STRUCTURE

NCSEA | CASE | SEI FEBRUARY 2020

STEEL/CFS

INSIDE: The Key at 12th 26

2020 Aluminum Design Manual 9
Hotel Julian 22
Hale Centre Theatre 30
BEAUTIFY AFFORDABLY Clean. Refined. Smart.
AESS web members add an artistic interest to
Providence Park Stadium’s three newly added
levels and direct attention to the massive
150-foot roof. HSS members are outfitted
with Cast Connex® Universal Pin Connectors TM

placed uniformly at the base. The result:

a clean, open and unobtrusive view of all club
levels, including arcade and concourse at
street level.

Providence Park Stadium Expansion, OR

Designed by Allied Works Architecture
Structural Engineer KPFF Consulting Engineers
Photography by Jeremy Bitterman Photography

The CAST CONNEX® Universal Pin Connector™ Affordable

(UPC) is a standardized clevis-type fitting
designed to connect to round hollow structural
section (HSS)/Pipe elements for use in
architecturally exposed structural steel (AESS)
applications.
Beautiful
Simple, refined, and expertly designed,
these award-winning fittings augment AESS
seamlessly with exterior shaping developed
to smoothly transition the geometry,
minimizing the connection profile from
every viewpoint.
Cast Connex UPCs are standardized steel
castings that can be used in both small
or large projects. Our UPCs are so affordable,
they can be applied repetitiously.
Easy to Specify
• Available in sizes to fit a range of HSS
members
• Stainless-steel hardware included
• Pre-engineered: a simple weld is all it takes
• Designed specifically for AESS conditions
making them easy for fabricators to work with

UNIVERSAL PIN CONNECTOR™

www.castconnex.com
innova�ve components for inspired designs
 ADVERTISER INDEX Please support these advertisers
STRUCTURE ®

Aegis Metal Framing ..............................11 NCEES ...............................................13 MARKETING & ADVERTISING SALES
American Concrete Institute .....................21 Nucor Tubular Products ...........................18 sales@STRUCTUREmag.org

Cast Connex ..........................................2
Commins Mfg .......................................15
ENERCALC, INC ....................................3
Nucor Vulcraft Group - Redicor ...............33 Joe Murphy
jmurphy@STRUCTUREmag.org; Tel: 203-254-9595
Pieresearch ............................................8
Denis O’Malley
RISA ...................................................44 domalley@STRUCTUREmag.org; Tel: 203-356-9694, ext. 13

GeoDesign ..........................................35 Simpson Strong-tie ...........................17, 25 Jerry Preston

Integrated Engineering Software ...............29
KPFF .....................................................4
Lindapter..............................................27
jpreston@STRUCTUREmag.org; Tel: 602-369-3037
Strongwell ............................................43
StructurePoint ..........................................6 EDITORIAL STAFF
Williams Form Engineering......................34 Executive Editor Alfred Spada
aspada@ncsea.com

Erratum Publisher Christine M. Sloat, P.E.

csloat@STRUCTUREmag.org
It was brought to our attention that a photo was inadvertently omitted of Associate Publisher Nikki Alger
Michael Gustafson, P.E., one of the speakers for the Closing Keynote at the nalger@STRUCTUREmag.org
SEI Structures Congress (January 2020, page 46). STRUCTURE apologies Creative Director Tara Smith
for this oversight. graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org

EDITORIAL BOARD
Chair John A. Dal Pino, S.E.

YOUR OPINION MATTERS!

FTF Engineering, Inc., San Francisco, CA
chair@STRUCTUREmag.org

Jeremy L. Achter, S.E., LEED AP

STRUCTURE magazine is always looking for Structural Forum (opinion) articles and ARW Engineers, Ogden, UT
Letters to the Editor. We preserve a page at the end of the magazine to print these types
Erin Conaway, P.E.
of articles, as space permits. Please send your pieces to publisher@structuremag.org. AISC, Littleton, CO
And don’t forget – post questions or comments on the digital versions of articles on the
Linda M. Kaplan, P.E.
STRUCTURE website. STRUCTURE looks forward to hearing from you! Pennoni, Pittsburgh, PA

Charles “Chuck” F. King, P.E.

Urban Engineers of New York, New York, NY

HISTORIC RENOVATION & ADDITION Emily B. Lorenz, P.E.

LEED SILVER Chicago, IL

CRE TRANSFORMER AWARD, PORTLAND BUSINESS JOURNAL, 2019 Jessica Mandrick, P.E., S.E., LEED AP
Gilsanz Murray Steficek, LLP, New York, NY

Jason McCool, P.E.

Robbins Engineering Consultants, Little Rock, AR

Brian W. Miller
TOGETHER WE BUILD SOLUTIONS

Davis, CA

Evans Mountzouris, P.E.

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

The DiSalvo Engineering Group, Danbury, CT

John “Buddy” Showalter, P.E.

International Code Council, Washington, DC

Eytan Solomon, P.E., LEED AP

Silman, New York, NY

Jeannette M. Torrents, P.E., S.E., LEED AP

JVA, Inc., Boulder, CO

STRUCTURE ® magazine (ISSN 1536 4283) is published monthly

by The National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (a nonprofit
Association), 20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 750, Chicago, IL 60606
312.649.4600. Application to Mail at Periodicals Postage Prices is
Pending at Chicago, IL and additional mailing offices. STRUCTURE
magazine, Volume 27, Number 2, © 2020 by The National Council of

Excellence in
Structural Engineers Associations, all rights reserved. Subscription services,
back issues and subscription information tel: 312-649-4600, or write to
STRUCTURE magazine Circulation, 20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 750,

Structural Engineering Photo: Benjamin Benschneider Photography

Chicago, IL 60606.The publication is distributed to members of The
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations through a resolution to
its bylaws, and to members of CASE and SEI paid by each organization as
Grant High School • Portland • OR nominal price subscription for its members as a benefit of their membership.
Yearly Subscription in USA $75; $40 For Students; Canada $90; $60
for Canadian Students; Foreign $135, $90 for foreign students. Editorial
Seattle Eugene Irvine St. Louis
Office: Send editorial mail to: STRUCTURE magazine, Attn: Editorial, 20
Tacoma Sacramento San Diego Chicago N. Wacker Drive, Suite 750, Chicago, IL 60606. POSTMASTER: Send
Lacey San Francisco Boise Louisville Address changes to STRUCTURE magazine, 20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite
Spokane Los Angeles Salt Lake City Washington, DC 750, Chicago, IL 60606.
KPFF is an Equal Opportunity Employer
Portland Long Beach Des Moines New York www.kpff.com STRUCTURE is a registered trademark of the National Council of Structural
Engineers Associations (NCSEA). Articles may not be reproduced in whole
or in part without the written permission of the publisher.

4 STRUCTURE magazine
 Contents FEBRUARY 2020
Columns and
Departments
7 Editorial New Vision and
Mission Guide NCSEA’s Direction
in 2020 and Beyond
By Susan Jorgensen, P.E., SECB

9 Structural Specifications
The 2020 Aluminum Design Manual
By J. Randolph Kissell, P.E., and

Ronald D. Ziemian, Ph.D., P.E.

12 Structural Licensure
Significant Structures
By Kristin Killgore, P.E., S.E.

14 Structural Rehabilitation
Evaluation of Existing Timber
Structures
By Jim DeStefano, P.E., AIA

19 Historic Structures
Norwalk Bridge Disaster
Cover Feature By Frank Griggs, Jr., D.Eng., P.E.

26 THE KEY AT 12TH

32 InSights Design-Build and
By Peter W. Somers, P.E., S.E.
the Structural Engineer
Engineers created a new structure that integrated an adjacent historic
By Ciro Cuono, P.E.
building, the Key Systems Building. This is a textbook example of how the
AEC industry can meld modern design with classic architecture. 42 Structural Forum Operational,
Redundancy, and Ductility Factors
for Bridge Structures
Features By Roumen V. Mladjov, S.E., P.E.

22 RISING ABOVE In Every Issue

By David Nickell, S.E., Martin White, S.E., and Roger Reckers, S.E.
4 Advertiser Index
The project goal was to transform an abandoned property into a boutique hotel – Hotel
13 Noteworthy
Julian – including six new levels and rehabilitation of a once-prominent structure in the 35 Resource Guide – Bridge
heart of Chicago’s downtown that had fallen into disrepair. 36 NCSEA News
38 SEI Update
30 HALE CENTRE THEATRE 40 CASE in Point
By Tait A. Ketcham, S.E., and Darren G. Dickson, S.E.

The Hale Centre Theatre is a world-class theater experience that is truly unique, and On the Cover The Key at 12th, Oakland, CA.
was a structural engineering challenge to incorporate the stage and crane system Courtesy of STRUCTURE’s Editorial Chair, John A.
Dal Pino, S.E. Read more on page 26.
technologies into the design.

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

FEBRUARY 2020 5
A Powerful Software Suite for Detailed
Analysis & Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures
 EDITORIAL
New Vision and Mission Guide NCSEA’s
Direction in 2020 and Beyond
By Susan Jorgensen, P.E., SECB, F.SEI, F.ASCE

I t is an honor to address you as the 2020 President of the National engineers, what more can we be doing to encourage young people
Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA). This is to join our profession? For one thing, the NCSEA Young Member
going to be an exhilarating year as we follow through with some Group Support Committee has done a great job of developing tools
significant changes. We are hosting the first-ever SEA Leadership to help advocate for structural engineering. I encourage you to log
Retreat in May, bringing together the leaders of the organization. We onto the Member Portal for access to these documents.
have changed our fiscal year to run from April 1st to March 31st. And, The NCSEA Structural Engineering Engagement and Equity (SE3)
the Board of Directors is looking forward to further coordination Committee has also done a great job of gathering information on the
and cooperation with our counterparts at the Structural Engineering current state of our profession. Its surveys of structural engineers from
Institute (SEI) of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) across the country include overall career satisfaction and retention,
and the Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE) of the career development, pay, and work/life balance. The findings help us
American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC). understand opportunities to enhance our profession. I look forward
As announced at the NCSEA Structural Engineering Summit on to the SE3 Committee being able to use this information to help
November 13, a group of leaders in the organization worked together develop tools and guidelines for how we can encourage engagement,
in 2019 to develop a new strategic plan for the organization. The equity, and diversity.
new vision statement, which describes our Advocacy includes educating the public
desired future state, is, “Structural engi- about the value that structural engineers
neers are valued for their contributions A strategic plan is only provide to society. To do this, we need to
to safe structures and resilient com- be able to step up and be leaders, not just of
munities.” The new mission statement, valuable if there is follow- our firms, but in the community. As most
which articulates the organization’s role in of you know, I have been a vocal advocate
achieving the Vision, is “NCSEA, in part- through. It does not do any of structural engineering licensure for a
nership with its Member Organizations, very long time. NCSEA plans to develop
supports practicing structural engineers good to go to all this effort tools that its Member Organizations and
to be highly qualified professionals and individual engineers can use within their
successful leaders.” To achieve this, the if we just put the resulting communities to demonstrate the value that
group developed four goal statements we can bring.
and supporting strategies that will be the document on the shelf. In December, NCSEA conducted a webi-
guidelines for NCSEA’s direction for the nar providing details on the strategic plan,
foreseeable future. presented by members of the Board of
The goals fall into three categories: Education and Training, Perception Directors. If you were not able to join that webinar, I encourage you
and Professionalism, and Codes and Standards. There are two distinct to watch the recorded version at https://bit.ly/2FvU8tr. There are also
goals under Perception and Professionalism: Advocacy (External several documents mentioned in the webinar that are available for down-
Communication) and Collaboration (Internal Communication). The load from the member-only pages. If you have questions, reach out to
NCSEA Communications Committee, which was reorganized a few one of the Board members; for example, your Member Organization’s
years ago, will have a big hand in helping us achieve these last two designated liaison (www.ncsea.com/members/organizations).
goals, which are the ones that I am most excited about. What is next? A strategic plan is only valuable if there is follow-
When I was growing up, my mother worked for the Bureau of through. It does not do any good to go to all this effort if we just
Reclamation, so I was introduced to the civil engineering profession. put the resulting document on the shelf. At its January meeting,
My uncle and a close family acquaintance had attended the South the primary agenda item for the NCSEA Board of Directors was
Dakota School of Mines and Technology, so I was familiar with their to determine which initiatives will be our focus for 2020. These are
programs. I also had a great deal of encouragement from family and actionable, measurable tasks that we can strive to accomplish within
friends. Unfortunately, not all potential engineers are as lucky. Many the next year or two.
engineers seem to think that future engineers will come from STEM I am looking forward to getting started and further advanc-
programs and will be the best and brightest of the class. While this ing this organization.■
will be true, there will be others who could become outstanding
engineers who may not have the encouragement and support to be
Susan Jorgensen is the Quality Control Manager for Studio NYL, a structural
steered toward engineering.
engineering and façade design firm in Boulder, CO, and a Senior Structural
We spend much time focusing on how young women are not being
Engineer for Integral Engineering, a woman-owned small-business structural
encouraged to pursue engineering, but, as my husband points out –
design firm in Centennial, CO. She is currently the President of the NCSEA
Steve is both a professional geologist and a professional engineer – these
Board of Directors. (susiejorg315@comcast.net)
same efforts need to be directed to young men as well. As structural

STRUCTURE magazine F E B R U A R Y 2 02 0 7
structural SPECIFICATIONS
The 2020 Aluminum Design Manual
Spoiler Alert!
By J. Randolph Kissell, P.E., and Ronald D. Ziemian, Ph.D., P.E.

T he next edition of the Aluminum Association’s Aluminum Design

Manual (ADM) became available in January 2020 (Figure 1).
Updated every five years, the Manual includes the Specification for
Table of nominal strengths of aluminum filler metals.

Filler
Tensile Ultimate
Strength Ftuw (ksi)
Tensile Yield
Strength Ftyw (ksi)
Aluminum Structures which provides for allowable strength and load
and resistance factor design of aluminum structures, members, and 1100 11 3.5
connections. Because compliance with this Specification is required 2319 35 26
by the International Building Code (IBC), changes to the Specification 4043 24 11
directly affect most building applications of aluminum in the United
States. Furthermore, the Specification’s provisions are used by other 5183 40 18
code organizations, such as the American Welding Society (AWS) 5356 35 14
and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 5554 31 12
Officials (AASHTO) in their standards for aluminum structures. This
article reviews the significant changes to the Specification as compared 5556 42 19
to the 2015 edition. 5654 30 11
The ADM was first published in 1994 but was preceded by several
Aluminum Association publications dating back to the 1960s, includ- metal alloys, no strengths are established for aluminum filler metals
ing the Specification for Aluminum Structures, which celebrated its in AWS’s specifications or codes. Consequently, accurately establishing
50th anniversary in 2017. The Specification was reorganized in 2010 the welded strengths needed for design in the Specification has been
so that its presentation was consistent with the AISC Specification for an ongoing effort. The 2020 Specification is the first to establish the
Structural Steel Buildings. This format, which has been retained in the weld-affected tensile ultimate and tensile yield strengths of both the
2015 and 2020 editions, is presented as a unified specification that base metals and the filler metals that are addressed by the Specification.
provides nominal strengths for use in both the allowable strength The strength of the weld-affected zone, which includes both base
design (ASD) and load and resistance factor design (LRFD) methods. metal and filler metal, is the weighted average of the strengths of the
It is organized into chapters and appendices that are consistent with base metal and the filler metal defined by their contribution to the
AISC’s topics; for example, Chapter D addresses members in axial cross-sectional area of the weld-affected zone. The filler metal strengths
tension, and Chapter E addresses members in axial compression. given in the 2020 Specification are shown in the Table.
Because welding reduces the strength of heat-treated or cold-
worked aluminum, designers sometimes seek to regain strength by
Welded Strengths post-weld heat treatments. An example is an aluminum light pole
Aluminum alloys are strengthened by tempering, which is achieved with a welded base; the base weld weakens the assembly where
by heat treatment or cold working. The heat of welding offsets the the maximum moment from wind loads occur. Designs utilizing
increased strength gained by tempering, and this strength reduction post-weld heat treatments have been limited, however, because the
zone typically extends 1 inch (25 mm) in each direction from the previous Specification only provided post-weld heat-treated strengths
centerline of a weld. For welded connections, designers need to know for 6005 and 6063 alloys. The 2020 update adds the post-weld
the weld-affected tensile ultimate strength. Both the weld-affected heat-treated strengths for 6005A and 6061, significantly extending
tensile ultimate strength and the weld-affected tensile yield strength the Specification’s usefulness.
are required to design
welded built-up mem-
bers. Furthermore, the
Screw Chases
base metal and filler metal Perhaps the most compelling reason to use aluminum in structural
alloys in a weldment often applications is that it can be cost-effectively extruded, producing
differ and, consequently, complex cross-sections without labor-intensive fabrication. A good
the weld-affected strengths example is shown in Figure 2, where a chase is provided at the top of
of both are needed. the extrusion to receive a screw anywhere along the extrusion’s length,
While minimum weld- a detail widely used in architectural applications.
affected tensile ultimate While screw chases provide economical connections for aluminum
strengths are provided in members, the pull-out strength of fasteners in the chase has not been
the American Welding addressed in structural design standards. The 2020 Specification is the
Society’s D1.2 Aluminum first to include a pull-out strength for screws in screw chases, which
Figure 1. The 2020 Aluminum Design Manual. Welding Code for base for ¼-inch-diameter fasteners is given as:

FEBRUARY 2020 9
 Rn = (0.021 in2)Le Ftu (14/n)2/wc , where
Le = length of engagement of the screw’s
threads in the depth of the chase (inches)
Ftu = tensile ultimate strength of the screw
chase extrusion (k/in2)
n = number of threads/inch of the screw
wc = nominal width of the chase (inches)
To determine the available pull-out strength (φRn for
LRFD and Rn /Ω for ASD), φ = 0.50 and Ω = 3.0.
Flexural Strength
Several changes are made to the flexural strength
provisions in Chapter F.
Bending Coefficient
The equation for the bending coefficient, Cb,
which accounts for the variation in the moment
over the unbraced length of a beam in deter-
mining the lateral-torsional buckling strength,
Figure 2. Extruded aluminum screw chase.
is changed to:
4Mmax
Cb = R m ≤ 3.0, where
√Mmax
2
+ 4MA2 + 7MB2 + 4MC2
Mmax = absolute value of the maximum moment in the
unbraced segment
MA = moment at the quarter-point of the unbraced segment
MB = moment at the midpoint of the unbraced segment
MC = moment at the three-quarter-point of the unbraced
segment
Rm = 1.0 except for unbraced lengths of singly-symmetric
members subjected to double-curvature bending from
transverse loading,
compression or the elements in flexural compres-
sion, and computing the section modulus of each
group. The 2020 Specification simplifies this by
providing equations to use the elastic buckling
stress of the shape to determine the local flexural
buckling stress of the shape directly.
Single Angles
The flexural strength of single angles is revised,
consistent with changes for single angles in the
2016 AISC Specification.
Block Shear Strength
The block shear strength provision in previous
Specification editions was similar to an earlier AISC
approach in which the strength was the lesser of
yielding on the gross shear area with rupture on
the net tensile area and yielding on the gross tensile
area with rupture on the net shear area. In the 2020
Specification, the block shear strength is now taken
as the shear rupture strength on the average of the
net and gross shear areas plus the tensile rupture strength on the net
tensile area. The revised strength is more accurate and less cumbersome
to compute.
Flanges and Webs with Concentrated Forces
Web crippling was the only case of concentrated forces on flanges or webs
addressed in previous editions of the Specification for Aluminum Structures.
In the 2020 Specification, the web crippling strength for extruded shapes
(Figure 3) is revised and made less conservative, and flange local bend-
ing and web local yielding are added. The strengths for these three cases

( )
Iyf 2 are similar to those in the 2016 AISC steel Specification, as the rationale
Rm = 0.5 + 2 for these strengths can be equally applied to both aluminum and steel.
Iy
Iyf = moment of inertia of the flange on the negative side of
the midheight (where the direction of the load is the
Bridges and Buildings
positive direction) about the minor axis of the shape Around 1960, several aluminum highway bridges were built in
Iy = minor axis moment of inertia of the shape the U.S. Consequently, and since its first appearance in 1967, the
This equation is given in the Structural Stability Research Council’s Specification for Aluminum Structures has addressed both bridges and
Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures (Wiley, 2010). buildings with a different set of safety factors for each. For example,
while the Specification set a safety factor on tensile rupture of 1.95 for
Flexure and Axial Compression
buildings, the safety factor for tensile rupture was 2.20 for bridges.
The Specification includes a direct strength method for determining
the capacity of members in flexure or axial compression. This method
uses the elastic buckling strength determined by the finite strip method
(FSM), which is an eigenvalue analysis of a model of a member divided
into strips that extend along the member’s length. The opportunity to
employ such a method in design is especially important for aluminum
because extruded aluminum shapes can be very intricate, which com-
plicates the determination of their buckling strengths.
The 2015 Specification provided a method to determine a section’s
flexural local buckling stress using the section’s elastic buckling stress
from FSM. This elastic buckling stress was used to determine the
strength of the elements of the section in uniform compression
and the strength of the elements of the section in flexural com-
pression. The strengths of the two groups of elements were then
combined using a weighted average based on their section moduli.
This approach was rather cumbersome because it required assign-
ing each element of the section to either the elements in uniform Figure 3. Web crippling of extruded members.

10 STRUCTURE magazine
In this regard, the aluminum Specification has differed from its steel
counterpart, the AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, which
from its beginning in 1923 has addressed building structures only.
When AASHTO developed the first LRFD bridge design specifications
in the 1990s, they used the Specification for Aluminum Structures as the
source of the nominal strengths for aluminum structural components
and established resistance factors for aluminum bridges. Consequently,
when the first LRFD Specification for Aluminum Structures was published
in 1994, it addressed buildings only and left load and resistance factor
design of aluminum highway bridges to AASHTO.
However, allowable strength design safety factors for aluminum high-
way bridges lingered in the Specification for Aluminum Structures, even
though allowable strength design is no longer used for bridges. The
2020 Specification drops references to bridges, thus limiting its scope
to building structures, defined in the Specification as a structure of the
type addressed by a building code. As with the AISC steel Specification,
the aluminum Specification may reasonably be applied to all structures
designed, fabricated, and erected in a manner similar to buildings,
with building-like vertical and lateral load-resisting elements.
The 2026 Aluminum Design Manual
Just as the AISC has adopted a six-year cycle for revisions to the steel
Specification, the Aluminum Association is considering a six-year
interval between revisions to the Aluminum Design Manual. Because
the IBC has a three-year revision cycle, a six-year cycle may be more
suitable for standards like the Specification for Aluminum Structures
that are referenced by the IBC. This also has the benefit of reducing
the frequency of changes to design standards, thereby allowing design
professionals to master them better.
In the next revision cycle, several issues may be considered for the
aluminum Specification, including:
• The flexural and axial compression strengths of members with
transverse welds that affect the full cross-section or part of the
cross-section
• The flexural and axial compression strengths of members with
longitudinal welds
• An unbraced length below which lateral-torsional buckling
does not occur
• Provisions for tubular connections
Of course, the authors would appreciate learning of any other issues
or suggestions for improving future editions of the ADM.
The 2020 Aluminum Design Manual is available from the
Aluminum Association at www.aluminum.org.■
J. Randolph Kissell is a Managing Consultant for Trinity Consultants. He
serves on Aluminum Association, ASTM, Canadian Standards Association,
American Welding Society, and American Petroleum Institute committees
that address aluminum structures, and teaches ASCE’s aluminum structural
design seminar. (rkissell@trinityconsultants.com)
Ronald D. Ziemian is a Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at Bucknell University and currently serves on the AISC, AISI, and
Aluminum Association specification committees. (ziemian@bucknell.edu)

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

Aegis developed Ultra-Span trusses ®

with a proprietary shape that brings your

building the strongest Cold-Formed Steel
on the market.
• 100% non-combustible Prime Steel
COLD-FORMED STEEL - ROOF • WALL • FLOOR • Does not warp, shrink, split or twist
with age
• Aegis
Resistant
hastoa insects, mold shape
proprietary and rotthat
• brings
Wide variety of sizes and
your building theconfigurations
strongest
• Cold-Formed
Industry leading Steel on theand
estimating design
market.
software
• 100% non-combustible Prime Steel
• Does not warp, shrink, split or twist
with age
• Resistant to insects, mold and rot
• Wide variety of sizes and
configurations
• Industry leading estimating and design
software
314-851-2200
www.aegismetalframing.com

FEBRUARY 2020 11

Significant Structures
Suggested Language for Partial Practice Restrictions
By Kristin Killgore, P.E., S.E., PMP
T he Structural Engineering Licensure
Coalition (SELC) consists of representa-
tives from the Council of American Structural
Engineers (CASE) of the American Council of
Engineering Companies (ACEC), the National
Council of Structural Engineers Associations
(NCSEA), the Structural Engineering
Institute (SEI) of the American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE), and the Structural
Engineering Certification Board (SECB).
SELC has developed a document that provides
a model definition for the term “significant
structures,” which is used in structural engi-
neering licensure legislation in several states
and is being considered by several others to
define partial practice restrictions. The national
discussion and state-by-state adoption of struc-
tural engineering licensure have spurred the
need to articulate to the public and Authorities
Having Jurisdiction (AHJs) the best practices
and industry intent when AHJs work to define
partial practice restriction legislation. SELC
worked to provide broad guidance with the
understanding that each licensing board will
be required to judge for itself the definition
that best serves its jurisdiction.
The development of professional engineering
legislation in the early 1900s established the
precedent used by state and local jurisdictions
through the ensuing decades to develop laws to
protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
The licensing of professional engineers serves
as a public statement that individuals practicing
engineering meet required standards and seeks
to prevent incompetent or unethical persons
from practicing. As industry and education
advance, so do the needs of the profession to
adapt to these new circumstances.
The National Council of Examiners for
Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) was
formed in 1920 to improve the uniformity
of laws and to promote mobility of licensure
across state lines. To summarize the NCEES
mission, they strive to provide outstanding
nationally normed examinations, provide uni-
form model laws and rules for adoption by the
member boards, and to promote professional
ethics among all engineers. NCEES provides
a platform for state licensing boards to interact
with the profession and develop a uniform
policy that can be adopted by all states as a
standard of competence. Nevertheless, state-
specific legislation and rules continue to exist.
12 STRUCTURE magazine
structural LICENSURE
Practicing engineers are forced to navigate each
state’s statutes and rules as they apply to their
education, examination, and experience.
The history and development of the PE
Structural Engineering (SE) exam is a direct
response to the need for jurisdictions to dis-
tinguish licensed structural engineers from
other professional engineers. As a result, profes-
sional organizations, such as NCSEA, CASE,
ASCE, SEI, and SECB with interest in this
topic, collaborate to assist their members with
understanding how licensure and legislative
policy affects practice. They work to dissemi-
nate information to fill the gaps in messaging
between the different entities involved.
The NCSEA Structural Licensure Committee
has collected the legislative language and poli-
cies adopted by each state for the practice of
Structural Engineering, either as a licensed SE
or PE. They include full practice restriction,
partial practice restriction, title restriction,
and roster designation. Some states have full
practice restriction language that allows only
engineers who have passed the NCEES 16-hour
PE Structural Engineer exam (SE) to seal struc-
tural documents. Other states have a partial
practice restriction that stipulates an SE license
is required for “significant structures.” The title
restriction language defines who can use the
title of “Structural Engineer, S.E.” Finally, roster
designation is a provision in statutes, rules, or
licensing board procedures recognizing every
licensee’s discipline, usually based on NCEES
examinations passed by the licensee. Roster
states keep a public database of all licensed
engineers and their assigned disciplines.
Partial practice restriction language stipu-
lates a licensed Professional Engineer with an
SE designation is required for designing “sig-
nificant structures,” and the language differs
between jurisdictions. As more states adopt
“significant structure” language, SELC has
become concerned it is not uniformly defined.
The challenge of establishing a uniform defini-
tion of “significant structures” is complicated
because different jurisdictions have differing
needs. For instance, the high seismic states
use partial practice restrictions because they
require more sophisticated engineering applica-
tions due to increased risks from earthquakes.
Each jurisdiction reviews its needs, risks, and
political atmosphere, and then creates policy to
protect the built environment. These statutes
and rules generally follow a similar concept
and potential application, though their lan-
guage varies. More states are looking to adopt
the NCEES Model Law and Rules, including
the credentials for the Model Law Engineer
and Model Law Structural Engineer, because
they are seeking greater uniformity. Moreover,
more applicants are choosing to take the PE
Structural exam with a desire to practice across
state lines. The shared goal is health, safety, and
welfare protection of the public.
The SELC Significant Structure Model
Recommendations are intended to be a guide-
line. SELC worked to represent general
conditions that are currently adopted by
AHJs and conditions that are being consid-
ered by AHJs who have begun the process of
implementing structural engineer licensure.
The recommendations cover a wide range
of structure types, all of which have specific
code requirements and risk implications. The
International Building Code (IBC) and ASCE/
SEI 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated
Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, were
the basis in conjunction with various existing
statutes and rules. The document addresses
both vertical and horizontal structures.
SELC envisions this document being used in
multiple ways by AHJs, legislatures, practic-
ing engineers, educators, and students with
the general idea of providing a format for uni-
formity in understanding what a “significant
structure” is. A person reading and trying to
apply this document to his or her practice can
personally decide if gaining the additional cre-
dential of S.E. is required. Structural Engineers
Associations (SEAs) and other local groups
must work with their state licensing boards to
review the proposed guidelines and develop
rules addressing the relevant needs and chal-
lenges by selecting or adapting the specific
provisions that best address them.
To review the document, please go
to www.selicensure.org.■
Kristin Killgore is an Associate/Project Manager
for FSB Architects and Engineers in Oklahoma
City. She is the co-chair for the NCSEA Structural
Licensure Committee, a representative in the
Structural Engineering Licensure Coalition, and a
membership committee co-chair of the Oklahoma
City Chapter of Commercial Real Estate Women.
FEBRUARY 2020

Marc Barter Honored with Lifetime Achievement Award,
NCSEA Media Role Transitioned to Brian Dekker
A t the 2019 NCSEA Structural
Engineering Summit in November
in Anaheim, California, Marc Barter,
P.E., S.E., SECB, President of Barter and
Associates, Inc., Mobile, Alabama, was
honored with a Lifetime Achievement
Award from NCSEA and STRUCTURE
magazine. Marc was recognized during
the Awards Celebration for his outstand-
Marc Barter, P.E., S.E., SECB
ing vision, tireless dedication, and years
of service to STRUCTURE in his role
as President of NCSEA Media, the business operations side of the
magazine. Marc’s efforts – largely behind the scenes – have been
responsible for much of its long-term success, including his wisdom
and resolve during the “Great Recession” that ensured its survival at
a time when the publishing industry was struggling.
Beyond his involvement with STRUCTURE, Marc has been an
integral part of the history of NCSEA. He was one of the Council’s
founding members in 1993, subsequently serving on the Board of
Directors from 1994 to 2001 and as President in 1999-2000. He
also assisted several efforts to start new SEAs around the country as
chair of the Member Organization Development Committee. Marc
NOTEWORTHY
has previously received two of NCSEA’s Special Awards: the Service
Award, which honors those who have made a clear and indisputable
contribution to the organization and therefore to the profession; and
the Robert Cornforth Award, which is presented to an individual for
exceptional dedication and exemplary service to a Member Organization
and to the profession.
In January, Marc stepped down from his role
as President of NCSEA Media. The NCSEA
Media Board of Directors is excited to announce
that it has elected another NCSEA Past
President – Brian Dekker, P.E., S.E., President
of Sound Structures, Inc, Lake Zurich, Illinois –
to assume the position going forward. Marc and
Brian have been collaborating on this transition
for several months. After serving as a member
of the Board of Directors of the Structural
Brian Dekker, P.E., S.E Engineers Association of Illinois, Brian served
on NCSEA’s Board of Directors from 2011 to 2017, including a term as
President in 2015-2016. Brian has a passion for outreach and advocacy
within the structural engineering profession and his experience
as both a volunteer leader and a business owner will be a valuable
asset to STRUCTURE’s future.■

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

RECORDS
“An NCEES Record makes it
fast, easy, and convenient to
apply for additional P.E.
licenses in other states.”
Alexander Zuendt, P.E.
Zuendt Engineering
Record holder since 2011

National Council of Examiners

for Engineering and Surveying® Build your NCEES Record today.
P.O. Box 1686, Clemson, S.C. 29633 ncees.org/records
864.654.6824

STRUCTURE magazine FEBRUARY 2020 13

 structural REHABILITATION
Evaluation of Existing Timber Structures
By Jim DeStefano, P.E., AIA, F.SEI

M an has been building timber structures

throughout Europe and Asia for over 4,000
years. In North America, timber structures have been
built since the first Europeans arrived 400 years ago.
Consequently, there are thousands of old timber
structures still in service.
When restoring or renovating an old timber struc-
ture, or when adapting it to a new use, it is often
necessary to evaluate the structural integrity and
load-carrying capacity of the timbers. When structural
deficiencies are identified, structural remediation Older timber structures are easily adapted to a variety of uses.

may be in order. If the structural evaluation is based on overly conservative or unrealistic assumptions, the resulting
remediation program may be excessively costly and may result in unsightly and unnecessary alterations.

types of decay are dry rot. Precise identification of fungi is difficult,

Deterioration and Impairment but, fortunately, it is not necessary for most projects.
It is rare to find an old timber structure that does not exhibit some Several species of insects bore into or feed on wood tissue. In
degree of deterioration that may affect the capacity of the structure. North America, the most common are termites, powderpost beetles,
Timber deterioration may be caused by fungal decay, insect infesta- carpenter ants, and carpenter bees. For purposes of evaluating the
tions, structural overload, or mechanical damage. The reduction structural load-carrying ability of an impaired timber, the por-
in structural load resistance associated with timber deterioration is tion of the timber containing decay or insect damage is typically
referred to as impairment. treated as a void.
Fungal decay, often called decay or rot, is by far the most common
type of timber deterioration. Rot is caused by a fungus that feeds on
the lignin and cellulose fibers of the wood. There are a variety of rot
Condition Assessment
fungi types. Brown rot is the most common form of decay, while wet The condition assessment of a timber structure begins with a visual
rot and white rot are not uncommon. Dry rot is a form of brown rot, examination to evaluate the extent of deterioration and to identify
but the term is frequently misused since many engineers believe all signs of structural distress.
To properly locate the
damaged areas in the struc-
ture, an understanding of
the places where rot is
likely to occur is essential.
For example, areas where
persistent roof leaks are evi-
dent or where timbers are
pocketed into a masonry
wall are often more sus-
ceptible to rot. For a more
in-depth evaluation of
timber condition, an awl
is a simple and indispens-
able tool for probing the
surface of a timber to iden-
tify the depth and extent of
Wet discolored timber is evidence of decay. An awl is an effective tool for evaluating surface deterioration. deterioration, from either

14 STRUCTURE magazine
rot or insect damage. Any portion of the techniques is determining what allow-
wood that can be penetrated with modest able stress values are appropriate.
pressure from an awl should be assumed Engineers who are not experienced
to be impaired. evaluating timber structures may
There may be deterioration present make erroneous assumptions about the
within the core of a timber that cannot timber species and grade that can lead
be seen and is too deep to probe with to flawed conclusions and misguided
an awl. Sounding with a hammer can recommendations. For instance, if for
be effective at identifying hidden dete- expediency, Spruce-Pine-Fir (SPF) No.
rioration. The sound that the timber 2 grade is assumed for analysis purpose,
makes when struck with the hammer but the actual timbers are Southern
is an indication of the soundness of the Pine conforming to a Select Structural
timber. A dull thud is an indication that grade, the analysis will be overly conser-
there may be internal deterioration. vative and will significantly undervalue
Some form of nondestructive evalua- A resistance drill can identify hidden deterioration within a timber. the structure.
tion (NDE) may be warranted if hidden
deterioration is suspected. There are some sophisticated NDE systems
such as ultrasonic stress-wave measurements that have been used
Identifying Timber Species and Grade
with limited success in evaluating deteriorated timbers. Although The timber species must be identified before design values can be
not entirely non-destructive, resistance drilling is an effective method determined. Some timber species, particularly hardwood species, have
that leaves minimal evidence of the test. distinctive characteristics that can be visually identified by a trained
Resistance drilling creates a small diameter hole (typically 1⁄8 inch) eye. However, since timbers in existing structures are often aged,
in the timber, and the torque required to advance the drill bit is stained, dirty, or even painted, it is usually necessary to take specimens
measured and plotted versus depth. Rotted or insect-damaged areas of the timbers and examine the anatomical features of the wood with
clearly show up. a hand lens or under a microscope to determine the wood species.
It is worthwhile to measure the moisture content of the timbers The Forest Products Laboratory provides a wood species identifica-
with a hand-held moisture meter. A high moisture content (above tion service, but this service is not intended for large quantities of
30%) is an indicator that conditions are conducive to fungal decay. samples or extensive ongoing use by private firms. It is usually more
Signs of structural distress such as fractured, split, or deflected
timbers should be identified. Particular attention should be paid
to connections and joinery since that is where most structural
failures initiate.
Seasoning checks are not splits and are often misidentified as struc-
AutoTight ®

tural defects. Checks are ordinary timber features and are not defects. TIGHTER CONNECTIONS
No reduction in design bending strength is warranted for a checked
timber. Checks typically do not require remediation. BETTER PERFORMANCE

Structural Evaluation

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

In the structural evaluation of an existing timber structure that
has been in service for decades, the first step should always be
an assessment of the structure’s performance. If the structure
is reasonably free from damage or deterioration and has been
safely supporting the imposed loads with no sign of structural
distress, and no change of use is anticipated that would impose
 
higher loads than have been carried in the past, there is usually
no need to embark on a detailed structural analysis or to consider
structural remediation.
The National Design Specification for Wood Construction (NDS) is a
reliable standard for the structural design of new timber structures
but is not a good standard for predicting the actual behavior or
adequacy of existing structures. Within timber grade classifications,
there is a wide variation in strength properties. The published
allowable stress values are calculated based on the weakest 5% of
timbers of a given species and grade. Consequently, the published
reference design values are very conservative for most of the timbers
that are in service.
For adaptive reuse of an old timber structure where the new use
has higher loading requirements than the previous use, a structural
ZERO LOOSENESS
analysis is appropriate. One challenge when determining the load- PH: (360) 378-9484 – WWW.COMMINSMFG.COM
carrying capacity of an existing timber structure using analytical

FEBRUARY 2020 15
 expedient to engage the services of a wood not one that has published design values,
scientist or a commercial service to identify the design values can be calculated based
the species based on small specimens taken on procedures described in ASTM D2555,
from the structure. Standard Practice for Establishing Clear
Once the timber species has been identi- Wood Strength Values, and ASTM D245,
fied, the next step is to assign a grade to the Standard Practice for Establishing Structural
timber. It would be unusual to find a grade Grades and Related Allowable Properties for
stamp on timbers unless the structure is less Visually Graded Lumber.
than 50 years old. Published grading rules Allowable stress values should be adjusted
are intended for the grading of freshly sawn based on the in-service moisture content
timbers at a sawmill. The grading rules have of the timber. The published values in the
restrictions on many timber characteristics NDS Supplement are based on timbers that
(such as stain, pitch pockets, and pinholes) are in the green condition with a moisture
that are primarily of cosmetic concern and content above 19%. Timber gains strength
have an insignificant bearing on structural and stiffness as it dries and seasons. Refer to
properties. The strength defining timber TFEC (Timber Frame Engineering Council)
characteristics are limited primarily to the Technical Bulletin 2018-9 for recommended
slope of grain and knot size. Consequently, adjustments to reference design values for
when performing in situ grading, greater bending in timbers with a moisture content
emphasis should be placed on the slope of of 19% or less.
grain and knot size rather than cosmetic Examining the end grain of a timber specimen with a It is essential to base the structural analysis
characteristics. hand lens to identify the wood species. on actual timber dimensions rather than
In assigning grades to timbers, in-situ grading tabulated nominal dimensions. The timber
follows the grading rules of rules-writing agencies such as the Northeast dimensions change as the timbers season and shrink. It is the actual
Lumber Manufacturers Association (NeLMA), the Western Wood dimensions that really matter.
Producers Association (WWPA), the Southern Pine Inspection Bureau As one becomes familiar with the imprecision involved in the grad-
(SPIB), or others. ing rules for timber and the procedures for determining reference
Straightness of grain has a significant influence on the flexural or design values in ASTM D245, it becomes clear that, if a timber
tensile strength of a timber. A timber with a 1:6 slope of grain has in an existing structure is found to have calculated stresses that
approximately 40% of the flexural strength of a timber with a straight exceed the design values given in the NDS Supplement, it does
grain. For flexural members, the slope of grain is most critical in regions not necessarily mean that it is not capable of safely supporting the
of high bending stress. The slope of grain can safely be permitted to applied loads. It is a mistake to reject a member because calculated
exceed grade limits in areas of little or no bending without requiring stresses exceed the design value associated with the given species and
that the grade for the entire timber be reduced for determination of grade by relatively small amounts, on the order of 10 percent. For
allowable bending stress. example, 50 psi calculated overstress in bending falls more or less
Knots are a significant strength-reducing feature in timber due to within roundoff error for that property. Moreover, given that the
the deviation of grain around the knot. When grading a timber, knots design value is based on the 5th percentile exclusion limit, flexural
located in regions of high flexural strength are of the most interest. stresses that are more than 100 psi above the design value might
There is a commonly held belief that old timber is stronger than new reasonably be considered acceptable for timbers in existing structures,
timber because the trees grew more slowly in the dense virgin forests particularly if the timbers are performing well.
of the old days and “they just do not grow them like they used to.”
While there is some truth to that belief, it is not universally factual.
It is generally true for softwood timber species, but it is not true of
Conclusion
hardwoods such as oak. Slow grown oak timber is brash (less ductile) If the timber structure is reasonably free from damage or deteriora-
and weaker than fast grown oak. tion and has been safely supporting the imposed loads with no sign
In softwood timber, density often relates to the rate of growth, which of structural distress, and no change of use is anticipated that would
is measured as the number of growth rings per inch along the radial impose greater loads than have been carried in the past, service stresses
axis. If there are more than six rings per inch measured on a radial exceeding design values need not be reason for strengthening or
line and one third or more “summerwood” (this is the less porous replacement of the timber structure.
portion of an annual ring of wood that develops late in the growing On the other hand, if timbers are exhibiting signs of structural dis-
season and is identified as a narrow dark band), Douglas Fir and tress or are severely deteriorated, remedial measures are appropriate.
Southern Pine are graded as “dense.” A “dense” grade designation This article contains excerpts from TFEC 3-2019, Guide to Structural
relates to an increased allowable bending strength value in the NDS Evaluation of Existing Timber Structures, published by the Timber
of between 15% and 20%. Frame Engineering Council (TFEC). The full document is
available at www.timberframeengineeringcouncil.org.■
Structural Analysis
Jim DeStefano is the President of DeStefano & Chamberlain, Inc., located in
Once the timber species and grade have been established, allowable Fairfield, Connecticut. (jimd@dcstructural.com)
stress values can be selected from the NDS. If the timber species is

16 STRUCTURE magazine
 The easier way
to a stronger roof
Introducing the Simpson Strong-Tie Roof Connector System.
®

It takes more than just nails to build a strong roof. Our LSSR
slopeable/skewable rafter hangers, LSSJ adjustable jack hangers,
HHRC hip-ridge connectors and LRU rafter hangers are ideal
LSSR LRU solutions for designing resilient and cost-effective stick-frame roofs.
These connectors not only provide strength, their versatile and
intuitive design allows for quick and simple installation – making
it easy to meet code.
To learn more, visit go.strongtie.com/strongroof
or call (800) 999-5099.
HHRC LSSJ
© 2020 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. STRONGROOF17-S
YOUR VISION. OUR STEEL.
NO LIMITATIONS.
Your projects depend on having the right products
in the right places at the right time. The Nucor
team is focused on providing you with high
quality products and unmatched customer service.
Our eight locations are conveniently located across
the United States to meet the demands of your
industry fast.

That’s our promise – every ton, every time.

Learn more at www.nucortubular.com

historic STRUCTURES
Norwalk Bridge Disaster
By Frank Griggs, Jr., Dist. M.ASCE, D.Eng., P.E., P.L.S.
T his failure was not a structural failure but a failure of safe opera-
tional control of a wood and iron swing bridge built across the
Norwalk River for the New York and New Haven Railroad. This line, as
the name implies, was built to connect New York City with New Haven,
Connecticut. The line was chartered in 1844, but construction did not
start until 1847. The first train reached New Haven in January 1849.
After leaving the New York and Harlem Extension at Williamsbridge, the
line ran along the north shore of Long Island Sound and had to cross many streams and rivers draining from the mainland
into the Sound. Some of these waterways were used for shipping, and the railroad had to provide for the boats using them.
In 1841, the New York and Harlem Railroad built a bridge over
the Harlem River for its northern extension, marking the northern
boundary of Manhattan Island. It was at Park Avenue (then called
Fourth Avenue) with three fixed, wooden, 90-foot-long Town Truss
covered spans. The remaining span was a 90-foot wooden swing
span with a clearance of about 30 feet on each side of the pivot. The
line then headed north to Albany through White Plains, ending at
Chatham Four Corners where it linked up with the Albany and West
Stockbridge (Boston and Albany) line to Albany. Its engineer was
Alan Campbell and his assistant W. W. Evans.
It was decided to build swing bridges, much like the Harlem River
span, that, when open, provided for shipping and when closed pro-
vided for rail traffic over the navigable rivers the line crossed. The
longest of these was at Milford, where it crossed the Housatonic
River. The bridge consisted of covered bridges on each end flanking
a 134-foot wooden swing bridge. The total length of the bridge was
1,293 feet. The Norwalk Bridge was much shorter but had a similar
swing span with open flanking wooden deck trusses. These were not
the first wooden swing bridges but were early ones.
Train in the river with some cars still on approach spans, New York City to the right.
Bridge Site, approximately 50 miles from New York City. (Note
some of the lines were added after the opening of the New York
and New Haven line.)
The charter for the Norwalk Bridge required a horizontal clearance of
60 feet on both sides of the center swing pier. A tower was placed on the
top of the trusses and chains dropped down to the trusses to support
the cantilevered arms when the bridge was open. The method used to
inform the locomotive engineer as to whether the span was open or
closed was a red ball on a high post mounted on the bridge, so it was
visible from a distance. “When this is displayed from the top of the
pole, it signifies that all is right; but if the engineer can’t see it from a
point about a quarter of a mile distant, where there is a sign, on which
is written ‘Look out for the Draw’ with a hand pointing in the direction
of the ball, he must stop.” This system worked well until May 6, 1853,
when a train from New York City, bound for New Haven, ran through
the signal and crashed into the Norwalk River with the locomotive,
given its speed, actually crashing into the swing span pier 60 feet away.
Local newspapers covered the accident, in part, as follows:
“The 8 o’clock train for New York ran off the draw-bridge into the
river near this place. One car was completely submerged, and two
others completely demolished. There has been a terrible loss of life.
The excitement is so great that it is impossible to get a list of the killed
or injured. The engine went through first, followed by two
passenger cars. The 4th passenger car split in two, one half of
which was thrown into the river and the other half caught
on the draw…The drawbridge was open, the steamboat
Pacific having just passed through. The locomotive baggage
car and two passenger cars plunged into the river, fifteen
feet below the surface. Every person in the first two cars
were either killed or severely injured…
It appears that the train left New York with about 200
passengers, a number of whom were bound to Bridgeport
and other places in Connecticut…The train proceeded as
usual until it reached South Norwalk, a distance of about
44 miles from New York. At this place is a bridge across the
river, with a draw that swings to one side, leaving an open
space for vessels to pass through. It appears that before the
train reached Norwalk, the draw had been opened to allow
the steamer Pacific to pass through. The steamer had cleared
the bridge, but before the draw could be replaced, the train
suddenly approached the bridge going at a rate of thirty miles
FEBRUARY 2020 19
 an hour and perhaps faster. The water at this
place, at high tide, is about nine feet deep,
and the soft mud beneath it also quite deep.
On a high pole at the draw, a signal is
placed, the position of which is, according
to the rules of the road, to be arranged by
the draw-tender, to indicate that the way
is clear or otherwise, as the case may be. It
is likewise customary for a man to wave a
flag at or near the entrance of the bridge, in
the village, to indicate to the engineer that
there are no impediments in that immediate
locality, as well as to keep people from the
track. The engineer alleges that he looked
out reasonably and that he not only saw the
flag-waving at the point last mentioned but
the signal on the pole at the draw so arranged
as to indicate that all was right for the train
to pass and that he accordingly went on. Appleton’s illustrations.
The draw-tender, on the other hand,
asserts that the reverse was the case – that he made the signal that
the draw was open and the bridge, of course, impassable. The fault,
therefore, lies between these two men. An investigation will deter-
mine upon which the dreadful responsibility must rest.
The draw being thus open, the advancing train leaped into the chasm.
The engine went first and was buried in the mud so deep that at low
water it was out of sight. The engineer, who says he had reversed his
engine, saved himself by leaping off at the abutment of the bridge. The
fireman saved himself in a similar manner. The baggage and smoking
car in which there were a number of persons, fell upon the engine,
followed by two passenger cars; a third passenger car fell halfway
down, end broken in two, a portion of the passengers falling into the
water, while others managed to save themselves, some of them being
injured. The first passenger car contained some forty persons, many
of whom were rescued through the roof. The baggage-car, when it
struck the engine was much broken up, and the persons in it killed.
One of the passenger cars was wholly submerged, and every person
in it suppose to drowned.”
The engineer, Edward W. Tucker testified,
“I believe I was going at the rate of fifteen miles per hour past the
Norwalk depot; I whistled for breaking up just west of the bridge over
the road coming up to the depot; I am certain the ball was up; I cannot
be deceived; I did not look through the window glass, but entirely out;
I do not think I could have been mistaken anything for the signal; I
can see the signal just before I got to the bridge; I am certain I saw the
signal; I am very careful…I sounded the whistle the moment I saw
the end of the draw; the brakes were not applied for if they had been,
I think the train might have stopped before going off the bridge…”
The bridge keeper, William Harford, testified,
“As near as I can remember, it was fifteen minutes from the time I
started the draw to close it before the train went over… I then lowered
the ball and laid it on the bridge. I kept the bridge down a few minutes
and listened if I could hear the train coming… I only heard the whistle
as the train came around the curve; the whistle was blown twice; I
heard no bell…that is my opinion as near as I can guess the length of
time; I have not seen the engineer, and I don’t want to see him hardly.
Other persons testified that the ball was in a down position indicating
the bridge was open. A total of 46 people were killed and 85 injured.
A coroner’s inquest found, in part:
The immediate cause of this disaster was the negligence and reckless-
ness of the said engineer.
20 STRUCTURE magazine
1st – In running around the curve at a
rate not less, certainly, than twenty miles
per hour; when under the circumstances
should have been half that.
2 nd – In not discovering that the ball was
down immediately after emerging from
the cut.
3 rd – In not looking for the ball at the
highway crossing east of the depot.
4 th – In relying, as he says he did, upon
the flags of the switch-tenders, when he
well knew that they were not in sight of
the draw, and had nothing to do with it.
5 th – In not running even slower than
usual when the track was wet and slippery.
In addition to all this, he well knew that
the draw was required to be very frequently
opened. In not discovering that the ball
was down, we think he was guilty of gross
negligence. In running around the curve
at this rapid rate, and under such circumstances, we think him guilty
of the most criminal recklessness.
At the same time, we do not think the entire responsibility of this
disaster rests upon him. As we have before observed, the rules of the
company do not make it the duty of the conductor to observe the
signals, nor are we prepared to say that they should.”
Appleton’s Magazine had a lengthy article on the disaster, writing:
“There were three other causes conspiring with this temporary
carelessness, or the result would never have been experienced. First,
the curve in the road and a number of intervening objects shut the
signal out from view during a considerable portion of the immedi-
ate approach to the bridge. Second, the color of the signal had faded
by exposure from a bright vermillion to a reddish-brown. The third,
and principal, is the fact that, at the distance of some half a mile, the
point where the eye of the engineer first meets this signal of safety, it is
exhibited not standing out against the sky but against a distant wood,
any dark spot in which might, in the temporary stupid condition sup-
posed, be taken for the signal. This is the theory we have formed, and
confidently believe in, at the present moment. The only look at the
signal was made mechanically, on first emerging from the bridge; at
this distance, some dark spot in the background was made to answer
the purpose, and the fated train swept on till near the bridge before
the absence of the accustomed signal flashed on his lethargic brain.”
The coroner’s report was carried in full in many newspapers later in
May 1853 and was signed by all 12 members of the Jury. Tucker and
Comstock, the conductor, were charged with manslaughter, but both
were acquitted. Death claims amounted to about $290,000, which
almost bankrupted the railroad. The state legislature passed a law
that required all trains to come to a complete stop before proceeding
across any swing span, agreed to by Appleton’s. In the early years of the
development of the American Railroad, this was the worst disaster on
record and, as is often the case where there is loss of life, Legislatures
overreact as they did here. Making the train stop before proceeding,
while safe, requires a longer time for the train to get from
point A to point B thus negating the economic advantage of
the railroad, its speed.■
Dr. Frank Griggs, Jr. specializes in the restoration of historic bridges, having
restored many 19 th Century cast and wrought iron bridges. He is now an
Independent Consulting Engineer. (fgriggsjr@twc.com)
Learn about the changes in ACI 318-19

Attend one of 25 public seminars

titled “ACI 318-19: Changes to
the Concrete Design Standard”
being held throughout the
United States this spring.
With ACI 318-19 now 100 pages
FREE longer than the previous edition,
COPY OF two industry experts will walk
ACI 318-19 FOR seminar attendees through the
ALL SEMINAR
new provisions and present
ATTENDEES
major technical changes.

SEMINAR LOCATIONS
Albany, NY New Orleans, LA
Baltimore, MD Pittsburgh, PA
Chicago, IL (Rosemont) Portland, OR
Cleveland, OH Raleigh, NC
Dallas, TX Richmond, VA
Denver, CO San Diego, CA
Des Moines, IA Savannah, GA
Detroit, MI (Farmington Hills) St. Louis, MO
Emeryville, CA Tampa, FL
Houston, TX
Indianapolis, IN
Little Rock, AR
Miami, FL
Minneapolis, MN
Nashville, TN
New Brunswick, NJ

Visit concrete.org/ACI318 for a complete seminar

description and all registration information
 Addition, Renovation, and
Rehabilitation at Hotel Julian
By David Nickell, S.E., Martin White, S.E., and Roger Reckers, S.E.

 he condition of the building certainly did not match

its high-profile location. For years, the existing 12-story
building at 168 N. Michigan sat vacant on one of Chicago’s
busiest thoroughfares. With an address on Michigan Avenue
near the northwest corner of Millennium Park, countless
residents and tourists would pass by each day. This empty shell
was a once-prominent structure that had fallen into disrepair
due to previous renovation attempts that were abandoned in
mid-construction. Pieces of the original terra cotta façade had
been removed, openings had been created in exterior walls
and left uncovered, and the interior was in a similarly poor
condition (Figure 1). During the design team’s walk-through
at the beginning of the project, water that had penetrated
the unsealed roof and traveled down 12 levels could be seen
puddling on the basement slab.
The structure was originally constructed in 1911 as a bank
office building and for decades occupied a place on the historic
“Michigan Avenue Street Wall.” It utilized the popular structural
system, of that era in Chicago, of clay tile flat arch slabs span-
ning to steel I-beams and built-up steel columns. These columns
extended to concrete-encased steel grade beams and hand-dug
concrete caissons. The lateral system consisted of masonry infill
shear walls in the long direction of the building and built-up
steel girder moment frames in the short direction.

Structural Scope
The original programming goal of providing a 200+ key boutique
hotel ultimately required a structural scope that could be split
into two categories: addition and renovation/rehabilitation.
The addition came in the form of six new levels rising above
the top of the existing structure, increasing the total building
height from 160 to 240 feet and the square footage from 70,000
to 100,000. This significant increase required changes to the
existing structure, renovations to accommodate programming
changes, and repairs to in-situ conditions.

Addition
The design team’s first task was to assess the capacity of the
The rehabilitated exterior façade facing Michigan Avenue. Courtesy of Anthony May. existing structure to support the increased gravity loads

22 STRUCTURE magazine
from the 6-story addition. Field mea-
surement and documentation of each
column lift were required due to a lack
of column information in the original
structural drawings. Small coupons of
the existing steel were taken and ana-
lyzed by a testing agency to determine
the yield strength, ultimate strength,
and weldability of the steel. Sonar
testing of the existing concrete cais-
sons, performed by the geotechnical
engineer, was completed to determine
the bearing depth and used to provide
a design bearing capacity.
After a thorough review of the existing
drawings and subsequent field investi-
gation, structural analysis revealed that
the existing columns and caissons were
adequate to support the weight of the
new addition. This was anticipated by
the design team, based on a table listing
assumed dead and live loads for future
stories on a scrap sheet of the existing
building drawings.
Unfortunately, it did not appear that
the original designers accounted for
the lateral load of a new addition.
Although the 80-foot-tall addition
increased the height by only 50 percent,
it more than doubled the overall over-
turning moment on the building. The
existing masonry shear walls (resist-
ing loads against the short face of the
building) were determined to be struc-
turally adequate. However, the existing
moment frames at the front and back
of the building (resisting loads against
the long face of the building) had no
excess capacity to resist the new loads.
A full-building 3-D analysis utilizing
ETABS software revealed that all com-
ponents of the moment frames were
overstressed, from the bearing capacity
of the existing caissons to the stress in
the columns, plate girders, and riveted
connections.
Additionally, deflections were deter-
mined to exceed the industry standard
limits. This major shortcoming of the
existing lateral system, but the ade-
quacy of the gravity system, is most
likely attributed to advances in lateral
analysis and changes in code-required
wind loads over the past century.
Each moment frame would need to
be wholly retrofitted or a new solution
would need to be devised.
Strengthening the existing moment
frames was considered and found to be
infeasible since the size of the existing
caissons limited the capacities of the
Figure 1. The exterior façade facing Michigan Avenue at the
outset of the project.
Figure 2. One of three new braced frames erected in the
existing building.
frame. Therefore, an alternate system
was required that would not disrupt
the occupiable space, that could be
erected inside of an existing structure,
and which was stiff enough to draw
load away from the moment frames.
The solution was to install a hybrid
lateral system consisting of two com-
ponents throughout the full height of
the existing 12-story building:
1) Three new braced frames (Figure 2)
adjacent to the elevator shafts were
used for the main supplement to
the existing lateral system. New
columns were erected between
the existing double I-beam girders
and HSS braces were installed
within the shaft walls at each level,
extending down to the existing
steel grade beams and up through
the new addition. This allowed the
new lateral component to fit seam-
lessly into the building while not
impacting the architectural intent
of the space.
2) The steel braced frames were
coupled with double angle steel
knee braces (Figure 3, page 24 ),
installed at approximately 175
locations throughout the interior
of the building. This turned the
existing interior double I-beam
girders into link beams between the
steel brace frames and knee braces.
This provided the additional lateral
stiffness required to draw load away
from the exterior moment frames.
This approach required local rein-
forcement of the existing columns
against prying effects on the riveted
built-up steel columns, but maxi-
mized the excess axial and bending
strength of the interior columns.
In conjunction with the analysis and
engineering associated with reinforce-
ment of the existing structure, the
six stories of the addition were also
designed. Although the design of the
new framing was straightforward,
erection of the framing posed a sig-
nificant challenge to the contractor.
The constrained project site did not
permit the use of a tower crane for
steel erection. Neighboring buildings
are present on the north and south
sides, while the building is bounded
on the east and west sides by public
streets that could not be obstructed
(Michigan Avenue and Garland Court,
respectively). Instead, the design team
and contractor collaborated to develop
FEBRUARY 2020 23
 Figure 3. These double angle steel knee braces were installed at
approximately 175 locations throughout the interior of the existing building.
a method of supporting mobile cranes on the highest constructed
floor in order to erect the next floor above, then raising the crane
to that floor and continuing the process. For the first floor of the
addition, the existing roof, this required reinforcement of existing
beams and installation of a new composite slab-on-deck located
inches above the existing clay tile slab. This floor and the subsequent
floors above were designed for two uses: the load imposed by the
mobile cranes during construction and the code-required loading
in the final condition.
Renovation / Rehabilitation
The project also required significant renovation and rehabilitation
to convert an early 20th-century building into a modern hotel, due
primarily to the building’s condition at the start of the project.
There were multiple periods of vacancy during its 105-year lifetime,
including immediately before the project start. Water infiltration
and exposure to the weather had compromised portions of the
clay tile slab and caused significant corrosion of the steel fram-
ing in select areas. Some specific areas of rehabilitation included:
• Steel beams throughout the existing building were rein-
forced or replaced due to corrosion. The most extensive
rehabilitation occurred at the existing roof, where full bays
of steel beams were removed and replaced due to the extent
of section loss. Investigations of the various conditions were
performed to determine whether the beams were to be rein-
forced with plates or replaced with new beams.
• Previously abandoned renovation attempts created openings
in the existing clay tile slab around nearly every existing
column (approximately 200 locations) (Figure 4 ). These
areas, combined with new demolition due to programming
requirements, were infilled using a cast-in-place concrete
system developed to reduce construction time and costs
compared to a slab-on-metal deck infill. This was achieved
by eliminating the need for field welding new beams and
metal deck to the existing painted steel I-beams, which
would have required costly lead abatement before welding.
Eliminating the need for new steel beams at the perimeter
24 STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 4. A typical level showing extensive demolition of the existing clay tile slab.
of the openings also proved to be a key advantage due to
the irregular sizes and shapes of the openings in the existing
slab (Figure 3).
• The condition of the existing clay tile slab was reviewed
throughout the building to identify areas of possible dete-
rioration. Clay tile flat arch slabs are an archaic slab system
that is susceptible to water damage in the mortar placed
between the clay blocks. Standard patching/repair details
were employed as much as possible, but several locations
required complete removal of the existing slab.
The aforementioned cast-in-place concrete infill method was used
to replace the existing slab at these locations.
New Life for an Old Master
The existing building in the heart of Chicago’s downtown, once a
candidate for demolition, received a much-needed rehabilitation.
However, this was only part of the story. The ambitious goal of
adding six levels to a 105-year-old building created an architectural
highlight that stands out on this busy section of Michigan
Avenue. Hotel Julian is now a modern hotel with a structure
as impressive as its coveted location.■
David Nickell is a Principal at TGRWA in Chicago and is a past President
of the Structural Engineers Association of Illinois (SEAOI).
(dnickell@tgrwa.com)
Martin White is a Senior Structural Engineer at TGRWA. (mwhite@tgrwa.com)
Roger Reckers was the Principal-in-Charge at TGRWA. (rreckers@tgrwa.com)
Project Team
Owner: Oxford Capital Group, LLC
Structural Engineer of Record: TGRWA, LLC
Architect of Record: Hirsch MPG
General Contractor: W.E. O’Neil Construction
 The only clip
proven to perform
in full-scale testing.

The new SCS seismic clip doubles the

in-plane capacity of other bypass clips.
The innovative SCS seismic bypass framing connector from
Simpson Strong-Tie is engineered for either slide-clip or fixed-clip
applications in high-seismic areas. Backed by our real-world,
full-scale cyclic testing, the SCS seismic clip delivers the
highest seismic loads in the industry.
Trust the value-engineered SCS seismic connector for your next
project. Visit go.strongtie.com/scs or call (800) 999-5099.

© 2020 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. SCS18-E

 The Key Salvaging History:
Oakland’s Structural

at 12 th
Rebirth
By Peter W. Somers, P.E., S.E.

Figure 1. Design vision. Courtesy of Gensler.

T he Key at 12th is an 18-story office development in the heart of the

central business district of Oakland, California. In an area where
construction is booming and old buildings are being demolished all
over the city to make way for modern facilities, Magnusson Klemencic
Associates (MKA) was intrigued by the idea of designing a tower that
repurposed a building rather than leveling it. Engineers worked side-
by-side with architects and contractors to create a new structure that
integrated the adjacent historic building, the 8-story Key Systems
Building (KSB), into a combined development of 334,000 gross
square feet (Figure 1). The project includes ground-floor retail, two
occupied roof terraces, and is located next to a transportation hub.
The Key at 12th is a textbook example of how the AEC industry can
meld modern design with classic architecture, proving that progress
can coexist with preservation.
a hotel and office. One project began installing approximately 80
precast piles on the bare site, and another project contemplated
demolishing all of the KSB except for the façade and integrating the
façade into a new building. Both projects stalled and were ultimately
abandoned due to financial considerations, in part because of the
cost to integrate the historically significant building but also because
attracting tenants to a difficult site proved challenging.
Finally, in 2017, Ellis Partners purchased the site and engaged Gensler
to design an office building that integrated the KSB into the project
in a manner that salvaged the existing structure while providing Class
A office space. Preserving the KSB was a critical feature in successfully
navigating the entitlement process, while creating a maximum-sized
and highly-functional office floor plate was essential for attracting
top-tier tenants (Figure 2).

Site History Project Vision

The Key at 12 site occupies approxi-
th
mately one-third of a city block
bounded by Broadway, 11th Street,
and 12th Street, and originally con-
tained the KSB and several low-rise
structures. Significantly damaged in
the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake,
the low-rise buildings were demol-
ished and their one-level basements
were filled with rubble up to grade.
The KSB was also damaged and,
unfit for occupants since the event,
it stood vacant for the last 30 years.
Several development projects had
been proposed for the site, including
Combining the dual goals of historic
preservation and modern office design,
the team configured a floor plan with
a side-core layout to maximize the size
of the office floor plate adjacent to
Broadway, placing the elevators, stairs,
and other core functions on the west
side of the site, adjacent to another
12-story office building located on the
property line. The building is split –
the lower levels (1 through 8) combine
a new structure with the existing KSB
while the upper levels (10 through 18)
are new construction. Gensler’s design
Figure 2. Existing site with historic KSB building. Courtesy of Gensler. merged new with old and function

26 STRUCTURE magazine
with form. The higher levels of office feature floor plates that cantilever
approximately 25 feet over the KSB, resulting in maximum space and a
design feature that combines and contrasts with the KSB.
The structural system consists of light-weight concrete slabs on
composite steel decking, supported by steel framing. The cantilever
is supported by two-story steel trusses located on the three exterior
sides. To avoid interior trusses, MKA designed an approximately
100-foot-long exterior truss at the end of the cantilevered bay that
transfers loads to 25-foot-long cantilever trusses located on the east
and west perimeter sides of the building.
The tower’s lateral system consists of buckling-restrained braces
(BRBs) and is comprised of single-story bracing configured in an
E-shape at the core and two-bay, multi-story braces on the east side
of the building to control torsion due to the offset core. With a roof
height of 240 feet, the building is designed using the prescriptive
requirements of ASCE 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
and Other Structures. Figure 3. Lateral system plan summary.
The foundation consists of a mat under the core on the western
two-thirds of the site and a pile-supported grade beam on the west new tower to buttress the existing KSB by adding diaphragm ties and
side of the site. collectors (Figure 3). The new tower’s lateral system was proportioned
based on the mass of the KSB and designed to be stiff enough to
protect the existing, brittle, exterior wall systems at the KSB. A series
Integration of the Key Systems Building of north-south oriented collector elements were added at each floor
A central feature of this project was to bring new life to the vacant and to tie the KSB into the new tower diaphragms.
dilapidated KSB. The building, constructed in 1911, is a steel-frame The existing south exterior masonry wall was removed after the two
structure with concrete floors and masonry exterior walls. Consistent structures were connected to allow clear access between the KSB
with buildings of this vintage, the structure did not have a well-defined and the new tower. Also, the line of exterior columns located at the
lateral system. Rather than add intrusive and space-constraining new former perimeter walls was removed to provide a more substantial
lateral elements within the KSB, the design solution was to use the open office space. The relatively close-spaced columns (approximately

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

Seismic Approved
Girder Clamps
Lindapter’s Girder Clamp is the world’s first
and only ICC-ES approved structural steel
clamping system for all Seismic Design
Categories (A through F).

4 Design Strengths independently evaluated by ICC-ES

4 Compliant with the International Building Code
4 Meets the requirements of AISC 360, 341 and ASCE/SEI 7
4 True alternative to welding or bolting
ESR-3976
4 Approved for structural steel connections

Download the ESR-3976 Evaluation Report from www.LindapterUSA.com or call 866 566-2658

FEBRUARY 2020 27
 15 feet on-center) did not align
with the columns of the new tower
and would have created a forest of
columns at the transition between
the two buildings. The existing
KSB framing that had been sup-
ported by these columns is now
supported by cantilever steel beams
extending from the new building
columns. MKA worked closely
with the contractor to sequence
both the masonry wall and column
removal to avoid extensive tem-
porary shoring. Occupants will
have an unobstructed view from
the new building into the restored
brick walls and wood windows of
the KSB.
Lateral System Design
To minimize the building’s weight Figure 4. Lateral system elevation.
and to provide more flexibility at
the interior of the side-core layout, a steel-braced lateral system was
selected for the project. It was determined that an all-steel structural
system was faster to erect than a concrete core. A braced frame was
placed at the eastern perimeter along Broadway to control torsion
and satisfy the requirements in ASCE 7-10 for the height increase
to 240 feet for braced frame structures. To reduce the number of
braces, provide a more open façade, and to meet the design intent
of the architect, this perimeter brace is arranged in a multi-story
“X” configuration and celebrated as a design feature visible through
the curtain wall. The core bracing, which is generally hidden from
view, was configured as single-story bracing in a chevron pattern to
minimize the unbalanced loading on the beams.
The main design challenge with the BRB lateral
system was the interaction with the trusses supporting
the cantilever. MKA’s design solution was to provide a
two-story “elastic” zone at the level of the trusses (Figure 4 ).
Standard BRB framing exists above and below this level, but the
two levels of truss floors utilize wide flange bracing designed for
amplified seismic forces (omega) to force BRB yielding either above
or below the transfer level. In addition, the trusses themselves were
designed for gravity loads plus amplified seismic forces based on the
relative lateral stiffness of the trusses compared to the other bracing
elements on these floors. Ductile seismic performance is assured
through yielding in the BRB ele-
ments, and stability is protected
through the strength of the elastic
zone elements.
The BART Influence
The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
system plays a significant role in the
design of a building as engineers
must consider and strategize ways
to adapt a structure’s foundation
around the tunnels. This poses
many challenges. BART requires
new developments adjacent to their
tunnels and underground stations
to limit any loading within the
Zone of Influence (ZOI) to no
more than the current load on the
site. The ZOI is defined as a line
starting from the lowest point of
the BART structure adjacent to the
subject property and extending up
at a slope of 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical until it hits grade (Figure 5).
While downtown Oakland benefits from relatively good soils and an
18-story building using a light-weight steel structure could generally
be supported on shallow spread footings or a mat, the proximity of
the tower to the BART station required a different approach – deep
foundations. Based on the depth of the tunnel and proximity to the
site, the ZOI crosses the basement level approximately one-third of
the way into the site. Therefore, all structural elements located in
this third of the site needed deep foundation elements to transfer
the load below the ZOI. The Key at 12th utilizes double-cased auger
cast piles (24-inch piles within 33-inch steel casings) above the ZOI
that are effectively free-standing concrete columns within the ZOI.
Lateral forces are transferred from the perimeter braced frame back
to the mat foundation through a basement-level transfer slab.
The site beyond the ZOI is founded on a concrete mat that varies
from 5 to 7 feet at the core. The column layout for the tower was based
on three bays in the east-west direction with the first interior column
located on the mat foundation. However, during design, additional
as-built information on the BART tunnel depth revealed the tunnel
to be slightly deeper than initially anticipated. This required the mat’s
leading edge be thickened by 4 feet to bear outside the ZOI.
A Development for Oakland’s Future
Expected to open in early 2020, The Key at 12th continues
the rebirth of downtown Oakland while preserving one of
the architectural treasures of its history. As cities continue
to change, grow, and modernize, projects such
as the Key at 12th show that we can successfully
integrate old and new construction.■

Peter W. Somers is a Principal at Magnusson Klemencic

Associates. He is the leader of MKA’s Existing Buildings
Technical Specialist Team, Past President of the Seattle
Chapter of the Structural Engineers Association of
Washington, and actively involved in structural engineering
code development, particularly those related to the
renovation of existing buildings. (psomers@mka.com)
Figure 5. Foundation concepts.

28 STRUCTURE magazine
model.iesweb.com
Easy-to-use structural software. Get a free trial in 2 minutes. Promo code: SM2TB
 Hale Centre Theatre TRULY ONE OF A KIND
By Tait A. Ketcham, S.E., and Darren G. Dickson, S.E.

H ale Centre Theatre in Sandy, Utah, is a world-class theater expe- The overall building height is primarily driven by the requirements
rience that is truly one of a kind. It features a centrally located for the stage – clearances required over the stage, catwalks, and
round stage with seating radiating concentrically outward, subsequent clear height required for the overhead crane systems or
each row increasing in diameter. When patrons experience a show at “bogies.” These combined requirements resulted in a total structure
Hale Centre Theatre’s center stage, the viewing angle is 360-degrees. height of just over 158 feet, with approximately 90 feet above exterior
The Theatre is approximately 130,000 square feet with two separate grade and 68 feet below grade. The perimeter walls of each theater
stages. The theater-in-the-round seats over 900 patrons and the smaller are 18 inches thick, designed to meet the stringent sound transmis-
Jewel Box theater seats 460 people. The total construction cost of the sion requirements as well as act as the primary lateral system for the
building was $80 million, of which $20 million was allocated to the building. Due to the quantity and thickness of the walls, the shear
stage technology and overhead crane systems. What makes this theater demand due to seismic loads is relatively low. The more significant
unique is the stage and crane system technologies incorporated into design issue was adequately connecting these very tall and heavy walls
the design. TAIT Towers from London, England, was the designer to the diaphragm for out-of-plane loads. The tallest individual wall
and installer of these systems. About Hale Centre Theatre, they have was 116 feet above the footing. One interesting fact is that, due to
stated: “You will not be able to find a lift system or overhead crane this height and thickness, the resulting concrete yield calculates to
system like this anywhere.” These high-tech systems created several over 6.5 cubic yards of concrete per linear foot of wall.
unique structural design challenges for the structural team. The radiused suspended seating is also one of the most unique
The round revolving stage was designed to provide 20 feet of vertical aspects of this project. To allow for two slip stages used to cover stage
travel. This required the overall stage structure to be at a height of 40 openings when the stage is lowered to the pit level, the seating was
feet. The theater was designed to have the stage level 14 feet below grade. required to be suspended. These slip stages retract below the seating
The level that supports and houses the round stage and ancillary equip- on opposing sides. The beams for seating matched the radius of the
ment is known as the sub-pit, which extends an additional 40 feet below stage and had to span to sloping beams, creating large torsion effects.
the pit level. The existing groundwater table was approximately at the This resulting thrust was resolved with tube sections at strategic points
elevation of the stage, compounding along the radius beams extending
the challenges. Many options were up the seating and into the floor
vetted, and the resulting design was diaphragm at the top of the seat-
to permanently dewater 14 feet (to ing. Directly over the slip stage, at
pit level) and design for hydrostatic the bottom of the seating, it was
and buoyancy pressures reaching required to maintain the typical
over 40 feet at the bottom of the 21-inch step between seating rows.
sub-pit. The resulting design hydro- As a result, a very shallow structure
static uplift pressures exceeded 3000 was required to still allow for the
psf. The structural design utilizes a 16-inch-deep slip stage and associ-
52-foot inside diameter, 18-inch- ated clearances. The design utilizes
thick wall that acts as a compression cantilevered tubes in-plane with
ring to resist the water pressure the deck that results in a struc-
forces. The walls are supported on tural depth of only 4 inches at this
a 36-inch-thick continuous mat lowest row of seats.
footing underpinned with twenty- One of the governing factors in
nine 16-inch round steel pipe piles the design was to have a column-
extending over 70 feet below the free space within the viewing area
mat footing. Aerial view showing the subpit compression ring. of the theater. Also, the “Loading

30 STRUCTURE magazine
 Loading level framing supporting a suspended three-tiered catwalk below.
Level” above the stage and seats was to be used as a storage space
for show sets, props, wardrobe, and other support spaces for the
theater production. The resulting design has four main columns
within the box of the theater that provide the majority of the load
support for the floor and the roof above. This level is approximately
36 feet above the seating and designed with 125 psf storage load-
ing. The design utilizes six-foot-deep, built-up plate girders. Four
of the girders span 110 feet to two transfer plate girders spanning
up to 107 feet. The weight of the transfer girders exceeds 700 plf.
This level also supports all the catwalks that encircle the space above
the stage and seating areas. The catwalks are suspended from this
level using tube column hangers resulting in the column-free space
desired in the viewing area.
The clearance above the Loading Level was driven by the height
required to support two 15,000-pound overhead cranes or “bogies”
with 4,000-pound payloads and the associated hoisting requirements
for each. One concern for the bogie support is that the hoisting
requirements are exact, down to 1⁄8 inch. Keeping snow load deflec-
tions within this limit, while allowing precise calibration of the hoists,
was not realistic within the same structural system. This also was not
acceptable from a safety standpoint. The solution was to support the
bogies from two trusses that are supported independently from the
roof. The result is two steel wide flange trusses that span 138 feet
and are independent of the roof. The trusses are braced laterally to
the exterior walls via a series of struts and ties. The trusses have been
designed to limit the maximum deflection of 1 inch while under full
loading of the bogies in a dynamic loading condition.
Suspended radius framing for seating with cantilevered tubes at Independently supported “bogie” truss system.
bottom row to allow the slip stage to retract beneath the seats.
900-ton crane hoisting 6-foot-deep plate girders.
In addition to design challenges, there were many construction
challenges for the contractor, Utah-based Layton Construction. For
example, constructing the sub-pit that extends approximately 54
feet into the groundwater. The contractor decided to install steel
sheet piling in a circle, slightly larger than that required to construct
the round sub-pit. The circular geometry was chosen over a square
because it allowed for a compression ring to brace the sheet piling
while excavating without adding horizontal tiebacks or internal brac-
ing that would create future construction conflicts. Then a series of
construction wells were constructed to draw the water down.
In addition to the depth into the ground, the height above grade was
also a significant challenge to construct. With very thick and heavy
walls that extend up to 116 feet above the footing, constructing these
walls before any floor diaphragm being in place was a significant
concern. Close collaboration between the contractor’s construction
approach and the wall design allowed the contractor to build and
sequence the construction in a manner that met the project schedule.
An additional interesting construction challenge that required col-
laboration was the installation of the large plate girders. The concrete
walls were required to be constructed for the full height of the struc-
ture, so a 900-ton crane was over 90% utilized to hoist the furthest
girder into place, over 125 feet away from the crane set-up location
and 90 feet over the wall. Due to the proximity of the crane outrig-
gers to the basement wall, the wall was designed to accommodate
the 450-kip outrigger reactions caused by the crane. The resulting
outrigger pad consisted of 15- x 20-foot bearing mats of 12- x 12-inch
wood timbers with an additional 10-inch x 8-inch x 15-foot solid
steel bearing pad on top of the wood mat. The
resulting bearing pressure was near 1400 psf.
From the outset, the owner’s goal was to
create a world-class venue that would attract
theater-goers from all continents. The unique
design issues from a structural perspective
were challenging, but, in the end, add signifi-
cantly to the overall experience of the venue.
Hale Theatre’s mission is to provide inno-
vative, professional family theatre
education that involves and elevates
the community.■
Tait A. Ketcham is the President at Dunn
Associates, Inc in Salt Lake City, Utah, and
Engineer of Record for this project and Past
President of the Structural Engineers Association
of Utah. (tketcham@dunn-se.com)
Darren G. Dickson is a Senior Associate at
Dunn Associates, Inc in Salt Lake City, Utah.
(ddickson@dunn-se.com)
FEBRUARY 2020 31

Design-Build and the Structural Engineer
A Call for Leadership
By Ciro Cuono, P.E.
D esign-Build, though not new as a
delivery method for building projects,
appears to be on the rise. Traditionally known
as the Master-Builder method, it is a means of
building where one party holds responsibility
for both the design and the construction. The
Master-Builder method was the only method
before the now ubiquitous design-bid-build
project structure. The Romans for example,
famous for their roads, aqueducts, and amphi-
theaters, did not design a project, bid it out
to subcontractors, and then select the low
bidder to build it, but rather designed and
built structures in a collaborative, somewhat
simultaneous fashion. In building a house
for a client during Colonial times, one party,
such as a master carpenter, was responsible
for delivering the general layout and exte-
rior details, selecting structural members, and
completing construction. In this way, the
carpenter acted as the architect, engineer,
and builder simultaneously. The concept of
design, bid, and build arose out of the natu-
ral specialization of the architect, engineer,
and builder in the post-1850s world, where
modern structural engineering was born and
separated from architecture, and architects
and builders fully separated as distinct and
separate entities.
A century ago, an architect or engineer
might be expected to design both the struc-
tural framing of a building and the heating
and cooling equipment. However, the build-
ing environment of today, like most fields,
is continually becoming more specialized
and complex. Every 3 years, codes get a
little thicker, new products and techniques
continuously come online, and more highly
specialized knowledge is developed.
Given the development of the field into spe-
cialized areas and the foreseeable continuation
of high-depth knowledge, the idea of a single
person Master-Builder is virtually impossi-
ble. Just like a country doctor in another era
may have acted as an internist, surgeon, and
obstetrician, today that would be unheard
of, impracticable, and potentially dangerous.
Therefore, the Master-Builder paradigm can
only exist as a team effort among a group of
specialists – an oligarchy of architects, engi-
neers, and builders who work together to
design and build a joint project as one team.
32 STRUCTURE magazine
While the idea of design-build is not new, I
believe it will continue to gain more market
share in the AEC industry for a few reasons:
1) Technology: 3-D modeling programs,
ease of file transfer and sharing.
Greater technological sophistication of
builders all will lead to increased and
more natural collaboration.
2) Competition: Increased competition in
the AEC industry as a whole, includ-
ing from emerging firms abroad,
will lead to innovation, including
inventiveness of delivery methods and
construction techniques.
3) Prefabrication: Prefabrication of build-
ing components and whole buildings
is likely to increase. This will doubt-
less be a natural evolution from 3-D
modeling and manufacturing technol-
ogy. Prefabrication of components like
concrete panels and structural insu-
lated panels is basically a design-build
endeavor. It seems logical that this will
eventually extend to whole buildings
and, therefore, the whole design and
build effort.
In the current state of practice, most design-
build projects are either builder-led or
architect-led with some exceptions. In builder-
led projects, a general contractor provides
design-build services and hires an architect and
consultants to provide the design. In contrast,
in an architect-led project, the architect, in con-
junction with consultants, designs the projects
and then hires a general contractor or acts as
a construction manager and hires the various
sub-contractors. In either case, the structural
engineer is not in charge. Why is this? Why
can the structural engineer not be in charge?
Structural engineers design the primary and
most crucial part of a building and we lead, in
the literal sense, the construction effort. After
all, buildings are not mechanical systems or
excavation sites or facades – they are structures,
and structure always goes first.
One can envision a future where structural
engineers seize a leadership role and morph
into a design-build paradigm in which they
own and operate companies that design and
build the foundations and framing systems
of buildings and have, on staff, collabora-
tive and capable specialists such as architects,
INSIGHTS
technicians, civil and mechanical engineers,
and seasoned construction professionals. In
this concept, an Owner still retains a design
Architect to put the Owner’s vision on paper
(or in a model) and then the Owner hires a
company to complete the design and build it.
In this vision of the future, a company that
the Owner hires is a design-build company
led by structural engineers who complete
a traditional design role and act as master
coordinators for the rest of the design and
construction effort with fellow specialists.
Currently, in some states, a design-build
model, as outlined above, is not allowed under
one entity, and the design needs to be under
a separate contract. However, the benefits of
this design-build system are many. First, this
would put structural engineers on top of the
food chain, leading to more consistency in
fees. Fees would no longer be simply fees but
would have to be truly thought of as a percent-
age of the entire construction cost. Secondly,
this would lead to greater efficiency of design.
Designs could be more daring and less sim-
plified if the structural engineer knows they
have control over what happens in the field.
Thirdly, working cooperatively and directly
with sub-contractors who build structures (an
invaluable experience that many structural
engineers have had) would bring better and
direct training in constructability and practi-
cality. Additionally, this forced leadership role
would elevate structural engineering practice
and help to attract future talent.
I view this model as the future of our busi-
ness, coming full circle to something close
to the Master-Builder idea, albeit through
broad-scale cooperation of highly trained
specialists in varied backgrounds. While this
model may not be attractive to all structural
engineers, the idea of leadership
and collaboration should be a goal
common to all engineers.■
Ciro Cuono is the Founding Principal of Cuono
Engineering PLLC, a structural engineering
firm located in Port Chester, NY, and NYC,
and is a past Assistant Adjunct Professor at
The Bernard and Anne Spitzer School of
Architecture at the City College of NY.
(ccuono@cuonoengineering.com)
FEBRUARY 2020
Are
You
Redi?
REDICOR SIMPLIFIES AND ACCELERATES THE
CONSTRUCTION OF REINFORCED CONCRETE CORES.
Conventional cast-in-place, pre-cast and Now there’s a better way.
masonry methods of constructing reinforced
concrete shear cores often require long and RediCor is a pre-fabricated, ready-to-set
expensive modular steel form system that simplifies and
Pre-engineered load- schedules accelerates concrete core construction. Our
bearing structural before load-bearing modules are ready to set once
connections enable structural on-site, and structural framing can be installed
framing to begin framing can simultaneously – saving time, energy and
immediately. begin. money. Are you Redi?

VISIT US AT REDICOR.COM FOR THE REDICOR STORY.

TM

V U LC R A F T/ V E R C O

Powerful Partnerships.
Powerful Results.
EARTH, ROCK and CONCRETE
ANCHORING TECHNOLOGY

WILLIAMS FORM
SUPPORTS YOUR TOUGH PROJECTS
■ Ground/Concrete Anchors
■ Post-Tensioning Systems

■ Concrete Forming Hardware

Williams Form has been a leader in anchoring

technology and concrete forming systems for
nearly a century. Today, we manufacture a
comprehensive line of anchors, post-tensioning
systems, micropile and concrete hardware. Our
construction products are used in successful
foundation, excavation and stabilization
projects throughout North America.

LOCATIONS:
■ Belmont, MI ■ Portland, OR
■ San Diego, CA ■ Collegeville, PA
■ Golden, CO ■ Kent, WA
■ Lithia Springs, GA ■ London, ON

williamsform.com 616.866.0815

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 2015 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.
CAST CONNEX
Phone: 416-806-3521
Email: info@castconnex.com
Web: www.castconnex.com
Product: Cast Steel Nodes and Connectors
Description: The use of cast steel nodes and
connectors in steel bridge structures can provide
improved fatigue performance, enhanced
structural resilience, and can reduce the total life-
cycle cost of pedestrian, road, and rail bridges.
ENERCALC, Inc. ENERCALC
Phone: 800-424-2252
Email: info@enercalc.com
Web: https://enercalc.com
Product: Structural Engineering Library/
RetainPro/ ENERCALC SE Cloud
Description: Steel design is easy/fast with
ENERCALC’s Structural Engineering Library
(SEL). Beams, columns, 2-D frames, force
distribution in bolt groups, SEL handles it all.
3-D sketches make it fast and easy to setup,
confirm, and do “what-if ” calculations. Member
optimization improves efficiency and saves time!
Seismic and wind modules included.
Hexagon
Phone: 346-260-8798
Email: andrea.velazquez@hexagon.com
Web: https://hexagonppm.com
Product: GT STRUDL
Description: A trusted, general-purpose beam
and FEA solution. Bridge engineers can leverage
the power of the moving load generator, truss
wizard for quick model generation, ability
to model sloped and skewed geometry, and
perform staged construction and cable or
dynamic analysis to solve complex projects.
IES, Inc.
Phone: 800-707-0816
Email: info@iesweb.com
Web: www.iesweb.com
Product: VisualAnalysis
Description: Helps engineers bridge the
gap between theory and practice. Get
analysis and design results. Engineers
praise VisualAnalysis as “easy to learn” and
an “excellent value.” Try it free on your
next project and get answers you need to
succeed. Indeed. Proceed to the website.
BRIDGE resource guide
LUSAS
Phone: 646-732-7774
Email: info@lusas.com
Web: www.lusas.com
Product: LUSAS Bridge
Description: Use to analyse, design, and assess all
types of bridge structures and investigate soil/structure
interaction effects. Recent releases have extended
the engineer’s workflow from analysis into steel and
RC frame design, and improved prestress, concrete
modeling, and vehicle and rail loading capabilities.
RISA
Phone: 949-951-5815
Email: benf@risa.com
Web: risa.com
Product: RISA 3-D
Description: With RISA-3-D’s versatile modeling
environment and intuitive graphical interface,
you can model structures like pedestrian bridges
in minutes. Get the most out of your model with
advanced features such as moving loads, dynamic
analysis, and over 40 design codes. Structural
design has never been so easy!
Standards Design Group, Inc
Phone: 800-366-5585
Email: info@standardsdesign.com
Web: www.standardsdesign.com
Product: Advanced Window Glass Design
Description: Performs all required calculations to
design window glass according to ASTM E 1300-16
and ASTM E 1300-09, ASTM E 1300-02/03/04,
ASTM E 1300-98/00, and ASTM E 1300-94.
Includes computations for the E 1300-16 Analytical
Method. Facilitates calculations for three-ply
laminates. Most comprehensive analysis and design
package for glass to date.
STRUCTUREPOINT
Phone: 847-966-4357
Email: software@structurepoint.org
Web: www.structurepoint.org
Product: spLearn
Description: As the former software
development team of the Portland Cement
Association, StructurePoint is uniquely
positioned at the heart of the cement industry.
Our licensed structural engineers have decades
of experience with reinforced concrete design.
For assistance, structural engineers will benefit
from the multiple resources on our website.
Product: spColumn
Description: Visit our Technical Article
webpage to see Bridge Pier Design Capacity
Evolution where two interaction diagrams
using spColumn software are superimposed to
compare and contrast capacity before and after
the introduction of major code changes at the
beginning of the century. This will help bridge
designers make-money saving decisions.
Trimble
Phone: 678-737-7379
Email: jodi.hendrixson@trimble.com
Web: www.tekla.com/us
Product: Tekla Structures
Description: First class structural software for steel,
concrete, wood, and composite bridge structures
and details. Increase productivity through higher
automation of fabrication and 4-D product
management. Drawings and reports can be automated
generally from the constructible 3-D model. The
detailed model can bring efficiency to bridge
maintenance and repairs.
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org
F E B R U A R Y 2 02 0 35
 NCSEANCSEA News
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
NCSEA Hosts Timber-Strong Design Build Competition at ’19 Summit
In partnership with the American Wood Council, Simpson Strong-Tie, and APA–The Engineered
Wood Association, NCSEA brought the Timber-Strong Design BuildSM Competition to the
2019 Summit in Anaheim, California. This “hands-on” competition, designed for university
engineering students, provided a real-world experience in both planning and building a wooden
structure within a team environment.
Student teams were required to submit the design of their structure along with a report that
calculated the carbon footprint of the structure as well as the cost of materials. The building
portion took place on November 12th at the Disneyland® Hotel where six teams competed to
build a two-story wood structure within 90 minutes. The six teams represented schools from
four states: California (California State University-Sacramento, University of California-Los
Angeles, and California Polytechnic State University – San Luis Obispo,), Kentucky (University
of Kentucky), Minnesota (University of Minnesota – Twin Cities), and Florida (University
Students from Calfornia Polytechnic building their
of South Florida).
structure.
As volunteers taped off the parking lot indicating where each school would be doing their
build, the students arrived with their pre-fabricated panels, tools, and safety equipment ready to compete. The teams were not only required
to keep their builds within the 90-minute time frame, but they were also required to keep all materials within a given area while they com-
pleted their structure. Structural engineer judges observed and scored aspects of the build while additional volunteers kept an even closer
watch on the students’ safety as well as their correct use of tools and equipment. Once time was called, a verbal presentation was made by
each team which included a display board to reference aspects of their design and build.
The winners were:
1st Place: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
2nd Place: University of California, Los Angeles
3rd Place: University of Kentucky
Teams were responsible for the deconstruction and removal of the structures, but with an added
opportunity: schools were given the option to donate their structure to the Childhood Cancer Foundation
of Southern California (CCFSC). In turn, the CCFSC would give it to one of their patient’s families
to be reassembled in their backyard. Three schools donated their creations. As a special highlight of
the day, a young patient and her family attended the build and she was able to choose which structure
would be reassembled in her backyard, courtesy of the support of Simpson Strong-Tie employees. As
a memento of the young patient’s attendance at the event, NCSEA gave a hardhat with the Council’s The representative from the Childhood
logo as a remembrance of the day. Cancer Foundation of Southern California
posing with strudents from UCLA who
built the playhouse she chose.

2020 Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards

NCSEA's Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards annually highlights some of the best examples of structural engineering ingenuity
throughout the world. Projects are judged on innovative design, engineering achievement, and creativity. Multiple winners are presented in
eight categories with an outstanding winner chosen from each category. The winners will be honored at NCSEA's Structural Engineering
Summit in Las Vegas, Nevada this November.
The awards are presented in the following categories:
• New Buildings under $30 Million
• New Buildings $30 Million to $80 Million
• New Buildings $80 Million to $200 Million
• New Buildings over $200 Million
• New Bridges or Transportation Structures
• Forensic/Renovation/Retrofit/Rehabilitation Structures under $20 Million
• Forensic/Renovation/Retrofit/Rehabilitation Structures over $20 Million
• Other Structures
Entries are due on July 14, 2020. Structural engineers and structural engineering firms are encouraged to
enter. More information about the awards along with submission instructions can be found on www.ncsea.com.

36 STRUCTURE magazine
 News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

Communications Committee's First Public Outreach Challenge Roars

NCSEA's Communications Committee challenged NCSEA Member Organizations to inform and educate other
industries, professions, and the general public about Structural Engineering through the publication of news
articles, videos, blogs, and other creative content.The SEAs were asked to submit a portfolio of content generated
over the past two years, which the judging panel would score based on both quantity and potential audience.
The Member Organizations that participated in the inaugural challenge submitted over 300 individual pieces
of content. Three MOs were recognized as finalists at the NCSEA Structural Engineering Summit in Anaheim,
California, in November. Finalists each received a shake table for use in their public outreach efforts. From these
finalists, a winner was selected and named the Voice of the Profession.

Third Place: Structural Engineers Association of Oregon (SEAO)

SEAO members contributed to several print articles in publications from college alumni magazines and firm
blogs to regional and local business journals. Members also discussed structural engineering at a high school
engineering contest and as a member of a community disaster preparedness panel.
Stand-Out Contribution: bit.ly/39W3flf
Published in a prominent regional business newspaper, this article, authored by an SEAO Structural Engineer, took Maria Mohammed, chair of
advantage of a recent seismic event in the area to capture the general public’s attention and address key concerns SEAOSC's Communications
of nearby residents, while highlighting the impact of structural engineering in a way the public can understand. Committee, accepting the
"Voice of the Profession" award
on behalf of SEAOC.
Second Place: Structural Engineers Association of Illinois (SEAOI)
SEAOI generated a wealth of technical articles for industry publications, assisted with numerous articles for both local and major newspapers,
and expanded to electronic media with podcasts, YouTube videos, and a healthy social media presence.
Stand-out Contribution: bit.ly/2R61pFW
Published in a prominent newspaper, this article uses the public’s existing interest in a new Chicago skyscraper to explain how seemingly aesthetic-
only features are also intentional, and teach the general public structural engineering basics through easy-to-understand graphics.

First Place and Voice of the Profession: Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC)
SEAOC submitted a comprehensive package of over 60 individual articles and initiatives undertaken by its members, demonstrating a
significant impact on public education about the structural engineering profession. Submissions ranged from social media posts, self-
published MO newsletters, and podcast contributions to participation in press conferences, a steady stream of SE-related articles in local
and major newspapers, and leadership within a regional Safer Cities program.
Stand-out Contribution: bit.ly/2uCRYWW
The Safer Cities Advisory Program provides communities an avenue to engage structural engineers in the development and implementation of
regulations and programs to mitigate seismic risk. MO members have built an impressive network of relationships with public policy makers and the
general public through this program, improving their community’s safety, as well as the local perception and understanding of structural engineers.

NCSEA Webinars Register by visiting www.ncsea.com

February 20, 2020 Basics of Strut and Tie Modeling Royce Floyd, Ph.D., S.E.
This webinar will provide a general overview of strut and tie modeling based on the ACI 318 Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary. It will include discussion of situations where a strut and tie
model is appropriate, strut and tie model development, and calculation of strut and tie model strength. The webinar
will also include limited discussion of required detailing.

Courses award 1.5 hours of continuing education after the completion of a quiz. Diamond Review approved in all 50 states.

F E B R U A R Y 2 020 37
 SEI Update
New SEI/ASCE Titles
Life-Cycle Design, Assessment, and Maintenance of Structures and Infrastructure Systems is a
state-of-the-art comprehensive report outlining current status and research needs examining:
• The environmental impact on concrete and steel structures;
• Strategies for assessing these deteriorating systems;
• Life-cycle management concepts; and
• Maintenance policies for these structures and infrastructure networks.

Recommended Practice for Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Products for Overhead Utility Line Structures,
MOP 104, Second Edition, details best practices for the use of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)
composite poles and crossarms in resilient conductor support applications. This new edition updates and expands on nearly every aspect of
FRP pole and crossarm testing, design considerations, installation, and asset management, providing the line designer with another tool in
the line design toolbox in addition to the traditional materials of wood, steel, and concrete. www.ascelibrary.org

Congratulations to the 2020 SEI Fellows!

The SEI Fellow (F.SEI) grade distinguishes members as leaders and mentors in the profession. Join us to recognize these new SEI Fellows at
Structures Congress 2020, April 5-8 in St. Louis:
Thomas Broz, P.E., S.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE Guy Lund, P.E., F.SEI, M.ASCE Karl J. Rubenacker, P.E., S.E., F.SEI, M.ASCE
Peter Chase, P.E., F.SEI, M.ASCE Adolfo Matamoros, Ph.D., P.E., F.SEI, M.ASCE Benjamin Schafer, Ph.D., P.E., F.SEI, M.ASCE
Karen Chou, Ph.D., P.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE Jamie Padgett, Ph.D, F.SEI, A.M.ASCE Shuxian Wassenius, P.E., F.SEI, M.ASCE
Benton Cook III, P.E., S.E., F.SEI, M.ASCE Keith Porter, Ph.D., P.E., F.SEI, M.ASCE
Chung Fu, Ph.D., P.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE Hayder Rasheed, Ph.D., P.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE
Learn more about SEI Fellows and how to advance at www.asce.org/SEIFellows.

Three Reasons to Join SEI: A Perspective from a Graduate Student

By Antonio Zaldivar de Alba, S.M.ASCE, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

First, joining SEI is completely free for students!
We all know the financial challenges of graduate
school, so SEI/ASCE helps by making student
membership free. Student membership comes
with plenty of benefits such as discounts to
attend conferences, STRUCTURE magazine,
discounted membership for the first year after
graduation, and much more.
Second, as an SEI student member, you are eli-
gible to apply for an SEI scholarship to get involved at Structures Congress,
and for the O.H. Ammann Research Fellowship in Structural Engineering.
Both can help you reach your academic and professional goals.
Lastly, and for me most importantly, you can get involved in an SEI
Graduate Student Chapter (GSC). You can form one or join an exist-
ing Chapter if your university already has one. Being part of a GSC
not only opens the door to opportunities inside your university but
throughout SEI/ASCE. SEI GSCs can send a representative to the SEI
Local Leaders Conference (LLC) with most of the expenses covered
by SEI. I had the opportunity to attend the SEI LLC in 2018 and I
can tell you it is a great venue to expand your network by meeting
leaders from student and professional chapters, developing leadership
skills through specialized training, and discussing ideas to improve
the structural engineering profession. Also, you can be a part of the
SEI Graduate Student Chapter Leadership Council, where you will
meet and collaborate with student leaders from other universities,
learning valuable leadership skills.
As a graduate student, you are always busy with demanding courses,
research, teaching assistant duties, volunteer work, and life! But I
want you to know that SEI has opportunities for students with all
levels of interaction and the benefits for all of them are plentiful. The
more involved you get, the more you will be able to get out of it. SEI
has allowed me to travel, meet people, improve my leadership skills,
discover new ideas, and pursue my goals in structural engineering. I
encourage you to expand your horizons and try everything that SEI
has to offer – you will not be disappointed.
Antonio is a structural engineering Ph.D. student researching thun-
derstorm-generated wind loading. He has been an active SEI student
member since he joined UIUC in 2015, has held leadership roles since
2018, and serves as the chair of the SEI Graduate Student Chapters
Leadership Council.

Errata SEI Standards Supplements and Errata including ASCE 7. See www.asce.org/SEI-Errata.
If you would like to submit errata, contact Jon Esslinger at jesslinger@asce.org.

38 STRUCTURE magazine
 News of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE

Announcing 2020 SEI Futures Fund Lecture Presentations

March 19 Don Dusenberry, P.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE, on Performance-Based Design at SEI New Orleans Chapter
April 27 Emily Guglielmo, P.E., F.SEI, M.ASCE, on ASCE 7-16 Seismic at SEI University of IL Urbana-Champaign
Graduate Student Chapter
May 6 Don Dusenberry on Performance-Based Design at SEI Oregon State University Graduate Student Chapter
July 16 Kevin LaMalva, P.E., M.ASCE, on Structural Fire Engineering at SEI Colorado Chapter
Thank you to each of the speakers for generously sharing their time and expertise. Event details to be announced.
Learn more and give to support SEI Vision initiatives www.asce.org/SEIFuturesFund.

ASCE Week March 22–27, 2020 | Orlando, FL

• Earn up to 44 PDHs
• Register by February 28 for 25% off regular seminar prices
• Choose from two private Disney tours! Earn up to 4 PDHs!
www.asceweek.org

SEI Online

SEI News Read the latest at www.asce.org/SEINews

SEI on Twitter SEI on Facebook SEI Standards

Visit www.asce.org/SEIStandards
Follow us: @ASCE_SEI Follow us: @SEIofASCE to View ASCE 7 development cycle

F E B R U A R Y 2 02 0 39
 CASE in Point
Did you know?
CASE has tools and practice guidelines to help firms deal with a wide variety of business scenarios that structural engineering firms face
daily. Whether your firm needs to establish a new Quality Assurance Program, update its risk management program, keep track of the skills
young engineers are learning at each level of experience, or need a sample contract document – CASE has the tools you need!
CASE has several tools available for firms to use for recruiting and retaining employees.

962 National Practice Guidelines for the Structural Engineer of Record

962-B National Practice Guidelines for Specialty Structural Engineers
Tool 2-2 Interview Guide and Template
Tool 2-3 Employee Evaluation Templates
Tool 3-2 Staffing and Revenue Projection
Tool 3-5 Staffing Schedule Suite
Tool 4-3 Sample Correspondence Guidelines
Tool 5-1 A Guide to the Practice of Structural Engineering
Tool 5-2 Milestone Checklist for Young Engineers

You can purchase these and the other Risk Management Tools at www.acec.org/bookstore.

CASE Winter Member Meeting

February 27-28, 2020
The 2020 CASE Winter Member Meeting is scheduled for February
27-28, 2020, in New Orleans. The agenda for the meeting includes:
Thursday – February 27
1:30 pm to 5:30 pm CASE ExCom Meeting
6:15 pm to 7:30 pm CASE Project Speaker
Friday – February 28
7:30 am to 8:30 am Shared Breakfast
8:30 am to 10:00 pm CASE Roundtable – Stacy Bartoletti,
Moderator
10:00 am to 10:30 am Shared Morning Break
10:30 am to 12:00 pm Technology Panel Discussion – Kevin
Registration can be found at
Peterson, Moderator
www.acec.org/coalitions/upcoming-coalition-events.
12:00 pm to 1:15 pm Shared Lunch
1:30 pm to 5:30 pm CASE Breakout Sessions Questions? Contact Heather Talbert at htalbert@acec.org.

Donate to the CASE Scholarship Fund!

The ACEC Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE) is currently seeking contributions to help make the structural engineering
scholarship program a success. The CASE scholarship, administered by the ACEC College of Fellows, is awarded to a student seeking a
bachelor’s degree, at minimum, in an ABET-accredited engineering program. Since 2009, the CASE Scholarship program has given $32,000
to help engineering students pave their way to a bright future in structural engineering.
We have all witnessed the stiff competition from other disciplines and professions eager to obtain the best and brightest young talent from
a dwindling pool of engineering graduates. One way to enhance the ability of students to pursue their dreams to become professional
engineers is to offer incentives in educational support.
Your monetary support is vital in helping CASE and ACEC increase scholarships to those students who are the future of our industry.
All donations toward the program may be eligible for a tax deduction, and you do not have to be an ACEC member to donate! Contact
Heather Talbert at htalbert@acec.org to donate.

40 STRUCTURE magazine
 News of the Council of American Structural Engineers
CASE Practice Guidelines Currently Available
CASE 962-D – A Guideline Addressing Coordination and
Completeness of Structural Construction Documents
These guidelines focus on the degree of completeness required in struc-
tural construction documents (“Documents”) to achieve a “successfully
completed project” and on the communication and coordination required
to reach that goal. They do not attempt to encompass the details of engi-
neering design; rather, they provide a framework for the SER to develop a
quality management process. Currently, the coordination and complete-
ness of Documents varies substantially within the structural engineering
profession and among the various professional disciplines comprising the
design team. The SER’s goal should be meeting both the owner’s and
the contractor’s needs by producing a complete and coordinated set of
Documents. Owners and contractors generally understand that some
changes to the Documents will occur because they realize that no set of
Documents is perfect. The SER must focus on completeness, coordina-
tion, constructability, and the reduction of errors in order to minimize
potential changes. A companion document is available: CASE Tool 9-1:
Coordination and Completeness of Structural Construction Documents.
CASE 962-E – Self-Study Guide for the Performance of Site
Visits During Construction
Co-authored by ten professional engineers on the CASE National
Guidelines Committee, Guidelines for the Performance of Site Visits
is a guide intended for the younger engineer but will be useful for
engineers of all experience levels. Structural engineers know that site
visits are crucial construction phase services that help clarify and
interpret the design for the contractor. Site visits are also opportuni-
ties to identify construction errors, defects, and design oversights that
might otherwise go undetected. Engineers should include adequate
construction phase services as a part of their scope of services to
ensure the design intent is properly implemented. In 2016, the
document was updated with key points to summarize each section,
updated references and definitions, and details on current tools for
conducting site visits. A companion document is available and was
also updated in 2016: CASE Tool 10-1: Site Visit Cards.
You can purchase these and the other Risk Management Tools at www.acec.org/bookstore.
Follow ACEC Coalitions on Twitter – @ACECCoalitions.
CASE 962-F – A Guideline Addressing the Bidding and
Construction Administration Phases for the Structural Engineer
This is a guide to the SER’s roles after the construction docu-
ments have been issued for construction. It provides guidance on
pre-bid and pre-construction activities through the completion of
the project. The appendices contain tools and forms to assist the
SER in applying this guide to their practice. The project construc-
tion delivery system (e.g., design/build, design/bid/build) and for
whom the SER works (e.g., owner, architect, general contractor)
will influence the approach and the process during the bidding and
construction administration phases. It is important to understand
that no single method can be defined to accommodate and be totally
effective for every construction situation and construction team
makeup. Therefore, this guideline includes suggested approaches
to the various components that can make up the bidding and con-
struction administration phases.
CASE 962-G – Guidelines for Performing Project Specific Peer
Reviews on Structural Projects
Increasing complexity of structural design and code requirements,
compressed schedules, and financial pressures are among many factors
that have prompted the greater frequency of peer review of structural
engineering projects. The peer review of a project by a qualified third
party is intended to result in an improved project with less risk to all
parties involved, including the engineer, owner, and contractor. Many
aspects of the peer review process are important to establish prior to
the start of the review to ensure that the desired outcome is achieved.
These items include the specific goals, scope and effort, the required
documentation, the qualifications and independence of the peer
reviewer, the process for the resolution of differences, the schedule,
and the fee. The intention of these guidelines is to increase awareness
of such issues, assist in establishing a framework for the review, and
improve the process for all interested parties. A companion document
is available and was updated in 2019: CASE #7 – An Agreement for
Structural Peer Review Services.
FEBRUARY 2020 41

Operational, Redundancy, and Ductility
Factors for Bridge Structures
By Roumen V. Mladjov, S.E., P.E.
T he structural design of buildings and
bridges is currently based on the Load
and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
method. The main structural design philos-
ophy is to maintain the factored resistance
(the strength of the entire structure and all
its elements) above the maximum demand
from the worst possible combination of loads
on the structure. The ratio of the strength
to the demand represents the safety of the
structure, where the nominal resistance is
reduced by multiplying factors < 1.0, while
the loads are increased by multiplying factors
>1.0. These multipliers are the safety factors
prescribed by the design codes and specifica-
tions for both building and bridge structures.
For simplicity, all strength-reducing or load-
demand-increasing factors are called safety
factors in this article.
The basic LRFD bridge design equation is:
Σ ηi γi Qi < ϕRn,
where ϕRn is the factored resistance/strength
of the structure, and Σ ηi γi Qi is the factored
load combination.
The code safety coefficients in structural
analysis and design have worked satisfactorily,
ensuring the general safety of building and
bridge structures. Over the years, structural
design codes have been developed, evolved, and
enhanced. Building and bridge structures have
their individual specifics with different govern-
ing design codes while using the same general
philosophies and similar approaches in design.
Historically, the design and construction of
building and bridge structures have influenced
each other, borrowing structural systems and
construction methods. Building codes pre-
scribe importance factors, depending on the
building occupancy categories, to increase
the demand for more important structures.
Until recently, the bridge design specifica-
tions did not differentiate between the bridge’s
importance. Now, AASHTO has introduced
in its design specifications a new load modi-
fier ηI, the product of three “safety factors”:
operational importance ηI, redundancy ηR,
and ductility ηD, or (ηi = ηI x ηR x ηD).
For each of these factors, the required
upper values are 1.05 maximum for critical
or essential bridges and for design having
non-redundant and non-ductile elements; a
42 STRUCTURE magazine
structural FORUM
lower value of 0.95 is allowed for
less important bridges, for design
with higher levels of redundancy,
and with ductility beyond those
required per specifications.
Operational importance applies
to the strength and extreme event
limit states only.
While the bridge “safety” fac-
tors for operational importance, Great Belt East Bridge, Denmark.
redundancy, and ductility are
from 1.05 to 0.95 or combined are up to a) Importance factor:1.3 to 0.95 based
1.16, the respective ASCE 7 building factors on the amount of average daily traffic
are from 1.0 to 1.5 or combined are up to and the importance of the road:
1.95 (1.5 Importance Factor Category IV, 1.3 b) Redundancy factor: 1.0 for 5 or more
Redundancy Factor), almost seventy percent elements capable of redistributing
higher. loads; 1.1 for 3 such elements; 1.15
Introducing the load modifier, ηi, was a posi- for two such elements; 1.25 for a
tive decision; however, the upper and lower single element without a “back-up”;
values (1.05 to 0.95) do not correctly repre- c) Non-ductile structures, elements, and
sent the significant difference between critical connections should not be allowed in
essential bridges and regular bridges. For earthquake-prone areas.
example, no difference is considered between The proposed change would improve the
bridges carrying a few hundred, or 200,000 to combined value for the ηi load modifier for
300,000 vehicles daily, or for a bridge located bridges varying from 0.95 to 1.63, from the
on a critically important road. This approach current value from 0.86 to 1.16.
has been criticized by other engineers, like AASHTO may consider a reliability factor
Theodore P. Zoli in his article, Operational to be assigned by the Engineer of Record,
Importance, Redundancy, & Ductility – Code depending on the reliability of the design,
Considerations for AASHTO LRFD. construction, control, and maintenance of
Regarding the redundancy, 1.05 is a very low the structure. Such a factor could be between
value for a non-redundant bridge structure; 1.25 1.10 (for not completely reliable) and 0.95
would probably better represent the increased (for a very reliable project).
risk of using a single or very few members of the In conclusion, bridge design specifications
structure without back-up for eventual failure. need to be updated, correcting the combined
The reduction to 0.95 for the redundancy factor load modifier ηi based on the discussion above.
should be removed as it reduces safety; the use Also, it may be necessary to ensure that state
of redundant elements is a requirement. Departments of Transportation likewise amend
Regarding ductility, non-ductile components their specifications to coincide with AASHTO’s
and connections should not be allowed for specifications, provided that the state require-
bridges in seismic areas, similar to what is ments are equal or more stringent; these
required for building structures in California. amended requirements should not use
Using safety factors for importance, redun- lower loads or lower safety factors than
dancy, and ductility is necessary, but current those provided by AASHTO.■
provisions are not sufficient. It is not accept-
able that the current safety of some bridges on Roumen V. Mladjov has more than 55 years
essential roads, carrying 200,000 to 300,000 in structural and bridge engineering and
vehicles per day, should be less than the safety construction management; his main interests
of a two-story building with 30 to 40 occu- are structural performance, seismic resistance,
pants. Bridge design specification should be efficiency, and economy. (rmladjov@gmail.com)
improved as follows:
FEBRUARY 2020
 POWERFUL · VERSATILE · INTUITIVE
without the disadvantages of steel

Fiberglass Architectural Adornments & Awning Supports

VISIT WWW.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