EDITORIAL
Empowering Structural Engineers for a
Sustainable Future: SE 2050 as a Focus Initiative
By Mike Gryniuk, PE
T he Structural Engineering Institute (SEI)
has long been committed to advanc-
ing structural engineering and promoting
excellence in our profession. Recently, SEI
underwent a strategic reorganization to better
fulfill this vision, enhancing its ability to
address pressing challenges and opportunities
within the structural engineering field. Under
a new strategic approach structure, the SEI
Board of Governors identified four key focus
initiatives: SE 2050 Commitment Program
(SE 2050); Performance Based Design;
Education and Leadership; and Young
Professionals. SEI Focus Initiatives receive
prioritized staff support, SEI resources, and
Board of Governors promotion to accelerate
the activities of each.
SE 2050 emerged in 2020 as a collective recog-
nition within SEI of the urgent need to address
the environmental impact of structural systems,
specifically related to embodied carbon. SE
2050 is formally a response to the SE 2050
Challenge issued by the Carbon Leadership
Forum (CLF) where SE was originally ideated.
This call to action signified a bold com-
mitment to steer the profession towards a
sustainable future. SE 2050 aims to achieve
carbon neutrality of structural systems by 2050,
setting a precedent for transformative action
within the structural engineering community.
SE 2050 has evolved into a dynamic platform
for innovation, collaboration, and knowledge
exchange. SE 2050 facilitates a database with
embodied carbon data of structural systems on
real projects, fosters a community in which best
practices in embodied carbon reduction are
STRUCTURE magazine
shared, and provides key resources and tools. As
SE 2050 celebrates its three-year anniversary,
we are proud to say that it has helped empower
structural engineers to navigate the complexi-
ties of sustainable design and construction.
SEI’s commitment to the success of SE 2050
aligns with the growing emphasis on embodied
carbon tracking and reductions globally. There
is little doubt that the total carbon emissions
associated with buildings requires massive reduc-
tions in a relatively short time. Because most
embodied carbon emissions from new build-
ings come from the structural system, structural
engineers are uniquely positioned to spearhead
the paradigm shift of holistically reducing the
environmental impacts of buildings. It is impera-
tive that we, as structural engineering experts,
embrace this leadership role, driving forward the
necessary changes to ensure a more sustainable
and resilient future. There is no one better suited
for this than structural engineers.
While the goal of achieving carbon neutrality
by 2050 may seem daunting, it is critical that
we embrace it wholeheartedly. The building
design and construction industry is changing
and will continue to do so with or without
us—why not take control and ensure this
rapid shift works for all structural engineers?
As structural engineers, we must step up. We
must lead. There are far too many potential
risks (and missed opportunities) of others lean-
ing in and directing structural engineers on
how to best integrate embodied carbon into
our designs. Yes, it is challenging. We must
deal with a seemingly continuous flow of com-
peting priorities while upholding our ethical
responsibilities as professional engineers. Oh,
and do it quickly. And under budget. Structural
engineers are incredible professionals. We are
more than capable.
SE 2050 was established to support structural
engineers in their pivotal role. Through quar-
terly calls attended by 60-70 engineers from
signatory firms, we foster a safe environment for
sharing experiences and best practices, aiming to
enhance understanding of the evolving Standard
of Care and risk mitigation. Additionally, we
offer guidance on material selection, publish
real project case studies, and provide tools like
ECOM for measuring embodied carbon. A key
aspect of SE 2050 involves publicly sharing each
firm’s Embodied Carbon Action Plan (ECAP).
Over 150 firms have committed to sharing their
annual commitment goals.
SE 2050’s commitment to transparency and
data-driven decision-making is further evident
in its efforts to publish embodied carbon data
of structural systems on real projects. Our
first data analysis was presented at the recent
SEICon24 in San Antonio and is the start of
our effort to provide invaluable insights, offer-
ing the only data-driven U.S.-based guidance
on real trends and benchmarks of embod-
ied carbon of structural systems. By sharing
real-world data, SE 2050 enables structural
engineers to make informed choices and drive
meaningful progress towards carbon reduction.
Our next in-development database will not
only include the collection of embodied carbon
but will also collect structural material quanti-
ties of structural systems to provide detailed
insights into the efficient use of materials.
As structural engineers, we must embrace our
role as leaders and stewards of the built environ-
ment, driving meaningful progress and guiding
the profession towards a more sustainable and
resilient future. Through initiatives like SE
2050, we as structural engineers can make a
lasting impact that benefits both current and
future generations. Have you joined the move-
ment? Check us out at: https://se2050.org/. ■
Michael Gryniuk is the Founder and Principal of CORA
Structural in Boston. He co-founded and serves as Chair
of SE 2050. Gryniuk received the 2024 SEI President’s
Award for his efforts on SE 2050.
JUNE 2024 9
 structuralDESIGN
Discussing Engineered Damping
We engineer building mass and stiffness but not damping, making it highly uncertain.
By Ron Aquino, PEng, Shayne Love, PEng, and Jamieson Robinson, PEng
W e have been engineering mass and stiffness in tall buildings, but
not damping.
When a tall building is subjected to a dynamic load, such as wind,
seismic, or traffic, the structure is typically simplified to be represented
as an equivalent spring-mass-dashpot system. In structural design, the
mass and stiffness are normally “engineered” since these values can be
directly calculated using material properties. When a structural engineer
starts to size structural components such as beams, columns, walls, and
slabs, the engineer is effectively selecting a mass and stiffness value for
the individual component based on its geometry and material properties.
Then by taking all components and defining their joint connectivity
(fixed, pinned, or spring), the structural engineer is defining the global
stiffness and mass characteristics of the structure, from which the system
frequencies are determined.
While such mass and stiffness properties of structural materials are
well defined, little is known about the damping or energy dissipation
properties of materials. Damping is therefore a “non-engineered,” highly
uncertain property that is assumed, rather than calculated, at the time
of design. For simplicity in the design process, a global value for each
mode of vibration is assigned based on experience with similar struc-
tures. For further simplicity, one damping value is generally used for all
modes for a particular loading scenario. For example, a 5% damping
ratio is typically used for each mode when performing seismic analysis.
When calculating wind loads corresponding to the ultimate limit state,
perhaps 2.5% damping is assumed for each mode. For service limit
states, the ASCE 7-22 Commentary states that values between 1%
and 2% are typically used in the U.S. while also referring to the ISO
4354 which suggests 1% and 1.5% for steel and concrete buildings,
respectively. In practice, we have seen some engineers use anywhere
between 0.8% to 2% for service conditions (including accelerations
and wind-induced drift loads), and between 1.5% and 3% for Ultimate
Limit State (ULS) wind load cases.
Impact of High Uncertainty in Non-Engineered ments generally reporting damping below 3%. Note as well that these
Damping on Structural Design
Research papers (e.g. Tamura et al, 2000; Bashor & Kareem, 2009) day. According to the Tall Buildings Database by the Council on Tall
Mass damping systems can be slightly more effective even if the inherent damping ratio is lower than assumed in the design. The supplemental damping level can tall buildings.
also be engineered to provide maximum damping at amplitudes where it is needed the most. Images shown are results from specific projects.
10 STRUCTURE magazine
have considered that the coefficient of variation (COV) of damping
could be somewhere between 30% and 70%, whereas the COV of
natural building periods or frequencies is no higher than 10%. The
COV is the ratio of one standard deviation to the mean of a data set.
A COV of 30% can be taken to represent a range of values from 30%
below to 30% above the mean.
The structural design implication of a high COV for damping is
significant. If 1.5% damping is typically assumed for the serviceability
design of a concrete building, a COV of 30% means that it is reason-
able to expect that the actual damping ratio could range between 1%
and 2%. In terms of building accelerations, this implies a variation of
±20% from the expected acceleration if 1.5% damping was assumed
in design. Such a variation is significant and would materially affect
the motion comfort of the building and may also dictate if mitigation
needs to be considered to reduce accelerations. Similarly, this variability
of damping could also alter the wind-induced building drifts by up to
±20% from the expected value. If the damping variation were more
than 30%, the variability or uncertainty in response quantities would
increase as well. For wind loading, a proposal by Bashor & Kareem
(2009) was made to effectively increase wind loads by approximately
20% on account of a 30% COV in damping, together with a 5% COV
in natural frequency.
Observations From Measured Damping in
Tall Buildings
For the most part, the damping values used in design are based on
full-scale measurements on completed structures. However, most mea-
surements are conducted at very low excitation amplitudes compared to
what the buildings are expected to experience during design wind events
with return periods from 10 years or longer. Research in the 1980s (e.g.
Davenport & Hill-Carroll, 1986) showed a somewhat linearly increasing
trend of damping ratio with amplitude, with most of the measure-
early measurements were likely done on buildings that were generally
shorter than the tall, slender buildings we see more of in the present
Buildings and Urban
Habitat (CTBUH),
there were only 13
“super tall” buildings
as of 1990 (i.e. those
that were taller than
300 meters). As of
2010, that number
of super tall build-
ings was 49, and as
of 2020, there were
more than 100 super
Research since the