STRUCTURE A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

SPECIAL SECTION:
SOFTWARE

August 2017 Steel/Cold-Formed Steel

Inside:
John Hancock
Building,
Chicago
 When We Build Our Facilities,
Our Engineers Specify The Finest
Structural Materials.

HSS HOLLOW STRUCTURAL SECTIONS

Aesthetically Pleasing, Structurally Sound. As an Architect or Engineer, you are always HSS Sizes
looking for that perfect building material. At Independence Tube we feel we have SQUARES
achieved that balance of looks and strength in our Hollow Structural Sections (HSS) " SQ12" SQ

Cost Effective. Cost Competitive. But it gets better. Over 90% of the HSS products RECTANGLES
1" x 1"16" x 8"
manufactured by Independence Tube meets or exceeds Grade C mechanical properties.
Get the additional strength at no additional cost. ROUNDS
" OD16" OD
Plentiful Inventory. Renowned Rolling Schedule. We stock the inventory for your next WALLS
project, and with our frequent Rolling Schedule, on-time delivery is a given. 0.065" through 0.688"
You now have a choice: HSS looks great, meets all your quality requirements, LENGTH
and the price is right. Up to 80' in length

800-543-9024 800-376-6000
www.southlandtube.com www.independencetube.com
Try Tekla Tedds for Free
Automate Your Structural Calculations with the New Tekla Tedds Trial

Library of Design Modules

Electronic Calculations in Word

l
T ria
d +
a te s 40 lcs WL W

d n a 8

Up ntai ew C
Co d N
an
Br Automatic Load Generators

Section Property Calculator

Profis

A = 16.56 In2
2
y

M M

x
2
4

Section Data/Code Tables

2D Frame Analysis
SECTION DATA

Nominal Standard Dressed

Size size (S4S)
1x3 0,750 2,500
-426,2 426,2

1x4 0,750 3,500 3 6

426,2 426,2
6

1x6 0,750 5,500

556,9

1x8 0,750 7,250

4
-522,6 522,6

2
354,7 5
-167,9 167,9
5
354,7

460,4

3
1
1 4

83,6 -83,6

Intelligent Link to Excel

Output-3rd Party Software

.xls
Profis

Download your Free Tekla Tedds Trial Today

Tedds has streamlined our design process and Forget time consuming hand calculations and
allowed us to be even more competitive in our cumbersome spreadsheets. Automate your repetitive
proposals. Tedds is the most straightforward, structural calculations with Tekla Tedds and
simple and powerful design tool we use today. transform the way you work.

Richard Chapman, Download the Updated Trial at:

Lawson-Fisher Associates, PC tek.la/tryteddsnow

TRANSFORMING THE WAY THE WORLD WORKS

 CONTENTS
Columns and Departments
EDITORIAL
7 NCSEA Summit 2017
D.C. Is the Place to Be!
By Thomas A. Grogan, P.E., S.E.
BUILDING BLOCKS
8 Issues Every Structural
Engineer Should Consider
When Using Foreign Steel
By Richard M. Drake, S.E.,
Thomas A. Hunt, S.E., and
Jennifer A. Memmott, P.E.
ENGINEERS NOTEBOOK
13 Welding Cold-Formed Steel
By Roger LaBoube, Ph.D., P.E.
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
16 Lateral Analysis Part 2
By Samuel M. Rubenzer, P.E., S.E.
PROFESSIONAL ISSUES
21 The Ethics of Procurement
By Marc S. Barter, P.E., S.E., SECB
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
24 in 12 Design Slope and
Water Drainage Part 1
By Scott D. Coffman, P.E., SECB
HISTORIC STRUCTURE
48 Ross Island Bridge
By Frank Griggs, Jr., D.Eng., P.E.
PROFESSIONAL ISSUES
50 Compensation, Overtime,
and the Gender Pay Gap
By Angie Sommer, S.E. and
Nick Sherrow-Groves, P.E.
Publication of any article, image, or advertisement in STRUCTURE magazine does not constitute
endorsement by NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C 3 Ink, or the Editorial Board. Authors, contributors, and
advertisers retain sole responsibility for the content of their submissions.
STRUCTURE magazine
INSIGHTS
52 Structural Observation
By Greg Robinson, S.E., P.E., SECB
and Greg Schindler, P.E., S.E.
STRUCTURAL LICENSURE
54 Second Order Effects and
Structural Licensure
By Timothy M. Gilbert, P.E., S.E. SECB Cover Feature
36 HANCOCKS TILT
LEGAL PERSPECTIVES
56 A Further Look at Consent By John Peronto, S.E., P.E., SECB and Christian DeFazio, P.E.
to Assignment Agreements What connects the idea for a one-of-a-kind thrill in Chicagos Hancock
By Gail S. Kelley, P.E., Esq. Tower with structural engineers? The ability to make it a reality, of
course. Read how engineers were instrumental in creating a fixed-tilt
curtain wall that gives visitors a most unusual view of Chicago.
CASE BUSINESS PRACTICES
59 Would You Accept This
Indemnification Clause? Features
By Ed Schwieter, P.E., S.E.
29 SOFTWARE
SPOTLIGHT
61 2017 ASCE Structural
CONTINUES TO EVOLVE
By Larry Kahaner How is the software industry keeping up
and SEI Awards
with demands from their structural engineering customers
for specialty add-ons, increased efficiency, updated code
STRUCTURAL FORUM
inclusions, information exchange, and more?
66 When Good Engineering
Ideas Go Wrong
By Jeremy Herauf 41 LONDON FINANCIAL
DISTRICTS FIRST
VERTICAL VILLAGE
By Katherine Flesh For this multi-billion-dollar project, structural
engineers developed unique solutions for recycling an existing
IN EVERY ISSUE foundation, adjusting column positions to accommodate
6 Advertiser Index load transfers in the superstructure, and using innovative
14 Noteworthy technology to enhance the design process.
57 Resource Guide Software
62 NCSEA News
44 FRP BRIDGE REPAIR
64 SEI Structural Columns
By Greg Schindler, S.E. and Sara Roberts, S.E. For the
pedestrian bridge that provides access to a popular beach
area on Puget Sound, structural engineers solved unique
corrosion problems and construction issues with FRP materials.
5 August 2017
 STRUCTURE

ADVERTISER INDEX PLEASE SUPPORT THESE ADVERTISERS

Bentley Systems, Incorporated ............... 12 NCSEA ........................................... 34, 35
Bluebeam Software .................................. 4 New Millenium Building Systems ......... 49 MARKETING & ADVERTISING SALES
Canadian Wood Council ....................... 40 Nucor Vulcraft Group ........................... 20 sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
Clark Dietrich Building Systems ..... 26, 27 RISA Technologies ................................ 68 Joe Murphy
Decon USA Inc ..................................... 39 SCIA Inc. .............................................. 28 jmurphy@STRUCTUREmag.org; Tel: 203-254-9595
Design Data .......................................... 23 Simpson Strong-Tie............................... 31 Denis OMalley
Dlubal Software, Inc. ............................ 30 Steel Joist Institute................................. 11 domalley@STRUCTUREmag.org; Tel: 203-356-9694, ext. 13
Fibergrate Composite Structures............ 47 Strongwell ............................................. 19
Hardy Frame ......................................... 15 StructurePoint ....................................... 32 EDITORIAL STAFF
Independence Tube Corporation ............. 2 Trimble ................................................... 3 Executive Editor Alfred Spada
Integrated Engineering Software, Inc..... 46 USG Corporation ................................. 43 aspada@ncsea.com
Integrity Software, Inc. ............................ 6 Veit Christoph GmbH .......................... 33 Editor Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
KPFF .................................................... 67 Weyerhaeuser ........................................ 55 publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
LNA Solutions ...................................... 51 Wood Products Council ........................ 60 Associate Editor Nikki Alger
publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
Erratum
Creative Director Tara Smith
The Education Issues article (Okoye et al) in the July 2017 issue of STRUCTURE magazine graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org
was based, with permission, on an extended article written for the World Conference of Timber
Engineering (2016). The original article is credited as follows: Barnes, C.; Kam-Biron, M.; Okoye, EDITORIAL BOARD
U.; Perkins, B.: Timber engineering education for structural engineers, CD-ROM; Proceedings of the Chair Barry K. Arnold, P.E., S.E., SECB
World Conference on Timber Engineering (WCTE 2016), August 22-25, 2016, Vienna, Austria, ARW Engineers, Ogden, UT
chair@structuremag.org
Eds.: J Eberhardsteiner, W. Winter, A. Fadai, M. Pll, Publisher: Vienna University of Technology,
Austria, ISBN: 978-3-903039-00-1. Jeremy L. Achter, S.E., LEED AP
ARW Engineers, Ogden, UT

Erin Conaway, P.E.

Your Opinion Makes a Difference! SidePlate Systems, Phoenix, AZ

John A. Dal Pino, S.E.

On the first of every month, a link to the Editorial Boards current Issue Survey is posted
FTF Engineering, Inc., San Francisco, CA
on the homepage of STRUCTUREmag.org. This survey provides valuable information
to the Board on what types of articles readers prefer. Please take 5 minutes to send Linda M. Kaplan, P.E.
us your anonymous feedback on the current issue of STRUCTURE! TRC, Pittsburgh, PA

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

Khatri International Inc., Pasadena, CA

Important
Jessica Mandrick, P.E., S.E., LEED AP
Gilsanz Murray Steficek, LLP, New York, NY

Brian W. Miller

news for
Davis, CA

Emily B. Lorenz, P.E.

Chicago, IL

Bentley Users
Evans Mountzouris, P.E.
The DiSalvo Engineering Group, Ridgefield, CT
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

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

SofTrack controls
Bentley usage by
Prevent Quarterly and Monthly Overages Product ID code and
Control all Bentley usage, even licenses counts (pipe, inlet,
you do not own pond, and all others)
and can actively
Give users visibility of who is using licenses now
block unwanted
Warn and Terminate Idle usage product usage
CONTACT US NOW:
SofTrack reports and
(866) 372 8991 (USA & Canada) optionally controls
(512) 372 8991 (Worldwide) usage of all Autodesk
www.softwaremetering.com products by Version,
Feature Code, and
Serial Number!
SofTrack reports and
Additionally, SofTrack provides software license control for all your applications including
full workstation auditing of files accessed and websites visited. Many customers also controls ESRI ArcMap
benefit from SofTracks workstation specific logon activity reporting. concurrent and single
use license activity
2017 Integrity Software, Inc. Bentley is a registered trademark of Bentley Systems, Incorporated
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
C3 Ink, Publishers
A Division of Copper Creek Companies, Inc.
148 Vine St., Reedsburg WI 53959
Phone 608-524-1397 Fax 608-524-4432
publisher@structuremag.org
August 2017, Volume 24, Number 8
ISSN 1536-4283. Publications Agreement No. 40675118. Owned by
the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations and published
in cooperation with CASE and SEI monthly by C3 Ink. The publication is
distributed free of charge to members of NCSEA, CASE and SEI; the non-
member subscription rate is $75/yr domestic; $40/yr student; $90/yr
Canada; $60/yr Canadian student; $135/yr foreign; $90/yr foreign
student. For change of address or duplicate copies, contact your member
organization(s) or email subscriptions@STRUCTUREmag.org. Note that if
you do not notify your member organization, your address will revert back
with their next database submittal. Any opinions expressed in STRUCTURE
magazine are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C3 Ink, or the STRUCTURE Editorial Board.
STRUCTURE is a registered trademark of National Council of
Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA). Articles may not be
reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission of the
publisher.

STRUCTURE magazine 6 August 2017

Editorial NCSEA Summit 2017 D.C. Is the Place to Be!
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
By Thomas A. Grogan, Jr., P.E., S.E., F.ASCE, NCSEA President
I
have exciting news to share with all of you. During the second week
of October, from the 11th through the 14th, the structural engineer-
ing community will descend upon Washington, D.C., for the 25th
annual NCSEA Structural Engineering Summit. This promises
to be our best Summit yet, and I hope that you will make time in your
busy schedule to join us. Attendees will include the best and brightest our
profession has to offer, including our Member Organization Delegates
and some of their officers, the NCSEA Board of Directors and staff, an
excellent group of presenters, and many of our young members. This is
your opportunity to meet and mingle with all of them.
On Wednesday, October 11, we will have committee meetings all day
long. Whether or not you are currently a committee member, please
take the time to attend one or several of these meetings to find out how
NCSEA committees operate to make our profession better. You might
even consider joining one. There will be two private receptions later that
day: the Young Member Group Support Committee will host one for all
of the young engineers in attendance, and yours truly will host one for
the Delegates. In the evening, there will be a formal welcome reception
for all attendees.
On Thursday, October 12, the day begins with a Delegate Interaction
Breakfast hosted by our newly formed Communications Committee. That
will be followed by the keynote address presented by Martina Driscoll
and Terence Paret from Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. They will
be discussing the 2011 seismic event that occurred in Mineral, Virginia,
and its effect on the D.C. area. They will specifically address the impacts
on the National Cathedral and the Washington Monument. This will
provide you with a chance to see seismic solutions, East Coast style.
Next will be a panel discussion on how to improve ASCE/SEI 7,
Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other
Structures. The discussion will provide you with insight into how the
standard is developed and the process for making revisions. Your panel-
ists will be Ron Hamburger, John Hooper, and Don Scott, some of the
best minds in our industry. At the conclusion, there will be breakout
meetings affording you the opportunity to provide feedback directly to
the engineers working on the code.
After lunch, we will break into three tracks, one of which has been spe-
cifically designed for young engineers. Seismic/wind will be the primary
focus of most of the afternoon sessions. Speakers include S. K. Ghosh,
STRUCTURE magazine
Kevin Moore, Charles Kircher, Steve Kerr, Joseph
Kane, John Harris, and Ben Nelson. There will also
be several opportunities to meet with vendors on the
trade show floor and learn about the many products they offer for our
industry. Already this year, we have more than 50 exhibitors, making
this our largest trade show ever. Whether it is your first or 25th time, or
something in between, there is much to be learned.
The evening will conclude with another fantastic CSi event, hosted by
Ashraf Habibullah at the National Building Museum. This is one of the
most impressive public spaces in our nations capital, and the evening
will include a great variety of food and drink. This has been one of the
Summits highlights in recent years, so you will not want to miss it.
Friday, October 13, will be another great day at the Summit. It begins with
a Delegate Collaboration Session, again hosted by the Communications
Committee. After that, there will be two tracks for the remainder of the
day. One will be technical in nature and focus on a variety of structural
engineering subjects. The other will cover the softer side of our profession,
with topics such as networking, engagement, equity, client develop-
ment, contract negotiations, and accounting/financial systems. Speakers
include Jose Busquets, Nick Sherrow-Groves, Angie Sommer, Lori Koch,
Cliff Jones, Sarah Appleton, and John Tawresey. Both tracks promise to
deliver the best in professional development and leave all attendees better
prepared to provide outstanding structural engineering services to their
clients. Friday night is the annual banquet to recognize the winners of
the Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards, so dress up in style and
show D.C. that structural engineers know how to party.
On Saturday morning, NCSEA holds its Annual Business Meeting. In
the past, this was predominantly intended for the Member Organization
Delegates, but this year we are inviting all attendees to participate, espe-
cially Member Organization
board members. This will give
you a birds eye view of what
is happening within the other
Member Organizations, the
NCSEA committees, and the
NCSEA Board of Directors
and staff.
In addition to all of the great
education sessions, you will
leave fully understanding the
value that NCSEA and your Member Organizations bring to each of
you. When I assumed the office of President last September in Orlando,
I mentioned that I would like for us to begin the drive for five. I was
referring to 500 attendees at the Summit. I sincerely hope that you will
consider not only coming yourself but also bringing a friend to help
us reach our goal. I look forward to meeting with each of you during
our time together in October. For more information on
the Structural Engineering Summit, see pages 34 and 35.
Or, visit www.ncsea.com/meetings/annualconference
for even more information and to register.
Thomas A. Grogan, Jr. is Chief Structural Engineer and Director
of Quality at The Haskell Company in Jacksonville, FL. He is also
the current NCSEA President, member of the NCSEA Licensure
Committee and past president of FSEA. Please feel free to reach him
via email at thomas.grogan@haskell.com.
7 August 2017
Building
Blocks
updates and information
on structural materials
Issues Every Structural Engineer Should
Consider When Using Foreign Steel
By Richard M. Drake, S.E.,
Thomas A. Hunt, S.E., and
Jennifer A. Memmott, P.E.
Richard M. Drake is a Senior
Fellow, Structural Engineering,
Fluor Southern California Offices,
Aliso Viejo, CA. He can be reached
at rick.drake@fluor.com.
Thomas A. Hunt is a Technical
Director, Structural Engineering,
Fluor Southern California Offices,
Aliso Viejo, CA. He can be reached
at tom.hunt@fluor.com.
Jennifer A. Memmott is a Design
Engineer, Structural Engineering,
Fluor Southern California Offices,
Aliso Viejo, CA.
T
he option to use structural steel
supplied and fabricated in foreign
countries for projects constructed in
the United States is a realistic one for
many projects in todays market. Typically, the
most obvious factor that is considered by the
project team is the economic impact of doing
so. However, in addition to economics, project
teams must also consider factors that may have a
significant impact on the project outcome, includ-
ing project-specific issues, design requirements,
material substitutions, procurement, fabrication,
and construction concerns.
Project-Specific Issues
When considering foreign-fabricated and foreign
material-based steel, the first discussion needs to
be with the Client. Some Clients already have
experience with foreign products and, as a result,
have already developed company policies. Clients
may already have internal procedures and QC/
QA requirements regarding items introduced by
sourcing foreign products, such as the procure-
ment of mechanical equipment, vessels, electrical
components, and more. In other cases, this may be
the Clients first experience with using foreign-fab-
ricated steel or materials, and detailed discussions,
meetings, and presentations may be required.
An open dialogue with the Client can help avoid
unforeseen roadblocks. For example, depending
on the financial arrangements of the project, there
could be a Buy America clause that prevents the
use of foreign-fabricated steel.
Jurisdictions
Local jurisdictions may not accept foreign grade
material and foreign-fabricated steel. Also, if
the project is within a Union jurisdiction, some
Unions may be reluctant or refuse to erect foreign
supplied or foreign-fabricated steel.
Design Requirements
United States building codes or Client criteria
typically require that the design, fabrication, and
erection of structural steel for buildings and struc-
tures shall be in accordance with the Specification
For Structural Steel Buildings (ANSI/AISC 360).
In higher seismic regions, the design and seis-
mic detailing of structural steel for buildings
and structures shall be in accordance with the
additional requirements of the Seismic Provisions
8 August 2017
For Structural Steel Buildings (ANSI/AISC 341)
and possibly Prequalified Connections For Special
And Intermediate Steel Moment Frames For Seismic
Applications (ANSI/AISC 358). These American
Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) documents
include design equations that are based on labora-
tory testing of standard shapes rolled in accordance
with American Society of Testing and Materials
International (ASTM) material specifications.
Each of these AISC documents requires that
steel materials, shapes, bolts, and weld consum-
ables be in conformance with specific listings of
ASTM specifications. Although other material
specifications may be used, the burden of proof
that the alternate materials are equivalent must be
determined by the structural Engineer-Of-Record
(EOR). Legal approval of alternate materials
rests with the local authority having jurisdiction
and its building official (See IBC Section 104).
Contractually, these materials may also have to
be approved by the Client.
AISC Shapes
Section 1 of the AISC Steel Construction Manual
includes a catalog of dimensions and properties
for structural steel shapes. Some foreign sup-
pliers may have a limited number of available
shapes. This limitation would also need to be
discussed with the Client as alternate shapes
available from foreign suppliers may not match
the shapes listed as AISC shapes in the Steel
Construction Manual. This may be a concern for
Clients particularly for future retrofit designs.
However, some foreign fabricators do not have
problems with obtaining ASTM material and
AISC shapes. AISC shapes made in accordance
with ASTM materials are now manufactured in
many countries throughout the world. This topic
should be discussed with each of the proposed
foreign bidders.
Connection Design
Connection design must be considered. In cer-
tain areas of the country, connection design is
delegated to the structural steel fabricator. If
a foreign fabricator does not have access to a
U.S. licensed engineer who is familiar with that
particular states codes, especially in high seismic
areas, this may force the EOR to design all of
the connections.
Another issue that is part of the steel calculations
in moderate to high seismic areas, and related to the
steel material properties, is the requirement in AISC
341 to use R y and R t when needed to calculate the
expected yield stress or expected tensile strength of a
member or connection. These values were developed
based on an AISC funded study of U.S. domestic
supplied mill certificates with detailed analysis to
determine the coefficient of variation. The authors
are unaware of any similar studies of foreign-based
steel materials and are also unaware of any cur-
rently accepted procedures for determining R y
and R t of foreign-based materials.
Software
Commercial CAD and engineering analysis
programs typically include databases that con-
tain a limited number of country specific
shapes and materials. If a particular set of
shapes and materials available from a foreign
fabricator are not included in one of the cur-
rently available databases, then these would
need to be created. Development of a database
is time-consuming unless it is available in an
electronic format that is compatible with the
software platform used for the project.
Material Substitutions
The substitution of alternate materials has
always been addressed in the U.S. codes.
However, to substitute a material may be
complicated and the procedure would need
to start with the acceptance from the EOR
for the specific project.
AISC 360, AISC 341, and AISC 358 identify
approved materials. The EOR is responsible
for accepting alternate materials as adequate
substitutes. AISC design requirements are
validated by physical testing of standard
ASTM materials. Alternate materials may
not reflect the ductility, fatigue, and fracture
resistance that are indirectly accounted for
by the physical testing. Chemical composi-
tion limits and Charpy V-Notch test results
provide some assurance that the alternate
materials will perform as expected. The AISC
360 Commentary outlines an extensive
punch list of considerations and responsi-
bilities for the EOR if alternate materials are
supplied. Note that AISC does not provide
acceptance criteria for these items.
STRUCTURE magazine
AISC design documents also require that
welding procedures and welder qualifications
shall be in accordance with specific American
Welding Society (AWS) specifications. AWS
provides several prequalified welding proce-
dures that are based on a list of required items
and material properties that a foreign-based
material may not meet. Most of the materials
are based on ASTM specifications. This may
require that structural steel welding proce-
dures be qualified by testing, which can be
very time-consuming and expensive.
ASTM
A Client may not accept foreign steel that doesnt
meet ASTM standards. Alternate material sup-
pliers would have to submit actual testing of
all supplied materials. Many foreign material
suppliers do not perform all of the equivalent
ASTM tests. In addition to the testing docu-
ments provided for possible approval, ASTM
specifications also require continuous testing of
the material and provide very detailed require-
ments on how often this should occur; i.e., this
is not a one-time submittal. For instance, the
authors are unaware of any foreign material
specification that is equivalent in all respects to
ASTM A992.
It is not often understood that ASTM
materials and AISC shapes are manufactured
around the world by many steel producers.
With the advent of adjustable rollers, nearly
any shape can be made; it is more a matter
of quantity required and the local supply and
demand conditions. It should therefore not be
assumed that only local material and shapes
are available to the fabricator.
Most structural engineers focus on the strength
of the steel materials, yield stress, minimum
tensile strength, and modulus of elasticity. In
higher seismic regions, structural engineers
have the additional concerns of maximum
tensile strength, yield stress
to tensile strength ratio, and
minimum elongation.
In cold weather and high
seismic regions, structural
engineers are concerned with
fracture resistance which is
intimately related to the
chemical composition of the
steel materials.
Welding engineers are
primarily concerned with
chemical composition and
especially the deliberately
added alloys in the material.
Some elements added for
strength may contribute to
hot cracking while others
may contribute to cold
9 August 2017
cracking. If steels contain higher-than-desirable
levels of sulfur, phosphorus, lead, or copper,
these elements tend to segregate into the center
of the solidifying weld bead which may lead to
weld cracking.
High strength bolts are normally purchased
by the fabricator through a third party supplier
and shipped directly from the supplier to the job
site. Bolts need to go through the same material
approval process as structural members. There
have been historical problems with counterfeit
and out-of-specification fasteners. Because of
this issue, some Clients ban the use of foreign
manufactured bolts and bolt components.
Procurement
All project costs should be captured when evalu-
ating competitive bids. Foreign fabricated steel
can attract additional costs and possibly longer
schedules than those from local suppliers.
Shipping Cost
Since a foreign fabricator could be located half
way around the world, it is critically impor-
tant that the bid evaluation includes the cost
of shipping. A local U.S. fabricator near the
job site may have higher unit rates, but when
shipping costs are added, they may become
the low bidder.
Tariffs
In addition to the shipping costs, a study needs
to be conducted to see if there are any duties
and tariffs on the foreign fabricators imported
steel. In some cases, there are no duties and
tariffs if the project location is in a duty-free
zone. If not, the duties and tariffs can be as high
as 30 percent. These costs, if any, also need to
be added to the pricing summary.
Bid Exceptions
To make sure that all costs are accounted for,
each bid needs to be thoroughly reviewed
for exceptions or what might be part of the
bidders standards. Some foreign bidders
standards differ from traditional U.S. bid-
ders. For example, some foreign bidder quote
fabrication drawings only in metric units,
completely exclude the supply of bolts, nuts,
and washers, and quote only ASTM A36
plate while the bid documents require ASTM
A572 Grade 50 plate. Foreign bidders may
also exclude all hollow sections (i.e. HSS
and pipe), exclude complete joint penetra-
tion (CJP) welds, exclude nondestructive
examination (NDE) testing, or exclude the
pre-installation of stair treads in the stair
stringers. It may be necessary to go back to
the bidders to clarify or reject these types of
exceptions or fabricator standards.
Timing of Fabricator Selection
Structural steel calculations are intimately
related to the materials and shapes used.
Selection of materials and shapes should be
made before calculations are begun. If alternate
materials and shapes are approved as part of
the structural steel procurement process, after
the structural calculations have begun, rework
may affect both project cost and schedule.
Purchase Order/Contract Issues
Many items assumed in a standard bid docu-
ment may not be specifically noted in the
contract documents. For example, projects in
the U.S. are typically in English and imperial
units and, thus, the fabrication drawings are
assumed to be in English and Imperial units.
This may not be the case if a foreign fabricators
software defaults to metric units. All the bid
documents from foreign fabricators need to
be reviewed in detail to identify items that are
unacceptable to the project team which may
seem standard to the fabricator.
Typically, in the U.S., once the steel purchase
order is signed, all pricing and contractual
agreements are fixed. However, in certain coun-
tries, they consider the signing of the purchase
order as the beginning of the negotiation for
further changes. It must be emphasized to the
successful foreign bidder that once they sign
the contract, no changes are permitted unless
something very significant occurs and is agreed
to by the EOR.
Fabrication
Shop fabrication drawings are typically
reviewed by the EOR. For projects in the
U.S., it must be clearly stated in the bid docu-
ments that shop drawings are to be in English,
use Imperial units, follow AISC detailing
practices, and that weld symbols be shown
in accordance with AWS A2.4.
Shop Certification
Clients or project specifications may not
accept uncertified fabrication shops. If AISC
shop certification is required, then each pro-
posed fabricator should be verified through
AISCs website of qualified shops. It should be
noted that many foreign fabricators currently
have AISC certification. Note that any steel
outsourced by the fabrication shop shall also
be AISC certified if required.
Welding Procedures
AISC design documents require that welding
procedures and welder qualifications shall be
in accordance with specific AWS specifications,
which define prequalified weld procedures
STRUCTURE magazine
using steel base metal and weld metal materi-
als that are in conformance with specific ASTM
material specifications. Weld procedures using
alternate materials may have to be qualified by
testing, also defined in AWS specifications.
It is imperative that all Welding Procedure
Specifications (WPS) include a copy of the
proposed electrode manufacturers data sheet,
as it is likely that the WPS reviewer may not be
familiar with this locally manufactured product.
Welder Qualifications
The Client or EOR may require that all weld-
ers be AWS qualified. This would need to be
verified for all proposed foreign steel fabrica-
tors or a procedure developed for accepting
foreign welders.
Third Party Material Testing
Until the EOR has worked with and has
confidence with foreign steel fabricators, spe-
cifically in their procurement of materials,
it is strongly recommended that all foreign
supplied steel materials be continuously tested
by an independent third party testing agency.
Some Clients already have third party testing
agencies that they have worked with and can
make recommendations. Specific tests for
mechanical and chemical testing need to be
established, as well as their frequency.
Shop Inspection
The International Building Code (IBC) requires
steel fabrication shops to have a Special
Inspector or be acceptable by the local juris-
diction after reviewing the shops QA/QC
document submittals. Most jurisdictions in the
U.S. accept AISC shop certification as meeting
this requirement. However, if a foreign fabrica-
tor does not have an AISC certification, project
schedules can be impacted
while they obtain it.
Construction
Concerns
Due to possible shipping size
limitations (i.e. overseas con-
tainer boxes and skids), the
maximum size of members
may be restricted. This could
result in more column and
beam splices.
Schedules
Fabrication and delivery
times to the job site need
to be discussed. Many for-
eign fabricators quote longer
delivery times than domestic
10 August 2017
fabricators. The extra time required for ship-
ping, unpacking, and segregating mixed loads
needs to be accounted for in the project
schedule.
Part of the reason for the extended fabrication
schedules from the foreign fabricators is that it
is common practice for them to buy the major-
ity of their steel directly from the steel mills;
whereas, in the U.S., the majority of the steel
is available from local steel service centers. If
the project cannot accept the extended sched-
ule of the foreign fabricator, then discussions
may be necessary for the procurement of steel
by means other than from the mill. This will
likely increase the steel unit rate costs which
will need to be considered by the project team.
Field Changes
Steel members can be fabricated incorrectly or
damaged in shipping. Most U.S. fabricators
will immediately resupply the affected mem-
bers and express ship the new pieces to the
job site with little impact to the construction
schedule. With a foreign fabricator, resupply
will take more time and could impact the
construction schedule. Field rework, although
not as efficient, may need to be considered
in order to have less impact on the schedule.
Conclusion
Although there may be economic reasons to
purchase structural steel from foreign sources,
it may not satisfy the total needs of the proj-
ect. This article identifies several factors that
the project team needs to consider in order
to properly assess the impact of the foreign
purchase on the total installed cost of the
project and when the project may be put in
service by the Client.
 Were all about
superior support.

Its well known that steel joists, with their impressive

To take advantage of all the
strength-to-weight ratio, provide greater support. What
education tools created to help
might be surprising is all the ways the Steel Joist Institute you design with steel joists, visit:

provides outstanding support to engineers, architects steeljoist.org

and other industry partners.

Through publications, webinars and design tools, our goal is to provide

information on how to build with steel joists and Joist Girders.

Upcoming webinars include:

August September October

Composite Joist New 2nd Edition Bridging How It Works and What Part 1: Evaluation and Modication
Specications, New Technical to Work Around of Open Web Steel Joists and Joist
Digest No. 13 Girders
 Building Designs from
the Ground Up

Any building. Any material. Any location.

Engineers Depend on Structural Enterprise:
Model, analyze, and design any structure, anywhere, with any material, from a
single foundation to an entire complex.
Evaluate alternatives for the highest quality, most economical designs, using
various building materials.
Design from the ground up in compliance with over 80 international design codes.

Get the whole story of Bentleys structural solutions at: www.bentley.com/StructuralEnterprise

2017 Bentley Systems, Incorporated. Bentley and the B Bentley logo are registered trademarks of Bentley Systems, Incorporated. Other brands and product names are trademarks of their respective owners.
I EnginEErs
n cold-formed steel construction, welding is a
viable connection method. Prefabrication of
trusses, panelization of walls, and hardware
components are all ideal applications where
welding may be the preferred joining method.
Although arc welding or resistance welding may
be used to connect thin sheet steel, in build-
ing construction the arc welding process is most
common. Arc welding is the process of fusing
material together by an electric arc, usually with
the addition of weld filler metal. Resistance welds
are commonly used for connecting thin sheet
steels in the automotive or appliance industries.
The most common weld types to connect fram-
ing members are the fillet weld and the flare
groove weld. Arc spot welds, also called puddle
welds, are used extensively to attach deck and
panels to bar joists or hot-rolled shapes. Groove
welds in butt joints are commonly used during
the roll-forming process to connect flat sheet of
one coil to the next coil.
The design of welded connections for cold-
formed steel construction is governed by the
North American Specification for the Design of
Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members, AISI S100,
and the Structural Welding Code Sheet Steel,
AWS D1.3. AISI S100 and AWS D1.3 docu-
ments contain requirements for groove welds, arc
spot welds (puddle welds), arc seam welds, fillet
welds, flare groove welds, and plug welds. The
AWS D1.3 welding code provides requirements
for prequalification of WPS (Welding Procedure
Specifications), qualification and preparation of
WPS, fabrication of a welded connection, and
inspection of a weld.
Welding Processes
AWS D1.3 defines welding electrodes that appro-
priately match the strength of the approved base
metals. The Welding Code lists the following
as approved welding processes: shielded metal
arc welding (SMAW), gas metal arc welding
(GMAW), flux-cored arc welding (FCAW),
gas tungsten arc welding
(GTAW), and submerged
arc welding (SAW).
Fabrication
AWS D1.3 stipulates that
the surfaces to be welded
shall be smooth, uniform,
and free of imperfections.
Also, surfaces to be welded
and surfaces adjacent to a
weld shall be free of loose
scale, slag, rust, moisture,
grease, or other foreign
material that would prevent
proper welding or produce Typical arc spot weld deck to structural connection. Courtesy of Steel Deck Institute.
STRUCTURE magazine
objectionable fumes. When welding galvanized
sheet, suitable ventilation must be provided. Also,
welding of sheet steels shall not be done when the
notEbook
ambient temperature is lower than 0 F, when the
surfaces are wet, or when the welder is exposed to
inclement weather. The parts to be joined shall be
brought into close contact to facilitate complete
fusion. The closeness of the two parts cannot be
aids for the structural
over-emphasized, especially for arc spot welds. If
any gap exists between the members prior to spot engineers toolbox
welding, the strength of the weld may be substan-
tially reduced. Also, to obtain consistently sound
welds, the welding current must be controlled.
Qualification
Prequalified Welding Procedure Specifications
(WPS), which are exempt from WPS qualification
tests, can be established based on the applicable
welding code provisions in AWS D1.3. A WPS
is a written set of
instructions that
defines the joint
details, welding
Welding Cold-Formed Steel
electrodes, base
metals, electrical parameters, and other proce-
By Roger LaBoube, Ph.D., P.E.
dural variables. Any time welding is performed
in accordance to AWS D1.3, a written WPS must
be used, even for a prequalified WPS.
When the welding parameters do not conform
to the prequalified status, the welding procedure
must be qualified by testing. This happens, for
instance, when a base metal other than those
given on the approved list is used, or when the
joint detail does not match one of the prequalified
details. A Procedure Qualification Record (PQR)
is used to record the actual values of the weld-
ing procedure test. After the welded specimens
pass the destructive tests, a qualified Welding
Procedure Specification can be written. Welding Roger LaBoube is Curators
Procedure Specifications are the responsibility of Distinguished Teaching Professor
the manufacturer or the contractor. The required Emeritus of Civil, Architectural
tests, test methods, and required results are pre- and Environmental Engineering
scribed by AWS D1.3. Once a contractor has and Director of the Wei-Wen
Yu Center for Cold-Formed
Steel Structures at the Missouri
University of Science and
Technology. Roger is active on the
American Iron and Steel Institutes
Committee on Specifications and
chairs the AISI Committee on
Framing Standards. He also served
on STRUCTUREs Editorial
Board. Roger can be reached at
laboube@mst.edu.
13

Typical fillet welded connections. Courtesy of Don Allen at Super Stud
Building Products.
qualified a welding procedure, the proce-
dure can be considered qualified for its use
indefinitely.
Inspection
AWS D1.3 requires only visual inspec-
tion of welded sheet steel joints. The visual
inspection shall determine compliance with
contract documents. Particular emphasis
shall be placed on verifying proper location,
size, and length of a weld,
in addition to the bead
shape, reinforcement, and
undercut. Inspectors are
also responsible for con-
firming that a qualified
or prequalified WPS and
a qualified welder are used
in performing the work.
Design
Considerations
AISI S100 design provi-
sions apply where the
thickness of the thinnest
connected part is 316-inch or less. If the mate-
rial thickness is greater than 316-inch, AISC
360, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings,
is to be used for weld connection design.
The paramount difference between the
strength of a welded connection in cold-
formed steel construction and a welded
connection in hot-rolled steel construction
is the dominance of sheet tearing as a pos-
sible failure mode. Although the design
provisions in AISI S100 Chapter E2 provide
guidance on the determination of the weld
strength, the connection design is often
limited by the tearing of the base steel.
Safe Practices
Annex F of AWS D1.3 summarizes safe
practices for welding. Arc welding is a safe
occupation when sufficient measures are taken
to protect the welder from potential hazards.
When these measures are overlooked or
ignored, welders can encounter such dangers
as electric shock, over-exposure to radiation,
fumes and gases, and fire and explosion; any
of these may result in injuries. Everyone asso-
ciated with the welding operation should be
aware of the potential hazards and ensure that
safe practices are employed. Infractions should
be reported to the appropriate responsible
authority. For specific safety precautions refer
to ANSI Z49.1, Safety in Welding, Cutting,
and Allied Processes.
For additional information about the
background and application of the AISI
S100 equations, refer to Cold-Formed
Steel Engineers Institute TN F140-16,
www.cfsei.org, and Cold-Formed Steel
Design by Yu and LaBoube.

Noteworthy news and information

Mike Mota Retires from STRUCTUREs Editorial Board

Mike Mota, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE, F.ACI, F.SEI, is
stepping down as a member of the STRUCTURE
magazine Editorial Board. Mike joined the Board
for his second tenure in May of 2015 as a concrete
industry representative. Mike is the Vice President
of Engineering for the Concrete Reinforcing Steel
Institute (CRSI), responsible for the Engineering
Department and the development of all technical
publications and standards. Mike is an active member of several ACI
and ASCE committees, including ACI 318 and 318 sub B and sub R.
He is past Chair of ACI Committee 314 and past member of the
Board of Directors of the Concrete Industry Board of New York City/
NYC ACI Chapter since 2001.
Barry Arnold, P.E., S.E., SECB, Chair of the STRUCTURE
magazine Editorial Board, had this to say about Mikes depar-
ture: Mike has served faithfully on the Editorial Board for many
years, working tirelessly on concrete-themed technical and project
articles. Mikes commitment to providing quality articles for
STRUCTURE magazine is greatly appreciated. His dedication
and commitment to the magazine and the profession are com-
mendable, and he will be missed.
Regarding his tenure on the Board, Mike commented, I would
like to thank the Editorial Board of STRUCTURE and CRSI for the
opportunity to represent the concrete industry since 2008. I would
also like to thank the readership for making this possible by their
outstanding support of STRUCTURE magazine.
Emily B. Lorenz, P.E., LEED AP BD+C, will
replace Mike Mota as a concrete industry repre-
sentative. Emily is director of sustainability and
publications for the Precast/Prestressed Concrete
Institute in Chicago. In this role, Emily oversees
the development of all technical manuals and
standards for PCI, serves as Associate Editor of
ASPIRE magazine, and is Editor-in-Chief of the
PCI Journal. She also is active in many technical associations. She serves
as Vice Chair of the ASTM E60 committee on sustainability, and is
a member of the American Concrete Institutes (ACI) sustainability
committee (130), ACI 550 on precast concrete, the SEI sustain-
ability committee, the fib (International Federation for Structural
Concrete) sustainability committee, and is a member of the U.S. TAG
to two ISO committees. She has a bachelors and masters degrees in
structural engineering from Michigan Technological University in
Houghton, Michigan.
Barry said this about Ms. Lorenzs appointment to the Editorial Board:
Emily, with her extensive background in editing technical manuals and
standards, brings a plethora of experience and expertise to the Board.
She is an experienced editor and has a great passion and enthusiasm for
writing and for the structural engineering profession. She was highly rec-
ommended by her peers in the concrete industry, so I have no doubt that
she will be a productive addition to the STRUCTURE magazine team.
Please join STRUCTURE magazine in congratulating Mike Mota
on his service and welcoming Emily Lorenz to the team.

STRUCTURE magazine 14 August 2017

HIGH PERFORMANCE.
GREAT VERSATILITY.

The Best Designs are Built with the Best Technology.

Designing for high wind and seismic loads? Start with Hardy Frame Special Moment Frame.
Its pre-fabricated, pre-engineered system features MiTeks exclusive SidePlate moment
connection to maximize lateral load resistance, while minimizing the frames column profile.
Hardy Frames renowned performance allows for larger openings (and less required wall area),
even under the toughest requirements. For more information, visit HardyFrame.com/Structure
for direct access to high-performance wind and seismic solutions.

Give Your Clients More.

MiTek offers a wide range of solutions for structural connections in residential and light-
commercial construction: These Better Technology solutions can help optimize structures
and streamline workflows for better builds.

Add MiTek brands to your specifications. MiTeks innovative technology, specification tools,
and strong support give your clients better choices, helping them drive better performance and
a better bottom line. Learn more at MiTek-US.com/Specify.

Brands You Trust.

Solutions That Improve Performance.

2017 MITEK ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THE NEW STANDARD

Structural
analySiS
discussing problems, solutions,
idiosyncrasies, and applications
of various analysis methods
Lateral Analysis
Part 2: Right Way,
Wrong Way with
Software
By Samuel M. Rubenzer, P.E., S.E.
Samuel M. Rubenzer is the
founder of FORSE. He is a
member of ASCE-SEI, on the
board of directors and past
president of SEA-WI.
He has years of experience
teaching other structural
engineers how to use software
programs from many different
vendors. He can be reached at
sam@forseconsulting.com.
L
ast months article (Structural Analysis,
STRUCTURE, July 2017) was devoted
entirely to model generation, the criti-
cal first step in an accurate analysis and
design using the Finite Element Method (FEM).
Remember, FEM is broken up into three basic steps:
1) Modeling: A pre-processing step where
a user defines elements, connectivity,
support conditions, and forces that
represent various loading conditions.
2) Analysis: Processing step that requires
little user input the user establishes
a few important parameters, and the
software solves a vast set of equations
based on the model.
3) Validation and Design: Post-processing;
the step of interpreting and verifying the
results of the analysis and then designing
elements based on parameters determined
by the material codes one uses.
In this article, the modeling is
completed by considering loads
on the model, followd by a dis-
cussion of Steps 2 and 3.
Loading and Load Generators
Once the model is created, and the nodes and
elements are defined, loads must be imposed
on the structure. Self-weight dead load can be
automatically generated. Other gravity loads are
typically defined by manual input. However,
wind and seismic forces can be applied to the
model using load generators that are available in
many programs. The user simply defines code
criteria based on the buildings location and the
software determines the load parameters, com-
putes loads, and imposes those on the structure
based on the geometric information the program
ascertains from the modeled elements.
Wind load generators (Table 1) generally use
deck (or slab) edge information to determine
overall floor dimensions. Together with the
story height, the program can determine the
area for the wind load to be applied. Programs
Wind Load Automatic User Defined
Generator Exposure Area? Exposure Area
ETABS yes | yes
areas (sim. to
IES VisualAnalysis
wall panels)
RAM Structural
yes | yes
System
RISA 3D yes | no
SCIA Engineer load panels
TEKLA Structural
wall panels
Designer
Table 1. Wind generators.
16 August 2017
are becoming increasingly precise in the method
of defining exposure areas by utilizing wall
panels (load panels). Wall panels can be used
for automatically generated pressures, resulting
in a more precise method for applying wind
loads. Utilizing wall panels is a practice best
used when dealing with semi-rigid diaphragms
since pressure can be added to windward walls,
leeward walls, side walls, and roofs.
Seismic load generators are more complicated,
as they can either be based on equivalent lat-
eral force procedures (static load) or dynamic
analyses such as response spectrum analysis, time
history analysis, or a non-linear dynamic analysis
(Table 2). Model stiffness is very important to
seismic load determination and dynamic behav-
ior of the model, and it is imperative to model
stiffness as accurately as possible. Similarly, the
mass of the model is a very important element in
determining the dynamic properties, and much
care should be used in defining the dynamic
mass. It is likely users are conservative and model
dead loads are higher than the actual loads on
the structure; thus, dead load is not always the
same as the mass that should be used in deter-
mining dynamic properties. An arbitrarily high
mass leads to a lower frequency and a higher
building fundamental period; this may result
in a lower seismic force coefficient depending
on the structural system. Much more can be
said about the importance of accurately model-
ing mass, stiffness, and dynamic characteristics
relative to seismic demands. However, that is a
broad discussion that will have to be examined
in future articles.
Whether seismic or wind lateral loads are
determined, the applied force from the load
generator will either be a single load applied
to the entire building diaphragm, or a distrib-
uted load applied to the edges of the diaphragm
(common for wind) or over the entire area of
the diaphragm (common for seismic). Users
often have the option of single or distributed
forces when generating the loads and must con-
sider the type of diaphragm before making the
Combine with Parapets be
User Defined Defined?
walls yes yes
yes yes
yes yes
yes yes
yes yes
yes yes
selection. When using a rigid diaphragm,
either option of loading will have the same
result. Conversely, when a semi-rigid or no
diaphragm is modeled, the only option for
loading is distributed loading. For example,
a single load on a semi-rigid diaphragm leads
to incorrect load distribution to lateral fram-
ing members, and diaphragm stresses and
deflections that are completely erroneous.
Considering all of the above, the most over-
used feature of software programs today may
be the simple load generator that only works
effectively for simple models. Features that
are common in present-day buildings, such
as sloped or stepped floors or roofs, sloped
walls, re-entrant corners (floor perimeters
that jog in/out), and non-uniform mass
loading, can quickly invalidate the gener-
ated load. Sometimes these nuances can be
accounted for, and the generated loads can
be used, but other times users simply need
to put away the automatic load-generat-
ing features and compute and define loads
manually. Look at it this way you have
two options:
1) Manually determine the loads for
a structure using software with
good element modeling features
that accurately represent the real
structure, or
2) Automatically generate loads using
software having poor element
modeling features that are not an
accurate representation of the real
structure.
Most engineers would choose Option 1.
Using software that can accurately deter-
mine the vertical and lateral load distribution
through an indeterminate structure with
potentially semi-rigid diaphragms, element
stiffness modification factors, and pinned or
fixed-end conditions, all the way down to
fixed, spring, or pinned supports to repre-
sent foundations, are much more valuable.
Choose software programs by their ability to
create an accurate model and analyze com-
plex sets of equations, not for load generation
features that will quickly become invalid
with minor complexities of the structure.
Model Analysis Processing
The analysis step of the finite element method
is mostly the software crunching the num-
bers and very little is done manually by the
user. A user needs to pay attention to a few
general setting options that affect the model
and are typically located under analysis or
processing menus in the program. An example
of these settings is auto-meshing, discussed in
STRUCTURE magazine
Seismic Static (ELF) Response
ETABS yes yes
IES VisualAnalysis yes yes
RAM Structural
yes yes
System
RISA 3D yes yes
SCIA Engineer yes yes
TEKLA Structural
yes yes
Designer
Table 2. Seismic generators.
Part 1; wherein a finer mesh often provides
better accuracy of elastic behavior. Also, plate/
shell elements are more accurate as square
shapes, and finer meshes increase the likeli-
hood that the elements are square or nearly
square. This is especially true in complex
models. However, one should consider the
adequate convergence of the solution; that
is, if the limited increase in accuracy of the
model using a more refined mesh outweighs
the processing speed needed to achieve those
results. In general, the recommended maxi-
mum element mesh size would be the span
distance divided by ten and the minimum
plate size should be no less than the thickness
of the element being modeled. Of course,
these are guidelines that must be re-evaluated
for unique situations.
Other settings to be considered for analysis
or processing pertain to P-delta effects. The
P-delta effect accounts for the fact that gravity
loads increase lateral deformations, increas-
ing element shears and moments, and adds
to the overturning moment of the building,
becoming an important feature in the overall
structural performance, its lateral instability,
and in element design. In the first few itera-
tions of the lateral analysis of a building, it
is possible that considering P-delta effects
will lead to an unstable structure. Therefore,
member sizes may need to be refined through
an iterative process without the P-delta effect
included until reasonable sizes are deter-
mined, and a stiffer structure is established.
In all cases, the option to consider P-delta in
the analysis should be revisited once initial
sizes are determined.
Validation and Design
Once the modeling is complete and the
analysis has been performed, it is then
time to turn to the final step of the finite
element method validation and design.
With each different material, different design
17 August 2017
Time History Non-linear Analysis
yes yes
yes
yes
yes yes
codes require checks based on the forces
and stresses in the elements of the structure.
However, before applying design code rules
to the structure, it is first important to have
confidence in the results.
An important aspect of validation and design
is reviewing the data to determine whether
modeling and analysis gave expected results.
The initial step in this review can be check-
ing the nodal reactions in comparison with
the applied loads on the structure. This may
seem like an elementary check, but it is very
important. Often errors occur when users
assume their loads are applied in a manner in
which the program is not meant to be used.
In addition to load generation errors, another
example would be whether self-weight is auto-
matically calculated and applied, and, if it is
applied, whether it is applied to dead loads
and/or effective mass. Other examples of load-
ing errors can occur when modeling openings
in floors and walls of plate/shell elements.
When programs perform auto-meshing rou-
tines and remove plate/shell elements where
the opening occurs, the program also removes
the load that would have been applied to that
area. This, of course, leads to unconserva-
tive results. There are very few programs that
account for this missing load automatically,
so the user must often address this manually.
Another great method to review the valid-
ity of the results, which is less quantitative
and more qualitative, would be to animate
deflection results of the lateral load cases and
load combinations. The ability to amplify the
results can help in determining whether the
structure is behaving as anticipated, or if there
is something new that was not expected. At
times, the unexpected animation is due to a
modeling error that can quickly be observed
and repaired. In more complicated structures,
however, the modeling approach may need to
be changed. When observing the animation,
there is an opportunity to understand which
element is more critical than expected, how
to improve lateral efficiency, where checks of the projects produced
Individual elements deflected.
to increase the stiffness of a single by the office. Unfortunately,
element or multiple elements, or these quality assurance mea-
whether to add a new lateral frame sures are often based mostly or
in a particular area of the structure. entirely on manual calculations,
Furthermore, it is vital to verify report reviews, and drawing
the analysis results before perform- reviews. Senior engineers need
ing code checks. If code checks are to be well versed in the software
performed too early, there could be tools to review the models as
an over-emphasis on getting the well, so younger engineers are
model to simply pass code. During not left alone in the process of
this rush to circumvent the process Overall structure deflected. creating, analyzing, verifying,
and not verify analysis results, a crit- and designing. Also, this respon-
ical aspect or underlying problem sibility to understand software
with the structure may be missed. may be expanded beyond junior
Unfortunately, the results of these and senior engineers to the engi-
scenarios are all too common. It neering project managers and
is important to resist the tempta- business owners. How can some-
tion of a combined analysis and one manage design teams, create
design. Be sure to separate them expectations, define deliverables,
into distinct steps in the process. and manage the risks to organiza-
Once there is confidence in the tions without understanding the
analysis results, then the process tools that are becoming critical
of design and code checking may to completing design tasks for
begin. Take time to review the many or all of the projects that
softwares implementation of the go through engineering firms?
code provisions to understand Utilize these software tools for
and agree with the design pro- lateral analysis and continue to
cess; only then should the program progress in understanding, max-
be used to design and check the imizing their responsible use.
demand (analysis results) versus Remember to always uphold
element capacity as defined by the the integrity of structural engi-
code. As mentioned earlier, this neering by accurately modeling,
is the appropriate time to apply analyzing, reviewing results, and
conservative measures based on designing with software. As the
engineering judgment. author, C.S. Lewis, states,
Finally, have the finite element We all want progress. But progress
method checked by a colleague Animate deflected shape for overall and individual elements to confirm results. means getting nearer to the place
with strong experience with the where you want to be. And if you
method. All of the steps modeling, analy- of reality to provide a safe, efficient, and effec- have taken a wrong turn, then to go forward
sis and validation, and design should be tive design or is it compromising? There was does not get you any nearer. If you are on
verified. In todays structural engineering a time, before finite element methods and the wrong road, progress means doing an
firms, a quality review process should be software tools became available, when there about-turn and walking back to the right
as focused on the finite element software was little choice but to over-simplify a design road; in that case, the man who turns back
programs as it is with the drawings that the problem. Today, however, many software soonest is the most progressive man.
company sends out. tools are readily available, and an FEM solu- It is essential to continue to make progress
tion should be considered for all substantial with the use of software. If at any point the
structures. When using these tools, ensure profession becomes overly reliant on soft-
Conclusion the model accurately represents structures ware for the wrong reasons or realize software
It is very important that all engineers in an by examining beyond basic idealized settings. is being used without truly understanding
organization truly understand the software There is a point of diminishing returns when both the capabilities and the limitations, then
tools used within the company. Recognize more complex modeling yields the same structural engineers may have to go back and
the balance between idealized, simple mod- design solution, a good point to approach learn or re-learn until what software can
eling that saves time (and budget) and more in modeling. do is fully grasped. C.S. Lewis also said, It is
complex modeling that may be a better rep- Also, junior engineers are generally the sav- not your business to succeed, but to do right.
resentation of the actual building. This takes a viest with software and are typically the ones Moreover, by doing right, success will follow.
thorough understanding of building elements creating the models, analyzing, and designing. Do right and build these models for lateral
and more time to implement into the model. They are the doers within most companies. analysis with integrity, by modeling and ana-
At each step on the path of modeling, analyz- However, senior engineers some of whom lyzing structures to represent the real structure
ing, and designing, answer the question: does rarely use software products are the ones accurately, and providing safe and reliable
this item provide an accurate representation doing the reviews and the quality control designs for building owners and occupants.

STRUCTURE magazine 18 August 2017

 FIBERGLASS...
STRUCTURAL MATERIALS THAT LAST

ID

M
E A
FL A GE BE
N
SQ
U A RE T U B E

GRA
T ING

CH
ANNEL

Everything you see in this tower (except connections)

is Fiberglass! Fiberglass structural materials from
Strongwell are strong, light weight, corrosion resistant
and virtually maintenance-free.

VISIT STRONGWELL.COM/STRUCTURE TO LEARN MORE

STEEL STRONGWELL PRODUCTS PROUDLY

The World Leader in Pultrusion and

FIBERGLASS Pultruded Fiberglass Structures & Shapes
ISO-9001 Quality Certified
Manufacturing Plants 276-645-8000 info@strongwell.com
www.strongwell.com
Leveraging technology
and forward thinking.
At Vulcraft, we believe its crucial to constantly
push the boundaries of product innovation.
To give our customers the tools to get the job
done better than ever before. Our pioneering
efforts in product development make satisfying
your needs effective and affordable.

With Vulcraft, you can expect success from start

to finish. We provide peace of mind by being
better partners, offering better products and
ensuring better outcomes. Every time.

Learn how Vulcraft delivers better outcomes.

www.vulcraft.com

The
PunchLok II System
is the result of our unwavering
commitment to product innovation.
It was created because we saw a
need for a deck system that enabled
faster installation, yeilding higher
shear values, and ultimately
saved our customers
more money.

Better Partners. Better Products.

Better Outcomes.
R Professional
egardless of your familiarity with have to guard against losing the high ground and
Quality Based Selection (QBS), make sure they always hold the truth paramount,
there are certain basics of business which means walking away from situations where

issues
that all engineers should understand, deception is rewarded. The procurement of our
even if you are not in management. Structural services based on a comparison of prices alone,
engineering is a professional service business. The rather than in combination with qualifications
overwhelming majority of structural engineers are and a defined scope of work, fosters a climate
compensated based on the amount of time spent where dishonest behavior can flourish.
issues affecting the structural
on a clients project. If you are a business owner, Dishonesty in the form of excessive self-pro-
you know that each and every proposal starts out motion, deceptive staffing of the project, both in engineering profession
with the question How much time will the project number and skill of personnel, the exclusionary
take? Complex projects involve project managers, language in proposals such as overly-limiting site
design engineers, and CAD operators, plus others. visits, excessive use of performance specifications,
To develop a proposal, hours are estimated and and reducing QA/QC are examples of what can
multiplied by billing rates and a total fee is com- occur in competitive bid procurement systems.
puted. The more definitive the scope of services, The owner is best served when the structural
the greater the accuracy of the fee estimate. engineer provides all of the services necessary to
Unfortunately, engineering businesses are being design the structure and observe its construction
asked, more and more, to furnish lump-sum fees to the extent the engineer can attest that the intent
based on very little information. This in and of of contract documents was generally followed.
itself can lead to problems, but combine it with Alabamas Board of Licensure for Professional
the practice of clients requesting proposals from Engineers requires that its licensees respond
multiple firms for price comparison, and it is easy only to solicita-
to see that the more uninformed or unscrupulous tions that employ
can often be the more successful. Besides the fact QBS, regardless of
that qualified firms that offer fair fees are often whether the client The Ethics of Procurement
the immediate victims of the process, the long- is a public agency
term ramifications of poor structural engineering or a private party.
can result in jeopardizing the health, safety, and Engineers are forbidden from participating in
By Marc S. Barter, P.E., S.E.,
welfare of the public, not to mention the grief a bidding process. Radical as it may seem to
SECB
and headaches that accompany poor construction some, the Federal Government requires the use
documents during the construction phase. of QBS through the application of the Brooks
Engineering is a think- Act, realizing that the
ing profession. The client best overall value for the
is purchasing the engi- Engineers have to guard public is the selection of
neers ability to solve the against losing the high the most qualified firm
problem using the brain. paid a fair and reason-
Drawings, specifications, ground and make sure able fee. The Alabama
and even calculations are they always hold the truth Board, together with the
tools of conveyance of Federal Government, Marc S. Barter (mbarter@
what the engineer thinks paramount, which means believes that services barterse.com), is the President
and how a solution was walking away from situations that directly deal with of Barter & Associates, Inc., a
developed. Selecting the life and death should not structural engineering consulting
best brains with the most where deception be subject to the same firm in Mobile, Alabama. He is a
experience will result in is rewarded. procurement rules that Past President of NCSEA and in
the best solution. Does apply to the purchase of his second term as a member of the
it really make sense for pencils or butter. Alabama Board of Licensure for
clients to select their engineers based on whether If the public selected their medical professionals Professional Engineers and Land
the fee for the project is 1% of the construction through bidding for services, health care might be a Surveyors.
cost, 0.9%, or even 0.5%? Unfortunately, the few dollars cheaper, but mortuaries would prosper.
answer is often no if your client is the owner, Imagine you are on trial for a serious crime. Of
but yes if the client is an architect or an inter- course, you are innocent, and your significant other
mediary who sees the structural engineers fee brings in your attorney, the low bidder. What kind
coming out of his or her pocket. Money can be of chance do you think you have to be home at
a powerful motivator that obscures reality and Christmas? No society would want its health or
blurs the vision. freedom jeopardized by such an absurd procure-
Engineers historically have enjoyed a high level ment system as applied to these professions. Well,
of trustworthiness, as polled by Gallup, fourth how much sense does it make for the low bidder
behind doctors and one position in front of to be the designer of an arena that seats 10,000
dentists. The fundamental canon of every set people, a high-rise building, a long span bridge,
of ethics rules for engineers is truth. Engineers or even a child daycare facility or nursing home?

STRUCTURE magazine 21
 With the exception of If so, the family better like
Alabama, licensing boards beans and rice. Isnt that
have been largely mute how the structural engi-
on the subject of procure- neer is selected on a large
ment in the private sector. number of projects, some
Many boards reinforce the rather complex? Given
mini-Brooks laws that their that the client may know
states have adopted, but are the engineer, understands
very cautious in their pos- what the deliverables are,
ture on procurement as it and hopes the services pro-
relates to private transac- vided keep everyone out of
tions, for a good reason. court, are the services pro-
In 1978, the United States vided really appropriate or
Supreme Court struck just minimal?
down the NSPE ethics Ethical practice should
rule that prohibited engi- not have to be mandated
neers from bidding their by licensing boards or
services. According to the professional societies. Any
United States, the NSPE engineer should understand
rule violated the Sherman that prior to providing a fee,
Antitrust Act. NSPE, someone has to develop a
through its attorneys, scope of services, and if fees
unsuccessfully argued that from multiple firms are to
the practice of engineering be compared, then every
correlated closely with the participating firm should
health and safety of the be basing their fee on the
public and, therefore, its Engineering is a thinking profession. same scope of services and
apparent violation of the assigning similarly qualified
Act should be permitted The client is purchasing the engineers personnel. Procurement
under the Rule of Reason ability to solve the problem using the brain. procedures that result in
argument. In a split deci- price comparisons without
sion, the court stated, measuring qualifications
Exceptions to the Sherman Antitrust Act to legislators the benefit of QBS, as a rule, and defining the scope of service invite
for potentially dangerous goods and services state licensing boards, with one exception, unethical behavior. Even if the licensing law
would be tantamount to repeal of the statute. do not opine on the application of QBS does not prohibit participation, the instinct
In our complex economy, the number of in private transactions. Alabamas licensing for self-preservation should dictate caution.
items that may cause serious harm is endless board is alone in that regard. Too many times, in these situations, the
automobiles, drugs. and ruled against In states without specific ethics rules low fee is the wrong fee provided by the
NSPE. The Court stated that bidding was addressing procurement, is the practicing wrong firm.
not required, but that it was unlawful to structural engineer bound by any ethical It is very difficult in some segments of the
reduce competition. duty not to bid engineering services? Why structural engineering business community
When viewing QBS through the licens- should it be unethical in some jurisdic- to adhere to QBS without the cover of a
ing lens, an important distinction should tions to bid engineering, but not others? legal mandate. In fact, an engineering firms
be understood. NSPE does not enjoy the What possible good can come from engi- refusal to participate in price comparisons
same legal rights as a State. According to neers offering competitive prices without a will likely end any chance of working with
the Cornell University Law School, Legal defined scope of work? In exercises where certain clients. The ethical engineer looking
Information Institute, Under the state- structural engineers were asked to provide a to play on a level playing field has a difficult
action doctrine elucidated in Parker v. Brown, fee for a project where the only information time but must attempt to shape the process
317 U.S. 341 (1943), state and municipal provided is the location of the building, the such that all participants are treated fairly,
authorities are immune from federal anti- size of the building, and cost of the build- including the owner. This may mean walking
trust lawsuits for actions taken pursuant to ing, the proposed fees varied by over 200%. away from a project. Ethical behavior can
a clearly expressed state policy that, when Is the owners interest served in this system; be expensive and good feelings cannot be
legislated, had foreseeable anticompetitive if so, how? The client is purchasing a service deposited, but there is an indisputable ben-
effects. When a state approves and regulates he/she does not understand, in a quantity efit from practicing an honorable profession,
certain conduct, even if it is anticompetitive they did not specify, furnished by individu- and an obligation to protect that profession
under FTC or DOJ standards, the federal als they do not know anything about. The so that future practitioners are not viewed as
government must respect the decision of the only metric that seems to matter is cost. a commodity. Therefore, the next time you
state. Given the litigious nature of society, Would anyone enter a grocery store and bid are asked to compete for a project based on
the current attitudes regarding regula- their grocery needs with the only instruc- price, decide if you are offering engineering
tion, and the difficulty in demonstrating tions being to feed my family for a week? or just butter.

STRUCTURE magazine 22 August 2017

 O F
C E
E N
E R
IF F
E D
T H

Software that
CONNECTS.
Design Data, and the implementation of SDS/2,
has bolstered Delta Structural Steel Services ability
to elevate the quality of product that we offer our clientele.
Prior to SDS/2, Delta was using another popular CAD program
of which we were becoming increasingly disappointed. Our initial
investment in SDS/2 began with two seats, and we have since grown
to 17. Because of their outstanding product development and impeccable
customer service, we feel Design Data has helped make Delta Structural Steel
Services the multi-million dollar business we are today.

Paul Hemenway CM-BIM

Estimating/Production Manager, Delta Structural Steel Services

1501 Old Cheney Rd., Lincoln, NE 68512 // 1-800-443-0782 // sds2.com

Structural
DeSign
design issues for
structural engineers
in 12 Design Slope and Water Drainage
Part 1
By Scott D. Coffman, P.E., SECB
Scott Coffman is a Forensic
Engineer with Construction
Science and Engineering, Inc.
in Westminster, SC. He can
be reached at scottcoffman@
constructionscience.org.
C
onstruction Science and Engineering,
Inc., an architectural and engineering
firm, has investigated several low slope
roof applications with water stains, pond-
ing, framing damage on the lower side of the roof span,
and structural collapse. Further examination typi-
cally reveals a relatively level surface when compared
to other roof locations (Figure 1). A similar occur-
rence is often found in exterior deck applications.
(Figure 2). In studying this potentially problem-
atic issue, two building code parameters were
identified that contribute to low slope roof and
deck serviceability issues. This article examines
susceptible bays with respect to the in 12
design slope and code permitted deflection ratios.
Part 2 will identify design and construction practices
that contribute to serviceability issues.
Background
The 2015 International Building Code (IBC)
identifies ponding instability as a design con-
sideration for snow and rain loads. The 2010
edition of the Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-10),
referenced by the IBC, defines ponding as the
retention of water due solely to the deflection
of relative flat roofs. The standard requires
susceptible bays be investigated to ensure
adequate member stiffness is present to pre-
vent progressive deflection. Specifically, Bays
with a roof slope less than in./ft. shall be
designated as susceptible bays. Roof surfaces
with a slope of at least inch per foot (1.19)
toward points of free drainage need not be con-
sidered a susceptible bay. The phrase toward
points of free drainage is critical because it
gives meaning to what is meant by a slope of
inch per foot. The same principle may be
applied to exterior decks, although decks are
not specifically identified within ASCE 7-10.
Figure 1. Evidence of ponding on the roof.
24 August 2017
Building designers routinely stipulate within
construction documents the well-known code
minimum in 12 design slope for low slope roofs
and exterior deck applications. This practice, on
the surface, appears to eliminate the code require-
ment to investigate a susceptible bay. Additionally,
common practice is to specify or accept mini-
mum building code deflection ratios for low slope
applications. However, many building design-
ers apparently fail to give due consideration to
footnote e in IBC Table 1604.3 which states
in part; The above deflections do not ensure
against ponding
A code defined deflection ratio is a function
of the span and is therefore not influenced
by material characteristics and design load
variables. Each deflection ratio defines the
deflection limits that are commonly approached
as structural members are optimized for cost.
Bender and Woeste recognized this relationship
and showed a beam member installed to a
in 12 slope that deflects to a code permitted
deflection ratio results in an average slope less
than in 12. They also noted the average
slope is further reduced when a long-term creep
deflection component is introduced.
The Bender and Woeste (2011) study
validates the authors field observations
for serviceability complaints and water
retention associated with low slope roof
and deck applications. The deflection curve was
approximated using the properties of a circle to
verify the average slope was independent of the
span and remained unchanged for a specified
deflection ratio. Additionally, the lower end of
the deflection curve was noted to be relatively
flat, which explained potential causes of observed
ponding. In the authors companys study, sur-
faces with a design slope of inch per foot or
less should be considered as a susceptible bay.
Specifically:
1) The average slope of the deflected member
is less than inch per foot; and,
2) At and near the lower reaction,
the deflected member is relatively
horizontal or flat.
Figure 2. Ponding water on deck.
 12
1/4
SPAN (L)
Figure 3. Deflected shape of beam with uniform load.
Figure 3 visually depicts the downward
movement of a beam member subject to load
and vulnerability to ponding at the low end.
Average Slope Example
The average slope for the performance of a
member installed to a in 12 design slope
and permitted to deflect to a code permitted
L/180 ratio is illustrated by the following
example:
Member Span: 25 feet
Roof Total Load Deflection Limit:
L/180
Right Support Datum Elevation:
0.00 inches
Left Support Elevation: 6.25 inches
(Y1)
Midpoint Elevation: 3.13 inches (Y2)
Member Total Load Deflection
(L/180): 1.67 inches (Y3)
Distance from datum to deflected
member: 1.43 inches (Y4)
The average slope is the slope of a line
from the low-end support to the point of
maximum deflection for a member. For a
simply supported beam member subjected
to a uniform load, the average slope is from
the center of the span to the low-end support.
In this example, the right support is the low
end and point of free drainage.
Figure 4 shows the original member slope and
deflected shape. The distance from a level datum
to the deflected member is 1716 inches (Y4);
the difference between the members original
12
1/4 DETAIL "A"
Y1 Average
Slope
L/2 L/2
SPAN (L)
Figure 5. A typical location for ponding.
STRUCTURE magazine
12
1/4
Y1
Average
Slope
L/2
Figure 4. Average slope of deflected member
position and code permitted deflection ratio at
the mid-span. The average slope from the center
of the members deflected shape to the low-end
support is 0.117 inches per foot, a slope less than
1
8 in 12 or nearly flat. When a member initially
installed to a in 12 design slope deflects and
approaches the total load L/180 code permit-
ted deflection ratio, the average slope becomes
less than 18 in 12. The calculated 0.117 in 12
average slope is constant for any span designed
to the L/180 deflection ratio.
ASCE 7-10 explicitly identifies member
stiffness as a means to control progressive
deflection of a susceptible bay. Design pro-
fessionals typically specify a more limiting
deflection ratio than required by the building
code for the application to achieve a stiffer
member. As expected, the average slope
approaches the in 12 design slope for a
stiffer member or a higher deflection design
ratio. However, a beam element subject to
gravity load deflects, and the average slope
remains less than the designed in 12 design
slope. Therefore, a beam element installed
with in 12 slope requires a susceptible
bay analysis based on ASCE 7-10, since all
members deflect under load.
Deflection Curve
at the Lower End
The lower end of the deflection curve is also a
typical location for ponding, water stains, and
damaged framing members (Figure 5). This
opinion is based on observations made during
12
1/4
Y1
Average
Slope
L/16
DETAIL "A"
L/2
Figure 6. The average slope of the member with creep.
25 August 2017
Y3
Y2
Y4
L/2
SPAN (L)
forensic investigations. The vertical differ-
ence between a in 12 plane and the L/180
deflection curve was calculated for spans of
ten feet to forty feet in 2-foot increments. The
deflected shape crosses the horizontal datum
in the region of L/16, creating negative slope
and a bowl at the low end. A bowl natu-
rally retains water and restricts free drainage
or water discharge. Ponding or water retention
should be expected toward the low end of a
plane designed to a in 12 slope.
Long-Term Creep
Effects and Example
Structural materials susceptible to long-
term creep intensify the deflection curve.
The IBC estimates the creep component of
long-term deflection to be half the immedi-
ate dead load deflection or a 1.5 factor. The
creep deflection component may approach
the initial dead load deflection, a 2.0 factor
for wood products. The 2014 Truss Plate
Institute Standard (TPI) recommends the
2.0 factor where the building designer does
not specify adjustment factors for service-
ability. The 1.5 building code factor was
applied by the author for a best case sce-
nario to study the effects of creep deflection.
Continuing the previous example, the
initial dead load deflection is taken as the dif-
ference between the roof s total load (L/180)
and roof s live load (L/240) deflection ratios.
This calculates to 0.42 inches (1.67 1.25)
for a 25-foot span. The long-term creep
Y3'
Y2
Y4'
L/2
SPAN (L)
 2017 ClarkDietrich Building Systems

PROSTUD DRYWALL FRAMING STOPS THEM BEFORE THEY START.

Spinout. Runaround. Dunno. You may not know them yet by name. But you know what they do. Theyre little Hassles, and they
can add up to big, ugly challenges. Thats why our aim is to eliminate jobsite menaces with systems like ProSTUDa complete
solution of high-strength steel, digital iTools and full support services. See how at stopthehassles.com.

clarkdietrich.com #stopthehassles
 12
1/4
Average
Slope
L/2
L
Figure 7. Increased bowl is caused by member creep.
component is 0.21 inches ( * 0.42). The
center of the deflected member is 1.25 inches
(Y4) above the right end support (3.13
1.67 0.21). The average slope from the
center of the member deflection curve to
the support is 0.10 inches, or essentially no
slope, and remains constant for any span
(Figure 6, page 25).
Although the average slope with a creep
deflection component remains positive,
albeit small, the low end of the member
deflection curve remains of particular
interest. The deflected shape crosses the
horizontal datum in the region of L/6,
creating a larger bowl area for ponding
(Figure 7). As the dead load becomes a
greater percentage of the total load, creep
deflection increases and the bowl effect
becomes more pronounced at the low end.
It is imperative that deflection calculations
include material long-term creep effects
when compared to the ordinary live and
total load code permitted deflection ratios.
Potential Design Solutions
Potential solutions to mitigate low slope
serviceability issues are limited. ASCE 7-10
indirectly promotes a more stringent deflec-
tion ratio to prevent progressive deflection.
The ASCE solution is imperfect because stiffer
members increase the cost and the average
slope remains less than in 12. A member
or plane designed to an average slope of
inch per foot is one method to mitigate
ponding and resultant material damage. For
a simply supported beam member subjected
to a uniform load, the average slope line is
from the point of maximum deflection at the
center of the span to the low-end support.
A more practical solution is a combination of
increased slope and member stiffness. Design
tools currently available afford a quick and
efficient means for a designer to calculate the
average slope of a member; the average slope
being the slope of a line from the low-end
STRUCTURE magazine
L/6
DETAIL "B" DETAIL "B"
L/2
INTRODUCING DRIFT
FASTCLIP SLIDE CLIP.
support to the point of maximum member
deflection. A combination of increased Need a deection solution that
member stiffness and design slope that results also accommodates horizontal
in a surface with an average slope of at least drift? Drift FastClip allows 2-inch
inch per foot towards points of free drainage vertical and lateral deection,
should eliminate susceptible bays.
and works with FastClip screws
for friction-free sliding. Get
Summary and Conclusions more details and data at
ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
The building code establishes the mini- clarkdietrich.com.
mum parameters for building design. A
member or system that satisfies each code
parameter may create a less than ideal
condition when multiple minimum code
parameters are combined. The combination
of the inch per foot design slope and a
maximum permitted deflection ratio cre-
ates such a condition for free drainage. The
code, however, does recognize this potential
condition in IBC Table 1604.3 footnote
e and instructs a building designer to
investigate applications with insufficient
slope or camber for ponding.
Building designers, contractors, and per-
haps code officials have come to believe a
roof or exterior deck surface designed to the
inch per foot slope is satisfactory because
it meets building code intent. However,
member deflection creates an average slope
that limits free drainage and contributes to
ponding toward the low end.
Members optimized to a code permitted
deflection ratio further reduce the average slope
and may create a negative slope or a bowl at
the low end that limits or prevents free drain-
age. The condition is exacerbated for materials
susceptible to creep deflection. Beam elements
designed or installed to the inch per foot
2017 ClarkDietrich Building Systems
slope should be considered a susceptible bay.
In the absence of code performance limits
for low slope roofs, a building designer should
consider implementing a more stringent total
load deflection ratio, increase the minimum
slope for positive drainage, design to an aver-
age slope of in 12, or a combination of each. clarkdietrich.com
The practice should also be extended to decks.
27 August 2017
CD17070_Clips_Structure_ThirdPg_VertAd_June17.indd 15/11/17 11:58 AM
 17

Barco One Campus Image Jaspers-Eyers Architects photography by Mark Detiffe

SCIA Engineer 17
Boosting your Productivity
Intelligent section classification for simple and complex shapes
Updated steel/composite code checks (AISC & AISI)
Simplified diaphragms (rigid, flexible, semi-rigid)
Support for Revit 2018
Next generation task management with the connection to Allplans bim+ cloud platform
Usability improvements (optimized workflows, keyboard shortcuts, single-click Excel export, and more)
Visit www.scia.net/scia-engineer-17
for more information on the release and to download your FREE trial copy today!

Contact us today to learn more at usa@scia.net

SCIA Inc., 7150 Riverwood Drive, Columbia MD 21046, United States, +1 443 671 1431, www.scia.net
Software Continues to Evolve
NEW OFFERINGS, ADD-ONS, AND UPGRADES ASSIST
ENGINEERS IN MEETING TODAYS CHALLENGES
C
ompanies that provide software for the engineering and
construction industry are continually updating their offer-
ings to keep pace with what structural engineers want and,
most important, to keep up with code changes.
At Dlubal Software, Inc. (www.dlubal.com/en-us), CEO Amy
Heilig says that the latest addition to their 3D finite element analysis
software, RFEM, is the RF-CUTTING-PATTERN add-on module.
We are beyond excited to offer this to engineers who specialize in the
design of membrane and tensile structures, as the software market for
this type of application is extremely slim. RF-CUTTING-PATTERN
generates and organizes cutting patterns for membrane structures
taking into account curved geometry, compensations, and overlaps
with the minimum energy theory flattening process.
She adds: This new module can be used in conjunction with
RF-FORM-FINDING which determines the membranes pre-stressed
shape used in the initial state for further static analysis. The supporting
structure for the membrane can then undergo a full analysis design
per AISC, ACI, NDS, and ADM. A complete structural solution for
fabric, cable, and tensile membrane structures can now be achieved
with the single design program, RFEM.
A recent company project is the Brock Commons, an 18-story mass
timber, hybrid student residence currently under construction at the
University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, and designed
by Dlubal Customer, Fast + Epp. When completed in the summer of
2017, it will be the tallest mass timber hybrid building in the world at
174 feet high, Heilig says. The structure is comprised of 16 floors of
five-ply cross-laminated timber (CLT) floor panels, a concrete transfer
slab at level 2, and a steel-framed roof. The structural analysis for the
CLT components was completed using Dlubals RFEM in conjunc-
tion with the RF-LAMINATE add-on module.
As far as trends are concerned, Heilig says that design engineers
remain steadily busy which in turn correlates to an increased demand
for a high performing structural analysis and design software. We
have seen a surge in cross-laminated timber (CLT) interest, as mas-
sive timber continues to be heavily marketed throughout the U.S.
and Canada. RFEM remains the top choice for timber engineers
for comprehensive CLT analysis and design per the 2015 NDS, in
addition to member design per the NDS and CSA. We continue to
see steel and concrete design dominate the structural engineering
market, and this probably wont change anytime soon. However, we
STRUCTURE magazine
By Larry Kahaner
are now seeing an increased demand for unique material and geo-
metric designs as architects and owners are seizing opportunities to
stand out with their structures. Dlubal caters to this exact scenario.
We provide solutions for the structural engineer who is faced with
complex structural geometry or in need of structural design of not
only steel and concrete, but also glass, CLT, aluminum, timber, fabrics,
and cables. (See ad on page 30.)
Benjamin Follett, U.S. Product & Marketing Manager, for SCIA
Inc. (www.scia.net/en), would like SEs to know about SCIA Engineer
17. For the U.S. market specifically, we updated all the steel codes
to the newest versions; that is the 2016 AISC code and 2016 AISI
code for cold form steel. The updates include new formulas, new
references notations, and terminology.
He adds: There also are improvements to the design and workflow
of composite slabs, such as creating automatic load combinations.
We have also added diaphragms. Simplified diaphragms, rigid dia-
phragms, flexible diaphragms, and semi-rigid diaphragms all have
been requested by our users. These users want to simplify a building
or perhaps dont want to go through the full slab design when they
are not doing a concrete slab.
Says Follett: As far as BIM is concerned, we have a new link directly
with Revit, so it is support for the newest version SCIA 17 and the
newest version of Revit 2018. It was more of a maintenance release
for us, a bug-fixing release.
We also improved our interoperability with a cloud BIM tool that
we call BIM+. BIM+ is a free online BIM server. The goal of BIM+
for us at the Nemetschek Group is to have all our software utilize this
online, cloud-based server to exchange models with other Nemetschek
software, he concludes.
Cold-formed steel design, and especially the AISI North
American Specification, can be a little foreign to most engineers,
says Clif Melcher, CFS Product Manager at Simpson Strong-Tie
(www.simpson.com). CFS Designer software by Simpson Strong-
Tie can simplify and automate the design and engineering of CFS
structures, and provide great time-saving solutions, he says.
Many CFS engineers may know CFS Designer by its original name,
LGBEAMER. Simpson Strong-Tie has upgraded the software and
taken it to the next level. Similar to LGBEAMER, CFS Designer
can automate common design components, including wall studs,
beams, columns, wall openings, x-braced and sheathed shear walls,
29 August 2017
floor joists, and rafters. In addition, it includes the latest codes and
features a Stacked Wall Design tool that automates the design of up to
eight stories of load-bearing CFS stud framing. A new, user-friendly
interface as well as organizational and file management tools have been
added. The software also has automated the selection of bridging and
curtain-wall rigid and slip connectors, Melcher notes.
StructurePoints software (www.structurepoint.org) suite includes
features which emphasize the solution of intricate scenarios or niche
cases in reinforced concrete design, says the companys Resource
Manager, Dana Lee. Our team routinely posts technical notes on our
website to aid users in accessing the full range of capabilities built into
the software for specific, frequently-encountered cases. Most recently,
we have addressed the effective flexural stiffness for calculation of the
critical buckling load of individual columns, as well as concrete type
classification based on unit density. These technical notes, among
many others, use the latest American (ACI 318-14) concrete codes
and provide multiple options for solutions to fit a range of projects.
These can be found on the Resources page of our website, along with
various technically-focused tools to aid engineers in completing their
most demanding projects.
Lee would also like SEs to know that their software manuals for
each of the programs within the suite are now easily accessible on
their website in multiple formats. The online versions feature simple
headings and easy navigation, including search and filters to efficiently
access resources such as methods for a solution and dynamic design
examples. The manuals are also available as PDF files.
ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
RFEM 5 Powerful, Intuitive & Easy
Structural Analysis
& Design Software
Steel
Aluminum
Glass
Kauffman Center for
DOWNLOAD JOIN US
the Performing Arts
Kansas City, MI, USA
www.novumstructures.com
FREE TRIAL September 21-23, 2017
IABSE 2017
Vancouver, BC Canada
October 12-13, 2017
www.dlubal.com 2017 NCSEA Summit
Washington D.C.
STRUCTURE magazine 30
StructurePoint is formerly the Engineering Software Group of
the Portland Cement Association (PCA), and it continues to
develop and enhance the full range of advanced software and
engineering services to model, analyze, and design reinforced
concrete structures, notes Lee. Recent focus in the Middle and
the Far East, where concrete design software is in high demand,
has kept our team busy as we adapt to various business paradigms.
StructurePoint has been supporting and growing alongside the
global market by meeting the needs of engineers in six continents
and over 50 countries. While we provide our products and services
as an essential tool to academic institutions and engineering firms
internationally, we continue to ensure the stability and growth of
our local and national user-base.
Lee concludes: With the experience and legacy gained over 60
years as PCAs engineering software group, structural engineers
continue to trust StructurePoint to extend knowledgeable support
via consulting engineering services. Engineers everywhere value
StructurePoint as a gateway to the vast resources and knowledge
base of the cement and concrete industry. The promise of rising
infrastructure spending in the U.S. economy is creating energy,
excitement, and new opportunities for engineering firms to create
proposals and feasibility studies. Clients experiencing this trend
are tapping into StructurePoints concrete industry experience
to relieve heavy workloads, augment their staff, and advise on
all of their concrete project estimates, preliminary designs, and
comparative studies. (See ad on page 32.)
continued on page 33
Concrete Timber
Tanks CLT
Piping Cables
LACKNER + RAML Ziviltechniker GmbH
www.lackner-raml.at
Dlubal Software, Inc.
Philadelphia, PA
(267) 702-2815
info-us@dlubal.com
www.dlubal.com
August 2017
 The innovator
in steel framing
for more than
25 years.

Bridging and Bracing Deck Fasteners Direct Fastening Anchors Connectors

Trusted solutions for the mid-rise steel industry.

ITU
TE OF STEEL Simpson Strong-Tie was one of the first companies to develop connectors specifically
ST C
for steel framing. Today, we continue to invest in product research and development
ON
N
AMERICAN I

STR

to offer our customers connectors, fasteners, anchors, steel shearwalls and special
UCTION

moment frames, which feature our innovative Yield-Link connection. Our commitment
FO
U N D E D 19 2 1 to the mid-rise steel industry has never been stronger.
Proud Member Let us help you with your next project. Visit our website at go.strongtie.com/midrisesteel
or give us a call at (800) 999-5099.
2017 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. MIDRISE17
 Work quickly.
Work simply.
Work accurately.

StructurePoints Productivity Suite of powerful software tools

for reinforced concrete analysis & design

Finite element analysis & de- Analysis, design

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

Design & investigation Analysis, design

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

Get New Solver for

speed & capacity with
Finite element analysis & design of reinforced concrete
Version 8.0 Upgrade!
foundations, combined footings or slabs on grade

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

STR_9-14
 VCmaster (www.vcmaster.com/en) has been developed with the This years development focus for VCmaster has been on improving
needs of engineers in mind, according to company officials. They the handling of the software and simplifying data entry. VCmaster
note that the program intelligently combines technical calculations has been revised in many aspects to achieve this goal. Major improve-
and word processing in one single user interface. Everyday tasks such ments include:
as calculation, documentation, compilation, as well as the reuse of Extended options for design and formatting.
technical data and calculations, are tackled with their integral concept. Faster data entry due to the new favorites folder, pre-defined input
Highlights of VCmaster include: lines, and automated completion of variables.
Uniform Documents: VCmaster offers engineers a unique Easier checking of indices for page numbering
and comprehensive concept. Outputs of all structural analysis and database queries.
or CAD programs can be incorporated into VCmaster, VCcopy-technology, an intelligent alternative
guaranteeing a uniform and consistent layout. to the Windows clipboard.
Convenient Revisions: Positions and details are exchanged
automatically, and reports are amended and checked by
a click of the mouse. All revised pages are then subject-
specifically indexed.
ADVERTISING OPPORTUNITIES
Sustainable Benefit: All digitally compiled VCmaster Be a part of upcoming special
documents can be easily adjusted, combined, or reused at will. advertorials in future issues.
Interactive Design of Structural Elements: VCmaster
To discuss advertising opportunities,
automates the design of structural elements. Formulas are
please contact our ad sales representatives:
presented in standard mathematical notation and calculated
automatically. Material or section values are determined from
stored databases. JOE MURPHY DENIS OMALLEY
Interactive Design Aids: VCmaster includes numerous predefined 203-254-9595 203-356-9694, ext. 13
design aids for structural analysis. Engineers can create their own
sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
design calculations and combine them with existing templates to
create design briefs.

ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

STRUCTURE magazine 33 August 2017

National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
2017 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SUMMIT
OCTOBER 1114, 2017 WASHINGTON HILTON WASHINGTON, D.C.
NCSEA invites the best of the structural engineering field to join us in Washington D.C. as we celebrate 25 years of
bringing together structural engineers. The 2017 Structural Engineering Summit features education sessions specific to
structural engineering, including 3 specialized panels and an entire track dedicated to young engineers. Flip to NCSEA
News, pages 62-63, for more information on this years Summit!

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11
8:00-5:00 NCSEA Committee Meetings All Attendees Welcome (See the schedule on www.ncsea.com)
4:30-5:30 Young Member Reception Young Members & NCSEA Board of Directors Only
4:30-5:30 Delegate Reception Delegates & NCSEA Board of Directors Only
5:30-7:00 Welcome Reception All Attendees Welcome
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12
7:00-9:00 Delegate Interaction Breakfast Delegates, SEA Leadership & NCSEA Board of Directors Only
8:00-9:00 All Attendee Breakfast
9:00-10:00 Keynote: Shaking Up DC - The Insiders Story
Martina Driscoll, P.E., Principal & Unit Manager, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates and
Terrence Paret, Senior Principal, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates
10:00-10:30 Break on the Trade Show Floor
10:30-12:30 ASCE Panel on How to Improve ASCE 7
Ron Hamburger, P.E., S.E., SECB; John Hooper, P.E., S.E. and
Don Scott, S.E.; ASCE/SEI 7 Committee Leadership
12:30-1:30 Lunch on the Trade Show Floor
1:302:30 Concurrent Sessions
Track A Seismic Design of Diaphragms by the Provisions of ASCE 7-16
S. K. Ghosh, Ph.D., S.K. Ghosh Associates, Inc.
Track B NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions
Kevin Moore, C.E., P.E., S.E., Senior Principal, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. and
Charles A. Kircher, Ph.D., P.E., Kircher & Associates
Young Engineer Track
Young Member Mentor Roundtable
Seth Thomas, P.E., S.E., Chair of the NCSEA Young Member Group Support Committee
2:00-5:00 SEA Executive Director Roundtable SEA Executive Directors & SEA Leadership Welcome
2:303:30 Concurrent Sessions
Track A SEAOC Wind Design Manual - An Overview
Emily Guglielmo, P.E., S.E., Martin/Martin, Inc and Steve Kerr, S.E., Josephson, Werdowatz & Associates
Track B Solar Photovoltaic Systems in ASCE 7-16
Joseph H. Cain, P.E., Director of Codes & Standards, Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)
Young Engineer Track
Wind Design Considerations for Joist/Joist Girder Structures
Tim Holtermann, P.E., Canam-Buildings
3:30-4:00 Break
4:005:00 Concurrent Sessions
Track A Assessment of Performance-Based Seismic Design Methods in ASCE 41 for New Steel Buildings
John Harris, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., research structural engineer in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
of the Engineering Laboratory (EL), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Track B You Cant Just Delegate Everything Away to Others with Deferred Submittals
Ben Nelson, P.E., Martin/Martin, Inc.

STRUCTURE magazine 34 August 2017

 Register now on www.ncsea.com to save $100!
Young Engineer Track
YMGSC-Basics of Shear Wall Design
Moderated by Seth Thomas, P.E., S.E., Chair of the NCSEA Young Member Group Support Committee
5:00 - 6:30 Trade Show Reception
Network with the companies providing structural engineering products and software!
7:00 A Celebration of Structural Engineering at the National Building Museum
Join CSI for a unique celebration of structural engineering, including dinner,
champagne, cocktails, & live music.
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 13
7:00-9:00 Breakfast on Trade Show Floor All Attendees Welcome
8:00-9:50 Delegate Collaboration Session Delegates, SEA Leadership & NCSEA Board of Directors Only
8:00-9:50 Product Presentations All Attendees Welcome
These brief presentations will provide more information on products or software from our exhibitors.
10:0011:00 Concurrent Sessions
Track A Cracking Within Existing Concrete Masonry Walls: When Are Calculations Required?
Jose Busquets, P.E., Bracken Engineering
Track B Structural Engineering Engagement and Equity (SE3)
Nick Sherrow-Groves, P.E., ARUP and Angie Sommer, S.E., ZFA Structural Engineers
11:0012:00 Concurrent Sessions
Track A Tall Wood Buildings in the U.S. A Codes and Standards Update
Lori Koch, P.E., American Wood Council
Track B Networking Strategies: Even Introverted Engineers Can Network Effectively!
Jennifer Anderson, Career Coach
12:00-1:00 Lunch on the Trade Show Floor
1:002:00 Concurrent Sessions
Track A State of the Practice: Blast Design of Building Facades and Structural Systems
Cliff Jones, P.E., S.E., Project Engineer, Protection Engineering Consultants
Track B Shhh...Its No Secret! Ideas to Help Grow Your Firms Clientele and Advance Your Career
Jana Monforte, Associate and Director of Marketing/Business Development, Wallace Engineering, and
Sarah Appleton, P.E., S.E., Principal, Wallace Engineering
2:003:00 Concurrent Sessions
Track A The Structural Innovations of the New Mercedes Benz Stadium
Erleen Hatfield, P.E., S.E., AIA, Buro Happold
Track B Contract Negotiation as a Tool for Managing Project Risk
Gail Kelley, P.E., Esq., LEED AP
3:00-3:30 Break
3:304:30 Concurrent Sessions
Track A Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structures for Mitigation of Progressive Collapse
Aldo McKay, P.E., Protection Engineering Consultants
Track B Applied Business Mechanics Understanding Your Accounting & Financial Systems
John Tawresey, S.E., F.TMS, F.SEI, Chief Financial Officer, KPFF Consulting Engineers
6:00-7:00 Awards Banquet Reception
7:00-10:00 Awards Banquet

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 14
8:00-9:00 Breakfast All Attendees Welcome
9:00-12:00 Annual Business Meeting Open to All Attendees
STRUCTURE magazine 35 August 2017
 REVITALIZATION
OF THE HANCOCK
OBSERVATORY
By John Peronto, S.E., P.E., SECB, LEED AP
and Christian DeFazio, P.E., LEED AP

I
n early 2013, Thornton Tomasetti
(TT) partnered with colleagues at
Montparnasse 56 (M56), who had
recently purchased the 94 th-floor
observatory in Chicagos iconic John
Hancock Tower, with a plan to modern-
ize and revitalize the experience for its
visitors. The M56 plan involved gutting
and modernizing the interior space and
installing a unique attraction that would
add an adventure element experience for
guests. The concept of tilting patrons
outside the footprint of the tower was
pitched by M56 as a way to provide a
one-of-a-kind thrill, taking full advan-
tage of the Hancock Towers height and
spectacular views of Chicago.

Key Challenges
Designing and constructing a fixed-tilted
exterior curtain wall is no easy task, so
taking that concept to the next level and
developing an operable exterior wall with
the ability to safely hold observatory patrons
was a complex challenge. A steel-framed
operable wall skeleton was developed to pro-
vide a robust and durable system that would

HANCOCKS
be capable of operation 7 days a week. A
steel frame provides excellent fatigue resis-

TILT
tance and element ductility, as well as a clear
load path. Integrated into the steel frame
were structural glass components.
The powered actuation system was also a
direct part of the structures load path, so
full-scale static load proof testing was done
on the actuators to ensure their published
load carrying capabilities. Ergonomics and
patron experience required evaluation to
test the concepts of thrill and comfort.
For this challenge, TT fabricated a full-
scale mockup of a single bay of the Tilt.
This mockup was utilized by surveying the
experiences of both a random sampling of
TT and M56 staff to evaluate the comfort
of the geometry, vertical hand railing, tilt
angle, tilt speed, and tilt motion profiles.

STRUCTURE magazine 36 August 2017


Hancocks tilt.
The final and very important challenge of maintaining the integrity
of the world-famous architecture was also addressed by designing
the Tilt structures geometry to mimic the existing exterior wall
expression.
which were posted down to the existing W18 floor beams, comprise
this rigid base platform.
Hydraulic actuators, with 4-inch diameter bores and 2.5-inch diam-
eter rods, are located at three locations overhead and are aligned in
plan with the three lower L-Frame points of rotation. These actuators
are capable of resisting forces over 40,000 pounds and are digitally
controlled with the ability to be programmed for different motion
profiles and push-pull speeds. A hydraulic pumping system was
installed in the mechanical space of the tower core area, which serves
to power the Tilt actuation system. Overhead end-stops comprised
of steel plates and rubber buffers were mounted to the underside of
the existing spandrel beam to prevent over rotation of the L-frame.
These stops are engaged by steel armatures, which are welded to
the top of the L-frame, contacting them if the frame were to rotate
beyond 30 degrees.
With the cyclical nature of the Tilt mechanism, a detailed fatigue
analysis was conducted utilizing both AISC design approaches and
ASME fatigue design approaches like those developed by Shigley.
Special detailing and testing requirements for welded connections and
their base metals were also developed to be in accordance with AISCs
fracture critical detailing requirements and AWS D1.1 requirements
for cyclically loaded structures.

Mechanism and Components Wind Tunnel Testing Program

At a height of 1030 feet above grade, actual wind loads for the design
The Tilt system is a mechanized steel and glass structure that is com-
of Tilt would be much greater than those required by the Chicago
prised of three main components:
3-Dimensional Steel L-Frame
Rigid Steel Platform at the Base
Overhead Actuation System
The 3-D steel frame structure of the Tilt is 27 feet wide and 7 feet
tall and can hold eight patrons at a time, one in each module. The
geometry of this frame fits in one complete bay of the Hancock
Tower and can rotate 30 degrees outward from the face of the towers
exterior. A 30-degree angle was determined to be a point where the
majority of patrons would have their center of gravity outside the exte-
rior face of the tower while
maintaining a reasonable
clear height for patron
modules, as this height is
controlled by rotational
clearance of the L-frame
and the existing structure
of the building. Rotational
joints are located at three
points along the base of the
L-frame and are comprised
of PTFE spherical bearings
with custom machined
AISI 4140 quenched and
tempered hollow sleeve
bolts, each containing
an internal ASTM A320
L7 high-strength bolt for
redundancy. These three
locations serve as the rota-
tional frames anchorage
to the rigid steel platform
at the base. W8 and W6
PTFE rotational joints and redundant pins. wide-flange beam members, Tilt mockup.

STRUCTURE magazine 37 August 2017

Tilt system.
Building Code and are greatly influenced by the surrounding tall
building topography. The Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory
at the University of Western Ontario was engaged to address this issue
and conduct a High-Frequency Pressure Integration test (HFPI) at
a scale of 1:200 of the top of the Hancock Tower, with the Tilt both
open and closed. These loads were then utilized for the design of
the Tilt structural steel frame, actuation system, and structural glass
elements. Wind climate data was also utilized to better understand
daily and weekly operational wind speeds, and corresponding wind
pressures, that the Tilt would experience regularly.
Structural Glass
The glass elements of the Tilt are assemblies of 38-inch thick fully-
tempered glass panels with DuPont SentryGlas laminate inner layers.
The front elements are comprised of three glass panels and two
laminate inner layers, and the side and overhead elements are com-
prised of two glass panels and one laminate inner layer. The design
of these assemblies was based on the results of the wind tunnel test
wind pressures, and considering the glass panel assembly as a Glass
Walkway in accordance with ASTM E2751-11. All panels are con-
tinuously supported along their edges and were analyzed in both SJ
MEPLA and ABAQUS to evaluate their performance. The finite
element analyses indicated that only two 38-inch thick glass panels
with a single SentryGlas inner layer were required for the front main
elements; however, the third layer was kept at these locations as a
redundant layer for added safety.
Inspection and Maintenance Program
As the Tilt is a machine in addition to being a structure, a required
regular Quarterly Inspection Program was developed for the steel
Actuation system and overhead end-stops. BLWTL HFPI test model.
STRUCTURE magazine 38
Tilt in use.
connections and implemented by M56. Each quarter, component
and member connections are inspected and maintained, as required,
to ensure that the Tilts condition is in general conformance with the
original design intent. All inspections conducted by M56 are per-
formed in conformance with AISC, AWS, and ASTM requirements
for cyclically loaded structures.
The Tilt Experience
The Tilt system is an understandable, robust, and regu-
larly maintained structural steel and glass mechanism
that has been offering Chicagoans, and its visitors,
a safe but unique and exhilarating experience in the
much loved John Hancock Tower.
John Peronto, S.E., P.E., SECB, LEED AP, is an Associate
Principal with Thornton Tomasetti. John designed the mechanized
Tilt structure, for which he is a Patent Inventor. He can be
reached at JPeronto@ThorntonTomasetti.com.
Christian DeFazio, P.E., LEED AP, is a Senior Project Engineer
with Thornton Tomasetti and served as the Project Manager of
Tilt through construction. He can be reached at CDeFazio@
ThorntonTomasetti.com.
Project Team
Owner: Montparnasse 56 USA
Structural Engineer: Thornton Tomasetti
Contractor: Cupples
August 2017
 SHEAR SHEAR FAADE
CONNECTION SYSTEMS MOUNTING TECHNOLOGY
REINFORCEMENT SYSTEMS CONNECTOR SYSTEMS CONNECTION SYSTEMS
Anchor Channels

Get used to being ahead

with JORDAHL anchor channels.
Elisabeth Smith, Development Engineer
at JORDAHL

1913 First anchor channel manufacturer.

2013 First IAPMO uniform ES anchor

channel product evaluation.
First anchor channel design
software based on IBC and IRC
building codes.

JORDAHL anchor channels for structural connections

For more than 100 years JORDAHL anchor channels and T-bolts
have guaranteed the reliable anchoring of loads to concrete.
Providing simple and fast installation, the JORDAHL system
provides easy location adjustment for structural concrete
connections without the time consuming hassle of welding or
drilling. Hot rolled channel proles provide high capacity and
reduce in-built stresses allowing high dynamic load capability.
This enables their ability to accommodate both high and rapidly
uctuating loads over millions of cycles without metal fatigue. Just
the sort of anchoring reliability needed for your project.
With reliable performance veried by IAPMO Uniform ES Report
#0293 and City of Los Angeles Research Report RR25797-T,
JORDAHL anchor channels are easy to design according to IBC,
IRC, ACI 318 Appendix D, and ICC-ES AC 232, using our innovative
JORDAHL EXPERT software. The software can be downloaded for
free from our website.
Our team oers unequalled customer service and technical
experience. We would be pleased to oer you additional assistance,
and look forward to working with you.

DECON USA INC.

103 East Napa Street, Suite B
Sonoma, CA 95476
Tel (866) 332-6687
www.deconusa.com
 Design wood structures effectively,
economically and with ease!

Design Office

SIZER SHEARWALLS CONNECTIONS

Gravity Design Lateral Design Fasteners

2x4 DATABASE EDITOR PDF WOOD PDF WOOD

Customize Materials Adobe
STANDARDS Adobe
STANDARD
(US version) (CDN version)

Download a Free Demo at woodworks-software.com

New Version! AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL

US Design Office 11 Canadian Design Office 9

NDS 2015, SDPWS 2015, IBC 2015 and ASCE 07-10 compliant CSA O86-14 and NBC 2010 compliant

Use Promo Code STRUCMAG and receive a 10% discount towards your purchase!

www.woodworks-software.com 800-844-1275
LONDON FINANCIAL DISTRICTS Use of Innovative Software
Helps Reduce Costs and

FIRST Project Delivery Time

By Katherine Flesh

VERTICAL S
et to be the United Kingdoms second tallest building next
to the Shard skyscraper, 22 Bishopsgate is a 62-story, 912-
foot (278-meter) glass-clad tower that will sit at the center
of a cluster of high rises in Londons Financial District. PLP
Architecture conceptually designed the building, featuring 120,000

VILLAGE
square meters (nearly 1.3 million square feet) of office space, retail
shops, fitness centers, educational facilities, restaurants, and an
open viewing terrace and observatory, in a bid to create the citys
first vertical village. WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff (WSP) was retained
to manage the structural modeling and design, as well as provide
multi-discipline engineering services to ensure sustainability, achieve
a BREEAM excellent rating, and be the first in London to adopt
the WELL Building Standard promoting the health and well-being
of the buildings 12,000 occupants.
The 1.5 Billion (approximately $1.9 Billion US) project required
that 22 Bishopsgate be built on the site of a previously unfin-
ished building, the Pinnacle, where the foundation, basement,
and partially constructed core (called the stump) of this struc-
ture remained. The new tower needed to incorporate the former
Pinnacles foundation and three stories of basement structures. In
addition to the site constraints amid several high-rise buildings, a
tight timeline, and budget requirements, The challenge was to
marry the superstructure, which did not correspond to where the
foundations were, explained WSP structural engineer Diego Padilla
Philipps. The project team used Bentley Systems RAM Structural
System and RAM Concept to provide WSP an integrated BIM
solution to structurally design an efficient building that would be
larger than, and completely different from, the Pinnacle design.

Recycling the Foundation

Working cooperatively with local structural specialists, WSP
chose to demolish the seven-story Pinnacle stump and analyze
the interaction between the new design and the existing basement
and foundation structural elements to determine what could be
salvaged. Said Philipps, We used RAM Concept to analyze the
complicated geometry and export the spring reactions for the piles
from the geotechnical analysis, and tried to make them compat-
ible and interpret how the foundation was going to work. Since
the core footprint of 22 Bishopsgate is larger than the Pinnacle,
the team determined that if they added new raft and pile caps to
adapt the existing supports to transfer the structures weight, they
could establish the additional foundation capacity for the bigger
building while still using 100 percent of the former Pinnacles
foundation. Saving and reusing the existing foundation not only
reduced costs but also minimized impact to the environment on
this multi-use tower project.

Innovative Solutions
Because the footprints for the two buildings did not match, the
team decided that the basement was the best place for the sub-
structure load transfer structures. Using RAM Concept, WSP
STRUCTURE magazine
analyzed and modeled the three basement floors
to determine how to build around and through
them to optimize the transfers. On the north side
of the structure, the project team designed three
columns to support the 62 stories. WSP designed
a raft to spread the loads for the three columns into
the existing foundations. However, the raft could
not support the loads, so the project team used
A-frames to distribute the weight appropriately.
Due to the waste management strategy imple-
mentation on the south side of the structure, the
team could not use a vertical column going down
to the foundation. WSP needed to incorporate an
inclined column on this side of the structure, with
high-strength cables to tie the column to the core.
Similar to the basement transfers, the superstruc-
ture also required some elements to be transferred
using inclined columns. However, while the base-
ments inclined column was tied to the core, the
superstructure did not lend itself to this type of
support because the high-strength cables would
interfere with the services running through the
openings at these levels. To resist the lateral forces
generated by an inclination spanning 50 stories
high, WSP used RAM Structural System to analyze 22 Bishopsgate Tower.
and design a horizontal transfer system where the
floor plates behaved horizontally.
Having columns at different positions throughout
the superstructure, without corresponding founda-
tions in the substructure, required WSP to design
concrete walls all the way around to transfer the
loads. The integrated software solution WSP used
resulted in an innovative design solution that sal-
vaged the existing basement structure.
BIM Advancements
To design the floors and determine the opti-
mal shape of the overall structure, WSP linked
RAM Structural System with Fabsec and Revit.
Stated Philipps, At some point in the design of
the project, it was requested that we transfer all
the elements to Fabsec... so we integrated RAM
with Fabsec. The team used RAM Structural
System to analyze the steel frame for the floors
and exported all the elements to Fabsec for
design. Linking the two technologies allowed
for the integrated design of the steel-plated floor
New A frame.
STRUCTURE magazine
The technology allowed
for an efficient building
design. We achieved 100
percent re-use of existing
foundations, 50 percent
re-use of the existing
basement, and 30 percent
more building space than
the previous scheme.
Andrew Woodward,
Director, WSP Parsons
Brinckerhoff
22 Bishopsgate is one of
those rare projects that truly
showcases the ingenuity
of the engineers to deal
with difficult site conditions
and demanding program
requirements to develop
a truly innovative solution.
Using innovative technology
enabled WSP to consider
over 50 alternate designs,
and address complex 3D
geometric irregularities and
construction conditions to
meet the demands of this
amazing project.
Raoul Karp, Vice
President, Analytical
Modeling Product
Development,
Bentley Systems
42 August 2017
beams, and facilitated seamless collaboration and
information mobility with the client to meet the
projects changing demands.
Furthermore, the team conducted up to 70 itera-
tions to achieve the required design. With each
iteration taking one or two engineers a week to
model, WSP used Revit integrated with RAM,
through Bentleys Integrated Structural Modeler,
to produce drawings and models simultaneously.
This integrated approach accelerated the struc-
tural design process, reducing engineering and
modeling time from 70 to 43 weeks, a reduction
of nearly 40 percent.
Interoperable Technology
Drives Design
Using Bentleys interoperable applications for sche-
matics through to construction design provided
efficient and economical solutions within the tight
time frame, as well as ensured strict compliance
with European regulatory codes. The final design
for 22 Bishopsgate was a structural steel frame that
was 15 percent lighter than the Pinnacle design,
with an efficient shape housing 30 percent more
floor space and designed to achieve an excellent
BREEAM rating and promote the health and well-
being of its occupants.
Fast Facts
22 Bishopsgate is set to be London Financial
Districts tallest building and the citys first verti-
cal village designed to promote the health and
well-being of its occupants.
WSP used RAM to design the structural system of
the multi-use tower, incorporating existing struc-
tural elements from the previous
Pinnacle building.
The final design was 15 percent
lighter and 30 percent larger than
the original Pinnacle design.
Katherine Flesh is the Director of Analytical
Modeling that leads the marketing strategy and
positioning for Bentleys Bridge, Offshore, Pipe Stress,
Site Optimization and Structural products. She can
be reached at katherine.flesh@bentley.com.
Horizontal trusses to resist push and pull.
USG
Structural
Solutions

DO YOU KNOW WHATS

HIDING IN YOUR FLOORS?
Discover a better alternative to poured concrete at
usg.com/structuralpanels

2017 USG Corporation and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

The trademarks USG, the USG logo, the design elements and colors, and related marks
are trademarks of USG Corporation or its affiliates.
P
erched on a bluff along the shore of Puget Sound, Howarth About the time that this bridge was built, weathering steel was very pop-
Park is a heavily wooded and frequently used public park ular for bridges and other structures throughout the country. However,
in Everett, Washington. With its spectacular views of the some issues were starting to come to light and, in 1989, the Federal
Sound and small beach at the waters edge, the park is very Highway Administration (FHWA) published a Technical Advisory,
popular. However, like most of the eastern shore of Puget Sound Uncoated Weathering Steel in Structures, which presented guidelines for
north of Seattle, the actual beachfront is cut off from the uplands by the proper use of weathering steel. This document outlines several situ-
the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad line. The public ations in which weathering steel is not recommended. Unfortunately,
must cross a pedestrian bridge over the railroad tracks and descend several of these situations could exactly describe the Howarth Park
down to the beach level on a wooden stair tower to access the beach. pedestrian bridge. FHWA guidelines include: 1) weathering steel should
not be used where the atmo-
sphere is wet for long periods
The Existing of time; 2), weathering steel
Bridge should not be used in a marine
environment; and 3) weather-
The existing pedestrian
ing steel should not be used
bridge is a nine-foot tall,
where site conditions dont
eight-foot wide, two-span
allow rapid drying, or where
steel box truss structure that
detailing may cause trapping
spans 49 feet from the hillside
of water on the steel surface.
abutment to its center steel
All of these conditions exist
support tower, and then 80
at the site of this structure,
feet across the BNSF tracks.
located on a bluff overlooking
This bridge, built in 1987
the Puget Sound.
to replace an earlier timber
bridge, was constructed
entirely of weathering steel The Existing
tubular sections. It was
designed and built by a large
Conditions
national bridge design-build The owner was concerned
firm and was constructed about the condition of the
economically, with small, bridge, as some excessive
thin-walled hollow structural corrosion of the truss mem-
sections (HSS). Many of the bers had been observed near
HSS truss members were 18- the hillside abutment. That
or 316-thick. It is likely that end of the bridge is shielded
weathering steel was chosen from the drying action of
for its natural weather pro- the wind by surrounding
tection and low maintenance trees and vegetation as well
attributes. as the abutment itself. KPFF
was requested to perform an
assessment of the integrity
Weathering Steel of the existing bridge. It
Weathering steel is often was decided that a survey
referred to by the trade name of remaining steel thick-
of Cor-Ten, or Corten as ness should be conducted
originally produced by the on representative members
By Greg Schindler, S.E. and Sara Roberts, S.E.
US Steel Corp. It is available throughout the structure.
in various ASTM standards, Bridge walkway with new FRP decking. This was based on visual
including A588 and A847 observation of the members
(for pipe and tubes shapes), and has a special chemical makeup that and the knowledge that the original thickness of the steel members
causes the surface to develop a protective oxide patina that can reduce was thin. Mayes Testing Engineers conducted ultrasonic testing of
or eliminate the need for a protective coating. Initially, this patina the HSS section thicknesses of selected members of all parts of the
develops similarly to corrosion of normal carbon steel. However, once bridge structure.
the patina stabilizes, it forms a dense barrier between the base metal The primary members of the box truss the chords, diagonals, and
and the external elements. Some additional corrosion continues over cross beams all were found to have minimal loss of section. The
the life of the structure but at a very slow rate. Thus, the patina protects protective patina seemed to be performing as intended. The walk-
the steel from the atmosphere. The successful use of weathering steel ing surface of the bridge consisted of 3x12 timbers laid across three
depends on several factors, but key among them is one crucial design HSS 4x3x18-inch longitudinal stringers, which in turn rested on HSS
concept the steel must be allowed to dry fully between wettings. If 5x3x316 cross beams at the truss bottom chord panel points. When
the steel is used in conditions that cause it to stay wet for long periods some of the timbers were removed to test the HSS stringer members,
of time, the oxidation process continues beyond the protective patina it was discovered that many had corroded so badly that large holes
stage, and detrimental corrosion will develop. were present on the top faces. This was the result of a design detail
STRUCTURE magazine 44 August 2017
Bridge during repair.
that allowed the wood members to prohibit drying of the steel surface.
Also, the timbers were bolted to the stringers with bolts tapped into
the steel tubes. This allowed water to make its way into the tubes,
corroding them from the inside. In addition, there was a lot of sand
trapped in the joints between the timber walking surface members.
The foot traffic from the beach delivered a continuous supply of
chloride-laden beach sand to the steel surface. As a result of this dis-
covery, the bridge was immediately closed to the public and a design
commenced to replace the degraded members.
Repair Design
Several types of decking were investigated as options to replace
the timbers, and it was determined that Fiberglass Reinforced
Plastic (FRP) T-bar pultruded grating would provide the best
alternative as it is weather resistant, non-corroding, and light-
weight. The open cross-section allows unrestricted air flow to
the steel truss members. Initially, the repair design intended to
replace the corroded stringers with new weathering steel HSS
sections. During discussions with the FRP grating supplier,
Fibergrate Composite Structures, it became apparent that a better
long-term solution would be to use FRP structural members for
the stringers. The three HSS 4x3 deck stringers were replaced
with four stringers of 6-inch by 38-inch double FRP C-shapes,
also provided by Fibergrate. New weathering steel tabs were
View from below before.
STRUCTURE magazine 45
New FRP deck framing.
welded to the tops of the existing cross beams and the FRP Cs
were bolted to these.
The only members of the existing primary steel box truss that
were replaced with new weathering steel were a few lower chord
diagonals and cross beams near the abutment end of the pedes-
trian bridge. These members, as well as strategic portions of the
existing steel structure where there was a possibility of continu-
ous wet conditions, were coated with a high-performance paint
system. In keeping with current common practice, the overall
approach was to paint weathering steel in portions of the bridge
where excessive moisture or inadequate air flow was likely.
The chosen FRP decking has a T section with small spaces at
the walking surface. This shape is often used near pools and
other places where people walk barefoot. It was chosen for the
Howarth Park project to minimize the possibility of pedestrians
dropping small items through the cracks onto the active railroad
lines below. Also, to minimize the buildup of sand on the remain-
ing steel cross beams and diagonals below the deck, flat sheets
of -inch FRP were installed above those members as sloped
sand shields to shed the sand that falls through the grating.
Another benefit of using FRP members to replace existing
members is that FRP is lightweight, an important factor for an
existing structure with little reserve capacity. The repair approach
decreased the weight imposed on the structure, as well as the
seismic mass.
continued on page 47
View from below after.
August 2017
 For cold-formed steel,
try VisualAnalysis.

Structural Software
Easy. Versatile. Productive.

VisualAnalysis is powered by Bob Glauzs CFS* for accurate

design of your light gauge steel projects. Model entire frames and
trusses in multiple materials with VisualAnalysis.

* CFS technology is built-in to IES VisualAnalysis,

and created by: www.rsgsoftware.com
800.707.0816
www.iesweb.com info@iesweb.com
 Design that Addresses
Construction Constraints
An additional consideration in choosing
light weight FRP members to replace
existing ones is that the Howarth Park
pedestrian bridge is in a remote loca-
tion, with limited access. The remote
site meant that the contractor, Forma
Construction, was required to hand-carry
all construction materials and equipment
to the site. Very little field welding was
required in the new design, and the FRP
Typical corrosion in steel
members were connected with stainless
stringers. steel bolts or self-tapping screws. The
sand shields were connected with stain-
less steel gauge metal clips normally used for wood construction. The
entire project was accomplished with hand tools.
The FRP supplier produced shop drawings for the members, similar
to steel fabrication drawings. Once construction started, the process Completed project.
went smoothly. The biggest challenge on the project turned out to
be the lengthy process of getting approvals from the railroad to work Project Team
over a highly trafficked, active railway.
Owner: City of Everett Parks and Recreation
Structural Engineer: KPFF Consulting Engineers, Seattle, WA
Conclusion Testing Agency: Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc., a Terracon
Company, Lynnwood, WA
Over the course of its 30 years, a majority of the Howarth Park
Contractor: Forma Construction, Olympia and Seattle, WA
pedestrian bridge weathering steel members performed as intended
FRP Structural Sections: Fibergrate Composite Structures
with regard to corrosion, despite being located in a marine envi-
ronment. Only where detailing or natural shielding of the bridge
prevented adequate drying of the steel
did the steel corrosion continue to a

DO YOU VALUE INTEGRITY?

dangerous state. With weathering
steel, proper design and detailing to
allow air circulation and thus drying
cycles is essential. The choice to replace
some weathering steel members with At Fibergrate, we do.
FRP members allowed for efficient
design and construction. Typically,
FRP is used in caustic environments

ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

such as chemical plants or proxim-
ity to salt water, but the use of FRP
structural members for this pedestrian
bridge repair enabled the work to be KNOW FRP. KNOW EXPERIENCE. KNOW FIBERGRATE.
completed effi ciently with corro- Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic 50+ years manufacturing Engineering services
sion-resistant materials. The bridge and supplying FRP solutions
Corrosion resistant Local sales
is now re-opened to the
Lightweight Engineered to withstand Fabrication facility
public and will provide
the harshest environments
many years of additional Low maintenance Product warranty
service.

Greg Schindler, S.E., is an Associate

at KPFF, Seattle. He is also a Past
President of NCSEA and is a member
of the STRUCTURE magazine
Editorial Board. Greg can be contacted
at greg.schindler@kpff.com. Dont compromise your integrity.
Sara Roberts, S.E., is a Principal at
Specify Fibergrate FRP today.
KPFF, Seattle. Sara can be contacted To learn more, visit www.fibergrate.com
at sara.roberts@kpff.com. 800.527.4043 | info@fibergrate.com

STRUCTURE magazine 47 August 2017

Historic
structures
significant structures of the past
Ross Island Bridge
By Frank Griggs, Jr., Dist.
M.ASCE, D.Eng., P.E., P.L.S.
Dr. Frank Griggs, Jr. specializes
in the restoration of historic
bridges, having restored many 19th
Century cast and wrought iron
bridges. He was formerly Director
of Historic Bridge Programs for
Clough, Harbour & Associates
LLP in Albany, NY, and is now an
Independent Consulting Engineer.
Dr. Griggs can be reached at
fgriggsjr@verizon.net.
G
ustav Lindenthal, a leading pro-
ponent of continuous bridges,
finished his Sciotoville Bridge
(STRUCTURE, May 2017)
in August 1917. In late 1922, a call went
out to the largest and best-known engi-
neers of the country to design three bridges
(the Burnside, Ross Island, and Sellwood)
across the Willamette River in Portland,
Oregon. A group consisting of Ira Hedrick
and Robert Kremers (Kremers was the local
connection and had previously worked as
an Engineer for the City) was awarded
the contract to design the three bridges.
Hedrick had been in partnership with J. A. Ross Island Bridge. Courtesy of HAER.
L. Waddell up to 1907 when he went on
his own. When announced, the local newspaper in the Engineering News-Record, to which the
wrote, under the headline Good Team to Build Strong & McNaughton Trust Co. had called
Bridges, By awarding the contract for engineer- my attention in their telegrams, I thought the
ing on the Burnside and Ross Island bridges to matter important enough to assist you with any
Hedrick and Kremers, the county commissioners professional advice I could give. The telegrams
have lived up to their pledge to cover all that needs to be said at present in a
employ a local engineer and business way.
at the same time have secured Hedricks design for the Ross Island Bridge was
the services of an engineer of for six reinforced concrete arches of 267 feet span
wide experience with large rising to 135 feet above the river, joined on each
structures of the kind proposed side by approaches of the girder and post type
and of high reputation. and with a total length of 4,122 feet, including
By early 1924, Hedrick and Kremers had a fill 400 feet long.
designed concrete bridges for Ross Island and Lindenthals report came out on July 7, 1924,
Burnside, and planned to reuse parts of the exist- with the Oregonian headline, Dr. G. Lindenthal
ing Burnside Bridge to build the Sellwood Bridge. to Build Bridges, County Board Ousts Hedrick
Bids were called for in March for the Ross Island. and Kremers from Job, Change in plans urged,
Three bids were received with the Pacific Bridge Revised Structures for Sellwood and Ross Island Are
Company coming in low at $414,000, well below Considered by Engineer. The paper then printed
the second bidder, the Missouri Valley Bridge excerpts from Lindenthals report, calling him
& Company. On the Ross Island Bridge, only the worlds greatest engineer. After indicating
one bid came within the estimate. Hedrick and that Hedrick and Kremers would receive another
Kremers recommended that the bids should be $25,000 for their work, it reported Lindenthal
rejected and the work re-advertised. had been awarded a contract for a major redesign
The Commission voted to accept the tainted of the Ross Island Bridge as well as the other two
bids, which resulted in political turmoil. A bridges. His contract was for $119,000 for the
recall election was held, and three members three designs and supervision of construction, and
of the County Commission were removed was signed on July 11, 1924. On November 4,
from office for gross irregularities in the bid- 1924, the County voters approved an additional
ding on the bridge. A new board was elected. $500,000 for the bridges.
This new Board had little trust in the team of In his report, Lindenthal told the board that
Hedrick and Kremers and began looking for an there were four conditions to ensure a bridge was
engineer of national reputation to advise them appropriate and adequate. They were Location,
on the designs of the bridges. They contacted Traffic Capacity, Structural Character, and, for
Lindenthal, who initially did not want to get a city bridge, the Architectural Features, in the
involved in what was becoming a political free order named. Lindenthal stated, regarding the
for all. He eventually relented and wrote, Just Ross Island Bridge, I recommend that the plans
for the record, I beg to enclose copies of tele- for this bridge be entirely redesigned for the fol-
grams received and sent in the matter of the lowing reasons:
proposed examination of plans for the three 1) It is doubtful whether the bridge on the
bridges named therein. I confess that I first present plans could be built within the
felt disinclined to undertake this long trip in amount appropriated for it.
the midst of pressing engagements, but after 2) The borings in the river bottom indicate
reading the account of your bridge situation an irregular stratification of sand and
48 August 2017
 gravel which, in my judgment, does
not offer sufficient security against
the uneven settlement of the pier
foundations proposed to be sunk by
the air process. A slight settlement
which would not endanger a low
structure may be enough to seriously
endanger high piers and high concrete
arches which require a greater degree
of safety for their foundation. No
chances should be taken with the
foundations for high concrete arches.
3) The axis of the bridge should, if
possible, be on a straight line and
for better appearance, the hump in
the roadway over the river hold be
taken out. For that purpose, the clear
height over the channel should be
reduced 135 feet to about 80 feet I
am informed that an act of Congress
authorizing such lowered height
will be necessary, but that it can be
obtained without much delay when
desired by the people.
A notice to contractors on the completely
redesigned Ross Island Bridge went out on
April 25, 1925, and bids were due back by
May 18, 1925.
STEEL BUILDING SYSTEMS
MAKE THEIR GRAND ENTRANCE
ROOFING & FLOORING SYSTEMS | CEILING & CLADDING SYSTEMS | LONG-SPAN COMPOSITE SYSTEMS | STEEL & CONCRETE BRIDGE SYSTEMS
17-NMBS-2_structure-halfpage.indd 1
STRUCTURE magazine
The central span was 535 feet with the
two 321-foot flanking spans on each side.
Simple girder deck spans formed the long
approach viaducts on each side of the river.
The central three spans were continuous
over four supports. The outer flanking spans
were simply supported trusses, 321 feet
long. The total length of the bridge was
3,649 feet with a deck width of 43 feet. The
fixed bearing was on the right side of the
central span with the others being expan-
sion bearings. The bridge was on a vertical
curve with the grade on the approach spans
on each side being 2.5%. The four flanking
spans were built on falsework.
Each half of the long center span was built
out as a cantilever and connected at the
center by a pin. Under dead and full live
load, they acted as two determinate canti-
levers, similar to the Queensboro Bridge.
In fact, some commentators called this an
inverted Queensboro as it also didnt have
a suspended span. Under unbalanced live
load, the bridge acted as a fully continu-
ous bridge, and the member loading was
determined using elastic methods. The steel
was fabricated by the American Bridge
Company and was erected by Booth and
ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
FREE
DOWNLOAD
49 August 2017
Pomeroy, Inc. It opened December 1, 1926,
at the cost of just less than $2,000,000.
It was completely rehabbed in 2002 at
the cost of $12,500,000. A cable-stayed
bridge just upstream, the Tilikum Bridge,
was opened in 2015.
Lindenthals Sellwood bridge, built at
the same time, was a continuous bridge
over four spans. The two interior spans
were 300 feet long, and the flanking spans
were 246 feet long. It carried two lanes
plus a sidewalk over the Willamette River.
Its cost was $541,000. It was replaced in
2016. These two bridges, plus the Burnside
Bridge (a bascule span) were the last bridges
Lindenthal worked on, even though he con-
tinued to promote his Hudson River Bridge
until his death in 1935.
In the July 1932 issue of Civil Engineering
Magazine, Lindenthal wrote an article
entitled, Bridges with Continuous Girders,
Reviewing Half a Century of Experience in
American Practice. In it, he gave a summary of
his efforts over the years to promote continu-
ous truss bridges. He was 82 years old at that
time and still contributing to the literature
of bridge building. Lindenthal was rightfully
called the Dean of American Bridge Builders.
Optimize your building
design and construction
Reduce total-project costs. We are your
nationwide resource for a broad range of
custom-engineered structural steel building
systems. We can help you determine the
best solution for your application.
New white paper: Beyond the 5th Wall
www.newmill.com/systems
4/28/17 9:21 AM
Professional issues issues affecting the structural engineering profession

Compensation, Overtime, and the Gender Pay Gap

Structural Engineering Engagement and Equity (SE3) Committee Survey Results
By Angie Sommer, S.E. and Nick Sherrow-Groves, P.E.

I
n Part 1 of this series (STRUCTURE, April 2017), the results
of the 2016 SE3 Study focused on overall career satisfaction,
development, and advancement. This article highlights survey
findings regarding compensation, overtime, and the gender pay
gap. A full report that includes findings on work-life balance, flexibility
benefits, and caregiving can be found at SE3project.org/full-report.

Compensation
Respondents overall indicated that pay and compensation were the
top reasons that they had considered leaving the structural engineer-
ing profession or leading reasons why they had left the profession.
When asked to rate their satisfaction with pay/compensation, 20%
of the respondents reported being unsatisfied or very unsatisfied.
The average income of all respondents currently practicing struc-
tural engineering is $106,800 per year. Pay data were received from
1,955 respondents. Because nearly half of the respondents were from
California, where the cost of living is higher than in most other parts
of the country, income data for this group is noted separately. The
average income of all of the respondents from California is $117,600
per year.
As a snapshot of income during the careers of respondents, the average
income of a structural engineer with five years of experience is $78,900
per year (in California, the average is $89,000). The average income
of a structural engineer with 15 years of experience is $110,600 per
year (in California, the average is $118,700). Pay data of the survey
respondents is also shown in Figures 1 and 2. For this survey, income
is defined as gross annual income, including bonuses. Note that the
data includes part-time employees who work fewer than 40 hours
per week, which accounted for 110 respondents (6%).
Considering only full-time employees residing in metropolitan cities,
respondents in California reported income 21% higher than those
living outside California. However, when income is normalized to
cost of living data (as reported by the Council for Community and
Economic Research, http://coli.org), respondents in California make
7% less than those outside California.
Figure 1. Average income vs. years of experience (all respondents).
For comparison, nationwide data, collected by the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS) in 2015, show that the mean annual wage
for a civil engineer in the architecture, engineering, and related
services category was $88,820 (in California, the mean annual wage
was $100,980) (BLS, 2016b). The BLS calculates annual wages
by multiplying the hourly mean wage by a year-round, full-time
figure of 2,080 hours. For those occupations where there is not an
hourly wage published, the annual wage is directly calculated from
the reported survey data. The BLS does not report information on
structural engineers specifically.
In comparison with the average income of all practicing survey
respondents to the mean annual wages reported by the BLS, SE3
survey respondents reported approximately 20% higher income than
the BLS data, some of which is likely due to the inclusion of bonuses
in the SE3 survey responses. Additionally, SE3 data may be more
highly weighted by California responses than BLS data.
A 2013 Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) survey reported the
average salary of respondents to be $85,500 per year, based on 728
responses from throughout the United States (Leong et al., 2013).
This average salary also excluded bonuses and is therefore noted to
be a similar finding to BLS data, especially considering inflation.

Figure 2. Average income by position title. Figure 3. Compensation for overtime.

STRUCTURE magazine 50 August 2017

 Gender Pay Gap
A significant pay gap was reported between genders. Out of 1,401
men and 553 women who provided pay data, women reported
making $27,500 per year less than men, on average, which amounts
to women making approximately 75% of the salaries of their male
colleagues. When controlling for years of experience and full-time
employment, men still reported making significantly more money
than women.
For example, for full-time employees, men with 14-17 years of
experience made $7,900 per year more than women, and men with
18-20 years of experience made $41,200 per year more than women,
as shown in Figure 4.
When broken down by position, a similar trend persisted, though
the gender pay gap widened significantly starting at the senior engi-
neer/project manager level. A $9,000 pay gap was present for senior
engineers/project managers, a $12,000 pay gap was present for associ-
Figure 4. Income vs. years of experience (full-time only).
ates/shareholders, and a $52,000 pay gap was present for principals/
owners, as shown in Figure 5. Further analyses were performed based
on a variety of factors (location, position, full-time employment, firm
size, with/without children), and in all cases, the gender pay gap was
found to exist.
Additionally, because nearly half of respondents were from California,
the gender pay gap within this state was also reviewed. The pay gap
was found to be less pronounced in California as compared to the
overall data set, but it was still present.
The 2013 SEI survey found that the average annual salary for women
was 78% of that reported by men. Similar to the SE3 data, the pay
gap widened as the number of years of experience increased.

Angie Sommer is an associate at ZFA Structural Engineers in

Figure 5. Average income by title and gender.
San Francisco, California. She is the primary author of the 2016
SEAONC SE3 Survey Report and is the 2016-17 co-chair of the
SEAONC SE3 Committee. She can be reached at angies@zfa.com.
Hours Worked and Overtime
Nick Sherrow-Groves is a senior engineer at the San Francisco office of
Employees who work extra hours are more likely to consider leaving
Arup. He is the 2016-17 co-chair of the SEAONC SE3 Committee
the profession. For each additional hour worked per week over 40, the
and can be reached at nick.sherrow-groves@arup.com.
odds of an employee considering leaving the profession were found to
be 4% higher. This points to a tendency for
people to burn out when their workload
is consistently over 40 hours per week.
Additionally, satisfaction with pay and ben- Connect Steel to Steel without
efits was found to decrease as the number Welding or Drilling
of hours worked each week increased.

ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

Conversely, being compensated for over- Full line of high-strength, corrosion-resistant fasteners
time is correlated with significantly higher Ideal for secondary steel connections and in-plant equipment
satisfaction with pay/compensation. Of Easy to install or adjust on site
the 1,629 respondents who responded Will not weaken existing steel or harm protective coatings
to this question, 46% indicated that they Guaranteed Safe Working Loads
receive pay for overtime and compensa-
tory time for hours worked over 40 in one
week, as shown in Figure 3. This group
was 20% more likely to report being sat-
isfied or very satisfied with their pay/
BoxBolt for HSS blind FastFit universal kits
compensation than those who are not connections. ICC-ES for faster, easier steel
compensated for overtime. certified. connections.
Interestingly, those who reported being
compensated for overtime also reported
working an average of two fewer hours
per week than those who are not paid for
overtime. Reasons for this were beyond For a catalog and pricing, call toll-free 1-888-724-2323
the scope of the survey.
A K E E S A F E T Y C O M PA N Y
or visit www.LNAsolutions.com/BC-2

STRUCTURE magazine 51 August 2017


InSIghtS
new trends, new techniques
and current industry issues
Structural Observation
Confirming Your Intentions
and the Interpretation by
Others
By Greg Robinson, S.E., P.E.,
SECB and Greg Schindler,
P.E., S.E.
Greg Robinson is a Principal with
LBYD, Inc. in Birmingham, AL.
He is the Chair of the NCSEA
Code Advisory Subcommittee on
Special Inspections and Quality
Assurance and is a Past President
of NCSEA. Greg can be contacted
at grobinson@lbyd.com.
Greg Schindler is an Associate
with KPFF Consulting Engineers
in Seattle, WA. He is a member
of the NCSEA Code Advisory
Subcommittee on Special
Inspections and Quality Assurance,
is also a Past President of NCSEA,
and serves on the Editorial Board
of STRUCTURE magazine.
Greg can be contacted at
greg.schindler@kpff.com.
T
here are three aspects of field Quality
Assurance for construction projects:
Inspection by the Building Official,
Special Inspection by the owners
special inspection agency, and Structural
Observation performed by the Engineer of
Record (EOR) or his/her designee. All three of
these functions are important and non-redun-
dant. As the scale and complexity of a project
increases, the more important it becomes that
all three functions are provided.
By definition, the Building Official is charged
with the administration and enforcement of the
building code. As part of their responsibility,
they will make various inspections related to
foundations, floor slabs, and framing (usu-
ally wood) in addition to other non-structural
inspections as defined in Chapter 1 Section
110 of the International Building Code (IBC).
The Building Officials inspections are not for
the purpose of counting reinforcing bars or
confirming weld
sizes, but rather
are more con-
cerned about the
overall compli-
ance of the work
with, and as required by, the Building Code.
Many Building Officials delegate or rely on
other professionals (the EOR) and inspectors
(the Special Inspector) to provide confirmation
that the completed structure is in compliance
with the building code and approved construc-
tion drawings.
Special Inspection is a detailed inspection of
individual members, components, and framing
systems assembled by the contractor using the
approved construction drawings as a reference.
The Special Inspector is a qualified person who
has knowledge and expertise that will ensure that
the constructed items conform to the construc-
tion drawings. The Special Inspector is limited
to interpreting the drawings and is testing and
inspecting only those items speci-
fied in the Statement of Special
Inspections. Further, the Special
Inspector provides detailed verifi-
cation of the quality, quantity, and
placement of critical structural ele-
ments such as structural materials,
fasteners, reinforcement, welds,
and more.
Structural Observation is
defined in the IBC as the visual
observation of the structural
system by a Registered Design
Professional (the EOR) for
general conformance with the
construction documents. More
importantly, this is the opportu-
nity for the EOR to determine
52 August 2017
the conformance of the construction with the
structural design intent, bridging the gap left
between the Building Officials responsibility
for conformance with the building code and
the Special Inspectors more focused attention
on the elements of the structure. The structural
observer would be looking for continuity of
load path, conformance to structural details,
appropriate usage of typical details, and arrange-
ment of reinforcing, anchors, and connections,
all with the benefit of the understanding of the
engineering behind the design.
The requirement for situational structural
observation has been in the IBC from its incep-
tion, as well as in the previous model building
codes. Section 1704.6 of the 2015 IBC code
requires a registered design professional, typically
the EOR or an appropriate designee, to perform
structural observation only in high wind or seis-
mic loading situations. Structural observation
is not mandated by code for any other condi-
tions regardless of structure size, height, use, or
occupancy. For example, a high-rise building
in New York City does not require structural
observation, while it would be required for a
two-story office building in San Francisco.
Many engineers believe that structural obser-
vation is warranted in many structures beyond
those in high seismic or wind situations. Having
the engineer who is familiar with the structural
design look at the construction, in addition to the
special inspectors, is beneficial for any structure,
especially large, tall, high occupancy, or other
important facilities. Many reputable engineering
firms realize that it is in their best interest, as well
as the owners, to have a larger presence at the
construction site. They promote the observation
of the structure by their staff, regardless of the
code requirements. The engineer who designed
the structure can often find issues that may not
be recognized by the contractor or the inspectors.
In 2016, the Structural Engineers Association
of Northern California published Guidelines for
Special Inspection and Structural Observation
in Accordance with the 2013 California
Building Code. This document provides an
excellent overview of both inspection and
observation, and includes the following
explanation:
Structural Observation focuses on the build-
ings structural system, rather than on the
use of particular materials or processes. It is
typically performed by the engineer-of-record,
is non-continuous, and uses visual means
only to determine if the construction is in
general conformance with the intent of the
plans and specifications. In contrast, special
inspections are comprehensive, systematic,
and detailed, with a focus on materials,
workmanship, and processes.
During the current code update cycle for the
2018 IBC, the Special Inspection and Quality
Assurance Subcommittee of the Code Advisory
Committee of NCSEA proposed a change to
the Structural Observation requirements that
would expand the types of projects that would
require Structural Observation. The anticipated
IBC 2018 code language is as follows:
1704.6.1 Structural observations for structures.
Structural observations shall be provided for those
structures where one or more the following condi-
tions exist:
1) The structure is classified as Risk
Category IV.
2) The structure is a high-rise building.
3) When so designated by the registered
design professional responsible for the
structural design.
4) When such observation is specifically
required by the building official.
1704.6.2 Structural observations for seismic
resistance. Structural observations shall be pro-
vided for those structures assigned to Seismic Design
Category D, E, or F where one or more of the
following conditions exist:
1) The structure is classified as Risk
Category III.
2) The structure is assigned to Seismic
Design Category E, is classified as Risk
Category I or II, and is greater than two
stories above the grade plane.
1704.6.3 Structural observations for wind
resistance. Structural observations shall be
provided for those structures sited where Vult is
130 mph or greater and where the structure is
classified as Risk Category III.
The key differences are as follows:
Structural Observation was only
required for high wind or seismic
areas. Now all high-rise and Risk
Category IV structures are required
to have Structural Observations
anywhere in the country. High-
rise buildings are defined as those
buildings taller than 75 feet.
Both the EOR and Building Official have
the option to specify when Structural
Observations are required.
The last point is significant. Previously, the
EOR had limited control over when Structural
Observations were required on a project.
NCSEA worked with several Building Officials
at the recent code hearings. Those individu-
als in the discussion agreed that the option for
either the EOR or Building Official to specify
Structural Observation was a good and neces-
sary code provision. The structural panel at the
code hearing agreed.
Structural Observations bridge an important
gap between what the Building Official and the
Special Inspector review. Even the best draw-
ings can be misinterpreted and may not convey
the importance or critical nature of a portion
of the design. Structural Observations provide
an opportunity for the EOR to confirm their
design intentions and proper interpretations
of the drawings. The EOR,
using their best judgment, can
now specify when to require
Structural Observations.

2017 ADVERTISING OPPORTUNITIES

ANNUAL For advertising opportunities please contact

TRADE
our ad sales representatives:

JOE MURPHY DENIS OMALLEY

203-254-9595 203-356-9694, ext. 13

SHOW
sales@STRUCTUREmag.org

IN PRINT

Submit your free listings for this years issue!

Visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org and
click on the Resources tab.

STRUCTURE magazine 53 August 2017

Structural licenSure
Second Order Effects and Structural Licensure
By Timothy M. Gilbert, P.E., S.E. SECB
T
he NCSEA Structural Licensure
Committee, like many of us, occa-
sionally takes stock to reflect and
make resolutions for the future.
Over the past few years, the Committee
has advocated for structural licensure in
various ways: articles, newsletters, member
surveys, presentations, and communication
with other organizations. Though structural
licensure has yet to be established in many
jurisdictions, NCSEA continues to believe its
implementation would offer better protec-
tion to the public and ultimately save lives.
These reflections led to the conclusion that
the second order effects of the Committees
actions are worth the investment of our time
and, in the coming years, continual support
of the mission:
The Licensing Committee works with the
Member Organizations to influence states
to adopt consistent licensing laws and rules
in the interest of public safety, especially
relating to licensure of structural engineers.
Second-order effects are a typical consid-
eration in structural analysis. It recognizes
that, as structures deflect under loads,
deformations can cause the initial loads to
induce further stresses into the structure.
These induced stresses are the second order
forces and moments arising from the struc-
tures initial response to first order loads. In
a stable structure, the second order effects
are self-limiting the second order deflec-
tions are small enough that they do not
continue to amplify. Unstable structures
exhibit a different behavior; second order
deflections are large enough to induce even
larger forces, leading to greater and greater
deflections and ultimately to collapse.
Second order effects are not merely a struc-
tural concern. These effects arise in a wide
variety of endeavors. In a simple example,
a decision to save money for vacation has
first order effects leading to less disposable
income. Having less disposable income, a
person or family might choose to go for
walks in the evening rather than out to
dinner, leading to the second order effect
of losing weight. Similarly, legislation can
also have second-order effects that stretch
beyond the laws strict wording. It is com-
monly noted by legislators and economists
STRUCTURE magazine
issues related to the regulation of structural engineering practice
that tax changes can influence behavior, not
merely affect revenue. If structural licensure
provisions are passed in a jurisdiction, the
effects will extend beyond limiting who may
perform structural engineering and this
is why the NCSEA Structural Licensure
Committee supports its implementation.
Saving lives is the most significant second
order effect of structural licensure. By estab-
lishing a standard specifically developed
for structural engineering, the practice, as
related to significant structures, would be
limited to individuals who have demon-
strated the requisite qualifications.
Increasing complexity of both current
designs and building codes combine to
compound their effects, yielding circum-
stances where the testing protocols to obtain
an engineering license do not align with
structural engineering practice as applied
to complex design. Partly in recognition
of this discrepancy, NCEES created the
16-hour Structural Exam. In the instances
where a structural design has the potential
for significant impact on the public, the
Committee favors a requirement that the
engineer has demonstrated sufficient profi-
ciency in structural engineering. Structural
licensure would provide a means for engi-
neers to demonstrate proficiency in the
subject to the public.
One might ask what evidence supports
this assertion. In a recent incident, one
worker was killed and 20 were injured when
a Jacksonville, Florida parking garage col-
lapsed while it was under construction.
Investigations revealed that the design was
inadequate. Some columns did not have suf-
ficient strength to support the dead weight
of the structure alone, without any live or
environmental loads. OSHA has a thorough
discussion of the investigation available
for review (http://goo.gl/IvNUoI). The
Florida Board of Professional Engineers
determined that the structural engineer of
record bears a significant responsibility for
the accident (http://goo.gl/iIv07j). Had
structural licensure been established there,
it is much less likely that this tragedy would
have taken place.
Saving lives is a second order effect
with positive results. Some opponents of
54 August 2017
structural licensure are concerned with
other potential second order effects. The
potential for increased fees, a possible lim-
ited availability of service providers, and a
reduction in the number seeking to practice
are sometimes cited as reasons for opposing
structural licensure.
These conceptual second order effects
center around the idea that structural
licensure is an obstruction to business
practices. This contention parallels debate
held decades ago about the establishment
of licensure for engineers. Research has
shown that the passage of licensure for
engineers did not result in these adverse
effects (http://goo.gl/rNzgL9). The
NCSEA Structural Licensure Committee
contends that, like engineering licensure,
structural licensure would not have these
adverse effects. Those who practice capa-
bly and responsibly are likely to have few
concerns with attaining structural licen-
sure and would contribute to a competitive
marketplace.
To further allay concerns, the Committee
advocates for a robust grandfathering
provision that would allow currently
qualified structural engineers to con-
tinue practicing while providing a path
forward for younger engineers based on
the NCEES 16 hour Structural Exam. The
rationale for such a transition mechanism
has been well reviewed in past editions of
STRUCTURE magazine.
As with structural analysis, a careful con-
sideration of second order effects is prudent
in many endeavors. In the case of structural
licensure, we believe that the
lives saved by second order
effects are why it deserves the
professions support as well.
Timothy M. Gilbert is a Project Specialist
for TimkenSteel in Canton, OH. He is
also the current Past-President for SEAoO
and chairs its Structural Licensure
Committee. He may be reached at
tgilbert.pe@gmail.com.
This is an update to an article, by the same
author, that originally appeared in the
February 2015 SEAoO Newsletter.
ALWAYS STRAIGHT
ALWAYS SMART
ALWAYS BUILDING
TIMBERSTRAND LSL
Weyerhaeuser TimberStrand LSL beams have what it takes to
support your next job, providing the strength to build upward
without going over budget. Engineered to accommodate large
holes and longer spans without sacricing strength.

Call 888.453.8358 or go to Weyerhaeuser.com/woodproducts

to nd your Territory Manager and closest Trus Joist dealer.

, Trus Joist and TimberStrand LSL are registered trademarks of Weyerhaeuser NR. 2016 Weyerhaeuser NR Company. All rights reserved.
LegaL PersPectives
A Further Look at Consent to Assignment Agreements
By Gail S. Kelley, P.E., Esq.
C
onsent to Assignment for engi-
neers, also referred to as an
Acknowledgement and Consent or
a will-serve letter, is usually drafted
by the bank providing construction financing
for a project. A typical consent requires the engi-
neer to agree that the bank can exercise the rights
it has acquired through an assignment from
the owner; among these rights will be the right
to assume the design agreement if the owner
defaults on the construction loan. Prior articles
(June and July 2017, STRUCTURE magazine)
looked at key concerns with respect to consent
agreements, specifically whether the lender is
required to pay outstanding amounts due to the
engineer, whether the lender has the right to use
the plans and specifications if it does not assume
the design agreement, and what information or
certifications the lender is entitled to. This article
looks at some of the other provisions commonly
found in these agreements.
The Assignment
When the owner is a public or quasi-public
entity such as a city or a water district, the
document that the engineer is asked to sign
may include the actual assignment. In such
cases, the form may start with an introductory
paragraph such as:
THIS ASSIGNMENT OF ENGINEERS
CONTRACT AND ENGINEERS
AGREEMENT AND CONSENT TO
ASSIGNMENT (this Assignment) is
made as of _____ by and between _____
(Borrower) and _____ (Engineer) for
the benefit of _____ (Lender).
In such cases, the document creates obliga-
tions for both the owner (the borrower) and
the engineer, so both parties must sign it.
Typically, however, if the owner is a private
entity, the engineer will not be provided with
the assignment; it is simply asked to acknowl-
edge that the assignment must occur before
the loan is closed. In most cases, the lender
will require that the contractor, the architect,
and other key consultants also agree that their
contracts can be assigned and may list all
of the contracts to be assigned in a single
document. The consent may then include
wording such as:
The undersigned, as Engineer under the agree-
ment dated _____ (the Agreement) between
_____ (Borrower) and the undersigned,
STRUCTURE magazine
discussion of legal issues of interest to structural engineers
which is one of the contracts referred to in the
Assignment of Agreements, Licenses, Permits
and Contracts (the Assignment) between
Borrower and _____ (Lender), hereby signed. However, some design agreements
acknowledges and consents to the terms of
the Assignment.
If, as is usual, the engineer does not know the
terms of the Assignment, it is not reasonable
to expect the engineer to sign a document stat-
ing that it agrees to the terms. The engineer
is agreeing to the assignment of the design
agreement; the above provision should be
edited as follows:
hereby acknowledges and consents to assign-
ment of the design agreement.
Collateral Assignment
Often, the consent will state that the design
agreement is being used as collateral for the
loan. There may, for example, be a provision
stating:
As a condition to Lender making the Loan to
Borrower, Lender has required that Borrower
collaterally assign the Contract to Lender pur-
suant to the Assignment of Contracts made
by Borrower for the benefit of Lender (the
Assignment).
The assignment may, in fact, be called a
Collateral Assignment. This does not create
an obligation on the engineer or affect the
engineers rights, however. Even when the
assignment is not specifically referred to
as a Collateral Assignment, it is likely that
the lender is considering the design agree-
ment as collateral. Lenders generally want
a security interest in all of the project assets
as collateral for the financing; this includes
not just the physical assets of the project but
also the design agreements, construction con-
tracts, supply agreements, and easements.
The Assignment itself will generally contain
wording such as:
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, and as additional
security for the Loan, Borrower hereby trans-
fers, assigns and grants a security interest in
favor of Lender, in all of the rights of Borrower
in its contract with _____ (Engineer) dated
_____.
Design Agreement
Since each lender has its own form, an engi-
neer is typically not asked to sign a Consent
56 August 2017
to Assignment until the owner is arranging
the construction loan; this may be weeks or
even months after the design agreement was
contain a simple, one-paragraph statement
of consent, using language such as:
Engineer agrees that if Developer defaults under
the provisions of this Agreement, Engineer shall,
if requested, continue to perform its obligations
under this Agreement for Lender. Lender shall
agree in writing to perform all obligations of
Developer after the date Lender succeeds to
Developers rights and obligations.
As written, the above provision only requires
the lender to pay the engineer for services
provided after the lender assumes the agree-
ment; the lender has no obligation to pay any
outstanding amounts owed to the engineer.
At a minimum, the above provision should
be edited as follows:
...Lender shall agree in writing to perform
all obligations of Developer including pay-
ment of all outstanding amounts due to
Engineer.
The language in AIA B101 can also be used
as a guide. Before 1987, the AIA owner-archi-
tect agreements prohibited assignment of the
agreement without the consent of the other
party. However, the 1987 and subsequent
versions of these agreements have included
an exception for assignments to the lender, in
recognition of the fact that such assignments
are common.
Section 10.3 of AIA B101-2017 states:
...Neither the Owner nor the Architect shall
assign this Agreement without the written con-
sent of the other, except that the Owner may
assign this Agreement to a lender providing
financing for the Project if the lender agrees
to assume the Owners rights and obligations
under this Agreement, including any pay-
ments due to the Architect by the Owner prior
to the assignment.
Thus, the owner can assign the agreement
to its lender without obtaining the A/Es con-
sent, provided the lender assumes all of the
owners obligations, including outstanding
payments. If the lender requires the A/E to
execute (sign) a consent agreement, 10.4 of
B101 includes the further provision:
If the Owner requests the Architect to execute
consents reasonably required to facilitate
assignment to a lender, the Architect shall
execute all such consents that are consistent
 with this Agreement, provided the proposed
consent is submitted to the Architect for review
at least 14 days prior to execution.
Section 10.4 makes it clear that the A/E is
not required to execute a consent that would
require the A/E to do more than what is
required under the design agreement.
Conclusion
A Consent to Assignment will often state that
the engineers consent is a condition to the
loan. The typical wording is:
Engineer acknowledges that Lender is relying
on this Consent as a condition of extending
the Loan.
If the owner defaults on the loan, this state-
ment could theoretically allow the lender
BIM, Bridges, Building Components, Business/Productivity, CAD, Concrete,
Found./Retain. Walls, Gen./Packages/Suites, Light Guage Steel, Masonry, Steel, Wood
ADAPT Corporation
Phone: 650-218-0008
Email: florian@adaptsoft.com
Web: www.adaptsoft.com
Product: ADAPT-PTRC
Description: An indispensable production tool for
the fast and easy design of concrete slabs of any
form, beams, and beam frames. Uses equivalent
frame method to design post-tensioned or
conventionally reinforced projects. Easily switch
between PT and RC modes. Updated with ACI
318-14 / IBC 2015.
American Wood Council
Phone: 202-463-2766
Email: info@awc.org
Web: www.awc.org
Product: Connection Calculator
Description: Provides users with a web-based
approach to calculating capacities for single bolts,
nails, lag screws, and wood screws per the 2005
NDS. Both lateral (single and double shear) and
withdrawal capacities can be determined. Wood-
to-wood, wood-to-concrete, and wood-to-steel
connections are possible.
Applied Science International, LLC
Phone: 919-645-4090
Email: support@appliedscienceint.com
Web: www.extremeloading.com
Product: Extreme Loading for Structures
Description: A new, advanced level of nonlinear
dynamic structural analysis. Allows users to study
structural failure from any number of actual or
possible extreme events such as blast, seismic,
and progressive collapse. Users can easily model
structures composed of reinforced concrete, steel
composite, and other structures with all as-built
and as-damaged details.
STRUCTURE magazine
to argue that it has relied on the consent to
its detriment, thus giving it rights against
the engineer that it would not otherwise
have. However, the language is standard in
consent agreements and is generally con-
sidered to be just an acknowledgment that
the engineers consent is a condition of the
loan. In contrast, the engineer should not
agree to provisions that suggest the consent
is being signed as an inducement to the
lender, as the word induce provides the
lender a much stronger basis to argue that
it has relied on the consent to its detriment.
Provisions such as the following should
be deleted:
Engineer is executing this Consent of
Engineer to induce Lender to advance funds
under the Loan Agreement.
sOFtWare gUiDe
Autodesk, Inc.
Phone: 844-262-9170
Web: www.autodesk.com
Product: Autodesk Steel Connections for Revit
Description: Provides access to a variety of parametric
steel connections, enabling connections to be modeled
with a higher level of detail. Includes a built-in steel
connection design engine based on U.S. and European
codes. Take advantage of model-based collaboration to
create better coordinated designs and documentation
that extends to fabrication.
CADRE Analytic
Phone: 425-392-4309
Email: cadresales@cadreanalytic.com
Web: www.cadreanalytic.com
Product: CADRE Pro
Description: Finite element structural analysis.
Loading conditions include discrete, pressure,
hydrostatic, seismic, and dynamic response. Features
for presenting, displaying, plotting, and tabulating
extreme loads and stresses across the structure and
across multiple load cases simultaneously. Basic code
checking for steel, wood, and aluminum. Free fully
functioning evaluation version available.
Concrete Masonry Association of
California & Nevada
Phone: 916-722-1700
Email: info@cmacn.org
Web: cmacn.org
Product: CMD15 Design Tool for Masonry
Description: Structural design of reinforced
concrete and clay hollow unit masonry elements
for design in accordance with provisions of Ch.
21 2010 through 2016 CBC or 2009 through
2015 IBC and 2008 through 2013 Building Code
Requirements for Masonry Structures (TMS 402/
ACI 530/ASCE 5).
57 August 2017
The consent is being signed as a courtesy
to the engineers client, not as an inducement
to the lender.
Disclaimer: The information in this article is for
educational purposes only and is not legal advice.
Readers should not act or refrain from acting based
on this article without seeking appropriate legal
or other professional advice as to their particular
circumstances.
Gail S. Kelley is a LEED AP as well as a
professional engineer and licensed attorney
in Maryland and the District of Columbia.
She is the author of Construction Law: An
Introduction for Engineers, Architects, and
Contractors, published by Wiley & Sons.
Ms. Kelley can be reached at Gail. Kelley.
Esq@gmail.com.
Design Data
Phone: 402-441-4000
Email: sales@sds2.com
Web: www.sds2.com
Product: SDS/2 Concrete
Description: The newest solution oered by
SDS/2 includes connection design to concrete walls,
providing full design calculations. Automatically
recognizes framing situations to determine the type
of connection and embed plate conguration to be
used; the software also includes tools for automated
placement of rebar in a 3D model.
Dlubal Software, Inc.
Phone: 267-702-2815
Email: info-us@dlubal.com
Web: www.dlubal.com
Product: RFEM
Description: Non-linear FEA complete with USA/
International Standards for steel, concrete, timber,
CLT, glass, aluminum, and membrane/cable structures.
Direct interfaces with Revit, Tekla, AutoCAD, MS
Excel, and more. Incorporates seamless and bi-
directional data exchange. Created by engineers for
engineers, RFEMs interface and modeling workow are
highly intuitive and easy to learn.
ENERCALC, Inc.
Phone: 800-424-2252
Email: info@enercalc.com
Web: https://enercalc.com
Product: Structural Engineering Library (SEL)
Description: SEL has been a useful tool for
structural engineers and architects for 30+ years.
Our new cloud-based system, ENERCALC SE,
includes the same loads, forces, analysis, and design
modules as the installed SEL software (no learning
curve!) plus retaining wall (EARTH) and
ENERCALC 3D modules.
continued on next page
sOFtWare gUiDe
Hexagon PPM
Phone: 214-448-9462
Email: geoffrey.blumber@hexagon.com
Web: www.coade.com/products/gtstrudl
Product: GT STRUDL
Description: Intergraphs structural analysis and
design modeling software; a market leader in its field
for nonlinear and linear dynamic and static analysis.
A strategic database approach to all model data and
analysis results. And fast, high-quality results.
IES, Inc.
Phone: 800-707-0816
Email: info@iesweb.com
Web: www.iesweb.com
Product: VisualAnalysis
Description: IES VisualAnalysis has the features
you need for structural analysis and design. It is
easy to learn. IES offers great pricing, licensing
flexibility, and lower lifetime costs. Find out for
yourself why VisualAnalysis powers successful
engineers.
Losch Software Ltd
Phone: 323-592-3299
Email: loschinfo@gmail.com
Web: www.LoschSoft.com
Product: LECWall
Description: The industry standard for precast
concrete sandwich wall design handles multi-story
columns as well. Analyze prestressed and/or mild
reinforced wall panels with zero to 100 percent
composite action. Flat, hollow-core or double tee
configurations are supported. Complete handling
analysis is also included.
MKT Fastening, LLC
Phone: 800-336-1640
Email: sales@mktfastening.com
Web: www.mktfastening.com
Product: MKT Website Design Software
Description: New Anchor Design software now
available to assist with calculations meeting ACI
318 and IBC design requirements. It runs on
Windows operating systems; calculates in metric or
imperial units for mechanical or adhesive anchoring
systems. Visit the website to download your copy.
RedBuilt
Phone: 866-859-6757
Email: info@redbuilt.com
Web: www.redbuilt.com
Product: RedSpec
Description: Quickly and efficiently create floor
and roof design specifications using Red-I joists,
open-web trusses, and RedLam for a variety of
applications. A central component is FloorChoice;
allows a floor to be evaluated while still in the
design phase, providing an easy-to-understand
numerical rating system.
STRUCTURE magazine
BIM, Bridges, Building Components, Business/Productivity, CAD, Concrete,
Found./Retain. Walls, Gen./Packages/Suites, Light Guage Steel, Masonry, Steel, Wood
RISA Technologies
Phone: 949-951-5815
Email: info@risa.com
Web: www.risa.com
Product: RISA-3D, RISAFloor ES, RISAFoundation
Description: RISA offers everything you need for
concrete design. For concrete floors, including
beams and two way slabs, nothing beats RISAFloor
ES for ease of use and versatility. The design of
columns and shear walls with RISA-3D offers
total flexibility. Integration between RISA-3D and
RISAFloor ES provides a complete building design.
Simpson Strong-Tie
Phone: 800-925-5099
Email: web@strongtie.com
Web: www.strongtie.com
Product: Strong-Wall Shearwall Selector
Description: The Strong-Wall Shearwall Selector
web app is designed to help Designers select the
appropriate shearwall solution for a given application
in accordance with the latest code requirements.
Product: CFS Designer V 2.0.2 Software
Description: With the CFS Designer, you can
design CFS beam-column members according to
AISI specifications and analyze complex beam loading
and span conditions. Intuitive design tools automate
common CFS systems such as wall openings,
shearwalls, floor joists, and, with the newest software
update, up to eight stories of load-bearing studs.
StrucSoft Solutions
Phone: 514-538-6862
Email: a.gordon-stewart@strucsoftsolutions.com
Web: strucsoftsolutions.com
Product: MWF
Description: A template-based and rule-driven
extension to Autodesk Revit for framing. It
empowers users to automate the modeling, clash
detection and manufacturing of light gauge steel and
wood framing, including shop drawings, cut lists,
BOM, CNC output & more.
StructurePoint
Phone: 847-966-4357
Email: info@structurepoint.org
Web: structurepoint.org
Product: spBundle
Description: Recently upgraded to include ACI
318-14 and CSA A23.3-14, the remaining programs in
our software bundle (spSlab, spBeam, spWall, spMats,
spFrame) compliment spColumn for complete reinforced
concrete building design including floor systems, beams,
cast-in-place walls, tilt-up walls, commercial building
foundations, pile caps, and slabs on grade.
Product: spColumn
Description: Featuring a flexible graphical interface in
the new spSection module for creating and modifying
irregular sections, spColumn is used for design and
investigation of columns, shear walls, bridge piers,
and typical framing elements in buildings and other
structures subject to combined axial and flexural loads.
58 August 2017
Struware, LLC
Phone: 904-302-6724
Email: email@struware.com
Web: www.struware.com
Product: Structural Engineering Software
Description: Struware provides easy to use structural
engineering software. So quick and easy, the software
pays for itself the first time you use it. Programs
include a wind, seismic, snow, dead & live loadings,
CMU walls, tilt-up concrete walls, steel floor
vibration, and concrete beams. Demos at website.
Trimble
Phone: 770-426-5105
Email: kristine.plemmons@trimble.com
Web: www.tekla.com
Product: Tekla Structural Designer
Description: Revolutionary! Gives engineers the
power to analyze and design buildings efficiently
and profitably. Fully automated and packed with
unique features for optimized concrete and steel
design. From the quick comparison of alternative
design schemes to cost-effective change management
and seamless BIM collaboration, Tekla Structural
Designer can transform your business.
Product: Tekla Structures
Description: Create and transfer constructible
models throughout a design. From concept to
completion. Allows you to create accurate and
information-rich models that reduce RFIs and
enable structural engineers proven additional
services. Models are used for drawing production,
material take offs, and collaboration with architects,
consultants, fabricators, and contractors.
Veit Christoph GmbH
Phone: +49 711 518573-30
Email: melanie.engel@vcmaster.com
Web: www.vcmaster.com/en
Product: VCmaster - Intelligent Engineering Software
Description: A comprehensive, affordable,
user-friendly software solution for compiling
professional structural design calculations. Offers a
unique combination of reliable calculation capacity
and extensive text processing features. Includes
numerous predefined design calculations according
to AISC and ACI. With VCmaster, engineers can
work efficiently while making fewer mistakes.
Yrtechnosoft
Phone: 581-235-8710
Email: yves.rossignol@yrtechnosoft.com
Web: www.yrtechnosoft.com
Product: Weld Design
Description: Software for calculating welding beads
according to permissible stresses and the Blodgett
method. 14 different forms of cord and the flows
are calculated in 3 locations. The cdn price includes
updates for one year. English, French, 32 and 64 bit
version as well as student version available.
 business issues
Would You Accept This Indemnification Clause?
By Ed Schwieter, P.E., S.E.
I
ndemnification clauses are the number one
source of problems in contracts for profes-
sional services. Structural engineers are
frequently presented with very one-sided
contracts drafted by their Clients attorney, who
may not understand contracting for design pro-
fessional services or merely wishes to maximize
the contractual benefits for the Client. These
contracts may contain an indemnification clause
like this (real) one:
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant
shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Client
(including its owners, affiliates and subsidiaries),
its officers, directors, agents, shareholders, succes-
sors and employees (the Indemnitees) from and
against any and all claims, liability, actions, causes
of actions, complaints, costs, expenses (including
prejudgment interest), and demands whatsoever,
in law or in equity, including without limitation
those for bodily injury, personal injury, sickness,
disease, death or property damage (including but
not limited to the Construction Work itself), arising
out of, or alleged to arise out of, or as a result of,
or alleged to be the result of the performance of the
Services. Consultant, at Consultants sole expense,
shall promptly dispose of all such claims, defend
all lawsuits filed against Client on the account
thereof, pay all judgments rendered against Client
in such lawsuits (including any prejudgment inter-
est assessed against any Indemnitee), and reimburse
Client in cash upon demand for all reasonable
expenses incurred by Client on the account thereof
including, but not limited to, attorney fees, expert
witness fees, and court costs. Consultant shall
indemnify Client and hold Client harmless from
the above-referenced claims regardless of whether
such claim is caused or alleged to be caused in part
by any joint or concurrent negligent act (either
active or passive) or omission by an Indemnitee;
provided however, that Consultant shall not be
obligated to indemnify for those claims to the
extent that the same is proximately caused by the
sole negligence or willful misconduct of Client or
Clients agents, servants or, independent contractors
who are directly responsible to Client, excluding
Consultant. Notwithstanding anything to the con-
trary contained herein, Client at its option shall
have the right to participate in the defense of any
claims asserted against it, approve the selection of
counsel and approve the terms of any settlements
made in its name or on its behalf.
Would you sign the contract offered with this
clause? I would not and you should not! The
Client may tell you that the contract clause is
non-negotiable, or everyone else accepts it, insurable, fairer, and far simpler and easy to
STRUCTURE magazine
CASE BuSinESS PrACtiCES
or if you do not sign this, your competitor
will. However, do Clients expect engineers to
pay as little attention to engineering services as
they expect engineers to pay toward onerous
and inappropriate contract language? Engineers
should be just as conversant with contract pro-
visions as they are with design criteria and
engineering analysis.
The problem phrases in the indemnification
clause are many, including:
1) An expansive duty to defend. The duty
to defend against third party claims is not
required under common law. The duty to
defend can only arise through contractually
assumed obligations and, therefore, third
party claims defense costs are not covered by
professional liability insurance.
2) Extreme language like any and all and
without limitation. Extreme language is con-
sidered to be too broad and open-ended to be
included in fair and balanced contracts. These
extreme words may expand the indemnification
to include other damages that might otherwise
be excluded.
3) Does not require liability to be estab-
lished. The words alleged to arise out
of expands the indemnification clause to
include situations where liability has not been
established.
4) Does not limit liability to the extent the
Consultant is responsible. The indemnifica-
tion should be limited to losses to the extent
arising out of negligent performance of the
services. This establishes the proportionality
of liability for claims since often several parties
are negligent to varying degrees.
5) Requires immediate reimbursement
of attorney fees. The cost of defending
starts well before mediations or trial and any
determination of fault. The immediate reim-
bursement required under the duty to defend
requires paying attorney fees in advance, even
when liability is not eventually established.
6) Requires indemnification of Client even
if they are negligent. The indemnification
clause as written obligates indemnification
except when the Clients sole negligence
is established. What if the Client is partially
liable? If the consultants actions contributed
1% to the damages, the client would not be
solely negligent, and yet the indemnification
clause would require the Client to be held
entirely harmless.
The indemnification clause would be
59 August 2017
understand if it included a reciprocal indem-
nification and read:
Each party to this Agreement shall indem-
nify and hold harmless, but without duty to
defend, the other party (including its owners,
affiliates and subsidiaries), its officers, direc-
tors, shareholders, successors, and employees
(the Indemnitees) from and against liability,
actions, causes of actions, complaints, costs, and
expenses, including those for bodily injury, per-
sonal injury, sickness, disease, death, or property
damage, to the extent arising out of or as a result
of the negligent performance of their duties.
Neither party shall be obligated to indemnify
the other party in any manner whatsoever for
the other partys own negligence.
Assistance with contract review and negotia-
tion are available through professional liability
insurance brokers, your professional liability
insurance carriers, and the engineers attor-
ney. There are many other resources available,
including books written by attorneys on design
professional contracts and by professional lia-
bility insurance carriers and brokers on their
websites. Good resources include:
Contract Guide for Design Professionals
written by J. Kent Holland, Jr. and
published by Zurich (available for free
download at http://bit.ly/2tpQFYl
DPIC Companies Guide to Better
Contracts (out of print)
Another option is to counter the Clients
contract with one written by an industry asso-
ciation, which are typically written from a more
balanced perspective. Such contracts are offered
by CASE, EJCDC, AIA, ConsensusDOCS,
and DBIA. The contracts from CASE, EJCDC,
and AIA tend to be best suited for structural
engineers and require the least amount of
changes and additional negotiations as they
are fair and balanced.
Some engineers just sign the uninsurable
and unreasonable contract offered by the
Client. This is a disservice to themselves
and the engineering industry, and sets a
bad precedent that other engineers have to
work hard to change and overcome. Dont
ignore the contractual terms offered in
client-written contracts.
Ed Schwieter is Vice President at Schaefer
Structural Engineers, Cincinnati, Ohio.
He can be reached at ed.schwieter@
schaefer-inc.com.

2017 ASCE Structural and SEI Awards
T
he Structural Engineering Institute
(SEI) is proud to congratulate
the winners of the 2017 ASCE
Structural and SEI Awards:
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE AWARDS
2017 Chapter of the Year Award
The 2017 SEI Chapter of the Year Award
was given to the SEI Illinois Chapter. The
SEI Illinois Chapter has focused on creat-
ing professional development activities and
networking opportunities for structural engi-
neers in the ASCE Illinois Section. They offer
a Biennial Lecture Series bringing national
speakers to the Chicagoland audience.
Chapter dinner meetings often highlight
local projects.
2017 Graduate Student Chapter of the Year
SEI presented the 2017 Graduate Student
Chapter award to the University of Texas,
Arlington Graduate Student Chapter. The
chapter offers software training sessions, struc-
tural workshops, and site tours of existing
structures and buildings under construction.
The chapters activities help students broaden
their educational experience and prepare for
the transition to a professional career in struc-
tural engineering.
W. Gene Corley Award
The 2017 W. Gene Corley Award was given
to Donald Dusenberry, P.E., SECB, F.SEI,
F.ASCE, for his many years of service to the
Institute and the profession of structural
engineering in nearly every possible capac-
ity. He is a former President of the SEI
Board of Governors, served on numerous
SEI standards, technical and administrative
committees, and was key to the develop-
ment of the Vision for the Future of Structural
Engineering: A Case for Change, which laid out
a bold set of strategic initiatives to transform
the profession.
Gene Wilhoite Innovations in
Transmission Line Engineering Award
The 2017 Gene Wilhoite Award was presented
to Ronald J. Carrington, P.E., M.ASCE.
Mr. Carrington is an industry expert with
over 30 years of experience in the engineering
of power delivery projects and has worked
extensively with SEI committees that have
developed publications and information for
transmission line engineers.
STRUCTURE magazine
award winners and outstanding projects
Dennis L. Tewksbury Award
The 2017 Tewksbury Award was presented
to Robert E. Bachman, P.E., S.E., F.SEI,
M.ASCE. Mr. Bachman has been one of the
most effective liaisons among the many civil
engineering professional organizations. He
was chair of the SEI Codes and Standards
Activities Division Executive Committee and
served on the SEI Board of Governors.
Walter P. Moore, Jr. Award
The 2017 Walter P. Moore, Jr. Award was
given to Andrew S. Whittaker, Ph.D., P.E.,
S.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE. Dr. Whittaker has made
fundamental contributions in earthquake and
blast engineering of buildings, bridges, and
mission critical infrastructure. A hallmark of
his work is quickly moving research results
into design practice through codes, standards,
and guidelines.
SEI Presidents Award
The 2017 SEI Presidents Award was given
to Ashraf Habibullah, P.E., M.ASCE,
for his many contributions to SEI and the
profession. Mr. Habibullah is being hon-
ored primarily for his passionate advocacy
in promoting the Vision for the Future of
Structural Engineering: A Case for Change.
Mr. Habibullah has been a strong advocate
for strategic initiatives through the SEI
Futures Fund and exemplifies the Structural
Engineers role as Leader and Innovator.
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL
ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL AWARDS
Jack E. Cermak Award
The 2017 Jack E. Cermak Award was given to
Xinzhong Chen, Ph.D., M.ASCE. Dr. Chen
is one of the leading authorities in bridge
and building aerodynamics. His research
interests include modeling and simulation
of wind load effects on dynamically sensitive
structures, nonlinear aerodynamics and non-
stationary wind load effects, reliability- and
performance-based design of structures to
extreme wind loading, probabilistic fatigue,
and extreme response of large wind turbines.
Shortridge Hardesty Award
The 2017 Shortridge Hardesty Award was
given to W. Samuel Easterling, Ph.D., P.E.,
F.SEI, M.ASCE, for his outstanding contri-
butions to the field of steel and composite
steel/concrete structures. His primary field
of study is the development, testing, analysis,
61 August 2017
Spotlight
and design of composite steel/concrete floor
and roof systems in steel building structures.
Ernest E. Howard Award
The 2017 Ernest E. Howard Award was given
to John W. van de Lindt, Ph.D., F.ASCE.
Dr. van de Lindt is a globally recognized
expert in wood engineering. His research over
the past decade has pushed the boundary
of performance-based engineering for wood
frame structures. He has greatly advanced
the engineering communitys understand-
ing of wood building system performance to
extreme natural hazards.
Moisseiff Award
The 2017 Moisseiff Award was presented
to Daniel M. Dowden, Ph.D., P.E.,
S.E., M.ASCE; Patricia Clayton, Ph.D.,
A.M.ASCE; Chao-Hsien Li; Jeffrey Berman,
Ph.D., A.M.ASCE; Michel Bruneau, Ph.D.,
P.Eng., P.E., F.ASCE; Laura N. Lowes,
Ph.D., A.M.ASCE; and Keh-Chyuan
Tsai, Ph.D., for the paper titled Full-Scale
Pseudodynamic Testing of Self-Centering
Steel Plate Shear Walls, published in the
January 2016 issue of the Journal of Structural
Engineering.
Nathan M. Newmark Medal
The 2017 Nathan M. Newmark Medal was
awarded to Xilin Lu, Ph.D., M.ASCE. Dr.
Lu has made numerous significant contribu-
tions to structural engineering, particularly
focusing on earthquake resistant design and
testing of structures. Through shake table tests
and theoretical analysis, his research results
and devices have been successfully applied in
many major projects.
Raymond C. Reese Research Prize
The 2017 Raymond C. Reese Prize was pre-
sented to Yongchao Yang, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE;
Shunlong Li, Ph.D., Aff.M.ASCE; Satish
Nagarajaiah, Ph.D., F.SEI, M.ASCE; Hui
Li, Ph.D., Aff.M.ASCE; and Peng Zhou,
for their paper titled Real-time Output-
Only Identification of Time-Varying Cable
Tension from Accelerations via Complexity
Pursuit, published in the January 2016 issue
of the Journal of Structural Engineering.
Visit the SEI website at www.asce.org/
structural-engineering/structural-
engineering-awards to submit a
nomination for the 2018 awards.
 2017 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SUMMIT
October 11-14, 2017 | Washington Hilton | Washington, D.C.
The 2017 Structural Engineering Summit is only two months away! And theres only
News form the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

one month left to save $100 on your registration (fees increase on September 7th).
Designed by structural engineers for practicing structural engineers, the Summit hosts all
you need to advance your career and the profession. An array of educational sessions
are available each day along with several social & networking events, and the NCSEA
Committee and Annual Business Meetings. The complete schedule for the NCSEA
Committee meetings will be available on www.ncsea.com. For an overview of the full
schedule for the Structural Engineering Summit, see pages 34 and 35.
Were also glad to announce that this year were hosting the largest Trade Show in
NCSEA history! Over 50 exhibitors will be lining the aisles featuring their products
and software; make sure to visit their booths during the several events happening on the
Trade Show floor. In addition to the Trade Show, several of our exhibitors will be holding
brief educational sessions on their products. These Product Presentations run on Friday,
October 13th from 89:50am.
The Summit serves as a vehicle to educate not only everyday Structural Engineers, but
it also serves to educate leadership within the organization. Along with sessions on manuals, seismic provisions, codes,
and improving your business, the Summit also offers dedicated sessions for SEA Delegates, Executives Directors, and
other SEA leadership. These sessions are meant to bring SEA leadership together to promote a sense of community and
to provide the opportunity to learn from others in the same position.
This years Host hotel is the Washington Hilton. Located in the epicenter
of vibrant neighborhoods and only blocks from the Dupont Circle Metro,
it is convenient for those who wish to explore in their free time. The
NCSEA Summit rate starts at $239 per night and the block is selling
quickly! Visit www.ncsea.com to reserve your room before it is too late!

2017 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SUMMIT SPONSORS

P LATINUM
A Celebration of Structural Engineering at the National Building Museum
Join Computers and Structures, Inc. on Thursday evening at the National Building
Museum for a unique celebration of the structural engineering profession, including
full dinner, champagne, finely crafted cocktails, and live music. Come celebrate the
immeasurable contributions of the structural engineering
NCSEA News

profession to all generations, and the ways in which structural

engineers are essential to the progress of humanity! Come
mingle and unwind with your fellow conference attendees
as you take in the stunning architecture of Americas leading cultural institution
devoted to interpreting the history of architecture, engineering, and design.

S ILVER

B RONZE
Interested in becoming an exhibitor or sponsor for the
2017 Summit? Visit www.ncsea.com for more infomation!

STRUCTURE magazine 62 August 2017


New! Young Engineers Track
Brand new to the 2017 Structural Engineering
Summit, this Thursday afternoon track is dedicated to
educating Young Engineers.
Young Member Mentor Roundtable
This session, restricted to Young Engineer attendees,
will facilitate interaction between young engineers
and leaders in the field in a highly interactive
speed-dating format.
Wind Design Considerations for Joist/
Joist Girder Structures
This session highlights key updates to Technical
Digest No 6, Design of Steel Joist Roofs to Resist Uplift
Loads, and will explain how to communicate the
design requirements of the ASCE/SEI 7-10 wind
provisions for open web steel joists and joist girders.
YMGSC Basics of Shear Wall Design
Most young engineers graduate with minimal
education in material-specific design with masonry,
NCSEA News
Panel on How to Improve ASCE 7
Following the keynote on Thursday,
October 12, representatives from the
ASCE/SEI 7 Committee will conduct a
workshop with a goal to collect constructive
feedback on how to make the loading
standard more effective and efficient to
use. Led by Ron Hamburger, P.E., S.E.,
SECB; John Hooper, P.E., S.E., and Don
Scott, S.E., these presentations will discuss
the standards development and adoption
processes; the mission of the standard; and,
the new digital platform format that will
be available for the 2016 edition. Ideas
and suggestions from participants will be reported back
during the workshop conclusion.
2017 Summit Keynote:
Shaking Up DC The Insiders Story

News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

wood, and lateral systems, which can take years of Martina Driscoll, P.E., Principal & Unit Manager,
experience to understand. This session will help Wiss, Janney, Elstner
to tackle shear wall design addressing multiple Associates
materials and the coinciding codes.
Terrence Paret,
Join the NCSEA Board at the Young Member Senior Principal, Wiss,
Reception on Wednesday, October 11; all attendees Janney, Elstner Associates
under 35 are welcome!

Upcoming NCSEA Webinars

August 29, 2017 Wind Loads on Non-Building Structures for the Practicing Engineer
Emily Guglielmo, P.E., S.E.
This session will focus on wind loads on non-building structures, including equipment, walls, signs, and
towers. The session will discuss ASCE 7 wind load provisions for non-building structures and how to
correctly apply them through examples. An in-depth exploration for engineering commonly encountered
situations that are not directly addressed in the code will follow.

September 12, 2017 ASCE 7-16 Wind: How it Affects the Practicing Engineer
Donald R. Scott, S.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE
ASCE 7-16 will include several significant changes to the wind loading provisions which will impact
the practicing engineer. This session will provide an in-depth discussion of the most important changes
and discuss the impacts to a structural engineers design.

October 24, 2017 Understanding and Interpreting Geotechnical Reports

Trent Parkhill, P.E.
The goal of this webinar is to help structural engineers better understand geotechnical reports, focusing
on recommendations that can be misunderstood. Areas covered will include topics such as what is the
right exploration program, lateral earth pressures, uncertainty in settlement estimates, the relationship
between bearing pressures, and more.

Two exclusive annual plans are available to NCSEA corporate members & SEA members only. The Live & Recorded
Webinar Subscription Plan with access to all live webinars and the entire recorded webinar library, hosting over 180
webinars, or the Live Webinar Subscription Plan. Visit www.ncsea.com to purchase your subscription today!

Visit www.ncsea.com to register and read the full description of each webinar.
1.5 hours of continuing education. Approved for CE credit in all 50 states.

STRUCTURE magazine 63 August 2017


ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
& SUBSTATION STRUCTURES
CONFERENCE 2018
Atlanta, Georgia
November 48
Dedicated to Strengthening
our Critical Infrastructure
Electrical Transmission
& Substation Structures
Conference 2018
Call for Abstracts and Sessions
The State-of-the-Industry Forum for
Transmission and Substation Engineers
Discover Technical Knowledge
Hear Project Case Studies
Find Real-World Solutions
Visit Vendors and Learn about their Products
and Services
The SEI/ASCE Electrical Transmission & Substation Structures
Conference is recognized as the must-attend conference that
focuses specifically on transmission line and substation structure
and foundation construction issues. This event for utilities,
suppliers, contractors, and consultants offers an ideal setting
for learning and networking.
Structural Columns
Call for New Members
Minimum Design Load Standard ASCE 7
The revision cycle for ASCE 7-16 Minimum Design Loads
and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures is
starting in September 2017. The committee will be seeking
new members in the summer of 2017 to begin work on the
next edition of the standard. Ronald O. Hamburger, S.E.,
P.E., SECB, F.SEI, Senior Principal at Simpson Gumpertz
Heger will chair the 2022 cycle. In this next cycle, the chair
will pursue practical means to simplify the standard from
the users perspective, while assuring that it remains a state-
of-art design loading standard. He will also hope to engage
the profession at large in the standards development pro-
cess, including many younger engineers. Young professional
interested in serving on ASCE 7 committees may apply to
participate in the SEI CSAD-YP program, a funded oppor-
tunity. In addition to younger professionals, anyone with
a strong desire to contribute to further development of the
ASCE 7 standard is welcome to apply for membership on the
STRUCTURE magazine 64
Top 5 Reasons to Attend
1) Expand your knowledge at technical sessions
on transmission line and substation structures
and foundations.
2) Earn professional development hours (PDHs)
by attending technical sessions and workshops.
3) Network with global leaders and colleagues working
with high-voltage transmission structures around
the world.
4) Connect with exhibitors showcasing state-of-the-art
products, services, and solutions for your transmission
line and substation projects.
5) Discover Southern hospitality and enjoy over 100+ live
entertainment venues.
Exhibits & Sponsorships
Increase your companys visibility and reach hundreds of indus-
try professionals at this important specialty conference. Contact
Bob Nickerson at renicker@flash.net or 817-319-8779, or Sean
Scully at sscully@asce.org or 703-295-6154, for exhibiting and
sponsorship opportunities.
Questions? Contact Debbie Smith dsmith@asce.org or
703-295-6095. Submit your sessions at www.etsconference.org.
Dedicated to Strengthening
our Critical Infrastructure
Abstracts & Session Proposals
due September 12, 2017
committee. Practicing engineers, researchers, building officials,
contractors, and construction product representatives are all
needed and welcome. Individuals with broad knowledge of
structural engineering or limited focus on a particular practice
area or expertise such as hydrology, climate, or seismology can
make significant contributions.
If you are interested in applying for the committee, please
submit an application at www.asce.org/codes-and-standards/
standards-committee-application-form by Sept. 30, 2017. On
the online form, select SEI from Institute drop down and then
Minimum Design Loads (ASCE/SEI 7). Carefully indicate
the category of membership for which you are applying (Voting
or Associate) for each of the main or subcommittees. Associate
members can be accepted until balloting begins. Eligible regula-
tory members can qualify for travel reimbursement per ASCE
Travel Policy. Contact Jennifer Goupil at jgoupil@asce.org or
571-421-3998 with questions.
August 2017
 Structural Columns
ASCE 7 Hazard Tool
Free BETA access thru 8/31/17
The ASCE 7 Hazard Tool provides a single destination for
the quick, reliable lookup of key design parameters specified
in ASCE 7-10 and 7-16. Easy-to-use mapping features allow
instant retrieval of hazard data for a specific location including
seismic, wind, rain, flood, snow, ice, and tsunami. Generate
and download design load PDF reports to include in engineer-
ing proposals. Individual and Corporate subscriptions will be
available. Get started today and try the ASCE 7 Hazard Tool
at http://asce7hazardtool.online. For more information,
contact asce7tools@asce.org or learn about other ASCE 7
products at www.asce.org/asce7.

2018 Ammann Fellowship ASCE Week Las Vegas

Call for Nominations
The O. H. Ammann Research Fellowship in Structural
Engineering is awarded annually to a member or members of
ASCE or SEI for the purpose of encouraging the creation of
new knowledge in the field of structural design and construc-

The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE

tion. All members or applicants for membership are eligible.
Applicants will submit a description of their research, an essay
about why they chose to become a structural engineer and their
academic transcripts.
This fellowship award is at least $5,000 and can be up to $10,000.
The deadline for 2018 Ammann applications is November 1, 2017.
For more information and to fill out the on-line application
visit the SEI website at www.asce.org/structural-engineering/
ammann-research-fellowship.
ASCE Week will be held September 24 29, 2017, at the
Green Valley Ranch Resort Spa & Casino in Las Vegas. Register
and save up to $1,100 when you register for two seminars or
save up to $450 when you register for one seminar. Earn up to
42 PDHs in one week. Choose from 11 seminars and be part
of a private Hoover Dam tour, all while earning the PDHs
you need for license renewal. View the schedule and register at
www.asce.org/event/2017/asce-week.

SEI Local Activities

Oregon State University Graduate Student Chapter
Welcome to the new SEI Grad Student Chapter (GSC) at Oregon State University chaired by Cody Beairsto, with Faculty
Advisor Dr. Thomas Miller. Their mission is to promote structural engineering and SEI/ASCE to OSU students and connect
them with industry and professional structural engineers. For more information, contact the chair at beairstc@oregonstate.edu.

Get Involved in Local SEI Activities

Join your local SEI Chapter, Graduate Student Chapter (GSC), or Structural Technical Groups (STG) to connect with colleagues, take
advantage of local opportunities for lifelong learning, and advance structural engineering in your area. If there is not an SEI Chapter,
GSC, or STG in your area, review the simple steps to form an SEI Chapter at www.asce.org/structural-engineering/sei-local-groups.

Local Chapters serve member technical and professional needs. SEI GSCs prepare students for a successful career transition. SEI
supports Chapters with opportunities to learn about new initiatives and best practices, and network with other leaders includ-
ing annual funded SEI Local Leader Conference, technical tour, and training. SEI Chapters receive Chapter logo/branding,
complimentary webinar, and more.

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 Jon Esslinger at jesslinger@asce.org.

STRUCTURE magazine 65 August 2017

Structural Forum
When Good Engineering Ideas Go Wrong
By Jeremy Herauf
F
or centuries, engineers have come
up with great new ideas and lever-
aged them to build stronger, better,
lighter, longer, taller, and more
beautiful bridges.
Throughout history, some design and proce-
dural innovations have gone wrong, leading
to serious structural problems, failures, col-
lapses, and even deaths. Many bridges that
seemed like great ideas on the drawing board
and in the planning process failed during
construction or soon thereafter. This article
examines engineering and design concepts,
and construction procedures, that led to
these problems.
Tacoma Narrows Bridge
The first bridge across the Puget Sound in
Washington was proposed in 1889 when
the Northern Pacific Railway was looking
for ways to speed travel from Tacoma to the
Kitsap Peninsula. A simple trestle bridge was
considered but never built because engineers
determined that it would not hold up to the
extreme winds and tides it would have to
endure. Also, they could not find an engi-
neering solution to span the extreme distance
across the sound.
Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse, 1940.
Structural Forum is intended to stimulate thoughtful dialogue and debate among structural engineers and other participants in the design and
construction process. Any opinions expressed in Structural Forum are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NCSEA,
CASE, SEI, C 3 Ink, or the STRUCTURE magazine Editorial Board.
STRUCTURE magazine
opinions on topics of current importance to structural engineers
It took almost 50 years and a costly study
to finally design a span that engineers felt
confident about. Designer Leon Moisseiff came
up with a plan for a solid, rigid suspension
bridge that many believed was ideally suited
for the challenging location.
Despite all the great engineering minds that
reviewed the bridge plan, they failed to see that
all the factors that made the bridge strong and
stable also made it too rigid to withstand the
extreme winds that would batter it day after day.
While under construction, workers
noticed that the bridge shook in unprec-
edented ways whenever the wind blew. It
was so extreme, they nicknamed the bridge
Galloping Gertie. Surprisingly, Moisseiff
and the on-site engineers dismissed the
shaking, assuming the issue would resolve
itself once construction was complete.
Work continued, and the bridge opened on
July 1, 1940.
Just over five months later, on November 7,
the bridge collapsed under 42 mile-per-hour
winds, due to aeroelastic flutter.
It took ten years for a lighter, more flexible
bridge to be completed. The replacement
structure still stands today and serves as the
westbound lanes of the current pair of bridges
that cross the Puget Sound.
66 August 2017
Nipigon River Bridge
The Nipigon River Bridge is an integral
part of the Trans-Canada Highway, a criti-
cal roadway that moves traffic, including vital
deliveries, across the continent.
The first vehicular bridge at the location was
opened in 1937, replacing an earlier railroad
bridge. It was replaced in 1974 and again
in 2013 when higher traffic volume neces-
sitated it. The 2013 replacement is a pair
of innovative cable-stayed structures, novel
because they were the first bridges of this
type constructed in a cold-weather climate.
The first of the twin bridges opened in late
November 2015. It was forced to close less
than two months later when an expansion
joint shifted more than two feet after a winter
storm. The closure led to a major failure
in the Canadian roadway system. It forced
traffic to detour hundreds of miles south
into the United States, leading to a state of
emergency.
The bridge was partially re-opened to traf-
fic using a temporary fix several days later.
However, it took until September of that
year for officials to determine the cause of
the fissure. The immediate reason for the
break was attributed to a simple failure of
the bolts that connected the bearings to the
bridge girders. The bigger issue was that the
shoe plates, which connected the two com-
ponents, were too flexible. When stressed by
extreme cold, the plates twisted and pried
out the bolts. Also, bearings that should
have been flexible and mitigated this issue
failed and were unable to rotate. To fix the
problem, a new linkage system was designed
and implemented that allowed for greater
flexibility during periods of thermal expan-
sion and contraction.
In the end, a bridge design that was effective
in more temperate climates was not adequate
for the cold of an extreme Canadian winter.
Quebec Bridge
The Quebec Bridge failed not once, but
twice, during construction because of
engineering and construction errors on the
breakthrough bridge designs.

Pont de Qubec Bridge collapse, 1907.
The first time anyone thought of connecting
Lvis on the south shore of the St. Lawrence
River to Quebec City on the north was back
in 1852, but no one came up with a solu-
tion to bridging the chasm. Options were
explored in 1867, 1882 and 1884.
Finally, near the turn of the 20th century,
a record-length cantilever bridge structure
was decided on for the site. Edward Hoare
was selected as the chief engineer for the
project even though he had never worked on
a similar type of bridge on such a large scale.
Several people assisted in engineer-
ing this ambitious project. The design
and construction phases were chaotic
because no one on the team could
agree on the correct load calculations
to support the span. In the end, the
recommendations of the engineering
team were overruled by a govern-
ment agency. Work on the structure
continued.
monitoring and man-
aging the development
of this novel design.
Once the investigation
into the collapse was
completed, work began
on a replacement bridge.
The new design would
be an even more massive
cantilever structure with
a broad center span.
Once again, engineers
raised concerns, this
time over the weight
and size of the center
span that was to be
raised into place by a
new type of hoisting device. The novel tech-
nique was used to speed construction. Sure
enough, the hoists failed, and the span fell
into the river, killing 13 workers. It still sits at
the bottom of the St. Lawrence River today.
Another center span had to be built, which
was difficult because it was hard to source
steel during World War I. The bridge finally
opened in 1919, and remains the longest
cantilevered bridge in the world.
This innovative structure brought home
the fact that careful calculations and project
management are necessary when develop-
ing record-breaking structures. Just because
something works on a small scale does not
mean it will work on a larger one.
Conclusion
Innovative bridge design and engineering
are constantly improving the capacity and
function of critical structures.
The biggest lesson designers and engineers
can learn from the bridge failures outlined
here is that it is important to be cautious
and pay attention to signs something could
be wrong with a cutting-edge structure or
building technique. Numbers, measure-
ments, and physical clues often indicate
something is wrong. Paying attention to
them allows for innovation to continue
while keeping workers and the general
population safe.
Jeremy Herauf is the President of Bridge
Masters, Inc., a company with over 40
years of experience installing and repairing
bridge utilities. He can be reached at
info@bridgemastersinc.com.

ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

As early as 1904, when the bridge was
almost half completed, engineers con-
firmed that the bridge itself weighed
far more than its carrying capacity.
They apparently ignored this, as con-
struction kept going through 1907.
In the summer of that year, the team
began noticing stretching and contort-
ing of important structural elements.
Some engineers claimed that they
were installed in this condition and Portland Japanese Garden, Portland, OR
the issues were once again ignored.
Soon after, the southern and central
sections of the bridge suffered a cata- SUPPORTING
INNOVATION
strophic collapse, tumbling into the
river in less than 15 seconds. Of the Seattle San Francisco Boise
86 workers on the bridge at the time, Tacoma Los Angeles St. Louis
75 were killed and the rest seriously IN ARCHITECTURE Lacey
Portland
Long Beach
Pasadena
Chicago
Louisville
injured. It is the worlds worst bridge Eugene Irvine New York
KPFF is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
construction disaster and was offi- www.kpff.com Sacramento San Diego
cially blamed on engineers not closely

STRUCTURE magazine 67 August 2017