings over $100 Million
New Bridge and Transportation Structures
International Structures
Forensic / Renovation / Retrot / Rehabilitation Structures
Other Structures
Delegate Meeting Saturday, October 6, 2012
7:00 am Breakfast and Presentation by Sponsor
8:00 am MO Roll Call
8:15 am Code Advisory Committee Report,
Ronald Hamburger, Chair
8:30 am Advocacy Committee Update,
Brian Dekker, Co-Chair
8:55 am Basic Education Update,
Craig Barnes & Brent Perkins, Co-Chairs
9:10 am Continuing Education Update,
Mike Tylk and Carrie Johnson, Co-Chairs
9:25 am SEER Committee Report, Scott Nacheman, Chair
9:40 am Licensing Committee Report, Susan Jorgensen, Chair
10:05 am Morning Break
10:20 am Publications Committee Report, Tim Mays, Chair
10:35 am YMG Scholarship Award Winner, Heather Anesta
10:50 am Executive Director Report, Jeanne Vogelzang
11:05 am SECB Report, Bill Warren, Vice Chairman
11:15 am Treasurers Report, Barry Arnold, Treasurer
11:30 am Communication and Partnering Ad Hoc Committee,
Jim Malley, Chair
12:00 pm Lunch and Discussion of Ad Hoc Committee
w/ brief summaries
1:30 pm Adjourn
2:00 pm NCSEA Board Meeting
9:15 9:45 a.m. Strength Design of Masonry
Ed Huston, S.E., CAC General Subcommittee Chair and
Principal, Smith & Huston, Inc., Consulting engineers, in
Seattle, Washington, will provide an update on the new code
provisions on Strength Design of Masonry and how they will
impact design practice.
9:45 10:15 a.m. ICC-ES Collaboration, Process, and
Effect on Structural Engineers
Bill Warren, S.E., SECB, CAC Evaluation Services
Subcommittee Chair and Principal with SESOL, Inc., in
Newport Beach, California, and Jim Collins, Ph.D., P.E.,
Director of Engineering for ICC Evaluation Service, LLC,
in Whittier, CA, will provide a description of how the ICC
Evaluation Services (ICC-ES) program works, the eect this
program has on Structural Engineering practice, and an ongo-
ing program of collaboration between ICC-ES and NCSEA.
11:00 12:00 noon Structural Engineering Practice
Instilling A Culture of Discipline
Keynote Speaker: Lawrence Gri s, P.E.
e practice of structuring engineering today involves working on
projects with tight budgets, fast-track schedules and dwindling mate-
rial resources. To achieve success, engineers must learn and practice a
certain culture of discipline.
Lawrence Gri s, P.E., is a Senior Principal and President of the
Structures Division of Walter P Moore and Associates, Inc. He
serves on the code committees for both AISC and ACI and also
as an on-going member of the ASCE 7 Standards Committee.
1:00 2:00 p.m. Snow Load Provisions in ASCE 7-10
is seminar will provide practicing structural engineers with an
understanding of the new snow load provisions and will cover all 12
sections of ASCE 7-10.
Michael ORourke, P.E., Ph.D., has authored snow load
publications for ASCE on ASCE 7-02, ASCE 7-05, and
ASCE 7-10, has written numerous snow-load-related journal
articles, and has been the recipient of several snow-load-
related research grants and contracts.
2:00 3:00 p.m. The Performance of New Englands
Buildings in the Winter of 2010-2011
Hundreds of buildings in New England suered structural damage or
collapsed during the winter of 2010-2011. Mr. Zona will discuss lessons
learned, with emphasis on the primary factors that lead to collapse.
Joe Zona, P.E., SECB, is a senior principal with Simpson
Gumpertz & Heger Inc. and chairs the Structural Advisory
Committee to the Massachusetts Board of Building
Regulations and Standards.
3:30 4:30 p.m. The 2011 Joplin Tornado
e Joplin Tornado of May 22, 2011 was one of the most damaging
events to hit the state of Missouri in regards to casualties and costs.
In light of the magnitude of devastation to the built environment, a
SEAKM committee was formed to investigate the performance of some
Register online at
www.ncsea.com
28
STRUCTURE magazine
NCSEA Twentieth
Annual Conference
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 le 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.
Bekaert
www.bekaert.com
Dramix
steel bers, 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 certication for Dramix in concrete footings, slabs on
ground, and elements. Dramix also meets the requirements of
steel ber-reinforced concrete per ACI318.
Bentley Systems Inc.
www.bentley.com
Bentleys exible and scalable products, including RAM,
STAAD and ProSteel, allow seamless workow 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.
Boise Cascade Engineered Wood Products
www.bcewp.com
Boise Cascade manufactures/markets engineered wood
products such as VERSA-LAM
LVL (Beams Columns &

Studs), BCI
and AJS
series I-Joists, Glulam Beams and

Laminated Structural Decking. 60+ distributors across North
America allow us to offer innovative value-added products and
services to the construction industry.
Cast Connex Corporation
www.castconnex.com
Cast ConneX
products and services simplify the design and

enhance the performance of structures by enabling architects
and engineers to implement cast steel components into their
structural systems. Cast ConneX products and services include
High-Strength Connectors
, Universal Pin Connectors
,
Scorpion Yielding Connectors
, and Custom Components.

CMC Steel Products
www.cmcsteelproducts.com
CMC Steel Products manufactures the cellular and castellated
SMARTBEAM
an innovative, economical and sustainable

alternative for oor and roof framing systems. Manufactured
from recycled materials, the beams are lightweight, have superior
deection properties, and can integrate MEP systems through the
web openings. SMARTBEAM
The Intelligent Alternative

COMSLAB
http://bmp-group.com
The ComSlab System from Bailey is a two hour re
rated, structurally superior composite oor. ComSlab will
accommodate all wall systems including lightweight steel
framing, structural steel, masonry or poured concrete,
insulated concrete forms or wood framing construction. It is a
proven, reliable, and cost-effective composite steel deck.
Construction Tie Products
www.ctpanchors.com
CTP designs and produces masonry
anchoring products used for the restoration and construction
of masonry buildings. Product lines address retrotting
existing masonry and stone facades with non-obtrusive
anchors that stabilize the existing veneer. Wall ties and anchors
are also produced. CTP, Inc is an American corporation.
Corebrace
www.corebrace.com
CoreBrace buckling-restrained braces are a sustainable and
cost effective solution to improve the seismic performance of
structures. This highly ductile system has been used in hundreds
of projects for earthquake risk mitigation. CoreBraces expert
staff works closely with engineers, and the entire design and
construction team, to meet their requirements.
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 exibility to create
and customize calculations within Microsoft Word. Fastrak is
the denitive software for the design, documentation and BIM
interoperability of structural steel buildings.
Design Data
www.sds2.com
Design Datas SDS/2 software solutions provide automatic
detailing, connection design, engineering information, and
other data for the steel industrys 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.
Dwyer Companies
www.dwyercompanies.com
Dwyer Companies is one of the largest Foundation Repair,
Waterproong, Soil Stabilization and Concrete Lifting
companies in the United States.
Ecospan-Nucor Vulcraft Group
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 oor 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.
Euclid Chemical Company
www.euclidchemical.com
The Euclid Chemical Company manufactures high quality
concrete and masonry materials for new construction, concrete
repair, and decorative concrete. We strive to be demonstratively
better for our customers through cutting edge research, technical
support and service, product training and an education-driven
specication effort.
Fabreeka International, Inc
www.fabreeka.com
Fabreekas experience in vibration control includes the
dynamic response of steel fabrications and support structures.
Services include measuring building oor vibration,
displacement response of oors/mezzanines and modeling
of structures to predict performance. Fabreekas capabilities
include NASTRAN and nite 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.
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.
Hercules Bolt Company
www.herculesbolt.com
Hercules Bolt has the experience and superior service to
get the job done right and on timewhen your job demands
precision, exact tolerances and consistent, top-quality
products. Since 1998, Hercules Bolt has been a leading
manufacturer and distributor of heavy fasteners and
customized products for fabricators and contractors.
Hilti North America
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 ofce
support. Hilti also offers PROFIS design software to assist
design, specifying consultants and professional contractors.
35
n
o
i
t
a
t
S

a
t
s
a
P
5
9 10
21
25 30
14
49
50
51
15
11
Bar
Registration
F
o
o
d

S
t
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
o
d

S
t
a
t
i
o
n
Restroom
TM
H
e
r
c
u
l
e
s

B
o
l
t
C
O
M
S
L
A
B

29
ITW Red Head
www.itwredhead.com
ITW Red Head is Americas largest manufacturer of fastening
products used in concrete construction. Since the invention of
the original self-drill anchor in 1910 and the rst powder-
actuated tool in 1947, Red Head has led the industry with
time saving, high performance products.
Kaplan Architecture & Engineering Education
www.kaplanaecengineering.com
Kaplan Engineering Education provides focused learning tools
to help you pass the FE/EIT, PE, or SE Exam. Comprehensive
learning systems with up-to-date review guides, online
diagnostic materials, and live-online review courses help you
to coordinate a successful study program.
Lindapter International
www.LindapterUSA.com
Lindapter saves time and money with innovative products
for Structural Steel Clamping and Hollow Structural Section
Connections The Girder Clamp and Hollo-Bolt (AISC
recognized Blind Bolt) challenge the need to weld or drill,
a safe, high strength connection can be quickly achieved by
clamping two structural steel sections together.
LNA Solutions
www.LNASolutions.com
LNA Solutions provides Structural Steel Connection Solutions
without the need of eld drilling or eld 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.
Nemetschek Scia
www.Nemetschek-Engineering.com
Looking to migrate to, or improve your 3D design workows?
Dont miss this opportunity! Stop by and see how a new breed
for structural design software is helping rms plug analysis
and design into todays 3D workows, and allowing engineers
to work iteratively with others on the design team.
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!
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 Certication Board was formed
to identify those professional engineers with the additional
education, experience, and skills that are particular to the
practice of Structural Engineering.
SE Solutions, LLC
www.LearnWithSEU.com
www.FindYourEngineer.com
SE Solutions works to help companies involved in structural
engineering in two key ways. First, we have a unique continuing
education resource for structural engineers called SE University.
Second, we have a business unit that helps companies nd and
hire highly talented structural engineers.
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.
Hotel
e St. Louis Hilton Frontenac is located at 1335 South Lindbergh
Blvd. in St. Louis,MO63131. Reserve a room online, linking
from the NCSEA website (www.ncsea.com), or call 314-993-1100
and use group code NSES to secure a room at the group rate of
just $102/night, good until Tuesday, September 11.
Conference Hotel
Hilton St. Louis Frontenac
1335 South Lindbergh Blvd.
Saint Louis, Missouri 63131
Reserve a room online, linking from the
NCSEA website (www.ncsea.com), or
call 314-993-1100 and use group code
NSES to secure a room at the group
rate of just $102/night, good until
Tuesday, September 11.
Airline Discount
American Airlines: 5% discount for ights booked directly through their website
aa.com. Use group code 2492BP.
United Airlines: Tiered discount (2-10%). Use code ZNDX665898.
Airport/Hotel Shuttle
Available at no cost: In the St. Louis Airport baggage claim area, use the courtesy
phones to dial the St. Louis Frontenac Hilton (#20). Let the operator know that you are
ready to be picked up. Reservations not required.
Free Time Options
e hotel will be providing free transportation to the following:
e Anheuser-Busch Brewery, oering a complimentary tour to introduce you to how
Budweiser is crafted by following through the steps of the brewing process.
e St. Louis Zoo, located on 90 acres in beautiful Forest Park and home to 655
species of animals, many of them rare and endangered (free admission).
Shopping: Galleria Mall and West County Mall (10% o Macys coupon card available
at registration).
Metrolink train for reaching other St. Louis destinations, including the Gateway Arch.
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
.
St. Louis Screw & Bolt
www.stlouisscrewbolt.com
St. Louis Screw & Bolt is one of the longest operating
bolt manufacturers in the world, and one of the the only
manufacturers who sells direct to Fabricators and Erectors. St.
Louis specializes in manufacturing A325 & A490 bolts type I,
type III, Hot Dip and Mechanical Galvanized nishes.
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.
STRAND7 PTY LTD
www.strand7.com
Strand7 is a sensibly priced FEA system. It comprises preprocessing
(with CAD import, automeshing), solvers (linear, non linear,
dynamic and thermal) and post processing. Release 2.4 has many
new features include staged construction, new solvers including
quasi-static for shrinkage and creep/relaxation problems.
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 Brace
TM
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.
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.
Jumbo HSS Meets ASTM A500, CSA G40 Standards
When a structure has greater demands, Jumbo HSS is the solution.
New Jumbo HSS from Atlas Tube can be an economical alternative for
concentric bracing, heavy column loads or long spans. For the largest
offering of HSS in North America, look to Atlas Tube.
Design questions?
Call 800.733.5683 to schedule a Lunch & Learn, or
to speak with an Atlas structural engineer today!
atlastube.com/jumbo-HSS
12-JMC-285_ad_Atlas resize StructureMag.indd 1 7/27/12 11:06 AM
Blank.indd 1 8/3/2012 9:07:48 AM
STRUCTURE magazine
31
discussion of construction
issues and techniques
ConstruCtion
issues
James L. Ryan, P.E. is a Senior
Engineering Specialist (Steel
Structures and Modularization)
at Bechtel Power Corporation.
James can be reached at
jryan@bechtel.com.
Neha Gidwani, P.E. is a
Senior Engineer at Bechtel
Power Corporation.
Luis M. Moreschi, Ph.D., P.E. is
a Civil/Structural Supervisor at
Bechtel Power Corporation.
By James L. Ryan, P.E.,
Neha Gidwani, P.E. and
Luis M. Moreschi, Ph.D., P.E.
Modular Stay-In-Place
Formwork
T
he heavy industrial formwork and
shoring required for constructing up
to 6-foot thick reinforced concrete,
aircraft-protection-shield (APS) roof
slabs and up to 15-foot thick turbine generator
(TG) decks in large (up to 1600 Megawatt (MW))
power plants are some examples of complex con-
struction found in the industry. Both examples
are labor-intensive and schedule consuming. In
addition, shoring of the thick APS roof slabs
and domes to multiple slabs or the containment
structure below, and shoring the thick TG decks
to a base mat up to 100 feet below, results in a
delay of mechanical and electrical construction
until the shoring is removed.
In addition to the labor-intensive shoring and
formwork installation/removal, these structures
are heavily reinforced, with multiple layers of
large diameter reinforcing steel in each direction
at both the top and bottom of the slabs and decks.
Multiple layers of side bars are also required at
the vertical faces of TG decks along with closely
spaced reinforcing steel ties between the top,
bottom and side layers. For TG decks, other
associated tasks include the installation of work
platforms, embedded plates and anchor bolts.
From a fnancial perspective, power plant projects
with the aforementioned structural components
have enormous indirect costs and capital costs on
the order of $100 million per month in the latter
stages of the construction schedule. Tus, sub-
stantial commercial beneft may be achieved by
focusing on schedule compression. One method
of achieving this schedule compression is through
the use of standardized, modular stay-in-place
(SIP) formwork and re-usable formwork sup-
port systems in lieu of conventional formwork
and shoring. Such approaches increase craft pro-
ductivity with work at grade, and amortize the
formwork support system over multiple repetitive
uses on a site or at multiple sites. Notably, the
ever increasing crane capacities (now on the order
of 1000 tons at over a 300-foot reach) facilitate
such construction methods.
In this article, schematic designs are discussed
for three specifc applications:
TG decks in standardized nuclear, fossil, or
combined cycle plants
Flat airplane-crash-resistant roofs for
nuclear power plants and defense facilities
Airplane-crash-resistant domes above
containment structures
The schematic designs involve ground-
assembled super-modules (up to 100 x 100 feet
and 800 tons) comprising SIP formwork (or partial
SIP formwork for TG decks), reinforcing steel,
embedded plates, anchor bolts, work platforms,
and a re-usable form-
work support structure.
Such ground assembly
is performed in parallel
with conventionally con-
structed adjacent areas,
resulting in months of
schedule savings. In the case of nuclear power plant
APS structures, the schedule savings is typically
for critical path construction activities. For TG
decks, the modular approach may either facilitate
critical path construction or, in the case of nuclear
power plants, allow available craft to be shifted to
the critical path Nuclear Island (i.e., containment
and adjacent structures) construction.
Te designs are merely incremental improve-
ments, using standard structural steel trusses,
shapes, plates, and formwork in specifc confgura-
tions. In addition, the designs extrapolate from
Bechtel Power Corporations power plant foor
modularization schemes used for pulverized
coal projects for over 10 years. Specifcally,
shop-fabricated SIP formwork modules (up
to 12 feet wide by up to 60 feet long) are used
as permanent formwork components for the
ground assembled super-modules.
Turbine Generator Deck Modules
Figure 1 illustrates a 1,600 MW reinforced con-
crete turbine generator (TG) deck constructed
with conventional cast-in-place techniques and
discrete deck support columns. In addition to
requiring an enormous amount of formwork
and shoring, the conventional approach delays
the erection of the adjacent turbine building
bay. Although not visible, such TG decks are
typically spring-supported, requiring 10-foot by
10-foot embedded plates on the deck underside
at each deck support leg.
Figure 1: Conventional cast-in-place turbine generator
deck (1,600 MW).
Tis article investigates the use of large ground
assembly of stay-in-place (SIP) formwork, re-usable
formwork support framing and reinforcing steel in
5-foot to 15-foot thick reinforced concrete power
plant structures, in part to compress a projects
critical path via parallel construction at grade.
continued on next page
C-ConstrIssues-Ryan-Sept12.indd 31 8/20/2012 2:31:47 PM
32
STRUCTURE magazine
In lieu of conventional TG deck construc-
tion, a modular approach of large scale ground
assemblies 60-foot by 60-foot, and 15 feet
deep is used. Tese assemblies include SIP
formwork, a re-usable formwork support
system, access/work platforms, and the major-
ity of reinforcing steel. With work at grade
instead of 100 feet in the air, the modules
are safer to construct, yet at a signifcantly
higher craft productivity (i.e., on the order
of 40 percent per a reference subcontractor).
Figure 2 provides an isometric view of the
TG Deck with SIP formwork and re-usable
formwork support system.
Te shop-fabricated SIP formwork assem-
blies are up to 12 feet wide by 20 feet long.
Shop welded WT-shapes stifen ASTM
A572, Grade 50 plate, -inch thick. Te
WT stifeners are oriented parallel to the
direction of the heavy reinforcing steel, such
that any local void would have no impact
on the gross section. Tese stifened plate
assemblies also function as embedded plates
for commodity supports and deck support
springs, mitigating direct feld hours associ-
ated with discrete embeds. Te stifened plate
assemblies, in turn, are supported by beams
at truss work-points.
Te maximum truss depth of the re-usable
formwork support system is nominally 10
feet (dimensioned to the top and bottom
chord centerlines) to facilitate shipment to
the initial site and from site-to-site. Tis
size typically precludes the need for a police
escort. Stringent defection criteria of L/1000
are used for all trusses. Templates above the
trusses and top of deck are used for embeds to
achieve/satisfy the TG deck supplier specifed
tolerance. Te truss weights are reasonable,
with a maximum member size of W14 x 68
for the deck shown in Figures 2 and 3.
Access for jacking, spring adjustment/set-
ting, and shimming is only required parallel
to or perpendicular to the TG axis. Terefore,
there is no interference with the outboard
truss support brackets. Inboard truss brack-
ets are removable to avoid any interference
with mechanical equipment (i.e., condenser)
installation. For clarity, Figure 3 provides an
isometric view of the underside of the form-
work support system.
Due to the size of the modules, which
encompass many TG deck beams, a large
amount of reinforcing steel (including a
large number of splices) may be installed
at grade before lifting. Up to three layers
of reinforcing is typical for top and bottom
layers of the TG deck beams, with up to two
layers on each side. Closely spaced ties are
required both horizontally and vertically.
Tus, signifcant savings in feld job-hours
is achieved when mitigating work at 100
feet above grade.
Using standard historical rates, modular-
izing large TG decks up to 1,600 MW is
estimated to save on the order of $1M for
a single application relative to conventional
TG deck construction. Cost savings are nomi-
nally $5M when such a design approach is
replicated at three sites, primarily due to the
amortization of the formwork support struc-
ture. In addition to cost benefts, construction
safety is increased with work mostly being
performed at grade. For nuclear power plants,
increased overall project schedule certainty
may be realized by shifting available craft
labor to the Nuclear Island construction from
the Turbine Island.
Ground Assembly
of Flat APS Roofs
Flat APS roof slabs in standardized nuclear
power plants and defense facilities require
multiple layers of closely spaced reinforc-
ing steel at the top and bottom, along
with closely spaced ties. Construction also
involves both installation and removal of
formwork and shoring. Shoring may be of
signifcant height with horizontal bridging
(such as above spent fuel pools) or to mul-
tiple foors in other safety related structures.
In addition, the shoring to multiple foors
below interferes with the open top con-
struction method, whereby large equipment
and commodities are dropped from above
prior to construction of the concrete slab
immediately above.
To mitigate costs and the schedule dura-
tion, an alternate design/build methodology
Figure 4: Isometric view of box truss-supported
module (100-foot x 100-foot).
Figure 2: TG deck with SIP formwork
& re-usable formwork support system.
Figure 3: Isometric view of TG deck
formwork support underside.
33
involves constructing large scale, ground
pre-assembled roof super-modules up to 100
feet by 100 feet. As shown in Figure 4, these
include modular SIP formwork panels (12
feet wide by 40 feet long), re-usable form-
work support box trusses and reinforcing
steel. Te trusses are sized for truck delivery
in two sections. Te assemblies do not require
removable formwork or shoring.
Te SIP shop-fabricated formwork panels
consist of 3-inch thick plate (conforming to
ASTM A572, Grade 50), WT stifeners, and
two parallel beams at their longitudinal edges.
Shop fabricated SIP formwork panels on the
two sides of the 100-foot by 100-foot module
can be installed after the large module is set
in place. Figure 5 provides a cross-section,
illustrating how the SIP formwork panels are
rod-supported from the trusses. Embedded
couplers at the top of the concrete serve to
permanently anchor the rods in the depth
of the slab. In turn, these rods anchor the
SIP formwork panels, including during a
postulated aircraft impact. As such, the SIP
formwork actually provides additional air-
craft impact protection against scabbing of
the roof slab.
To confrm the cost efectiveness, the evalu-
ation included fnite element analyses and
preliminary design. Te top and bottom
chords of box trusses for the nominal 100-foot
span are W14x233, with W14x145 diagonals
and verticals.
For a single application of a formwork sup-
port system on a given 1600 MW plant, a
nominal $1M premium is forecast. However,
the approach is typically applied a minimum of
two locations at any site, i.e., above the spent
fuel pool and at least one other safety related
building. When applied twice, the approach is
cost-neutral. Te approach has signifcant cost
savings when applied to a second site. More
importantly, as construction is typically on
the critical path, the schedule compression of
up to two months may yield enormous sav-
ings associated with the cost of capital and
indirect costs. Te cited critical path construc-
tion schedule compression results both from
expedited APS construction and the ability to
perform open top construction.
Ground Assembly of Reactor
Building APS Domes
Construction of Reactor Building APS
domes requires reinforcing steel placement
and installation/removal of complex form-
work/shoring systems in a confned space.
To mitigate this issue, SIP formwork and
a re-usable formwork support structure is
evaluated. Design goals included:
Maximizing the module size, yet
assuring the lift is within available
crane capacities,
Mitigating the quantity of temporary
shoring posts via detailed fnite element
analyses of the containment dome, and
Mitigating the quantity of shop
fabricated SIP formwork panels.
Figure 6 refects the optimum framing selected
from several confgurations. Te outside
diameter of a ground-assembled module com-
prising reinforcing steel, SIP formwork, and
support steel that could be lifted as one unit
was defned by a 100-foot outside diameter
of reinforcing steel, as well as support steel
and SIP formwork extending to a maximum
dimension of 60 feet from the dome apex. Te
temporary support posts consist of a single post
at the apex, 8 posts at 30 feet from the apex,
and 16 posts at nominally 60 feet from the
apex. Te outer ring is constructed using SIP
formwork and conventional rebar construc-
tion for ft-up with the vertical rebar of the
cylinder. Te support steel consists of a mix of
nominally 6 foot deep plate girders and W44
shapes. Shop-fabricated SIP formwork panels
use materials similar to the fat APS roof slabs.
Static fnite element analyses were performed
using ANSYS software. Membrane and mem-
brane plus bending stresses, as well as radial
shear stresses in the concrete, were shown to
be within code allowable limits.
Ground assembly of APS domes appears to
be warranted if the construction is determined
to be on the critical path or if improving
schedule certainty is desired. A commercial
comparison was not performed, as it involves
non-standard fabrication costs and specialty
formwork supplier pricing. Instead, the evalu-
ation is intended to defne one optimized
approach for future consideration.
Conclusions
Signifcant cost, schedule and safety benefts
may be achieved in standardized large power
plants and defense facilities with the use of
SIP formwork and re-usable formwork sup-
port structures. While not typically used in
the past, industry developments since the
previous generation of such large power
plant units have made such approaches both
viable and cost efective. Tese developments
include increases in: crane capacities, mate-
rial yield stresses, shop weld automation, and
awareness of indirect costs and costs of capital
in the early design stages of large projects.
Figure 6: Isometric view of proposed SIP formwork system with RSB APS.
Figure 5: Cross-Section of box truss and rod hangers.
GT STRUDL7
Structural Analysis & Design Software
NEW RELEASE - VERSION 32
The Best Choice
for
Infrastructure & Nuclear
Base Plate
Module
Georgia Tech - CASE Center
www.gtstrudl.gatech.edu
casec@ce.gatech.edu
404-894-2260
Blank.indd 1 8/10/2012 10:33:18 AM
35
Great achievements notable structural engineers
William LeMessurier
Builder of Elegant Cutting-edge Structures
By Richard G. Weingardt, D.Sc. (h.c.), P.E., Dist.M.ASCE, F. ACEC
A
t his zenith, William (Bill) James
LeMessurier, Jr. (Figure 1) was
known around the world as one of
Americas most daring tall building
designers. Based in Cambridge, Massachusetts,
his frms list of outstanding projects included
elite high-rises in all of the northeastern states
and in many others scattered around the
country. Internationally, several of his com-
panys more noteworthy projects were found
in Egypt and in Middle Eastern countries
like the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia,
Bahrain and Iraq. Although best known for sky-
scrapers, LeMessuriers life-time body of work
also included numerous civic and educational
buildings, and a wide array of commercial and
industrial facilities.
According to William Toen, a long-time
personal friend and professional partner,
LeMessurier was a Renaissance man who col-
laborated with architects in such a way that his
structural organization and economy showed
through in the fnished work. In many cases,
Bill worked closely with the architect from the
concept stages to fnal design so that the project,
while still the architects design, had the subtle
structural harmony of form that the problem
called for. He had an exceptional talent for inter-
facing with architects to make even their most
difcult designs feasible.
Additionally, said Toen, Bill loved
teaching as much as engineering, and was
always at his best with an audience. He
was extremely intelligent, insightful and
highly articulate, and if you got into a
verbal argument with him you would surely
lose, usually in the frst round. He thought
very carefully about whatever he said and
was precise in his use of language. I think
that is what made him such a good leader,
lecturer and teacher.
Bill was born on June 12, 1926 in Pontiac,
Michigan, the youngest of four children
of Bertha (Sherman) and William James
LeMessurier, Sr., who owned a dry-cleaning
business. After fnishing high school, Bill left
Michigan to major in mathematics at Harvard
University, earning a Bachelor of Arts degree in
1947. He then studied architecture at Harvards
Graduate School of Design, and received a
masters degree from Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT) in building engineering
and construction in 1953.
While at MIT, LeMessurier worked part-time
for Albert Goldberg, an established Boston
structural engineer with a good reputation.
Shortly after receiving his masters, LeMessurier
joined Goldberg full-time. By the mid-1950s, he
had become a partner and the frm was renamed
Goldberg-LeMessurier Associates.
In April 1961, the two separated, dividing up
staf and clients, and Bill launched LeMessurier
Associates. It began with a dozen engineers
and draftsmen. In addition to 35-year-old
LeMessurier, the new companys partners were
William Toen, Emil Hervol and James Collins.
Prominent among the frms early projects were
elementary schools. From the very beginning,
LeMessurier always gave his architectural clients
innovative structural solutions whether projects
were large-scale or minor in size.
For example, on a small school gymnasium
project, the architect wanted to match the gable-
roof shape and style of the other buildings on
campus. Because the space was intended for
basketball and other games, a deep ridgeline
girder or tie rods at the knees of the frame were
out of the question. Rigid frames were also
ruled out because of
cost and the archi-
tects objection to
sub-foor tie rods.
The LeMessurier
solution? A funicu-
lar truss within both
planes of the roof
that spanned from end to end of the building,
efectively taking advantage of the full depth
of the slanted roof. Utilized in the system were
laminated wood rafters, two continuous (draped
and diagonally placed) fat steel bars secured to
the rafters (one bar on each side of the roof )
and a layer of plywood sheathing on top of the
rafters (and steel bars) acting as a diaphragm.
For the Exeter, New Hampshire Athletic
Center and Ice Skating Rink (Figure 2), the goal
was to give visitors a clear view into the activity
spaces from a galleria along a central spine, with-
out having to look though a ceiling cluttered
with structural framework. LeMessurier put
the structural frame on the outside of the build-
ing, and hung the roof from it. Tis achieved
maximum structural economy because deep
structural frames could be utilized.
One of LeMessuriers frst and longest-last-
ing architectural clients was Hugh Stubbins,
a promising architect just appearing on the
national scene in the mid-1950s. Said Toen,
Tere were not a lot of structural engineers in
the area then, and Stubbins came to Goldberg-
LeMessurier one day for us to do an elementary
school. As soon as Hugh and Bill met, there was
a chemistry between them. Both were look-
ing for excellence in their work. From then on
LeMessurier became Hughs only structural
engineer. Stubbins was sort of a destinys tot,
and as his reputation grew, so did ours.
Representative of Stubbins-designed, high-
profle skyscrapers engineered by LeMessurier
were the 770-foot-tall Singapore Treasury
Building (Figure 3, page 36) and the 920-foot-
tall Citicorp Tower in New York City (Figures
4 and 5, page 36). Te Treasury Building (aka
Temasek Tower) has a round concrete spine or
core that supports the entire weight of the build-
ing, from which the foors cantilever out 40 feet.
One major element, its concrete tube, essentially
provides all the required framing strength and
rigidity needed for the entire building.
Te unique base column confguration of
the Citicorp Tower came about because of an
Figure 1: William J.
LeMessurier. Courtesy of
Bill Toen.
Figure 2: Exeter, New Hampshire, Athletic Center. Courtesy of Bill Toen.
D-GreatAch-Weingardt-Sept12.indd 35 8/20/2012 2:33:16 PM
36
STRUCTURE magazine
unusual site constraint: St. Peters Church, which
had sold its air rights but would not allow col-
umns from any building above it to penetrate
into its foor area. Instead, the new skyscrapers
four major corner columns were relocated to the
center of the buildings four sides. From these
side columns, the building edges were supported
using large-scale chevron trusses.
Te building required a light steel structure and
lightweight glass and aluminum curtain walls,
all of which had a very low mass. Although
the building had sufcient strength, additional
damping was needed to enhance structural
performance and provide for better occupant
comfort. A tuned-mass damper the frst use
of such a damper in a major tall building was
the low-cost solution.
In June 1978, shortly after Citicorp Tower was
completed and occupied, a potential weakness
was uncovered. If hurricane-force winds 70
miles an hour or more hit it at a 45-degree
angle, the building might be unsafe or unsta-
ble. First alerted to the problem by a Princeton
University senior-class engineering student,
Diane Hartley, LeMessurier revisited his struc-
tural design. In doing so, he discovered another
aggravating issue: Te buildings vital chevron
trusses, originally designed to be welded, had
been joined with weaker bolted joints, a cheaper
method substituted during construction to save
the owner money.
To eliminate the structure being vulnerable
to a lethal problem from a severe hurricane
and to provide for a higher factor of safety,
LeMessurier oversaw a furious schedule of
repairs in August 1978, in which drywall
workers, carpenters and welders worked
around the clock to strengthen and repair
the fawed joints. Because of his quick
actions in resolving the issue, stepping for-
ward and taking responsibility whatever the
consequences to himself or his reputation,
most structural engineers today celebrate
LeMessurier as an industry hero and a role
model for ethics. David Fowler, the legend-
ary University of Texas professor, refects the
general sentiment: What LeMessurier did
was absolutely the right thing.
In addition to Exeter, Singapore and
Citicorp, representative of LeMesuriers many
other notable buildings are the National
Air and Space Museum, Washington, DC;
Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport, Texas;
King Khalid Military City, Al Batin, Saudi
Arabia; City Hall, Boston, Massachusetts;
First Republic Bank Plaza, Dallas, Texas;
Metro-Dade Administration Building,
Miami, Florida; and Federal Reserve Bank,
Boston, Massachusetts.
Robert McNamara, co-founder of
McNamara-Salvia, who joined LeMessueier
Figure 3: Singapore Treasury Building (aka Temasek
Tower). Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons/Sengkang.
Figure 4: Citicorp Tower,
New York City. Courtesy of
Wikimedia Commons.
A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T

-
F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
Seattle Everett Tacoma Lacey Portland Eugene Sacramento San Francisco Walnut Creek Los Angeles
Long Beach Pasadena Irvine San Diego Boise Phoenix St. Louis Chicago New York Abu Dhabi, UAE
S
E
A
-
T
A
C

I
N
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L

A
I
R
P
O
R
T

C
O
N
S
O
L
I
D
A
T
E
D

R
E
N
T
A
L

C
A
R

F
A
C
I
L
I
T
Y
S
E
A
T
A
C
,

W
A
Figure 5: Base of Citicorp Center tower. Courtesy
of Wikimedia Commons.
37
after receiving his masters degree from the
University of California at Berkeley, recalled
LeMessuriers skill in dealing with new engi-
neers, especially with those like him having
in-depth training in the use of the latest and
greatest computer methods. Bill took me under
his wing and we applied this new technology
to most of the new projects in the of ce. My
experience working with Bill was certainly a
highlight of my early career. He openly shared
his experience and creativity, and I learned
quickly the importance of looking at the total
system from the start.
As time went on, LeMessurier developed a
close association with the Harvard Graduate
School of Design, and served in his later years
as an adjunct professor who lectured Harvard
graduate students on building design, empha-
sizing the need for a close relationship between
architects and structural engineers.
An avid reader, LeMessurier also enjoyed play-
ing the piano, which he did expertly. Although
not a sailor, he owned a speedboat, which he
used to get from the mainland to his retreat
island on Lake Sebago in Maine and which he
often liked to operate at high speeds. Originally
called Doctors Island, LeMessuriers private
island was a quiet, remote, and out-of-the-
mainstream place where he went to rest, relax
and refect.
Inducted into the National Academy of
Engineering (NAE) in 1978, LeMessurier was
made an honorary member of the American
Institute of Architects (AIA) in 1988 and an
honorary member of the American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE) in 1989. He was also
the recipient of an honorary degree in engi-
neering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Among his many other prized awards were the
1999 Kimbrough Award from the American
Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), 1996
Presidents Medal from ASCE and 1968 Allied
Professions Medal from AIA.
LeMessurier died on June 14, 2007, in
Casco, Maine, at age 81. He was survived
by his wife of 54 years, the former Dorothy
Judd; by two daughters, Claire and Irene; by
a son, Peter, a mechanical engineer; and by
seven grandchildren.
Richard G. Weingardt, D.Sc. (h.c.),
P.E., Dist.M.ASCE, F. ACEC
(rweingardt@weingarddt.com) is
the Chairman of Richard Weingardt
Consultants, Inc. in Denver, CO. He
is the author of ten books, including
Circles in the Sky: The Life and Times
of George Ferris and Engineering
Legends. His latest book, Empire Man,
is about Homer Balcom, structural
engineer for the Empire State Building.
A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T

-
F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
12dB102DbmStructuresBwAd.indd
Ad size: 4.75" x 5" wide
January 2012
Design/Build
Earth Retention
Foundation Support
Slope Stabilization
Ground Improvement
Dewatering
800-562-8460 WWW.DBMCONTRACTORS.COM
Donald B. Murphy Contractors, Inc.
nOteWOrthY news and information
J
ames J. Rongoe, Jr, P.E. passed away on Tursday, August 9, 2012 at
Stamford Hospital. Jim received his B.S. from the University of Virginia
and an M.S. from Columbia University. He completed graduate studies
at Cornell University and Hofstra University and established his struc-
tural engineering frm, Rongoe Engineers, LLC, in 1980, which is where he
worked until the time of his death. Jim was the author of numerous technical
papers and journal articles, and holds a U.S. patent for a composite girder
system. He chaired the Connecticut Code Advisory Committee, served on
technical committees of ASCE and AISC, and was a member of the Board of Directors of the
James Merriam Delahay Foundation. Jim, James Delahay, and John Hooper were the frst prac-
ticing structural engineers on the International Code Council Structural Committee; and Jims
work on building codes on behalf of NCSEA earned him the frst James Delahay Award. He
was also honored with a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Structural Engineers Coalition
of the American Council of Engineering Companies of Connecticut, marking his induction
into the Connecticut Structural Engineers Hall of Fame.
Jim is survived by his wife, Toni-Ann, two daughters, Christine Osborn and Catherine Rongoe,
his son, Nicholas Rongoe, and two granddaughters.
Jim served his profession as few do and made countless friends in the process. He was a gentle-
man, a scholar, an inventor, and a good engineer. He will be sorely missed by his family, his
friends and the structural engineering profession to which he gave so much.
Donations in Jims memory may be made to the Carl and Dorothy Bennett Cancer Center,
c/o Stamford Health Foundation, 1351 Washington Blvd., Suite 202, Stamford, CT 06902, or
the Whittingham Cancer Center, 24 Stevens Street, Norwalk, CT 06850.
38
CASE BuSinESS PrACtiCES business issues
STRUCTURE magazine
Too Many Codes Spoil the Design?
Conficts and Hidden Requirements Can Hurt You!
By Kirk A. Haverland, P.E., SECB
S
tructural engineering is a profession
that can give an individual engineer
or an entire frm a wide variety of
design experience. If you and your
frm work in a practice that is fairly diverse
in the types of clients and industries you
serve, after several years you may be very
competent in designing many structures
from lightweight commercial or residen-
tial buildings to heavy industrial structures
and several types in between. When you
have this type of experience, you realize
that in large part, a structure is a struc-
ture. Whether the foor system is designed
for 500 psf or 50 psf, the mechanics are
the same. And you learn the diferences
between types of structures and the relative
importance of the various parameters that
afect design. You know that the multi-story
hospital in a high seismic zone is going to
have a signifcantly diferent design and
design complexity than the single level
strip mall across the street from it, but you
understand these diferences and you can
produce well-designed structures that serve
their intended purpose.
If presented with an opportunity to design
a structure that is a little diferent, hope-
fully you spend some time researching the
idiosyncrasies of industry practices, design
requirements, diferent codes and standards
etc. You may feel after this research that
you are comfortable in taking on a project.
Usually, if you have done your homework,
you can be successful in producing a compe-
tent design even though you may not have
experience in that specifc type of structure.
But not always.
As structural engineers, we have codes that
we use to guide us through the process. Te
codes have commentaries that usually clarify
various code sections. Ten there are difer-
ent industry standards and practices that may
or may not be codifed or even written. Tis
is the ground that can get us in trouble. If
you do a lot of work with reinforced concrete
structures you know that there are many
more ACI codes and standards in addition
to ACI 318. Not all of these codes and stan-
dards are updated on a regular basis, and in
some there are signifcant conficts between
current seismic code requirements and prac-
tices versus those that were in force when
the specifc code or standard was written.
Logic would lead us to believe that using the
most recently adapted building code would
govern the design. Unfortunately, this is not
always true.
Lets look at a real life example where
a design was deemed inadequate due to
conficts in the owner-specifed codes and
standards to be used for design. Tese con-
ficts created a signifcant fnancial penalty
for the design frm and the contractor that
hired the design frm; so this is an example
of why you need to be careful.
Te project was a design-build contract
for a reinforced concrete chimney at a
power plant. Te design-build contractor
had experience in both designing and con-
structing this type of structure. However,
the contractors in-house staf was unable to
perform the design because of their current
workload, so they hired a sub-consultant
they had used successfully on several other
projects. Te sub-consultant had staf with
heavy industrial experience, including tall
stack structures; the frm itself had not
designed any tall concrete chimneys.
Te design of the structure was not overly
complex; however, the project location dic-
tated a seismic site class of F and yielded
a seismic design category of E. Te design
parameters appeared to be fairly straightfor-
ward. Te project specifcations referenced
the state adaptation of the 2000 IBC, ACI
307-98 Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete Chimneys, and provided technical
supplements for site meteorological data,
seismic data and seismic design procedures.
Te owner-specifed design requirements
stated that the seismic design was to be
per the 2000 IBC as referenced in the state
adaptation of the same, and the seismic
forces were to be determined from the basic
parameters in the site specifc seismic data.
Design forces and distribution were to be
determined using a dynamic analysis and
procedures listed in the specifed build-
ing code. Load combinations were to be
in accordance with the specifed building
code. Te owner-specifed design require-
ments went on to say that non-building
structures were to be analyzed using either
the equivalent lateral force method or
dynamic modal analysis, but then stated
that seismic design of reinforced chimneys
shall use the dynamic response spectrum
analysis method of ACI 307-98.
At this point, it can be seen that there is
a confict. Te state building code (2000
IBC) references ACI 318-99 and ASCE 7-98
which used NEHRP-97 for seismic criteria.
ACI 307-98 references ASCE 7-95 which
used NEHRP-94 for seismic criteria. Te
question then is which seismic criteria to use?
Te 2000 IBC states that the site specifc
response spectrum maximum considered
earthquake is based upon a 2% probability
of exceedance within a 50 year period. In
Section 1616.6, the IBC requires a modal
analysis procedure per Section 1618 using
site specifc response spectrum. A chim-
ney is a non-building structure, so Section
1622.2.5 refers to Table 1622.2.5(1) which
lists a response modifcation factor R=3 for
chimneys. Tis section also states that the
vertical distribution of forces is to be in accor-
dance with Section 1618.5 Modal Forces,
Defections and Drifts. One could therefore
reasonably conclude that by following the
state adapted version of the IBC requirements
using a modal analysis and a response factor
R=3, that you would be correct.
Except there is the contract document
reference to ACI 307-98 Code Requirements
for Reinforced Concrete Chimneys. ACI 307,
Section 4.3 Earthquake Loads, states that
chimneys are to be designed by means of
dynamic response spectrum analysis, and
that the vertical component may be ignored.
Tis is not intended as a criticism of ACI, it
is simply the result of many diferent codes
and standards, all written by diferent com-
mittees, where it is not always possible to
obtain complete agreement on changes or
updates. It is my understanding that ACI
does recognize that conficts exist and is
working on updating those codes and stan-
dards that may be outdated.
Kirk A. Haverland
D-BusPractices-Haverland-Sept12.indd 38 8/20/2012 2:35:21 PM
39
It also refers to the outdated efective peak
velocity acceleration maps of ASCE 7-95.
Section 4.3.2, Dynamic Response Spectrum
Analysis Method, requires a site specifc
response spectrum based upon a difer-
ent return period (which in this case was
corrected by specifcation), and does not
indicate a value for the response modifca-
tion factor (R), does not indicate a value for
the seismic importance factor I
E
, and fails to
give specifc information on methods such
as determination of base shear or distribu-
tion of vertical forces. Te commentary on
this section provides no additional infor-
mation for the missing criteria either. In
following the ACI 307-98 code, where does
one look for the missing parameters? One
would think that it would lead back to the
owner specifed design requirements and
the governing building code, in this case
the state adapted version of the 2000 IBC.
Logically then, you can be fairly comfort-
able with complying with the 2000 IBC
in order to satisfy the specifed require-
ments. In this case, the site specifc response
spectrum was used, a modal analysis was
used, and the seismic forces per IBC
Section 1622.2.5 were used. Te design
also complied with IBC Section 1622.2.4
regarding the seismic requirements for the
material, which includes ACI 318-99. So,
where is the problem?
Apparently, for those in the know in the
tall chimney design industry, a response modi-
fcation factor of R=1.33 is typically used. Tis
information is not codifed in any way, and
would obviously have a signifcant efect on
the seismic forces used in the design. A con-
struction inspector noticed a small issue in the
feld, which led to someone else questioning
the design, which ultimately lead to the claim
that the structure was not designed properly.
Tis, even though the design and construc-
tion complied with the governing building
code. Te sub-contractor and engineer were
forced to pay for the cost of strengthening the
chimney to meet the forces from the lower
unpublished R value.
Te main take away from this should be
that you may need to dig deeper in doing
your homework for some specialized designs
that are in unique industries or, regardless
of your abilities and experience, you still
may get into trouble. If there are conficts in
the requirements for the project, get them
resolved before starting to design; dont pick
the one you think is correct and merrily go
on your way. Te CASE National Practice
Guidelines for Specialty Structural Engineers
emphasizes the necessity to be on the same
page as the Engineer of Record. While, in
this particular situation, it may have been
a little more difcult to do so, at least the
issue would have been raised earlier in the
process and then hopefully been resolved
prior to construction.
Te goal of Te Council of American
Structural Engineers (CASE) is to promote
excellence in structural engineering business
practices and risk management. Te tool
presented in this article, National Practice
Guidelines for Specialty Structural Engineers,
was developed by CASE members who vol-
unteer their time and expertise to advance
the structural engineering profession.
Kirk Haverland, P.E., SECB is a
Principal and Regional manager
for Larson Engineering, Inc. Mr.
Haverland resides in Oshkosh, WI and
manages Larson Engineerings Wisconsin
operations. He can be reached at
khaverland@larsonengr.com.
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
D-BusPractices-Haverland-Sept12.indd 39 8/20/2012 2:35:21 PM
Blank.indd 1 8/6/2012 1:15:43 PM
41
Anchoring guide
E M A N E L I F JOB# COLORS
SI ZE PROOF
T S I T R A P O T K S E D P U T E S L A I T I N I
SI GNATURE
OK as is
OK with changes
Supply new proof with changes
817.335.1373
AZZ1-36385 S-7.5x4.75 V2.indd 1 7/25/12 3:43 PM
A
n
c
h
o
r

B
o
l
t
s
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e

A
n
c
h
o
r
s
F
a
a
d
e

A
n
c
h
o
r
s
G
e
n
.

H
a
r
d
w
a
r
e

&
T
i
e
s
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

A
n
c
h
o
r
s
M
a
s
o
n
r
y

A
n
c
h
o
r
s
P
o
s
t
-
T
e
n
s
i
o
n
i
n
g
R
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
i
n
g

A
n
c
h
o
r
s
U
t
i
l
i
t
y

A
n
c
h
o
r
s
Company Product
American Wood Council
Phone: 202-463-2766; Web: www.awc.org
ANSI/AF&PA SDPWS-2008 X
CSC
Phone: 877-710-2053; Web: www.cscworld.com
Fastrak X X
Tedds X X X X X
Decon
USA Inc.
Phone: 866-332-6687; Web: www.deconusa.com
Anchor Channels X X X
Foresight Products LLC
Phone: 303-286-8955; Web: www.earthanchor.com
Manta Ray X X X
HALFEN USA
Phone: 800-423-9140; Web: www.halfenusa.com
Anchor Channels X X X X X X X
Hayward Baker Inc.
Phone: 800-456-6548; Web: www.HaywardBaker.com
Ground and Rock Anchors X
Heckmann Building Products Inc.
Phone: 800-621-4140; Web: www.heckmannanchors.com
Pos-I-Tie
Thermal Clip X
Hilti, Inc.
Phone: 800-879-8000; Web: www.us.hilti.com
Hilti Mechanical and Adhesive Anchors x x x x X X x
Hubbell Power Systems-CHANCE
Phone: 573-682-8414, Web: www.abchance.com
Helical Anchors X X
ITW Red Head
Phone: 630-694-4780; Web: www.itwredhead.com
Tapcon+ X X X X
Epcon GS X X
Powers Fasteners
Phone: 985-807-6666; Web: www.powers.com
Post-installed Concrete Anchors X X X X X X X
RISA Technologies
Phone: 949-951-5815; Web: www.risa.com
RISABase X
Simpson Strong-Tie Anchor Systems
Phone: 800-999-5099; Web: www.simpsonanchors.com
Simpson Strong-Tie
Torq-Cut X X
Simpson Strong-Tie
Anchor Systems Products X X X X X X

Anchor Guide Sept12-tight.indd 41 8/20/2012 2:37:12 PM
The SEAOI Course is fully updated for
the 16-hour structural exam.
All courses are taught on Monday and
Thursday evenings from 6:007:45 p.m.
in downtown Chicago. The class is fully
accessible via the Web.
Participants can take the entire course
or focus on specific areas.
!
!
!
!
!
!
40 sessions, organized by subject area:
Earthquake Resistant Design,
Geotechnical Design,
Structural Steel Design,
Structural Concrete, Masonry,
Bridge Design, Timber Design
70+ contact hours of class time
Outstanding value in terms of
cost per hour of class
Web-accessible
Continuing education credit
available for most sessions
Highly-qualified instructors with
experience in practice and academia
Contact us today!
Visit to access the registration form
or call the SEAOI office at for more information.
www.seaoi.org
312.726.4165 x200
Contact us today!
Visit to access the registration form
or call the SEAOI office at for more information.
www.seaoi.org
312.726.4165 x200
I just wanted to take a quick minute to say THANK
YOU for having an absolutely amazing SE Review
course. I have taken the SE Exam a few times (the
SE-2 examwas easy, but I couldnever pass the SE-1)
and have taken review courses in the past This
course was absolutely wonderful.
Both days I was able to walk out of the test and
know that I passed the test. So now I will be able to
get my Illinois SE license, and my company is very
pleased.
Thanks for all of the help in getting together my
CEUs. I really got a lot out of the course, and I will be
recommending it to other engineers inmy office.
I have to say your review class was immensely
helpful in passing the exam. During previous
attempts to pass it I am sure I studied many things
that were irrelevant. By concentrating on what was
covered in the class I believe I made much better
use of my study time.
(I) just wantedto let youknowthat I receivedexam
results over the weekend I was successful, and I
believe the review class was very helpful for me.
Thanks to you&SEAOI for offering it via the Web.
Comments from past participants:
A
P
r
o
v
e
n
S
u
c
c
e
s
s
SEAOI SE Exam Review Course
October 25, 2012March 28, 2013
SEAOI SE Exam Review Course
October 25, 2012March 28, 2013
A
P
r
o
v
e
n
S
u
c
c
e
s
s
Join us for one of
the most comprehensive review courses available:
C:\Current\SEAOI Structure Magazine full-page ad.cdr
Thursday, July 05, 2012 2:10:11 PM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
Blank.indd 1 7/6/2012 10:35:21 AM
43
Spotlight award winners and outstanding projects
The Case of the Sagging Floors What Engineers Should Know
Best Presentation at the Structures 2012 Congress
By Craig A. Copelan, P.E., M. ASCE and Joyce E. Copelan, P.E., M. ASCE, SEI Sacramento Section Chair
At the SEI Structures 2012 Congress in Chicago, conference attendees selected the presentation they found to be the
Best of the Best among those ofered during the three days of technical sessions. Tis years winner for best presentation
was Te Case of the Sagging Floors, a panel presentation moderated by John Tawresey of KPFF Consulting Engineers,
an engineering frm headquartered in Seattle. It is a multi-ofce, multi discipline frm with projects across the United
States and around the globe. Mr. Tawresey is a licensed professional engineer in the state of Washington and a past
president of the Structural Engineering Institute.
O
riginally founded in 1960,
KPFF Consulting Engineers
has grown from an ofce with
20 staf to more than 900 since
Mr. Tawresey joined the frm. His educa-
tional background includes a bachelors
degree in civil engineering from Cornell
University, where he graduated with distinc-
tion, and a masters degree from Cornell
University in Teoretical and Applied
Mechanics. Mr. Tawreseys frst assignment
after completing his education was with the
Boeing Commercial Airplane group where
he gained fve years of valuable experience.
He joined KPFF Consulting Engineers
in 1973, and he became Chief Financial
Ofcer and Vice President in 1976. During
his tenure, the frm has experienced steady
growth. Mr. Tawreseys assignments in the
Seattle area have included the curtain wall
structural design of the Seattle Art Museum,
the Starbucks Building, Washington
Mutual Tower, and the First Interstate
Center. Utilizing his experience in the
development of reinforced brick panels and
light-framed stone curtain wall panels, he
taught structural masonry (CEE 455) at the
University of Washington for more than 26
years. Mr. Tawresey has given back a great
deal to his profession and the community
during the course of his career, serving in
various leadership capacities with ASCEs
Structural Engineering Institute, includ-
ing a term as president of the Institute
from 2001 to 2003. He was recognized
by his peers in the Washington Society of
Professional Engineers as their Engineer of
the Year in 2011. Mr. Tawresey is keenly
interested in the professional practice
aspects of structural engineering, serving
as president of the Structural Engineers Risk
Management Council [SERMC], president
of the Masonry Society and chair of SEAWs
Professional Practice Committee.
Mr. Tawreseys background and interests, as
well as the credibility he has gained through
his years of service to the industry and pro-
fession, made him an excellent moderator for
this panel discussion of a project that was
the subject of a major construction claim.
Because of the sensitive status of the claim,
which has only recently been resolved, the
presenters are not identifed as a part of this
article. Tey included the structural engi-
neer, the structural engineers expert and the
defense attorney who assisted with the reso-
lution of the claim. Te presentation covered
the design and construction of an upscale
high-rise condominium. Te structure was
framed in concrete with two-way concrete
slab foor construction. Pressure from the
developer to minimize cost demanded
longer spans and thin slabs. Te engineer
used advanced analysis methods to meet
defection calculation requirements, using
tools such as SAFE and the RAM Concept.
Moreover, construction schedules were
tightened, forms were pulled sooner,
and reshoring sequences shortened. Te
project experienced short-term defec-
tions that were inconsistent with the
developers expectations and budgets. Te
foors required fll and grinding and, as a
result, higher than expected costs resulted
in a claim against the structural engi-
neer. In this claim, forensic experts were
willing to testify that the design engi-
neer should have been using calculation
methods other than what is prescribed by
the applicable code or what is consistent
with the modern standard of care used
by practicing engineers when calculat-
ing defections of two-way slabs. Tis
is a situation many in practice today
could relate to; the presentation provided
an insight into the resolution of a claim in an
area of practice that was familiar to those in
the audience. Because of his years of techni-
cal experience, enhanced by service within
his community, Mr. Tawresey has developed
skills in communicating complex subjects in
a straightforward and clear manner. Tese
skills allowed him to lead this session in a
manner that the members of the audience
were able to easily grasp and fnd relevant
to their own work experience. Tis excellent
panel presentation and the leadership pro-
vided by Mr. Tawresey in its development,
is acknowledged by the professions in atten-
dance by selecting it as the SEI Structures
2012 Congress Best Presentation.
Mr. Tawresey is looking for a professional
practice liability story to be told at the next
Structures Congress to be held in Pittsburgh,
May 2-4, 2013. If you have a story that
would be appropriate, he can be reached at
johntaw@aol.com or 206-622-5822.
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
A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T

-
F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
D-Spotlight-Sept12.indd 43 8/20/2012 2:38:11 PM
44
STRUCTURE magazine
N
C
S
E
A

N
e
w
s
N
e
w
s

f
o
r
m

t
h
e

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

o
f

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
NATIONAL COUNCI L
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
E
N
GINEERS
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
I
O
N
S
Presidents Report: Volunteer and Make a Difference!
Tomas A. DiBlasi, P.E., SECB
Its hard to believe that nearly a year has passed since the
honor of being NCSEA President was bestowed upon me. In
that short period of time, I have been amazed at the amount
of work that has been accomplished by the many committees
that form the backbone of NCSEA:
Te Code Advisory Committee (CAC) under Ron
Hamburgers leadership has been extremely active as the
development process for the 2015 International Code
Council (ICC) has been getting underway. Between the
various CAC subcommittees, 46 Code Change Proposals
were developed and submitted to ICC for consideration.
In addition, the subcommittees reviewed 445 structural-
related Code Change Proposals that were submitted by other
organizations and individuals. During the two weeks of Code
Change Hearings that were held in Dallas in May, three of
the subcommittee chairs (Ed Huston, David Bonowitz and
Kirk Harman) provided testimony on the NCSEA proposals,
as well as many of those other 445 proposals.
Te Licensing Committee, chaired by Susie Jorgensen,
continues to promote separate structural licensure throughout
the country. While no new states adopted structural
engineering practice acts this year, legislation was introduced
in several states for the frst time and other organizations are
joining the movement. In June, NCSEA along with SEI,
SECB and CASE, announced the formation of the Structural
Engineering Licensure Coalition, to provide a unifed voice in
support of structural engineering licensure.
Te Structural Engineers Emergency Response (SEER)
Committee, led by Scott Nacheman, completed the
second edition of the Structural Engineers Emergency
Response Plan (available for download from the NCSEA
website). In addition, through an agreement with the
California Emergency Management Agency, NCSEA
delivered the Safety Assessment Program (CalEMA SAP),
a six-hour post-disaster assessment webinar that is one
of only two post-disaster assessment programs that will
be compliant with the requirements of the forthcoming
Federal Resource Typing Standards for engineer
emergency responders. Tis training will be ofered by
NCSEA on a semi-annual basis.
Tis year the Continuing Education Committee,
under the leadership of Mike Tylk and Carrie Johnson,
succeeded in scheduling 19 continuing education
webinars delivered by industry-recognized experts. In
addition, the committee continues to make refnements
to the SE Exam Review Course, developed in a
partnership with Kaplan Education Services. Notably,
the committee has established a new group pricing
structure that will allow MOs to ofer the review course
to groups at a signifcant discount when compared to
individual registration fees. Finally, the committee has
been retooling the Winter Institute, transforming it from
its historic technical roots to a more practice-oriented,
leadership-development conference.
Te Publications Committee, led by Tim Mays, has
released its latest publication, Inspection, Testing, and
Monitoring of Buildings and Bridges (available through
ICC). By the Annual Conference, the committee expects
to complete and present the work of two
additional new publications: Guide to the
Design of Serviceability of Building Systems:
In Accordance with the 2012 IBC and ASCE 7-10 and
Design Guide on IBC Chapter 18 (Foundations). Te
STRUCTURE Editorial Board, under the stewardship
of Jon Schmidt, continues to deliver outstanding issue
after issue of STRUCTURE, securing its position as the
defnitive publication for the practicing structural engineer.
After a long tenure, Bob Durfee has handed over the
reins of the Advocacy Committee to Rick Boggs
and Brian Dekker. Te Students and Educators
Subcommittee has been developing a prototype
PowerPoint presentation entitled What is Structural
Engineering? that is intended for presentations to high
school audiences. Tis presentation is expected to be
released at the Annual Conference, will be available for
download by the MOs, and will be customizable by
the presenter. A new poster is under development, and
some promotional videos have also been produced. Te
Clients and Prospects Subcommittee has developed a
brochure describing structural engineering services to a
lay-person. Although scheduled for release at the Annual
Conference, this is already available and downloadable
from the NCSEA website. MOs can use the PDF of
the brochure, with NCSEAs logo on it, or download
the editable format and add their own logos. Te Code
Ofcials and Government Agencies Subcommittee has
produced a couple of white papers to provide general
guidance to code enforcement agencies, which it is
planning to make available at the Annual Conference;
and the General Public and Media Subcommittee is near
completion of a Working with the Media PowerPoint
presentation, to provide pointers for engineers who fnd
themselves in the media spotlight.
Te Basic Education Committee, under the leadership
of Craig Barnes and new Co-Chair, Brent Perkins, has
completed another structural engineering curriculum
survey, encompassing data from over 200 colleges and
universities throughout the country. Te survey results
are being compiled and are scheduled to be released in
2013. While the ultimate goal would be to encourage
colleges and universities to increase their course oferings
to include the basic minimum structural engineering
courses recommended by the committee, this is clearly
a long-term goal. Dependent on the survey fndings,
however, NCSEA is contemplating the development
of a webinar series that will deliver the basic structural
engineering coursework that is found to be most
consistently lacking in the university oferings.
All of NCSEAs committees are composed of, and led by,
dedicated volunteers. Tese volunteers are the heart and soul of
NCSEA, and their commitment cannot be overstated. For those
of you who volunteer on one or more of our committees.a
heartfelt THANK YOU! For those of you who do not currently
serve, I encourage you to get involved.give back to the profes-
sionand make a diference for yourself and others! Help mold
the future of NCSEA and the structural engineering profession!
N-NCSEAnews-Sept12.indd 44 8/21/2012 9:39:33 AM
45
N
C
S
E
A

N
e
w
s
N
e
w
s

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

o
f

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
NATIONAL COUNCI L
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
E
N
GINEERS
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
I
O
N
S
2012 NCSEA Annual Conference
2012 NCSEA Awards Banquet
September 13 Webinar
Design of Environmental Concrete Structures with ACI-350
Tis presentation by William Wallace, P.E.,
SECB, serves as an introduction to the ACI 350
Code and environmental engineering concrete
structures. It will be an overview of the evolu-
tion of reinforced concrete design criteria for
environmental concrete structures over the past
50 years, up to the current ACI 350-06 code.
Comparisons between ACI 318 and ACI 350 will be made in a
side-by-side format, to point out some of the major diferences
between the two ACI documents.
William Wallace, P.E., SECB, is the structural discipline lead
for the Fort Worth, Texas Of ce of Huitt-Zollars, Inc. Mr.
Wallace joined Huitt-Zollars in September 2010 after retiring
from nearly 32 years of federal government service in various
structural engineering positions that included over 23.5 years
with the Fort Worth District Corps of Engineers (the last 11 of
those years as Chief, Structural Design Section) and 8 years with
the Natural Resources Conservation Service National Design,
Construction, and Soil Mechanics Center (Structural Engineer)
located in Fort Worth, Texas. He received both his B.S.C.E.
and M.S.C.E. from the University of Texas at Arlington (UTA),
where he currently serves as an adjunct professor of structural
engineering. Mr. Wallace, a registered P.E. (structural) in the
state of Texas, was a member of the federal inter-agency task
group on the Structural Analysis of Concrete Dams that devel-
oped analysis procedures for use by dam owners and regulators.
Diamond
Reviewed
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
C
O
N
T
I N
U
I N
G
E
D
U
C
A
T
IO
N
E
N
G
IN
E
E
R
S
NCSEA
Te cost for this webinar is: $225 NCSEA member, $250 SEI/CASE member, $275 non-
member, FlexPlan option available. Several people may attend for one connection fee. Tis course
will award 1.5 hours of continuing education. Te times will be 10:00 am Pacifc, 11:00 am
Mountain, 12:00 pm Central, and 1:00 pm Eastern. Approved in All 50 States
We have a great program planned (see the Conference
insert, page 26), sandwiched between an amazing number
of interesting activities on Wednesday, October 3, and a
fabulous Awards Banquet on Friday night, October 5. Te
business meeting, including breakfast and lunch on Saturday,
is a requirement for Delegates, but it is also open to anyone
else interested in hearing and talking about whats happen-
ing with NCSEA. Please see this months NCSEA Annual
Conference insert and visit www.ncsea.com to hear and see
NCSEA Board members talking about why you shouldnt
miss this Conference.
OCTOBER 5, 2012 Te National Council of Structural
Engineers Associations (NCSEA) will be announcing the 2012
Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards on Friday evening,
October 5, during the 20
th
NCSEA Annual Conference in St.
Louis, Missouri. Tree awards will be given in eight categories,
with one project in each category being named the Outstanding
Project. Categories for 2012 were as follows:
New Buildings under $10 Million
New Buildings over $100 Million
New Bridge and Transportation Structures
International Structures
Forensic/Renovation/Retroft/Rehabilitation Structures
Other Structures
Tis will be a formal banquet, black tie requested, and is
included for all Conference registrants.
NCSEA Past Presidents at the 2011 NCSEA Awards Banquet.
N-NCSEAnews-Sept12.indd 45 8/20/2012 2:39:07 PM
46

T
h
e

N
e
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r

o
f

t
h
e

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

A
S
C
E
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

C
o
l
u
m
n
s
STRUCTURE magazine
You are invited to join the events and activities of your local
SEI Chapter or Structural Technical Group. Local groups ofer
a variety of opportunities for professional development, student
and community outreach, mentoring, scholarships, networking,
technical tours, etc. To connect with your local SEI Chapter
or STG, visit the SEI Local Activities Division webpage at
http://content.seinstitute.org/committees/local.html. If
your ASCE Section or Branch doesnt have an SEI Chapter or
structural group, and would like to start one contact Suzanne
Fisher at sfsher@asce.org.
Some of the benefts of becoming an SEI Chapter include:
Use of SEI logo and branding
Funding for local Chair or their representative to attend
SEI Local Leadership Conference. Te 2012 SEI Local
Leadership Conference will be held October 12-13,
2012 in Salt Lake City and includes main session
meetings, a technical tour, a presentation on Accelerated
Bridge Construction in Utah, and on Saturday, October
13 a Post Disaster Safety Evaluations Workshop
sponsored by SEI and the ASCE Committee on Critical
Infrastructure, in cooperation with the California
Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA) and the
Applied Technology Council (ATC).
Discounted ASCE Continuing Education item
sponsored by the SEI Endowment Fund
Chapter announcements published on SEI website and
in SEI Update
Call for 2013 SEI/ASCE Award Nominations
ATC & SEI Advances in
Hurricane Engineering
Conference
Learning from Our Past
Miami, Florida
October 24-26, 2012
Professionals who design, engineer, regulate and build projects
in hurricane afected regions will be welcomed to Miami,
October 24-26, 2012 for the ATC-SEI Advances in Hurricane
Engineering Conference. Te cutting-edge technical program
will focus exclusively on wind and food design topics and
bring together professionals from a number of diferent per-
spectives. Specifc hurricane engineering topics include wind
design using ASCE 7-10, building code changes in Florida
and in the 2012 International Building Code, storm surge
inundation modeling, discussion of wind pressure modeling
using new wind tunnels, and more.
Conference organizers recently confrmed Dr. Rick Knapp,
new Director of the National Hurricane Center, as the key-
note speaker in the closing plenary. Educational sessions will
be given by industry luminaries such as Larry Grifs, P.E.;
Chris Jones, P.E.; David Prevatt, Ph.D., P.E.; Ron Cook,
Ph.D., P.E.; Scott Douglass, Ph.D., P.E.; Peter Irwin, Ph.D.,
PEng, and many more. Post-conference workshops and tours
will also be available.
Visit the conference website for more information at
www.atc-sei.org/.
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.
Nominations are being sought for the 2013 SEI and ASCE Structural Awards. Te objective of the Awards program is to advance
the engineering profession by emphasizing exceptionally meritorious achievement, so this is an opportunity to recognize exemplary
colleagues. Nomination deadlines begin October 1, 2012 with most deadlines falling on November 1, 2012. Visit the SEI Awards and
Honors page on the web at http://content.seinstitute.org/inside/honorawards.html for more information and nomination procedures.
2013 Ammann Fellowship
Call for Nominations
Te 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 feld 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.
Tis fellowship award is at least $5,000 and can be up to
$10,000. Te deadline for 2013 Ammann applications is
November 1, 2012.
For more information and to download an application visit the SEI
website at http://content.seinstitute.org/inside/ammann.html.
SEI/ASCE Student Structural
Design Competition
Te Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE is proud to
announce the winners of the 2012 Student Structural Design
Competition. Tese three projects were presented at a special
session of the Structures 2012 Congress in Chicago, Illinois.
Each year SEI sponsors this competition to recognize excellence
in structural engineering education and to encourage innovation.
First Place Award Winner
Te Villanova University Team created a design for the US Rte.
67 Corridor ProjectJerseyville Bypass Bridge. Student team
members: Matthew Bandelt, Stephen Kane, Scott Albarella,
John Garland, Michael Mignella, and Louis Ross, with Faculty
Advisor Zeyn Uzman.
Second Place Winner
Te University of Colorado at Denver Team project was to
design the Idaho Springs Maintenance Facility. Student team
members: John Pettit, Jose Cordoba, Jef Gee, Ramon Martinez,
and Jef Felling, with Faculty Advisor Peter Marxhausen.
Third Place Winner
Te Milwaukee School of Engineering Team project was their
design of the Sweet Water Organics Vertical Farm. Student team
members: Austin Meier, Mark Peterson, and Stephanie Pichotta,
with Faculty Advisor Christopher Raebel.
For more information about the Student Structural Design
Competition and the winning projects, visit the SEI website:
www.asce.org/SEI.
Structural Engineering Institute Local Activities
2011 SEI Local Leadership Conference Tour of USACE West Closure
Complex, New Orleans
N-SEInews-Sept12.indd 46 8/20/2012 2:40:32 PM
47

T
h
e

N
e
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r

o
f

t
h
e

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

A
S
C
E
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

C
o
l
u
m
n
s
Call for 2013 SEI/ASCE Award Nominations
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.
Nominations are being sought for the 2013 SEI and ASCE Structural Awards. Te objective of the Awards program is to advance
the engineering profession by emphasizing exceptionally meritorious achievement, so this is an opportunity to recognize exemplary
colleagues. Nomination deadlines begin October 1, 2012 with most deadlines falling on November 1, 2012. Visit the SEI Awards and
Honors page on the web at http://content.seinstitute.org/inside/honorawards.html for more information and nomination procedures.
2012 Electrical Transmission and
Substation Structures Conference
Columbus, Ohio
November 4-8, 2012
Te Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures
Conference is widely recognized as a one-of-a-kind conference
that focuses specifcally on transmission and substation struc-
ture issues to help utility engineers meet the daily challenges
of todays high-stakes energy environment. Tis must-attend
event ofers an ideal setting for learning and networking for
utilities and suppliers.
Visit the conference website for more information:
http://content.asce.org/conferences/ets2012/index.html.
2013 Ammann Fellowship
Call for Nominations
Te 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 feld 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.
Tis fellowship award is at least $5,000 and can be up to
$10,000. Te deadline for 2013 Ammann applications is
November 1, 2012.
For more information and to download an application visit the SEI
website at http://content.seinstitute.org/inside/ammann.html.
SEI/ASCE Student Structural
Design Competition
Te Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE is proud to
announce the winners of the 2012 Student Structural Design
Competition. Tese three projects were presented at a special
session of the Structures 2012 Congress in Chicago, Illinois.
Each year SEI sponsors this competition to recognize excellence
in structural engineering education and to encourage innovation.
First Place Award Winner
Te Villanova University Team created a design for the US Rte.
67 Corridor ProjectJerseyville Bypass Bridge. Student team
members: Matthew Bandelt, Stephen Kane, Scott Albarella,
John Garland, Michael Mignella, and Louis Ross, with Faculty
Advisor Zeyn Uzman.
Second Place Winner
Te University of Colorado at Denver Team project was to
design the Idaho Springs Maintenance Facility. Student team
members: John Pettit, Jose Cordoba, Jef Gee, Ramon Martinez,
and Jef Felling, with Faculty Advisor Peter Marxhausen.
Third Place Winner
Te Milwaukee School of Engineering Team project was their
design of the Sweet Water Organics Vertical Farm. Student team
members: Austin Meier, Mark Peterson, and Stephanie Pichotta,
with Faculty Advisor Christopher Raebel.
For more information about the Student Structural Design
Competition and the winning projects, visit the SEI website:
www.asce.org/SEI.
2011 SEI Local Leadership Conference Tour of USACE West Closure
Complex, New Orleans
American Society of
Civil Engineering Structural Awards
Jack E. Cermak Award
Tis award was created by the Engineering Mechanics Division/
Structural Engineering Institute to recognize achievements in
the feld of wind engineering and industrial aerodynamics.
Norman Medal and J. James R. Croes Medal
Te Norman and Croes Medals recognize papers that make a
defnitive contribution to engineering science.
Shortridge Hardesty Award
Te Shortridge Hardesty Award may be given annually to
individuals who have contributed substantially in applying
fundamental results of research to the solution of practical
engineering problems in the feld of structural stability.
Ernest E. Howard Award
Tis award may be presented annually to a member of ASCE
who has made a defnite contribution to the advancement of
structural engineering, either in research, planning, design,
construction, or methods and materials.
Walter L. Huber Civil Engineering Research Prizes
Up to fve Walter L. Huber prizes may be awarded each year to
help stimulate research in civil engineering.Te prize recognizes
notable achievements in research related to civil engineering
and are often seen as helping to establish careers of the top
researchers in civil engineering.
Moisseiff Award
Te Moisseif Award recognizes a paper contributing to structural
design, including applied mechanics, as well as the theoretical
analysis or construction improvement of engineering structures,
such as bridges and frames, of any structural material.
Raymond C. Reese Research Prize
Te Raymond C. Reese Research Prize may be awarded to the
author(s) of a paper published by ASCE that describes a notable
achievement in research related to structural engineering and
recommends how the results of that research (experimental and/
or analytical) can be applied to design.
Structural Engineering Institute Awards
(Contact SEI directly for more information on these awards.
Visit the SEI website at www.asce.org/SEI.)
Dennis L. Tewksbury Award
Te Tewksbury Award recognizes an individual member of the
Structural Engineering Institute who has advanced the interests
of SEI through innovative or visionary leadership; who has
promoted the growth and visibility of SEI; who has established
working relationships between SEI and other structural engi-
neering organizations; or who has otherwise rendered valuable
service to the structural engineering profession.
Walter P. Moore, Jr. Award
Tis award honors Walter P. Moore, Jr. for his dedication to
technical expertise in the development of structural codes and
standards. Te award is made annually to a structural engineer
who has demonstrated technical expertise in, and dedication
to, the development of structural codes and standards. Te
contribution may have been in the form of papers, presentations,
extensive practical experience, research, committee participation,
or through other activities.
Gene Wilhoite Award
Te Wilhoite Award recognizes an individual who has made
signifcant contributions to the advancement of the art and
science of transmission line engineering. Te SEI Technical
Activities Division Awards Committee makes recommenda-
tions regarding who should receive the Gene Wilhoite award.
However, they seek the opinions of the members as to which
papers are meritorious. If a reader encounters a paper that s/
he believes is outstanding for any reason, please convey this
information along with a statement as to why s/he considers
the paper exceptional to Susan Reid at sreid@asce.org.
N-SEInews-Sept12.indd 47 8/20/2012 2:40:32 PM
48
T
h
e

N
e
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r

o
f

t
h
e

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

o
f

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
C
A
S
E

i
n

P
o
i
n
t
STRUCTURE magazine
On August 23
rd
, 2011, one of the largest earthquakes to impact
the east coast occurred along a fault line approximately 84 miles
southwest of Washington, DC. Two iconic structures were seri-
ously impacted by that event: the Washington Monument and
Washington National Cathedral. Members of the project team
for Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, who performed the damage
assessment on both structures, will be at the CASE Convocation
(held in conjunction with the ACEC Fall Conference) to
provide an overview of their fndings and the various treatment
and restoration strategies that will guide the repairs. Te CASE
Convocation ofers a full day of sessions on Monday, October 15
dedicated to best-practice structural engineering:
10:30 am Risk Management Essentials
for Structural Engineers
Randy Lewis, XL Group
2:15 pm Project Risk Management Plans
Stephen Cox, GHD
4:00 pm Seismic Assessment and Repair Design:
Washington Monument and
National Cathedral
Daniel J. LeMieux & Eric Sohn, Wiss, Janney,
Elstner Associates, Inc.
5:30 pm Coalition Meet and Greet
Other Fall Conference Highlights include:
Rich Karlgaard, Forbes Columnist & Publisher on
Challenge of Private vs. Public Growth Central Issue
of Our Time
CEO Market Outlook on Energy, Water
and Transportation
Ron Insana, CNBC Senior Financial Commentator,
on Americas Coming Economic Boom
Stu Rothenberg, Rothenberg Political Report Editor and
Publisher, on Handicapping the November Elections
CEO Roundtables
2013 Industry Economic Update
30 Industry Education Sessions ofering 21.5 PDHs
NEW AT FALL CONFERENCE
The Young Professionals Forum
NEW! Te Young Professionals Forum will feature a
kickof as well as a closing session, facilitated by industry
consultants. In addition, those who qualify for and are reg-
istered for the Young Professionals Forum will have access to
all of the other Fall Conference sessions and events.
Te tentative program of Young Professionals Forum ses-
sions includes:
Monday, October 15, 10:30 am-11:45 am
Strategies for Developing Leadership and
Management Skills Panel of ACEC Senior
Executive Institute graduates, facilitated by SEI faculty
Wednesday, October 17, 8:30 am-9:45 am
Next Steps for the Young Professionals Forum
Workshop and small group discussion on what was
valuable learning at the Conference and how future Forum
meetings should be structured, facilitated by SEI faculty
Register now at www.acec.org/conferences/fall-12/
You can follow ACEC Coalitions
on Twitter @ACECCoalitions.
Earthquake Damage Assessment of the
Washington Monument Headlines CASE
Convocation at ACEC Fall Conference
CASE is on LinkedIn
LinkedIn is a great virtual resource for net-
working, education, and now, connecting
with CASE. Join the CASE LinkedIn Group
today! www.linkedin.com.
N-CASEnews-Sept12.indd 48 8/20/2012 2:41:32 PM
49

C
A
S
E

i
s

a

p
a
r
t

o
f

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

o
f

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

C
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s
C
A
S
E

i
n

P
o
i
n
t
CASE Guideline 962 Updated For 2012
National Practice Guidelines for the Structural Engineer of Record
Te purpose of these Guidelines is to give frms and their
employees a guide for establishing consulting structural engi-
neering services, and to provide a basis for dealing with clients
generally and negotiating contracts in particular. Since the
Structural Engineer of Record (SER) is normally a member of
a multi-discipline design team, these Guidelines describe the
relationships that customarily exist between the SER and the
other team members, especially the prime design professional.
Furthermore, these Guidelines seek to promote an enhanced
quality of professional services while also providing a basis for
negotiating fair and reasonable compensation. Te Guidelines
also provide clients with a better opportunity to understand
and appreciate the scope of services that the structural engineer
should be retained to provide.
With the publication of the 2012 edition of these Guidelines,
it is important to recognize that the Guidelines were developed
originally on the basis of the traditional design/bid/build system
of project delivery. Tis project delivery system continues to
be the basis for the current edition. While these Guidelines are
specifc to design/bid/build, some of the described principles
may be applicable to other project delivery methods like design/
build, integrated project delivery and fast tracked projects. It
is CASEs position that this document should not attempt to
cover all of the nuances and diferences associated with these
alternative project delivery systems; rather, the basis of these
Guidelines should be made clear to the reader.
Tese guidelines are also based on the SERs client being
the prime design professional, typically the project architect.
Sometimes, the SER may be contracted with the owner, the
contractor, or even another consultant to the prime design pro-
fessional. Te SERs client also typically has a client and the
contract between those parties may directly impact the role and
responsibilities of the SER. While these Guidelines are based on
the SERs client being the prime design professional, many of
the described principles are applicable to the various diferent
types of contractual relationships. It is CASEs position that this
document should not attempt to cover all of the nuances and dif-
ferences associated with these diferent contractual relationships.
CASE 962 (2012) is available for download online at
www.booksforengineers.com.
CASE is on LinkedIn
LinkedIn is a great virtual resource for net-
working, education, and now, connecting
with CASE. Join the CASE LinkedIn Group
today! www.linkedin.com.
If you would like more information on the items below, please contact Ed Bajer, ebajer@acec.org.
Pay if Paid
Some frms are lamenting the return of this provision into
contracts and attribute its rise to the decline in the economy.
Courts have both upheld and declared invalid these provisions.
In some jurisdictions, they are illegal by statute. Some think
this risk-shifting mechanism is bad for business and makes it
easy to justify non-payment. Like any contract provision, it is
negotiable. If you are in the subcontractors role, explore the
possibility of contracting directly with the owner instead of the
prime. You can also require in your contract with the prime that
it will submit your invoices to the client in a timely manner or
within a prescribed time.
Accommodating Employees
Religious Beliefs
Employers must reasonably accommodate employees religious
beliefs unless it creates an undue burden according to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission Compliance Manual
www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html#_Toc203359518.
Tey must also comply with OSHA which requires a workplace
free of recognized hazards. Such accommodation may include
altering workplace policies, dressing and grooming codes.
Employers must show that there is a real safety risk if there is
a confict between religious beliefs and safety requirements. A
prior workplace accident may dictate a decision. Te employer
must balance a workers religious beliefs against a safe workplace.
Engineering Experts
Testimony Excluded
An engineer was hired as an expert and gave testimony as
to what was required to meet the standard of care for bridge
construction. He mentioned several items that were not noted
in the code or anywhere else.
Te court concluded that, although he was qualifed to testify
as an engineering expert, he was not qualifed to give opinions
about bridge construction trafc control. It was determined he
drifted too far from his area of expertise. Te Contracts Central
website (www.contractscentral.net) provides a list of engineer-
ing expert witnesses including their specifc areas of expertise.
www.contractscentral.net/expertwitness/expert_witness_
listing.pdf.
CASE Business Practice Corner
N-CASEnews-Sept12.indd 49 8/20/2012 2:41:32 PM
50
Structural Forum opinions on topics of current importance to structural engineers
Structural Forum is intended to stimulate thoughtful dialogue and debate among structural engineers and other
participants in the design and construction process. Any opinions expressed in Structural Forum are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily refect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C
3
Ink, or the STRUCTURE
magazine Editorial Board.

Developing the Next Generation of Structural Engineers
Part 1: A Crisis of Opportunity
By Glenn R. Bell, P.E., S.E., SECB
A Crisis of Opportunity
A year ago, I was invited to join the SEI Young
Professionals Committee, which is addressing
issues of interest to future generations of struc-
tural engineers. Te members of this committee
have concerns that I share Our business is
becoming commoditized as computers and soft-
ware are doing more of our work. We face the
threats of global outsourcing and competition.
Increasingly, we are having trouble attracting
and retaining the best and brightest to our
profession. At the same time, these young pro-
fessionals yearn to tackle the future challenges of
the world in a much more profound way than
they are empowered to do today.
While some may see this as a crisis, I prefer to see
it positively, as a crisis of opportunity a chance
to change the practice of structural engineering
in a profound way. Tis starts with developing a
new breed of structural engineers, more broadly
capable than ever before more creative, collab-
orative, and communicative to become global
leaders in societys grand challenges.
The World of Future
Engineering Generations
To understand what this new breed of structural
engineer will look like, I invite you to consider
with me what the world of future generations
will look like. I suggest that we glimpse about
forty years ahead. Tis may seem like a long
time from now, but it is actually within the
likely career span of todays engineering students.
New World Reality No. 1:
Developing Population
By 2050, there will likely be about 9 billion
people on our planet; 8 billion of them will
live in developing countries. Pundits predict
that, by 2050, the most prevalent language will
not be English; it will be Chinese, followed by
Hindi and Arabic, with English and Spanish
vying for fourth place. Many domestic indus-
tries will not exist in their present forms. Ones
that do exist may no longer be headquartered
in the United States.
Te structural engineer of the future will
need imagination to seek diferent business
opportunities in this changed world. Te
massive population in developing countries
will need afordable, sustainable housing and
infrastructure on an enormous scale. Tere is
a lot of building to be done!
No. 2: Globalization
In the future, our workplace will be worldwide.
Te global engineering workforce will be leveled.
We already face ofshore competition, much of
it high in quality and lower in cost. But we also
have more opportunities to work elsewhere in
the world, especially in developing countries. For
American engineers to compete internationally,
we must become more mobile more willing
to travel to far-fung places. A globally fattened
market means that engineers of the future will
need breadth, both in technical and soft skills, to
operate in many diverse locations and cultures.
Perhaps most importantly, we need to be adept
at collaborating on teams with members scat-
tered around the globe.
No. 3: Sustainability
We in the United States are consuming the
earths irreplaceable resources at an unsustain-
able rate. If developing economies adopt our
rate of consumption, we will bankrupt our
planet of these resources in short order.
While energy concerns are at the forefront of
our public dialogue, the challenges are much
broader. For example, a recent report by the
United Nations projects that, within the next
20 years, virtually every nation in the world will
face some type of water supply problem. Moving
forward, the building and operation of all of our
constructed works will require a drastically more
responsible approach. Balancing quality of life
with natural resources will be critical.
No. 4: Climate Change
Recent awareness of the impact of climate
changes on natural hazards are causing us to
question the efcacy of our criteria and approach
for design against natural hazards, particularly
wind, fooding, and sea level. Tis will drive
us toward more fexible, performance-based
approaches. It also requires that engineers take
leadership roles in major policy questions in
hazards management, or even in some cases
advising societies on where not to build.
No. 5: Complexity
Our large-scale civil/structural systems are
becoming increasingly complex, and lessons
from recent natural disasters like Katrina
and Fukashima Daiichi have pointed out
the vulnerability of such complex systems.
To manage complexity, we need to under-
stand systems engineering, and we need to be
able to work better together on collaborative,
interdisciplinary teams.
No. 6: Knowledge Exchange
and Global Competition
Access to knowledge is enabling developing
countries to educate high-quality engineers at
an enormous rate. Many of them are able and
willing to work very hard for a fraction of the
wage rates within the United States. Tis means
that, for the future, American engineers must
ofer added value through superior knowledge
and skill. Our diferentiators will be leadership,
innovation, and entrepreneurship.
No. 7: Technology
Tis last point has perhaps the most signif-
cant impact on our practice. Advancements in
computer techniques and simulation mean that
we simply do not need the manual number-
crunching resources that we have supplied in
the past. Sure, our engineers will need to be
skilled in modeling and knowing how to extract
correct and reliable results from simulations; but
much of what we have been doing in the recent
past will be done by machines in the future.
Tis leaves us wondering what our roles will be.
In the next article, we will consider the
opportunities that these New World Realities
present to future generations of structural
engineers, and the attributes required to meet
those opportunities.
Note: Tis is the frst article of a four-part series on the opportunities and challenges we face in
developing the next generation of structural engineers. It is based on the authors keynote address
at the SEI Structures Congress in March 2012.
Glenn R. Bell, P.E., S.E., SECB
(GRBell@sgh.com), is the Chief Executive
Ofcer at Simpson Gumpertz & Heger in
Waltham, Massachusetts.
D-StrucForum-Bell-Sept12.indd 50 8/20/2012 2:42:41 PM
Blank.indd 1 7/3/2012 9:40:32 AM
Blank.indd 1 6/5/2012 1:38:10 PM

Sep 12

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sep 12

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sep 12

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Special Section

magazine does not constitute endorsement by

Visit STRUCTURE magazine online at

(Volume 19, Number 9). ISSN 1536-4283.

is a registered trademark of National Council of

Visit STRUCTURE magazine online at

(Volume 19, Number 9). ISSN 1536-4283.

is a registered trademark of National Council of

self-undercutting anchor provides high-load capacity and is a ductile

team we got the

steel bers, by Bekaert, are a practical alternative for

LVL (Beams Columns &

series I-Joists, Glulam Beams and

products and services simplify the design and

, Universal Pin Connectors

, and Custom Components.

an innovative, economical and sustainable

The Intelligent Alternative

Composite Floor System by Nucor-Vulcraft

utilizes over 80% recycled

F-NCSEAconference-Sept12.indd 28 8/20/2012 2:29:50 PM

connection technology, superior

shearwalls, Strong Frame

DTI fastener is an ingenious new tensioning

DTI to an ASTM A563 DH

Anchor Systems Products X X X X X X

magazine Editorial Board.

You might also like