®

STRUCTURE A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

Special Section: Steel Construction Materials, Products and Software

May 2010 SEI Structures Congress

Masonry May 12-15
Orlando, Florida
 . . .
Y O U K N O W ng
D I D d e C o m p liant anchori
s 6 ICC Co
t Po w e rs F asteners ha ncracked concrete.
• Tha r cracked a
nd u
solutions fo out the
g b ra n ch es through urope,
in ,E
Fa ste n ers has 25 stock presence in Australia
ers ba l
• That Pow s, and also has a glo .
Unit ed S ta te A m erica
a ila n d and South te level, to
Chin a , T h
a ssista n ce at the jobsi .
ed
F a st e n ers offers onsite guidelines are follow
ers on
• That Pow that proper installati ughout
help e n su re minars thro rding
e tr ain in g se ga
F a ste n e rs offers 5 fre ed and up-to-date re
ers rm
• That Pow keep distributors info
the y e a r to cts.
liant produ real-time
code comp D e si gn A ssist (PDA) t
vides free nload a
P o w e rs F a steners pro it is available for dow
• That , an d
gn software
Anchor desi rsdesignassist.com r
www.pow
e
e d uca tio n programs fo
ntinuing s Lunch &
Fa st e ne rs provides co de officials through it
ers co
• That Pow ngineers and building ive 1.25 Professional
struct u ra l e e e s re ce
ttend
ram, and a
Learn Prog t Hours (PDH).
n
Developme
its own
P o w e rs F a steners has ty in its
• That -art testing
facili
state-of-the w York headquarters.
e to
Brewster, N nd Engineers are able g a
a in
Technicians ed Concrete”, includ G
in “ C ra ck (A S TM
test Spray
ck test, Salt
moving cra ), Kesternich Test (DIN
rs
85-500 Hou es), Steel Strength,
8 -1 5 C y cl ing.
5001 d Creep Test
y a n E (2633)
Meta llu rg
ste n ers (88 8) 745-COD pliance
ers Fa about code
com
can call Pow r
• That you intment to learn more ww.powers.com fo
for a n ap p o ebsite at w vide o s.
r visit our w des training
solutions, o ation, which also inclu
more inform

Powers Fasteners, Inc. www.powers.com

2 Powers Lane P: (914) 235-6300
Brewster, NY 10509 F: (914) 576-6483
 CONTENTS
Features
19 NCSEA Basic Education Survey Results – Part 1
For over a decade, the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
(NCSEA) has been working with practitioners and educators to improve the technical
and practical quality of education for structural engineering students. Included in this
issue is the latest survey of educational institutions and relevant courses offered. 8
22 Brick: Any Way You Want It
By J. Gregg Borchelt, P.E.
The brick industry is alive, albeit not thriving right now. Read about more efficient
processes to form and handle brick, upgrades to the firing process, and the
current “state-of-affairs” for this versatile building product.
26 Engineering for Heritage Masonry
By Michael Schuller, P.E. and Glenn Boornazian
Working with historic construction involves carefully balancing engineering
objectives with preservation principles and increased analytical efforts to make
the best use of existing construction. The application of preservation concepts to
several heritage masonry structures provides examples of the structural engineer’s
responsibility to respect the original intent of the original architects and craftsmen 22
of these ancient structures.
30 Special Section – Steel Construction Materials, Products and Software
The economy continues to have a major impact on all facets of the steel industry.
No matter who you talk with, the keys to success in this down economy are the
same: adapt to new conditions and markets, listen and respond even more closely
to users’ needs by offering new products and service, and take advantage of new
technologies and regulations.

Columns Departments
5 Editorial 41 Spotlight
Should Structural Engineers Seek Reinventing 690 Market Street
Recognition? By Navin R. Amin, S.E. 26
By Carrie Johnson, P.E. and Vivian L.K. Wan, S.E.

7 InFocus 43 Quality Assurance Corner In every Issue

The Social Captivity of Engineering Tips for Reducing RFIs
By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB By Clifford Schwinger, P.E., SECB 6 Advertiser Index
and Albert J. Meyer, Jr., P.E.
8 Structural Sustainability 29 Resource Guide
Reducing Embodied Energy in (Steel/Cold Formed Steel)
Masonry Construction
on Cover 44 NCSEA News
®

the
STRUCTURE

By Vivian Volz, RA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP

and Eric Stovner, S.E., LEED AP 46 SEI Structural Columns
The St. Vitus Cathedral at
12 Structural Forensics Prague Castle in the Czech 48 CASE in Point
The Structural Investigation of a 19 th Republic was begun in 1344
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

Century Manufacturing Complex in the Gothic style and was

By D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E., completed nearly 600 years later
F. ASCE, SECB with the west towers and west Special Section: Steel Construction, Materials, Products and Software

SEI Structures Congress

façade in the Neo-Gothic style.

May 2010

16 InSights
Masonry May 12-15
Orlando, Florida

Publication of any article, image, or

On Thinking Inelastically
May10 cover saddle stitch.indd 1

This photo shows the marvelous 4/13/2010 3:03:12 PM

advertisement in STRUCTURE® magazine

By M. Lee Marsh, Ph.D., P.E.
50 Structural Forum
The Two Sides of Responsibility
By Emile W.J. Troup, P.E., SECB
and William L. Livingston, P.E.
vaulted ceiling with double diagonal ribs, constructed does not constitute endorsement by NCSEA,
in the 1300s. Peter Parler, the architect/engineer, was CASE, SEI, C 3 Ink, or the Editorial Board.
23 years old when he designed the cathedral. See more Authors, contributors, and advertisers retain sole
responsibility for the content of their submissions.
ancient masonry in the feature article on page 26.

STRUCTURE magazine 4 May 2010

 Editorial
Should Structural Engineers Seek Recognition?
By Carrie Johnson, P.E.
NCSEA Board Member, Awards Committee Chair,
and Advocacy General Public and Media Subcommittee Chair
An engineer I know once said, “The best thing you can say about • Clients view structural engineering services as a commodity and
a structural engineer is that you’ve never heard of him”. While I will tend to select whoever offers the lowest fee.
understand his reasons for saying it, I have to respectfully disagree. If we A significant number of structural engineers responding to the survey
provide a solution that requires exceptional innovation and creativity, bemoaned our lot in life, adding comments that ranged from complaining
why wouldn’t we want to find a way to celebrate that accomplishment about clients using price as the only selection criteria, to clients who
and have it recognized? We should want to publicly acknowledge our don’t appreciate that it requires technical skill to do what we do. If
outstanding achievements in solving complex problems, providing we feel this way, i.e., that we are increasingly becoming a commodity
creative designs and technical innovations, and or feel underappreciated, what can we do? The
making efficient use of materials and labor. key is to find a way to become a valued partner,
“We should want to publicly acknowledge
One of the ways that we can bring atten- not merely a vendor. We need to be more pro-
our outstanding achievements in solving
tion to the amazing things we do is to use an active in determining how to make ourselves
complex problems, providing creative
awards program to educate the public regarding the sought-after experts.
the contributions of structural engineers to designs and technical innovations,...” Some firms have been successful in this
the built environment and public safety. The endeavor by focusing their practice in specific
NCSEA Excellence in Structural Engineering awards program, as well markets in which they can truly excel. By finding that niche market,
as the awards programs in various states, are excellent opportunities for these firms have found that it can be both more rewarding and more
each of our firms to do just that. profitable. We all have books, calculators, computers, college degrees,
The NCSEA awards program celebrates the greatest achievements and and licenses, so how can each firm determine what areas they will be
recognizes the pre-eminent projects designed by structural engineers, able to excel in? Following is a list of questions that may be posed when
both in the United States and throughout the world. Our awards trying to differentiate your company from the competition:
program, which has grown steadily in stature and number of entries • In what areas can we provide stellar service to clients?
since its inception in 1998, will have expanded categories this year, in • Do we have unique expertise with a particular building system
an attempt to make it possible for more firms to enter and be recognized or material?
for their achievements. Included in these new categories are “New • Do we have unique expertise with a particular type of building?
Buildings under $10 Million” in construction costs, “International • Do our engineers have expertise in forensic design? Blast design?
Structures”, and “Forensic/Renovation/Retrofit/Rehabilitation Structures”. • Is there a particular aspect of construction that we know more
The categories for 2010 are as follows: about than any other firm?
• New Buildings under $10 Million • Do we have the ability to be much more responsive than
• New Buildings $10 Million to $30 Million other firms?
• New Buildings $30 Million to $100 Million • Would partnering with a construction firm to do design-build
• New Buildings over $100 Million work be beneficial?
• New Bridge and Transportation Structures Also, consider, “time really flies when you are having fun”. We each
• International Structures want our career to be rewarding. One of the ways firms have been suc-
• Forensic/Renovation/Retrofit/Rehabilitation Structures cessful is to focus on the areas of
• Other Structures practice, or the clients, that they
Please consider entering your projects in the NCSEA awards this year. really enjoy.
The deadline is July 9. The submittal process is neither cumbersome nor Breaking out of the commodity
costly; and your final product can be used for local marketing efforts box requires looking at your firm,
and press releases. In this way, you will also be helping to get the word deciding what your strengths
out, in your own community, about the important work of structural are, and then figuring out a way
engineers. If we don’t celebrate and appreciate the accomplishments to capitalize on those strengths.
of our own profession, how can we complain if those outside our By coming up with a competi-
profession don’t take notice? tive strategy that is unique to
Another way to advocate for our profession is to promote ourselves to your firm and the people in it,
our clients, as a valued part of the team. When the NCSEA Advocacy/ and then strategically positioning
Clients and Prospects subcommittee did a survey asking structural yourself in those areas with cli-
engineers for their input on how our performance is perceived, where ents that know and appreciate
STRUCTURAL
we are successful, and where we see our biggest challenges, responses to your efforts, you can become a ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE
the following perceptions were both interesting and worth discussing. valued, sought-after partner.▪
• My clients are willing to pay more to work with me because they
are confident in me and value my input.

STRUCTURE magazine 5 May 2010

 SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
National Council of Structural
Engineers Associations
Jeanne M. Vogelzang, JD, CAE
Executive Director
ADVERTISEMENT – For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

312-649-4600
execdir@ncsea.com

Council of American Structural Engineers

David Bixby
Director, Coalitions
202-347-7474
case@STRUCTUREmag.org

Structural Engineering Institute

John E. Durrant, P.E.
STRUCTURAL
Manager
ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE ASCE Engineering Programs
703-295-6360
sei@STRUCTUREmag.org

ADVERTISING ACCOUNT MANAGER

Interactive Sales Associates
Chuck Minor Dick Railton
Eastern Sales Western Sales
847-854-1666 951-587-2982
sales@STRUCTUREmag.org

EDITORIAL STAFF
Advertiser Index free information from advertisers Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE
execdir@ncsea.com
ADVERTISER PAGE #
Bentley Systems, Inc. Page 36 Editor Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
Computers & Structures, Inc. Page 52
Associate Editor Nikki Alger
CSC Ltd. Page 39
publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
CTP Inc. Page 17
Graphic Designer Rob Fullmer
CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp. Page 43 graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org
Design Data Page 38 Web Developer William Radig
Devco Software, Inc. Page 37 webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org
ESAB Welding and Cutting Products Page 34
STRUCTURE® (Volume 17, Number 5). ISSN 1536-4283.
Fyfe Co. LLC Page 23 Publications Agreement No. 40675118. Owned by the
Geopier Foundation Company Page 18 National Council of Structural Engineers Associations and
published in cooperation with CASE and SEI monthly by C3
Integrated Engineering Software, Inc. Page 6 Ink. The publication is distributed free of charge to members
ITW TrusSteel Division Page 32 of NCSEA, CASE and SEI; the non-member subscription rate is
$65/yr domestic; $35/yr student; $125/yr foreign (including
KPFF Consulting Engineers Page 9 Canada). For change of address or duplicate copies, contact
Mortar Net Page 25 your member organization(s). Any opinions expressed in
STRUCTURE magazine are those of the author(s) and do not
Nemetschek Scia Page 35 necessarily reflect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C3 Ink, or the
Powers Fasteners, Inc. Page 2 STRUCTURE Editorial Board.

QuakeWrap, Inc. Page 13 STRUCTURE® is a registered trademark of National Council of

Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA). Articles may not be
RISA Technologies Page 51 reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission
SAS Stressteel Page 31 of the publisher.

SidePlate Systems, Inc. Page 30 Published By:

Simpson Strong-Tie Page 11
C3 Ink
StrucSoft Solutions, Ltd. Page 3 C3 Ink A Division of Copper Creek Companies, Inc.
148 Vine St., Reedsburg WI 53959
StructurePoint Page 15 P-608-524-1397 F-608-524-4432
publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
Struware, Inc. Page 10
TEKLA, Inc. Page 40 Visit STRUCTURE magazine on-line at
Visit
Visit
STRUCTURE
STRUCTURE
magazine
magazine
on-line
online
www.structuremag.org at at
Wheeling Corrugating Page 33 www.structuremag.org
www.STRUCTUREmag.org

STRUCTURE magazine 6 May 2010

 InFocus thoughts from a member of the Editorial Board

The Social Captivity of Engineering

By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
My title this month comes from a 1991 paper by Steven L. Goldman,
the Andrew W. Mellon Distinguished Professor of the Humanities at
Lehigh University. It appeared in a volume entitled Critical Perspectives
in Nonacademic Science and Engineering, edited by Paul Durbin and
published by Lehigh University Press.
Goldman argued that engineering is captive to society in two ways –
intellectually, because its theory has been subordinated to science; and
socially, because its practice has been limited in terms of what problems
engineers are allowed to address and what solutions are considered
acceptable. These two captivities are not separate, but interdependent –
the first anchors the second, which in turn reinforces the legitimacy of
the first. I have discussed the first type previously in this space (“Engi-
neering Knowledge,” November 2007; “The Principle of Insufficient
Reason,” May 2008), and now I would like to explore the second.
Furthermore, the reality of social captivity
calls into question the claim to auton-
omy that is crucial to engineers’ status
as professionals. As I have written before
(“What Is a Profession?” November 2008), the authority of structural
engineers is somewhat limited by our need for someone to retain us
before we can undertake specific projects. We rarely have the opportunity
to influence the process that leads a current or potential client to decide
that a certain facility is necessary or desirable, and a variety of limitations
are imposed on our designs by others as a result of aesthetic, functional,
or other – often non-technical – considerations.
One way that some structural engineers are addressing this situation is
by leading the design team, rather than always being a subconsultant.
BIM may even provide an opportunity to make this the norm, rather

YOUR
Goldman’s thesis was that technology and innovation are generally
dominated by market-driven value judgments, rather than technical
knowledge. He noted that even when clients are engineers by training,
the decisions that they make inevitably reflect the agendas and priorities
of the organizations that they serve – not necessarily the capabilities
and limitations of the engineers that they hire. As a result, engineering
tends to be instrumental in nature; it is utilized by non-engineers as a
convenient means of achieving their own objectives, which may be quite
arbitrary. In other words, the willfulness of engineering (“Engineering
as Willing,” March 2010) is both enabled and constrained by the
willfulness of the institutions that appropriate it.
This has significant ethical implications. Carl Mitcham, Professor of
Liberal Arts and International Studies at the Colorado School of Mines,
than the exception. Specialization is another route to gaining more
control over one’s practice. By narrowing the scope of services to a
particular niche, structural engineers can exert greater influence over
that portion of the work, as well as others that are related to it.
Despite such adjustments, it is highly unlikely that engineering will
escape its social captivity anytime soon, if ever. Even so, there may be
much that our captors – especially political and commercial decision-
makers – can learn from the systematic and remarkably effective way in
which engineers intentionally translate the conflicting needs and desires
of various stakeholders into feasible – and usually successful – solutions.▪
Your How has the social captivity of engineering, as
described here, been evident in your own experience?

has argued that engineering is “philosophically inadequate” because it
does not have an integral ideal that is “good in itself ” and well-embedded
in its curriculum and practice. Physicians pursue health and lawyers
seek justice, but engineers solve whatever design problems are presented
to them and leave the use (or misuse) of the resulting technology up
to others. Although we are explicitly charged with holding paramount
the safety and welfare of the public, we are not especially qualified to
determine exactly what satisfies that obligation.
David E. Goldberg, the Jerry S. Dobrovolny Distinguished Professor in
Entrepreneurial Engineering at the University of Illinois, has responded
to this assessment. His view is that Mitcham is properly differentiating
occupations that are ethically simple vs. ethically complex, based on
whether serving the client’s interests will align naturally and consistently
with serving the interests of society as a whole. In this sense, engineering
is clearly ethically complex, because it can be utilized for malevolent
purposes; and even when this is not the case, the uncertainties involved
are such that good intentions can still lead to unfortunate consequences.
Turn
Do you perceive the lack of an integral ideal to be
a deficiency of engineering as a profession? Please
submit your responses and see what others have had to say by clicking
on the “Your Turn” button at www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB (chair@STRUCTUREmag.org), is an
Associate Structural Engineer at Burns & McDonnell in Kansas City,
Missouri. He chairs the STRUCTURE magazine Editorial Board and
the SEI Engineering Philosophy Committee.
Join the Conversation
The SEI Engineering Philosophy Committee will meet on Wednesday,
May 12, from 3:30 to 5:30 PM at the Structures Congress in Orlando,
Florida. For more information, please contact the author.

Editorial Board
Chair Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECB Brian J. Leshko, P.E. Mike C. Mota, P.E. Greg Schindler, P.E., S.E.
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB CBI Consulting, Inc. HDR Engineering, Inc. CRSI KPFF Consulting Engineers
Burns & McDonnell Boston, MA Pittsburgh, PA Williamstown, NJ Seattle, WA
Kansas City, MO
chair@structuremag.org Richard Hess, S.E., SECB John A. Mercer, P.E. Evans Mountzouris, P.E. Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
Hess Engineering Inc. Mercer Engineering, PC The DiSalvo Ericson Group BergerABAM
Executive Editor Los Alamitos, CA Minot, ND Ridgefield, CT Federal Way, WA
Jeanne M. Vogelzang, JD, CAE Brian W. Miller Matthew Salveson, Ph.D., P.E. John “Buddy” Showalter, P.E.
NCSEA
Mark W. Holmberg, P.E.
Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc. AISC Dokken Engineering AF & PA/American Wood Council
Chicago, IL
Marietta, GA Davis, CA Folsom, CA Washington, DC
execdir@ncsea.com

STRUCTURE magazine 7 May 2010

 Reducing Embodied Energy in Masonry Construction
Part 1: Understanding Embodied Energy in Masonry
By Vivian Volz, RA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP and Eric Stovner, S.E., LEED AP

As clients and the public grow ever more

aware of climate change, design teams
are increasingly concerned about the
environmental impact of buildings and
the materials used to make them. Green
design and construction are no longer the
exclusive realm of activists. The construc-
tion and operation of buildings actually
have a far greater impact on the energy
used in the US than automobile travel,
accounting for over half of the energy
used annually. Whether out of concern for
greenhouse gas emissions, for conservation
of fossil fuels, or for energy independence,
project teams are beginning to share an
expectation that they should decrease the
total energy consumed during a building
project’s life cycle. On their own or at the
behest of architects and owners, structural
Structural SuStainability

engineers are stepping up to participate in

the solution.
Architects committed to the 2030 Chal-
lenge and AIA’s “50to50” design strategies
are asking all of their consultants, includ-
ing structural engineers, to find ways to
improve their projects’ life cycle energy
performance. The 2030 Challenge is a
call to action for architects to reduce the
energy impact and carbon footprints of
their projects, targeting zero-carbon proj-
ects by the year 2030. The AIA’s “50to50”
design strategies are a set of design concepts
and tools that may help the design team
sustainability and preservation as they pertain to structural engineering
The fly ash brick manufacturing process does not use ovens, removing a major source of embodied
energy and greenhouse gas emission.
land cement emits carbon dioxide during
firing as part of the calcination process, at
a ratio of nearly a pound of carbon dioxide
for every pound of cement produced.
It is worth noting that energy and carbon
footprint are related, but are not exactly
the same thing. For manufactured prod-
ucts, it is useful to consider not only the
impact of traditional masonry products
will be explored, and newer, lower-energy
materials will be introduced. The second
article will offer a set of evaluation criteria
for new masonry materials, including
both standard performance metrics and
environmental considerations.
For simplicity in comparing materials,

reduce the carbon and energy impacts
of projects. Both movements emphasize
engaging the whole project team in the
shared goal. As Dirk M. Kestner, P.E.,
LEED AP, wrote in STRUCTURE (June
2009), “As structural engineers, we must
not be passive in understanding the impacts
of our materials.”
The stated goals of the “50to50” and
2030 Challenge movements focus on the
reduction of buildings’ carbon footprint.
Carbon footprint is determined by
measuring the greenhouse gas emissions
of a process in terms of an equivalent
mass of carbon dioxide. Different methods
of energy production have different car-
bon footprints, with the largest resulting
from coal.
While fossil fuel burned for energy is a
major source of greenhouse gases, man-
ufacturing processes can also absorb
or release greenhouse gases, independent
of the energy used. For instance, timber
growth absorbs carbon dioxide, but port-
carbon footprint of the product, but also
its embodied energy, the energy used during
manufacture of a building product.
Embodied energy can be considered sepa-
rately from the energy used during the
operation of the finished project. Expressed
in energy by volume or energy by weight
of a building product, typical values for
basic building product classes can be
found using NIST’s BEES 4.0 program,
the Athena Institute’s Impact Estimator
and EcoCalculator, and other life cycle
assessment tools. Products and systems
that have good potential to improve the
operating energy performance of a build-
ing may, nonetheless, have a negative net
impact because of high embodied energy.
As the operational energy use of a project
decreases, the embodied energy becomes
an increasingly important component of
the total energy impact of the project.
This two-part series of articles will ad-
dress the two problems structural engineers
face in evaluating new masonry products.
In the first article, the embodied energy
this article will use one primary metric:
embodied energy by volume. In some
cases, the functional unit of measurement
commonly used in life cycle analysis is
weight, so some products will be com-
pared by weight. Cases where the carbon
footprint of a material diverges dramati-
cally from its embodied energy will also
be considered.
The Problem:
Traditional Masonry Takes
A Lot Of Energy To Produce
Masonry systems, while they can be
beneficial in terms of operational energy,
possess significant embodied energy.
Depending on their thickness and the
climate, masonry assemblies can vastly
improve the energy performance of a fin-
ished project by virtue of their thermal
mass. By absorbing energy by day and
releasing it at night as radiant heat, masonry
assemblies can reduce temperature swing
and maintain thermal comfort with less

STRUCTURE magazine 8 May 2010

need for heating and air conditioning. How-
ever, the materials in these assemblies can take
enormous amounts of energy to create.
Clay brick is a fired material. Firing causes
vitrification of the clay into a crystalline or
semi-crystalline structure and is the process
that gives clay brick its strength and stability.
In the US and Canada, most kilns are tunnels,
operating continuously at 1090°C (2000°F)
while the bricks are slowly conveyed through.
Even when volume is low or no bricks are
being fired, the kilns are kept hot. BEES data
puts the embodied energy of fired clay brick
at 6.71 MBtu per cubic yard. With advances
in energy reclamation and more efficient kilns,
the Brick Industry Association now states
its average is 1239 BTU per pound, or 3.28
MBtu per cubic yard. This energy would fuel
the average American home for four weeks.
Portland cement is also a fired material, made
by crushing and firing limestone. The embodied
energy of portland cement is 4.1 MBtu per
ton. While the cement itself is a small proportion
of concrete masonry units, the extraction and
crushing of aggregate also consumes energy.
However, the aggregate has a much lower
embodied energy, about 19,900 Btu per ton for
sand and gravel, and about 30,500 Btu per ton
for crushed stone. Thus, the embodied energy
depends largely upon the proportion of ce-
ment to aggregate in a given concrete mix. The
embodied energy of concrete brick is 0.946
MBtu per cubic yard. The typical embodied
energy of CMU is 0.962 MBtu per 100 units,
Relative CO2 Emissions Associated
With Brick Production
Fired Clay Brick Concrete Brick Fly Ash Brick
This chart shows carbon dioxide emissions (CO2 ) for
common masonry materials. Clay’s large footprint
(red) comes primarily from the firing process. Most
of concrete’s emissions (yellow) occur during portland
cement production. Fly ash brick data provided by
manufacturer Calstar Products, Inc. Concrete data
based on portland cement content of concrete. Fired clay
brick data based on National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) BEES database 4.0.
STRUCTURE magazine
which contain about a cubic yard of concrete.
For both masonry products, portland cement
accounts for 83 percent of the energy needed
for the entire production process, but makes
up less than 15 percent of the mix.
Since the main source of greenhouse gases
emitted during clay brick production is energy
production, clay brick’s carbon footprint is
almost entirely due to its high embodied energy.
On the other hand, portland cement products’
carbon footprints result, in part, from the cal-
cination of the limestone feedstock, a chemical
process that releases carbon dioxide. The only
way to reduce the calcination impact is to reduce
the quantity of portland cement used. For a
cubic yard of each material, the carbon foot-
print for fired clay brick is 991 pounds and for
concrete brick is 572 pounds.
Other materials used in masonry design can Masonry remains a popular building material for its
also have significant embodied energy profiles. classic beauty, high thermal mass, and durability.
Stone occurs naturally, but takes a great deal
of energy to extract, is in limited supply and
is not renewable. Some traditional materials, Greener Materials:
such as adobe and terra cotta, have considerably New Materials with Lower
lower embodied energy, but they are lower- Embodied Energy
performing from a structural perspective and
Engineers can make a difference in their
are beyond the scope of this article. Mortar,
projects’ embodied energy with lower-impact
a smaller part of the structure, also contains
material choices. This article will focus on so-
portland cement and has embodied energy
lutions that can reduce the embodied energy
similar to that for concrete. New steel is a
of the most common systems, brick assemblies
relatively small proportion of a reinforced ma-
and CMU assemblies.
sonry assembly, but is a high-energy material. continued on next page
Brewery Blocks, Portland, OR
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
9 May 2010
 Reclaimed Brick
Brick can be reclaimed during building de-
molition. While arguably the lowest-energy
means to procure brick for a project, reclaimed
brick is usually difficult to match, both in
aesthetic characteristics and performance char-
acteristics. It is most appropriate for projects
with a deliberately rough look.
Lower-Impact Fired Clay Brick
Recent advances in firing technology have
reduced the amount of energy used by kilns.
For instance, some manufacturers capture waste
heat from the firing and cooling chambers and
use it to warm the drying chambers. Advances
in alternative energy, such as waste-to-energy
and captured methane from landfills, may
reduce the use of fossil fuels and the release of
greenhouse gases, without actually reducing the
amount of energy used. Smokestack scrubbing
technologies also reduce the release of smog-
producing gases. The fact remains, however,
that there currently is no way to reduce the
amount of heat required for firing standard
clay. Individual brick plants may use some-
what less energy than the industry average.
Bricks made in the UK with recycled glass, while
still fired, may offer lower-energy alternatives
in the future.
Cementitious Mixtures
The embodied energy of a mixture can be
reduced by replacing part of the portland cement
in the mix with supplementary cementitious
materials. For example, Type C fly ash and
blast furnace slag are both post-industrial recy-
cled materials that have cementitious qualities.
These and other admixtures, such as Type F
fly ash, are also pozzolans; they react with the
by-products of portland cement hydration to
form additional cementitious bonds. Because
they are created in other industrial processes,
the environmental impacts of fly ash and blast
furnace slag are assigned to those processes,
not to the products into which they are recycled.
The embodied energy of fly ash is effec-
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
energy of a masonry assembly lie primarily in
three concepts:
Fly ash, a by-product of coal-burning power plants,
is used as filler material or pozzolan in masonry. The
EPA has recognized fly ash use in brick and other
building materials as an effective method of diverting
design team understand the energy impact of
it from the waste stream.
new materials during the evaluation process.▪
tively zero. The impact of blast furnace slag is
limited to the processing required for its inclu-
sion in concrete products. Concrete masonry
units can be easily supplemented with fly ash
or blast furnace slag, and have been for many
years. As a partial replacement for portland
cement, supplementary cementitious materials
are a proven solution.
Fly Ash Brick
US-made fly ash brick gets its strength and
durability from the chemical reaction of fly
ash with water. Type C fly ash is combined
with fine aggregate and colorfast mineral oxide
pigments, plus a small amount of water, then
formed with vibrocompaction and cured with
steam, not fired. It is formulated to perform
like severe-weathering clay brick. However, it
uses 85% less energy to produce than fired
clay brick, and the carbon footprint for a cubic
yard of fly ash brick is only 191 pounds.
Reducing and Recycling Steel
One way to reduce the energy impact of steel
is to optimize the structural design of the system
to reduce the amount of reinforcing steel re-
quired. A more common approach to reducing
the embodied energy impact of steel is using
a higher proportion of recycled steel. Recycled
steel takes nearly 75 percent less energy to pro-
duce than virgin steel. Recycled content varies
Opportunities to Save Energy
The opportunities to reduce the embodied
• Fired materials are energy-intensive, while
non-fired materials may offer substantial
energy savings
• Recycled materials require less energy to
procure than virgin resources, and in some
cases can be considered to have zero impact
• Products manufactured near the
source of their raw materials reduce
the transportation energy embodied
in the products
Keeping these ideas in mind can help the
Vivian Volz, RA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP, is
an architectural specifier in private practice
in California, and a consultant to Chusid
Associates. Ms. Volz is president-elect of the
San Francisco chapter of the Construction
Specifications Institute (CSI) and served on
CSI’s 2009 Strategic Planning Task Team.
She can be reached at vivian@chusid.com.
Eric C. Stovner, S.E., LEED AP is
President of Critical Structures, Anaheim,
CA, and has over 20 years experience in
the design, investigation and rehabilitation
of buildings. He can be reached at
estovner@critical-structures.com.
The second part of this article, Evaluating
New Masonry Materials, will discuss
strategies for comparing new materials to
their traditional counterparts.
The online version of this article
contains references. Please
visit www. STRUCTUREmag.org.

by steel product: reinforcing

bars are nearly 100 percent
recycled steel, but other anchor
The easiest to use software for calculating
products may be closer to
wind, seismic, snow and other loadings for
25 percent. Steel rein-
IBC, ASCE7, and all state codes based on
forcing and anchoring
these codes ($195.00).
product manufacturers
Tilt-up Concrete Wall Panels ($95.00). can provide more spe-
Floor Vibration for Steel Beams and Joists cific information for
($100.00). their products.
Concrete beams with torsion ($45.00).
As awareness of climate change increases and building operation becomes more
Demos at: www.struware.com energy efficient, engineers are increasingly called upon to consider embodied
energy, the energy used to manufacture building materials.

STRUCTURE magazine 10 May 2010

 E X P A N D your frame
of reference.

Simpson Strong-Tie has nearly doubled its offering of Strong Frame™ ordinary
moment frames. By adding a new 16' tall column and 14', 18' and 20' wide beams,
you not only have 368 frame configurations to choose from, but more design flexibility
for larger openings and wider interior clear spans. And because our frames are
pre-engineered, you spend minutes choosing the right frame rather than hours
designing one. Contractors also appreciate our weld-free, 100% bolted installation.
Expand your options even further with a Custom Strong Frame™
made to order. And download our new Strong Frame Selector
software and catalog. For more information visit
www.strongtie.com/strongframe or call (800) 999-5099.

© 2010 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. SF10-E

 The Structural Investigation of a 19 th
Century Manufacturing Complex
By D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E., F. ASCE, SECB

S tructural engineers are often asked to

provide input during the concep-
tual design phase of building projects.
During the conceptual design phase of
an adaptive reuse project the structural
engineer’s involvement is more complex
as it becomes necessary to address the exist-
ing buildings’ suitability for the proposed
new uses in the absence of existing
drawings and in the presence of any
existing structural deterioration.
When the project involves a 19th cen-
tury manufacturing complex with a large
number of existing, historic buildings,
the structural due diligence associated
with the conceptual planning becomes
very challenging. Questions that must
be answered as a part of this initial effort
include: What is the structural condition of
the buildings today? How are the struc-
tures to be investigated non-destructively?
Will non-destructive investigations tell
us enough? What structural repairs are
immediately required? What uses can be
proposed based on the existing structural
Structural ForenSicS
the majority of the buildings hav-
ing been constructed before the early
1900s. All of the oldest buildings were
constructed with wood-framed floors
and roofs supported by load-bearing
brick walls.
Specific tasks associated with the
structural investigation included:
1) A site survey to evaluate
the overall condition of the
referenced structures and to
measure the typical floor and
attic framing member sizes,
where applicable. The primary
purpose of the survey was to
identify any readily observable Typical Building Elevation.
structural deficiencies or
conditions that required repair,
in order to enable the adaptive Condition Assessment
reuse of the structures. The The results of the condition assessment in-
condition survey was limited to dicated that most of the existing structures
visual observations made at readily were in relatively fair to good condition
accessible and exposed portions of and appeared to have adequate structural
the structures. capacity to enable their adaptive reuse
2) A structural analysis of the typical as residential, educational, office, retail,

capacities? What upgrades for code re- floor and attic framing elements to light storage or light manufacturing fa-
quirements are necessary? Can upgrades establish their approximate load- cilities. The existing buildings, however,
be made to increase structural integrity carrying capacities. The analysis did require a considerable amount of
or repair deteriorated areas without com- was limited to the typical girder structural repair work to assure their safe
promising historic integrity? And, the and beam framing and support use and continued service life. The total
list goes on. columns, and attic roof trusses as estimated cost to complete the structural
One structural engineering firm, Pennoni required for the purposes of an repairs recommended by the investigation
Associates, Inc. (Pennsylvania), took on adaptive reuse assessment. was approximately $3 million.
this challenge when developers of the
complex (located in the Eastern US)
requested site/civil, geotechnical, struc-
tural and MEP services. The following is
an overview of the process and findings
associated with the structural effort.

Project Overview
investigating structures and their components

The project involved the visual condition

assessment of 22 separate or conjoined
buildings ranging in height from one to
four stories, not including any basements,
for a total gross area of approximately
350,000 square feet. In addition, the
investigation included a visual condition
assessment of an existing pedestrian
bridge between two of the main build-
ings, a site retaining wall around the west
and north sides of another main building,
and a series of retaining walls along the
bank of an existing creek. The existing
structures were erected between the
early 1880s and the mid 1960s, with Queen Post Truss Spanning Between Gable Truss.

STRUCTURE magazine 12 May 2010

 Pennoni identified two of the main buildings
as being in such poor condition that existing
holes in the roofs, and the entire wall and
roof enclosures, needed to be repaired and
made weatherproof as soon as possible. This
was necessary in order to mitigate any further
deterioration so as to maintain the potential
for economical repair and renovation in the
near future, in lieu of unavoidable partial
collapse or demolition.
Another main building’s condition, as a result
of fire damage, was such that the extent of
repair, reconstruction and renovation required
would be considerably more than the cost to
demolish it and construct a replacement. An
adjacent smaller building, although in better
condition, was only accessible through the
same fire damaged building and served an
ancillary role as a loading dock. Therefore,
Pennoni recommended that both buildings
be demolished and removed.
The instability of a portion of the attic and
roof truss framing at another main building
posed the potential for the partial collapse of
the adjacent exterior gable end masonry wall
onto an adjacent street. Pennoni recommended
temporary shoring of the affected framing in
order to make continued safe access along the
adjacent street possible.
The existing site retaining walls located along
the creek and around one of the main buildings
required a significant amount of repair work.
In addition, in the case of the wall at the main
building, Pennoni recommended excavation
of a portion of the soil retained by the wall in
order to stabilize the existing condition.
The existing 120-foot-tall masonry stack
associated with a boiler plant building appeared
to be in good to fair condition as visually
observed from the ground. However, because
of the height of this structure, Pennoni rec-
ommended an additional and more thorough
condition assessment of the entire stack.
Structural Analysis
The following assumptions served as a basis for
the structural analysis of the typical framed
floors and attics. Pennoni recommended that
all analysis assumptions be verified and con-
firmed through additional material and/or
in-situ, non-destructive testing, and limited
selective exploratory demolition.
1) During the time period of the
construction of the majority of the
original timber structures, there were
large quantities of Hemlock logged
in the local woodlands for use in
buildings; therefore, this species of
lumber was assumed for analysis.
Historical records indicate that
Hemlock had allowable stresses of
STRUCTURE magazine
approximately 1,800 psi in bending
and approximately 1,200 psi in
compression parallel to the grain.
2) The primary timber floor support
beams for two of the main
buildings were constructed as two
identical wood members bolted
or sistered together. Butt joints
of the individual pieces occurred
over interior support columns, and
were always offset such that only
one beam joint occurred at any one
location along the length of the
member. For purposes of analysis,
these members were assumed to be
continuous over all of the interior
supports, even though at least one of
the members was discontinuous at the
butt joint. This approach was based on
the rationalization that the butt joints
are capable of acting as a 100% negative
Collapsed 1st Floor Framing over Basement.
moment splice of the individual beam,
given the following assumptions: 3) The primary timber floor support
a) The nature of the butt joint beams for another main building
allowed for the transmission of were constructed with a shallower
compressive stresses at the bottom timber member stacked on top of
of the individual beam, induced a deeper timber member. Because
by the negative moment at the wood laminating was performed
support columns via the direct during the era when this building was
contact of the adjacent butt ends of constructed, for purposes of analysis,
the adjoining wood beams. it was assumed that these two pieces of
b) Tensile forces at the top of the timber were laminated and therefore
individual beams induced by the act compositely as one member.
negative moment at the supports 4) Using AISC historical data from local
were resisted at the butt joint by mills producing steel beams in the late
the spline jointed timber floor 1800s and early 1900s, an allowable
planking, which was assumed to bending stress of 16,000 psi was
be spiked together with at least assumed for all steel floor beams.
60d nails. continued on next page
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
SuperLaminate™ - Not Your Ordinary Fiber Wrap System
Introducing the Next Generation of FRP
Advantages of SuperLaminate™
Blast retrofit of structures Strengthening of concrete & masonry walls
• One size fits all
• Stronger than fiber wrap
Retrofit of
• ISO-9000 certified plant
• Up to 80% faster construction time beams, slabs &
• Material properties known before columns
installation Repair of columns
You can learn more about these below grade without
products by visiting the need for costly Field-manufac-
tured cylindrical
www.SuperLaminate.com excavation
shell around
www.QuakeWrap.com (PileMedic.com) square columns
www.PipeMedic.com
www.PileMedic.com
Repair of under-
PLEASE CALL US FOR AN EVALUATION BY Trenchless repair of water piles with-
ONE OF OUR STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS pipes and culverts, out the need for
(520) 791-7000 OR
including spot repair costly divers
(866) QuakeWrap [782-5397]
(PipeMedic.com) (PileMedic.com)
13 May 2010
 code (IBC 2006), which served as the basis
for the adaptive reuse potential recommended
by the investigation.

Construction Classification
and Fire Resistance Ratings
Fire resistance ratings and sprinkler require-
ments are listed in Table 601 of IBC 2006,
which indicates that Heavy Timber (HT) or
Type IV construction has advantages over other
non-combustible types of construction. This
is because HT construction has greater fire
resistance than unprotected structural steel.
IBC 2006 specifies minimum HT dimen-
sions of 8 inches for columns per Section
602.4.1 and 6 inches (width) x 10 inches
(depth) for floor framing per Section 602.4.2.
In addition, floors must be constructed with
splined or tongue-and-grove planks of not
3-Span Continuous Wood Beams. less than 3-inch thickness covered with 1-inch
tongue-and-grove floor deck laid orthogo-
Because of the lack of safe access, lack of The result of the analysis indicated that the nally or diagonally to the span of the plank.
adequate visibility or other similar physical upper floors typically had less capacity than the The investigation indicated that not all of
limitations, access to the 1st floor framing from lower floors. The reason for this condition can the columns and floor framing members
the basement areas below was not possible in best be understood in the context of the 19th complied with the minimum size requirements.
any of the main buildings. As a result, the century industrial use specific to the site. When In addition, floor beams that are sistered to-
analysis of the existing floor framing only the existing manufacturing facility opened in gether result in a concealed space, which is
addressed the 2nd through 4th floors. However, the early 1880s, it produced only one product prohibited by Section 602.4.
it was reasonable to assume that the existing line, which involved raw material purchased There are also prescriptive framing and con-
1st floor framing had at least as much load- in large bales. The subsequent processing nectivity requirements for HT construction
carrying capacity as the 2nd floor framing above. involved the use of large machines that were specified in Section 2304.10. However, due to
The calculated 2nd, 3rd and 4th floor load- located on the first floor of the buildings. the limitations of the visual observations made
carrying capacities varied from 60 PSF to 160 When the facility expanded into the manufac- during the site assessment, it was not possible
PSF, 50 PSF to 125 PSF and 50 PSF to 55 turing of additional products, large equipment to document the presence of all of the items
PSF, respectively. The calculated attic floor was also used for the additional processing. prescribed in Section 2304.10. Consequently,
load-carrying capacities varied from 10 PSF to These large and heavy pieces of equipment Pennoni recommended a more thorough inves-
40 PSF. These calculated values only included would not have been located on the upper tigation in order to determine compliance.
the self-weight of the framing members and floors of any of the buildings, which were
decking; therefore, the allowable live load likely used only for storage. Attic areas were Conclusion
capacity would have to be adjusted for any also likely used for storage, or merely for access
superimposed dead loads associated with new to rooftop water storage tanks. The investigation determined that none of
mechanical systems, ceilings, floor finishes or Table 1 summarizes the minimum live load the buildings, in their entirety, qualify as HT
other similar appurtenances. capacity specified by the governing building or Type IV construction. This will directly
impact the requirements for sprinklers and
Table 1: Minimum Code Live Load Requirements. fire ratings of all of the buildings based on the
Utilization adaptive reuse occupancy.
Currently this project is in the initial design
Live Load Residential Educational Office Retail Light Light phase for the renovation and adaptive reuse
Classrooms Storage Manufacturing of a portion of the main buildings. Previously
Warehouse recommended emergency repairs have already
Minimum 40 PSF 40 PSF 50 PSF 100 PSF 125 PSF 125 PSF been implemented. Subsequent phases for
Uniform (Notes 2, (Notes 3, 5, 6) (Notes 3, (Notes the adaptive reuse of the remaining buildings
5, 6) 5. 6) 4, 6) are in the early conceptual design phase. Ulti-
Notes: mately, the entire site will be renovated so that
1) Based on IBC 2006. it can provide an important economic contri-
2) 100 PSF at public rooms and corridors. bution to the surrounding community.▪
3) 100 PSF at 1st floor corridors and lobbies; 80 PSF at corridors above 1st floor.
4) 75 PSF at upper floors. D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E., F. ASCE,
5) Not including 15 PSF partition load required by the Code. SECB recently became the Structural
6) Not including a minimum of 5 PSF for suspended ceilings, miscellaneous MEP loads, Division Manager at Pennoni Associates in
and floor finishes. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. His new email
address is mstuart@pennoni.com.

STRUCTURE magazine 14 May 2010

 Work quickly.
Work simply.
Work accurately.

StructurePoint’s Productivity Suite of powerful software tools

for reinforced concrete analysis & design

Finite element analysis & de- Analysis, design

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

Design & investigation Analysis, design

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

Finite element analysis & design of reinforced concrete

foundations, combined footings or slabs on grade

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

STR 6-09
 On Thinking Inelastically
By M. Lee Marsh, Ph.D., P.E.
This article is about getting your head
in the right place, about using the tools
and techniques available today and about
taking control of your design efforts.
All of us learned at one time or another
that a little, and in some cases a lot, of
ductility is a good thing. We cut our
teeth on ductility of reinforced concrete
beams, ensured by under reinforcing,
which provides deformation capacity and
warning time of impending problems
should overloads occur. This practice, cou-
pled with the suppression of unwanted
failure modes, may have been the first
inkling of “capacity design” that we knew
as structural designers. Capacity design
is the practice of setting a hierarchy of
failure to control system behavior in the
event of potential overloading. Nowhere
is capacity design more important than
engineering for extreme events, such as
earthquake loading. At the risk of over-
simplification, capacity design can be
summarized in three steps:
1) Select the locations where
yielding or inelastic deformation
should occur,
2) Make these locations sufficiently
ductile or deformable, and
3) Protect the remaining elements
that do not need to be ductile by
making them strong enough to
resist the expected forces when
yielding of the system occurs.
To be truly successful, the yielding must
lead to a plastic mechanism that limits
the forces in the system. It is the quest
for such plastic mechanisms that is the
focus of this article. Most folks who have
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
opened a glass beverage bottle, sealed with
a metal crimped-edge cap, intuitively un-
derstand capacity protection. The ductile
cap yields and releases without breaking
the glass when pried or twisted off, and
life is good.
InSIghtS
Enter seismic design. We often make a
big fuss over performing seismic analyses
and winding our way through a myriad of
checks as prescribed by our design speci-
fications. The process can be cryptic and
unrevealing, but at the core we are only
attempting to complete those three simple
steps outlined above. Every provision
of our seismic design specifications can
be sorted into one of the three basic steps.
This is where thinking inelastically comes
in. When viewing the steps through the
lens provided by elastic analysis and the
STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 1: Analytical model of the Precast Building.
seemingly unrelated checks of a force-
based design, like those of our traditional
building codes for new design, the de-
signer can lose sight of what is being
accomplished. However, when viewed
through the lens of inelastic deformations,
plastic mechanism, and capacity protec-
tion, the goal remains clear – develop a
fusing mechanism that limits the internal
forces and make sure that all the elements
can resist the forces developed. And the
designer, not the specification, should
be in control of this process. What could
be simpler?
In the last dozen or so years, techniques
that were once used primarily for research
have become more mainstream for everyday
design. Key among these is the pushover
technique or nonlinear static procedure
(NSP). This analytic technique assists us
in “thinking inelastically” and in quanti-
tatively assuring that the ductile response
we desire is in fact incorporated into our
structures. The pushover technique is a
direct check of deformability, where the
force-based (R-factor) seismic design meth-
odologies, with their associated prescriptive
detailing requirements, simply attempt
to indirectly achieve the three steps of
capacity protection. Wouldn’t a direct
check be more satisfying than an indirect
hope-for-the-best? Don’t get me wrong,
the R-factor methodology is not altogether
inappropriate for regular structures, and
it certainly is easy enough to execute, but
for some of the more “creative” and com-
plex structures we are building today, a
direct check of deformability can often be
a good thing.
The pushover technique has been vari-
ously codified in ASCE 41-06 Seismic
Rehabilitation for Existing Buildings, the
recent AASHTO Guide Specifications for
16 May 2010
LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, and in the
forthcoming ASCE Standard for Seismic
Design of Piers and Wharves. The pushover
technique is not a design tool so much as
it is a checking or assessment tool, to be
used after a design has been assembled.
But the approach is so much more revealing
than the traditional force-based design ap-
proach, where force reduction factors are
applied uniformly to the entire structure.
Instead, with the pushover method,
the actual path to plastic mechanism is
tracked and internal deformations, whether
plastic rotations, curvatures or strains,
are quantified and these are compared
against permissible capacities. The push-
over process provides the analytic check
of what our mind’s eye conjures with re-
spect to ensuring that a suitably ductile and
capacity protected structure is designed.
Such a tool certainly helps the designer
control the design, something that often
may not be a “given”. And such analytic
tools help designers hone their ability to
“think inelastically”.
Years ago, a professor of mine stressed
thinking in terms of the deflected shape
and identifying all the ways a structure
could fail. In earthquake engineering, con-
trolling “failure” to follow a ductile path
and thinking in terms of plastic mechanism
is the key to producing seismically suc-
cessful and rugged designs. The tools and
design procedures emerging today, across
the various practice areas of structural
engineering, are helping and encouraging
engineers to “think inelastically” to ensure
their designs will achieve the performance
they desire should a severe overload such
as a large earthquake occur. Remember,
“there but for the grace of ductility go I”.
Think inelastically!
 Once thinking inelastically, potential seismic
performance can be better assessed. As an
example, a pushover analysis was performed
on 3-story concrete building constructed in
the late-1960s. To expedite construction, precast
concrete panels were erected as the primary
structure and cast-in-place concrete was used
to connect precast components and form the
columns. The building layout was such that
seismic resistance in one direction relied en-
tirely on the shear and flexural behavior of the
composite column, as shown in Figure 1. The
pushover analysis, shown in Figure 2, exposed
3 important issues that may compromise seis-
mic performance:
1) Hinging columns produce a soft-story
with large deformation demand at the
first level,
2) Hinges may be controlled by shear
rather than flexure, resulting in less
shear capacity and ductility, and
3) Shear demand on the composite
column may separate the precast
and cast-in-place components of the
column and base shear capacity of the
Figure 2: Pushover analysis of 3-story building showing the impact of composite vs. non-composite column behavior.
building may reduce dramatically.
In both the composite column and non-
composite column cases, the target roof dis- M. Lee Marsh, Ph.D., P.E., is a Senior Project Manager and seismic specialist for
placement exceeds the deformation capacity BergerABAM. Lee may be reached at Lee.Marsh@abam.com.
of the structure. The building is currently being
designed for a seismic upgrade to correct
known deficiencies.▪
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

Restoration Team Experience Since 1978

Masonry Façade Re-Anchoring Solutions

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

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

STRUCTURE magazine 17 May 2010

 Liquefaction?
The Impact ® system
treats to 45+ feet.

ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS FOR:

 soft compressible soil  liquefaction mitigation  unstable soils below groundwater  uplift/lateral loads  tanks  slope

stabilization  replace costly deep foundations  heavy loads  walls & embankments  power plants & towers  variable fill
e NCSEA 2010 Education Survey Results Summary
For over a decade, the National Council of Structural Engineers
Associations (NCSEA) has been working with practitioners and edu-
cators to improve the technical and practical quality of education for
structural engineering students. STRUCTURE® magazine has been a
vehicle for disseminating articles relating to Basic Education and pro-
moting ongoing discussions.
Practitioners and educators agreed on the proposed educational
program, The Basic Structural Education, in 2005. In 2004 and 2007,
STRUCTURE magazine published a survey of educational institutions
noting available courses.
Below you will find the results of the latest survey, in two sections.
The first section is a listing of schools who offer the full curriculum.
The second section lists schools that do not have the full curriculum
and indicates which course sections are missing. To review The Basic
Structural Education outline, please visit the STRUCTURE magazine
website (www.STRUCTUREmag.org).
A second article will highlight the number of courses offered in each
subject of the recommended curriculum, for schools that responded to
the latest survey. Watch for that article in a future issue of STRUCTURE.

The following list of schools offer the full curriculum:

Auburn University North Carolina State University University of Cincinnati
www.auburn.edu www.ncsu.edu www.uc.edu
California Polytechnic University Oklahoma State University University of Florida
San Luis Obispo Architectural Engineering www.ufl.edu
www.calpoly.edu architecture.ceat.okstate.edu
California State Polytechnic – Pomona Oklahoma State University University of Idaho – Moscow
www.csupomona.edu Civil Engineering www.uihome.uidaho.edu
cive.okstate.edu
California State University – Fresno Oregon State University University of Illinois – Urbana
www.csufresno.edu oregonstate.edu www.uiuc.edu
California State University – Los Angeles Pennsylvania State University University of Kansas
www.calstatela.edu www.psu.edu www.ku.edu
California State University – Sacramento Portland State University University of Kentucky
www.csus.edu www.pdx.edu www.uky.edu
Clemson University Purdue University University of Missouri – Rolla
www.clemson.edu www.purdue.edu www.umr.edu
Georgia Institute of Technology Rose Hulman Institute of Technology University of Nevada – Las Vegas
www.gatech.edu www.rose-hulman.edu www.unlv.edu
Gonzaga University Santa Clara University University of New Orleans – Lakefront
www.gonzaga.edu www.scu.edu www.uno.edu
Hofstra University St. Martin’s University University of North Carolina – Charlotte
www.hofstra.edu www.stmartin.edu www.uncc.edu
Illinois Institute of Technology South Dakota State University University of Tennessee – Knoxville
www.iit.edu www.sdstate.edu www.utk.edu
Iowa State University Syracuse University University of Texas – Austin
www.iastate.edu www.syr.edu www.utexas.edu
Michigan Technological University Texas A & M University – Kingsville University of Utah
www.mtu.edu www.tamuk.edu www.utah.edu
Milwaukee School of Engineering Texas Tech University University of Washington
www.msoe.edu www.ttu.edu www.washington.edu
Montana State University – Bozeman University of Akron University of Wyoming
www.montana.edu www.uakron.edu www.uwyo.edu
New Jersey Institute of Technology University of Arkansas Utah State University
www.njit.edu www.uark.edu www.usu.edu
New Mexico State University University of Alabama – Birmingham Virginia Polytechnic Institute State University
www.nmsu.edu main.uab.edu www.vt.edu
North Carolina A&T State University University at Buffalo (SUNY)
www.ncat.edu www.buffalo.edu

STRUCTURE magazine 19 May 2010

e The following list of schools DO NOT have the full curriculum.
Those schools missing part of the full curriculum are recoginized as offering the course.
This icon appears where no courses are offered for that subject.

Dynamic Behavior

Foundation / Soils

Technical Writing
Matrix Methods
Some of the schools did not respond to this latest survey; however, the information
from previous surveys is included. Please note the "Updated" column

Concrete

Masonry
Analysis
for the year of the latest survey response.

Timber
Steel
SCHOOL WEB SITE Updated
Arkansas State University www.astate.edu 2001
Blue Mountain Community College www.bmcc.cc.or.us 2006
Broome Community College www.sunybroome.edu 2001
Brown University www.brown.edu 2008
Bucknell University www.bucknell.edu 2008
Christian Brothers University www.cbu.edu/ 2001
The Citadel www.citadel.edu 2006
Clarkson University www.clarkson.edu 2001
Cornell University www.cornell.edu 2008
Drexel University www.drexel.edu 2001
Fairleigh-Dickinson University www.fdu.edu 2001
Florida Institute of Technology www.fit.edu 2006
George Washington University www.gwu.edu 2008
Howard University www.howard.edu 2006
Lawrence Technological University www.ltu.edu 2006
Loyola Marymount University www.lmu.edu 2001
Massachusetts Institute of Technology web.mit.edu 2001
Mercer County Community College www.mccc.edu 2006
Miami University www.miami.edu 2006
Missouri Western State University www.missouriwestern.edu 2006
Michigan State University www.msu.edu 2006
Morgan State University www.morgan.edu 2001
Northeastern University www.northeastern.edu 2006
Northern Arizona University www.nau.edu 2008
Ohio Northern University www.onu.edu 2006
Ohio State University www.osu.edu 2006
Oregon Institute of Technology www.oit.edu 2001
Prairie View A&M University www.pvamu.edu 2001
Rensselaer University www.rpc.edu 2008
Rochester Institute of Technology www.rit.edu 2006
San Francisco State University www.sfsu.edu 2008
San Diego State University www.sdsu.edu 2006
Seattle University www.seattleu.edu 2001
Southern Illinois University www.siu.edu 2001
Southern Methodist University www.smu.edu 2006
Southern Polytechnic State University www.spsu.edu 2001
Stevens Institute of Technology www.stevens.edu 2006
Texas A&M - College Station www.tamu.edu 2006
Tri-State University www.tristate.edu 2006

STRUCTURE magazine 20 May 2010

 The following list of schools DO NOT have the full curriculum.
Those schools missing part of the full curriculum are recoginized as offering the course.
This icon appears where no courses are offered for that subject.

Dynamic Behavior

Foundation / Soils

Technical Writing
Matrix Methods
Some of the schools did not respond to this latest survey; however, the information
from previous surveys is included. Please note the "Updated" column

Concrete

Masonry
Analysis
for the year of the latest survey response.

Timber
Steel
SCHOOL WEB SITE Updated
Tufts University www.tufts.edu 2008
U.S. Coast Guard Academy www.cga.edu 2001
University of Alaska - Anchorage www.uaa.alaska.edu 2008
University of California - Berkeley www.berkeley.edu 2001
University of California - Los Angeles www.ucla.edu 2001
University of California - San Diego www.ucsd.edu 2001
University of Central Florida www.ucf.edu 2001
University of Columbia www.columbia.edu 2001
University of Evansville www.evansville.edu 2001 V
University of Hartford www.hartford.edu 2001
University of Hawaii - Manoa www.uhm.hawaii.edu 2008
University of Houston www.uh.edu 2006
University of Illinois - Chicago www.uic.edu 2001
University of Iowa www.uiowa.edu 2001
University of Massachusetts - Amherst umass.edu 2001
University of Massachusetts - Lowell www.uml.edu 2001
University of Memphis www.memphis.edu 2006
University of Michigan www.umich.edu 2006
University of Minnesota www1.umn.edu 2001
University of Mississippi www.olemiss.edu 2001
University of Missouri - Kansas City www.umkc.edu 2008
University of Nebraska - Lincoln www.unl.edu 2001
University of New Mexico www.unm.edu 2006
University of the Pacific www.pacific.edu 2001
University of Rhode Island www.uri.edu 2001
University of South Carolina www.sc.edu 2001
University of Tennessee - Knoxville www.utk.edu 2006
University of Tennessee - Martin www.utm.edu 2006
University of Texas - El Paso www.utep.edu 2001
University of Wisconsin - Madison www.wisc.edu 2008
University of Wisconsin - Platteville www.uwplatt.edu 2006
Valparaiso University www.valpo.edu 2001
Villanova University www.villanova.edu 2001
Virginia Military Institute www.vmi.edu 2006
Washington University in St Louis www.wustl.edu 2006
Western Kentucky University www.wku.edu 2008
Worcester Polytechnic Institute www.wpi.edu 2008

STRUCTURE magazine 21 May 2010

 Brick: Any Way You Want It
By J. Gregg Borchelt, P.E.
The brick industry is alive, albeit not thriving right now. Brick
production is down from its most recent high of 9.6 billion brick in
2008, but progress is still being made on the manufacturing front.
More efficient processes to form and handle the brick and in the firing
process continue to be made.
The majority of brick (90%) are formed by the extrusion process.
The prepared raw materials are forced through a die that establishes
the width and length of the brick. The die opening contains rods that
introduce openings (cores) in the bed surface of the brick when laid as
a stretcher (Figure 1). The extruded column is then cut to provide the
height of the brick. The remaining 10% of brick production are molded
(Figure 2). The prepared raw materials are thrown or pushed into
wood or steel boxes, with the excess cut from the top. That provides the
shape. Yes, some molded brick are still made by hand.
Extruded brick often have coatings or textures, or both, applied to
the extruded column before being cut to height. Molded brick have
more rounded edges and often a sand coating that assists in release from
the mold. The variations in raw materials, means of forming, adding
coatings and firing conditions gives rise to thousands of appearances.
The transformation from a piece of mud to a brick is achieved by
subjecting the brick to temperatures that cause a melting of the min-
eral particles, often upwards of 2,000 degrees F (1090 degrees C). This
ceramic fusion, on cooling, changes the chemical and physical properties,
providing the strength and durability for which brick is renowned.
The firing takes place in either a long-tunnel kiln or round, “beehive”
shaped kiln (Figures 3 and 4). Tunnel kilns process brick as they move
through on rail-type flat cars. The firing temperature and time exposure
are relatively easy to control. This results in brick with fewer dimen-
sional and color variations. With a beehive kiln, the unfired brick are
stacked inside and the entire mass is heated and cooled before unload-
ing. The temperature and length of exposure varies with location in
Figure 1: End of extrusion machine, with clay column before texturing and
cutting for brick height, left. Adjacent die with rods that form cores in bed
surface visible, right.
STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 2: Molded brick in wooden molds, being rotated to remove
the molds.
this periodic kiln. This results in brick with greater size and color
variations. Fewer beehive or periodic kilns are in use due to its more
labor-intensive nature.
Brick dimensions are typically given in the order of width by height by
length. Many manufacturers are reducing the nominal width (thickness)
of their brick, from 4 to 3 inches. More thin brick, less than 1¾ inch
in width, are also being produced. These thin brick are often used as
a facing on concrete panels and adhered to structural backings. Face
dimensions, height and length, are increasing. Several manufacturers
now produce brick with nominal face dimensions of 4 and 8 inches in
height and 12 and 16 inches in length. Molded brick typically are not
available in larger sizes.
Most kilns are fired with natural gas. Coal and sawdust also are used for
firing brick. Several plants feature the use of waste products as fuel, or
use fuel from renewable sources. These plants use either petroleum coke
or methane captured from landfills as a supplement to natural gas to fire
brick. Use of methane is not new, having been used since the 1980s.
Although automation of brick plants has been underway for decades,
recent plants utilize robots to handle the brick from forming to
packaging. The first human contact is often that of the bricklayer. Most
kiln stacks are equipped with scrubbers to reduce air pollution. Many
brick companies are taking advantage of the downturn in construction
to improve the operating efficiency of their plants. Typical efforts
include better utilization of heat; replacing electric motors with more
efficient ones; and, obtaining water from non-municipal sources.
With some green building rating systems, these practices can result in
points for manufacturing with reduced resources.
One advantage of not operating production facilities at near capacity
levels is the ability to work on new products. Brick with higher void
areas, brick less than the 4-inch nominal bed depth, brick with larger
face dimensions and new brick sizes come to the market. Of course,
new coatings and colors are being investigated since brick is typically
an exposed material.
Specifications for Brick
There are three specifications for brick used in building and above-grade
structures. All are prepared by the ASTM International Subcommittee
C 15.02 on Brick and Clay Tile. Although brick is used primarily as
a veneer (where there is no structural demand), each of the following
specifications can also be used for brick when brickwork is used as a
structural member. Figure 5 shows a detail of a brick veneer wall.
ASTM C 62 Standard Specification for Building Brick
ASTM C 216 Standard Specification for Facing Brick
ASTM C 652 Standard Specification for Hollow Brick
Let’s examine some differences and similarities in these documents,
and how the brick from them are used.
22 May 2010
Figure 3: Extruded brick on kiln cars; tunnel kiln in background. Figure 4: Beehive kiln.

Each of these specifications contains essentially the same requirements for durability. These
are based on the included requirements for maximum water absorptions and minimum
compressive strength. These properties verify that the ceramic materials are well fired and
the brick has freeze-thaw resistance. Specify Grade SW requirement for brickwork exposed
to weather for virtually all locations in the United States.
Don’t be misled by the relatively low compressive strength requirement in the specifica-
tions (an average value of 3,000 psi). The average compressive strength of brick is about
10,000 psi. This results in tested masonry compressive strengths in the 4,000+ psi range,
verifying a specified compressive strength of masonry (ƒ'm) of the same value.
If structural brickwork is used, have the brick and mortar tested as a masonry prism
to find out just how strong the combination is instead of using numbers in a table from
the building code or a specification. One suggestion for better pricing with structural
masonry is to specify Type S mortar rather than Type M. Type S provides better work-
ability for the mason, with little affect on compressive strength. The building in Figure 6
is structural brickwork.
Both C 62 and C 216 are for “solid” brick. That means that the brick are permitted to
have a net cross-sectional area of 75 to 100%. For structural design purposes the building
codes consider a “solid” brick to be 100% solid; the net area is 100% of the specified area.
Hollow brick conforming with C 652, as the name implies, have net cross-sectional area
less than 75% (Figure 7, page 24). There are two classifications: H40V with net area from Figure 6: High rise load-bearing brick building, Park
greater than 25 to 40% and H60V with net area from greater than 40 to 60%. The H40V Lane Towers, Denver, CO. Courtesy of Diane Travis,
brick are often used for veneer applications. The lower amount of material compared Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute.
to solid brick makes the H40V brick a logical
choice for green building. H60V brick have a

FYFE Co.
LLC Over 20 years ago we created the industry...
Ty fo Fibr wrap Systems
® ®
today we set the standard

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

Structural Strengthening
• FRP Installation
• Seismic Upgrade
• Blast Mitigation
• Concrete Retrofit
• Specialty Gunite
• Underwater & Coastal Repairs
• Expansion & Seismic Joints
Pipe Repair and Renewal
• Large and Small Diameter
• PCCP, RCP, Steel Structural Repairs
• Carbon Fiber Structural Liners
Concrete Restoration
• Epoxy Crack Injection
• Spall Repair
• Corrosion Protection
Advanced Fire Protection

8380 Miralani Drive, San Diego, CA 92126

NSF R
Tel: 858.642.0694  Fax: 858.444.2982
Figure 5: Brick and concrete masonry wall Certified to NSF/ANSI 61 www.fyfeco.com
under construction.

STRUCTURE magazine 23 May 2010

Figure 7: Solid (left) and hollow extruded brick.
larger core, which serves as a location for reinforcement (Figure 8). The
higher compressive strength of brickwork results in a great structural
system. Thus, they are typically used for structural masonry. Net area or
minimum mortar area is used for structural design purposes.
Each of these standards has a requirement for the distance from the
exposed face to any core in the brick. There is no requirement for the
size or location of the cores. That permits the engineer and architect to
work with the brick manufacturer to meet project specific requirements.
The process of forming the brick can be modified to achieve a specially-
shaped brick for bonding of brick around returns, for alignment of
cores from course to course to receive reinforcement, or to achieve
architectural effects such as projections and recesses.
C 62 includes only two appearance related requirements: dimensional
tolerances and conformance to a selected sample. This is unusual, since
brick is typically used as an exposed material. However, costs may
be reduced if C 62 brick is used in situations where the appearance
does not matter. Both C 216 and C 652 do include appearance
requirements: limits on chips, warpage and out-of-square, and tighter
tolerances on dimensions. Appearance requirements are identified with
a classification by Type. A specified Type (FB in C 216 or HB in C 652)
that includes the letter S indicates the typical production requirements;
an X indicates tighter appearance requirements; and an A is for brick
selected for a specific appearance with more variation in size. C 652
includes a Type HBB, which is similar to C 62 in that there are no
appearance requirements.
Current ASTM Activities
All standards undergo periodic review and change. This is the case for
the brick specifications under the jurisdiction ASTM Subcommittee C
15.02 on Brick and Clay Tile as well. The most significant change under
consideration is a reduction in the net area under C 216. The lower
limit is proposed to be changed from 75 to 70%. While this may appear
to overlap with the limits in C 652, C 216 requires a thicker dimension
from the outside face to a void area. This difference in thickness affects
several architectural detailing considerations.
C 15.02 has been moving toward making the wording of the brick
standards more consistent for several years. The objective is to combine
several of the standards so that there are fewer to work with and
understand. It is hoped that this will make it easier for engineers and
architects to specify brick.
Improvements in test methods for brick and a better explanation
of the content of the specifications are also on the subcommittee’s
agenda. Of course, the subcommittee welcomes members from the
engineering community.
STRUCTURE magazine 24
Figure 8: Hollow brick with reinforcement for load-bearing wall.
Courtesy of Joe Welte.
Sustainability and Brick
As with most construction materials, brick manufacturers and the
Brick Industry Association are addressing the sustainable aspects of
brick and brick buildings. Several topics related to this are mentioned
in this article. Some additional points are:
• Raw materials are mined near the brick plant
• Over 95% of the mined material is in the finished product
• Most brick have recycled content, ranging up to 90%
• Brick plants are well distributed; 49 of the 50 largest Metropolitan
Statistical Areas have at least two brick plants within 500 miles
Most engineers are familiar with the longevity of brick buildings.
Many of the historical events of the United States occurred in brick
buildings that are still in use. The legacy and feeling of cities and towns
are represented by the brick buildings in them. Many engineers have
assisted in adaptive reuse of older brick buildings. They help transform
older mills, schools, manufacturing facilities and homes into hotels, res-
idential units, offices, shopping centers and restaurants. They evaluate
the structural capabilities of walls and columns that are over 100 years
old. They improve connections to floor and roof systems to mobilize
the inherent strength of these elements. They bring the performance of
these buildings to that of the current building codes. I encourage the
readers of STRUCTURE to send me information on the rehabilitation
projects they have worked on.
Brick Industry Support
Most structural engineers should be familiar with the website of the Brick
Industry Association, www.gobrick.com. It includes technical infor-
mation on the use of brick. The Technical Notes, accessed through the tab of
the same name, include a detailed discussion of many aspects of brick and
its use. The individual Technical Notes cover a variety of subjects, including
the sustainable aspects of brick, Technical Note 48. If you are not able to
locate the information you need, send an email to info@bia.org or to me.
One of the staff engineers will provide your answer.▪
J. Gregg Borchelt, P.E. is the President and Chief Executive Officer
and Vice President of Engineering and Research for the Brick Industry
Association (BIA). He was in charge of technical information for BIA;
Gregg also chairs ASTM Subcommittee C 15.02 on Brick and Clay
Tile. He may be reached at borchelt@bia.org.
May 2010
u 
 
5-1/2 ft. Panels of
PRE-CUT FLEXIBLE
FLASHING* v  Built-In
w Built-In
All main components No-CLoG
TERmINATIoN
are factory-assembled DRAINAGE mATTE BARS
lets water pass,
xEDGE
 
Built-In
DAm
onto easy-to-mount with pre-drilled
flashing panels. unobstructed, directs
to Weep Tabs. holes, allow quick,
one-man moisture
installation. out of
building.

18” We’ve factory assembled EVERY modern moisture

control device onto each handy panel of top qual-
ity flashing*! It slashes the risk of mold or moisture-
damage...yet actually installs faster (and more reliably)
z 
Built-In than flashing alone!
STAINLESS STEEL y 
Clearly
DRIP EDGE Specified
releases moisture LAP joINTS No extra deliveries to wait for! No cutting of flashing
Pre-Formed { 
Built-In
No-CLoG wEEP TABS away from building. enforce rolls! No lap-joint problems! Just take a 5-1/2-foot
CoRNER BooTS, complete
STAINLESS STEEL
deliver moisture to the panel of TOTALFLAshTM out of the box and mount it
outside of the building. secure
CoRNERS & coverage. to the wall. (One man can do it alone.) Masons report
END DAmS for “perfect” corners every All Screws & Adhesive Tubes speeds of 150 lineal ft. per hr.! Pre-fabricated Corners/
time (over 20 pre-formed shapes). included in each box of TOTALFLASh™
Boots can make it even faster!
*Standard height is 18”; 12”, 15”, and custom heights and configurations are available for restoration
work, windows, doors, etc. Uses 40-mil polymeric, reinforced, UV stable flashing membrane, incorporating
DuPont’s Elvaloy® KEE polymer.

Water can infiltrate any masonry, even with IWR.

But now it’s easy to expel. Simply drop a lightweight
BlOk-FlASh® pan atop each cell on the first course of
block. Forget about pea-gravel for the second course,
Using these products may
help your project qualify for
too--our feather-light Mesh Inserts are quick & easy.
LEED credits Blok-Flash® has NO “or equal”!
Engineering for
Heritage Masonry
By Michael Schuller, P.E. and Glenn Boornazian
Nearly all of the world’s remaining ancient monuments contain some
type of masonry. Working with historic construction involves carefully bal-
ancing engineering objectives with preservation principles and increased
analytical efforts to make the best use of existing construction. The authors
have had opportunities to apply these concepts to preservation of several
heritage masonry structures, including work for the World Monuments
Fund (WMF), www.wmf.org, at the temple of Angkor Wat (Figure 1).
Preservation Philosophy
Structural engineers design for life safety and serviceability performance
on a daily basis. When working with historic structures, engineers also
have a responsibility to protect the construction itself and respect the
original intent of the architect and craftsmen who were involved in the
building’s design and construction. Preservationists follow a series of
simple principles that can be used to guide engineering efforts:
• Minimal intervention: Often the most challenging concept for
engineers is the principle of minimal intervention. Stabilization or
strengthening schemes should satisfy life safety and serviceability
objectives using simple approaches that minimize changes to the
structure’s materials and appearance, while retaining as much
original material as possible.
• Compatibility: Interventions must be physically and aesthetically
compatible with original building materials. New materials must
be similar to existing in terms of mechanical properties, porosity,
and vapor transmission so as to not significantly alter the way the
building reacts to applied loads and moisture transport. Many
historic buildings have been irreparably damaged by good-
intentioned efforts using modern materials that have a strength,
density and stiffness very different from historic materials.
• Reversibility: The most appropriate structural interventions are
designed to be reversible, or able to be removed in the future, and do
not interfere with or prevent the possibility of future interventions.
Figure 2: Khmer technician using
microwave radar to scan the stone
bas-relief panel to evaluate subsurface
conditions and identify the extent of
stone deterioration. Scanning the full
150-foot length of the carved panel
took about 2 days on site. Courtesy Figure 3: Measuring masonry compression response in place using the flatjack these documents can be useful.
of the World Monuments Fund. method of ASTM C 1197. Courtesy of Atkinson-Noland & Associates, Inc.
STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 1: Conservation of the stone roof structure being conducted by the World
Monuments Fund at the “Churning of the Sea of Milk” gallery, Angkor Wat,
Cambodia. Courtesy of the World Monuments Fund.
The very nature of historic construction implies longevity of the structure
and its materials, and structural interventions also need to consider
service life expectations. Structural work is planned with an eye towards
permanence, often considering a useful life cycle of 100 to 300 years.
Engineering solutions should incorporate durable materials that are resis-
tant to alteration by thermal cycles, moisture, and humidity with minimal
maintenance. Masonry materials have proven their ability to withstand
centuries of exposure, and substitute materials must be used with caution.
Codes and Guidelines
One of the great challenges to working with historic structures is the
lack of Building Code guidance. Requirements of the International
Building Code (IBC) and the Masonry Standards Joint Committee
Building Code Requirements and Specification for Masonry Construction
(MSJC) are intended for use with modern construction and it can be
dangerous to apply many of their requirements to heritage masonry.
Some published codes and guidelines contain concepts that can be applied
to historic masonry construction.
• The MSJC Chapter 5, Empirical Design of Masonry, includes a
series of “rules of thumb” and simple design requirements that are
often used as a screening tool when evaluating historic masonry.
Limitations on wall height to thickness ratio and the spacing of
shear walls, for example, can be used to qualify structural elements
and identify conditions requiring in-depth analysis.
• The International Existing Building Code (IEBC) contains
requirements to be used on projects involving existing buildings.
Appendix Chapter A1 includes masonry seismic strengthening
provisions such as wall anchorage
requirements and methods for
determining the allowable capacity
of masonry shear walls.
• ASCE/SEI 41-06, Seismic
Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings,
contains guidelines for masonry
structures in Chapter 7. Particularly
useful are discussions of evaluation
and strengthening methods and
default values for typical historic
masonry material properties.
Both the IEBC and ASCE/SEI 41-06
are intended for seismic evaluation and
may not always apply, particularly to
buildings in regions of low seismicity.
Nevertheless, the concepts contained in
26 May 2010
 Diagnostics
Engineering analysis and design requires knowledge of as-built
construction and material properties. Diagnostic methods play an
important role in preservation projects for the simple reason that as-built
drawings and material specifications typically don’t exist. The best
information is attained with a well-planned combination of visual eval-
uation, on site diagnostics, and laboratory testing.
Non-destructive techniques provide valuable information about
hidden conditions without disturbing construction materials and are
particularly attractive for evaluating heritage masonry. Methods such
as microwave radar (Figure 2), pulse velocity measurements, and infrared
thermography are commonly used to identify the nature of subsurface Flexure Cracks, or
features, the presence of moisture, and damage in the form of cracks or “Yield Lines,” form in the
voids. Nondestructive fiber-optic borescope examination of wall interiors presence of lateral loads
and 2-way span conditions
is an important companion technique that permits verification of
internal anomalies.
In-place testing provides valuable material property information with- Figure 4: Yield line analysis considers 2-way wall spans.
out resorting to destructive sample removal. ASTM Test Methods C
1196 and C 1197 describe techniques to evaluate masonry compression significantly increased capacities, thereby reducing the level of struc-
response using flatjacks inserted into mortar joints (Figure 3). ASTM tural intervention required.
C 1531 contains three methods for evaluating the shear strength of • Two-way Flexure: Two-way action is commonly considered for
mortar bed joints, and is used in conjunction with IEBC requirements designing floor diaphragms, yet walls are almost always analyzed
to evaluate in-plane resistance of masonry shear walls. In-place methods assuming conservative assumptions of simple spans and one-way
require removal of a portion of a mortar joint or a masonry unit for action. Most historic walls are supported laterally at each floor and
insertion of loading devices, and, although not completely nondestruc- the roof line, and also by frequently spaced shear walls (Figure 4).
tive, are often specified for use with historic masonry. Yield line analysis and consideration of two-way spanning provides
a better approximation of a masonry wall’s flexural capacity.
Engineering Considerations • Arching Action: Structural behavior of a masonry arch is ultimately
controlled by the masonry’s compressive strength following the
Engineers unfamiliar with historic masonry all too often discredit its
formation of flexural hinges (Figure 5a). A similar concept can be
structural contribution because they can’t find textbook solutions or specific
used to better understand a masonry wall’s resistance to lateral loads
code references. One big step towards minimizing the level of structural
(Figure 5b). “Arching action” is usually neglected with modern
intervention necessary with historic masonry is recognizing the inherent
masonry construction and tall, slender walls, but can be significant
capacity of original materials and the function of the original design.
to explain performance of thick walls used with historic masonry.
Most historic masonry was constructed with thick, frequently spaced
If supports are sufficiently rigid to develop arching action, wall
walls to take advantage of masonry’s excellent compression capacity.
flexural capacity is limited by masonry compressive strength rather
This construction reflects the builder’s knowledge of material properties
than mortar tensile bond at bed joints.
and load paths, and engineering analysis often begins with simple thrust
• Veneer Contribution: Veneers and facades are normally
line analysis. Stability analysis is accomplished by resolving vertical and
considered as nonstructural elements but the nature of historic
lateral loads to determine the force resultant at multiple sections and
construction often has a veneer or facing wythe making significant
ensure the “thrust line” falls comfortably within the wall section. Self-
structural contributions. This is particularly true where the face
weight of massive wall sections help resist overturning; consideration
wythe was built with regularly coursed, dressed stone or face
of axial forces and their contribution towards offsetting flexural tensile
brick, laid in high quality mortar. Multi-wythe walls are best
stress is essential.
analyzed as composite sections, distributing stresses based on the
Simplified analysis is adequate for some situations but it is often
relative stiffness of the backup and face wythes.
necessary to account for “secondary mechanisms” to fully under-
• Analytical Models: Complex analytical models can be developed
stand structural behavior. So-called secondary mechanisms require
to provide a better understanding of expected performance.
additional engineering effort, but their consideration can result in
Masonry behavior is highly nonlinear and
Vertical Load “Clamping” Force
simple elastic analysis is unable to capture
(a) (b) response beyond service loads, particularly
Crack at when considering seismic loading. Properly
Flexural Compression Support
Hinge Crushing calibrated, nonlinear finite element and
Zones
distinct element models provide a reasonable
Lateral
approximation of masonry behavior.
Crack at Load
Mid-Height
Architectural Conservation
Crack at
Architectural conservation is an essential com-
Support ponent of all heritage projects. The professionals
working in this field apply a coordinated ap-
Compression Crushing Zones “Clamping” Force proach to such topics as: preservation theory
Figure 5: Thick masonry walls with rigid support conditions develop a failure mechanism limited by and philosophy, architectural documentation,
compressive strength, similar to that a masonry arch. conservation science, condition surveys, archival

STRUCTURE magazine 27 May 2010

Figure 6: Stones removed from the Angkor Wat roof structure being conserved in
the on-site workshop. Courtesy of the World Monuments Fund.
research, in-situ and laboratory testing and mock-ups. When results
of all this work are brought together and synthesized properly, the
goal is to design a conservation program that is physically compatible
with the substrate and aesthetically balanced to match the interpreta-
tion goal set for the specific site. For a heritage conservation program to
be successful, structural engineers who specialize in this field must work
closely alongside architectural conservators, each being open minded
and creative to find the best solution to the challenges of the materials,
threats and priorities found at a specific site. There are too many sites
where the balance was not properly struck and the results are confusing,
if not also damaging to historic materials. At heritage sites where we are
the caretakers for future generations such mistakes are unacceptable.
Many international organizations regulate this field. In addition,
numerous charters have been established to define the approach, goals
and processes most widely accepted. Today at the Ancient City of
Angkor, the Cambodian Government’s APSARA National Authority is
in charge of the safekeeping and coordination of the site. Together they
work closely with UNESCO and over 10 countries from around the world
who participate in the project on a daily basis.
Angkor Wat
Glenn Boornazian has been working with the WMF at the Angkor
World Heritage Site in Cambodia since 2002 and Michael Schuller
since 2004. WMF is a non-profit organization based in New York City
with heritage preservation efforts in more than 90 countries around the
world. WMF has been working at Angkor since the early 1990s and
recently received a large grant from the US State Department for the
conservation of Phnom Bakheng, the first site the Khmers built when
they moved to the location we know as Angkor today. WMF President
Bonnie Burnham said, “The conservation of this magnificent complex
of monuments is a critical part of our mission, because of its prominence
and because we are able to play a very meaningful role here by providing
technical expertise and training for a new generation of Cambodians
to conserve and manage the site and its numerous cultural treasures”.
At the Churning of the Sea of Milk Gallery at Angkor Wat, WMF
has assembled a team of Khmer engineers, architects, archeologists,
stone masons and conservators to stabilize the architecture of the
third enclosure southeast intermediate gallery and provide long term
protection for the Churning of the Sea of Milk (CSM) bas relief. The
CSM bas relief panel measures over 150 feet in length and is considered
to be one of the most important bas reliefs at Angkor, if not all of
Southeast Asia.
Originally constructed in the 12th century, the gallery’s corbelled stone
roof structure was built with a series of massive sandstone blocks, dry-
laid without mortar in an interlocking fashion (Figure 6). Work on site
focuses on restoration of the roof structure’s original passive drainage
STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 7: Stone conservation, Angkor Wat. Courtesy of World Monuments Fund.
system and conservation measures to address stone deterioration. Initial
diagnostics included the use of ultrasonic pulse velocity and microwave
radar testing to evaluate the condition of prior patching repairs and
identify the extent of deterioration within the carved panel (Figure 2, page
26). Additional work focused on the development of detailed drawings of
the site, implementation of a unit-by-unit survey, sampling and testing
of original materials and alterations over time which focused on defining
and prioritizing the active decay. Laboratory and in-situ testing assisted
in the development of conservation methods and materials which are
in use at the site today. Coordinated and documented with the use of a
database designed for this purpose, work is currently underway to remove
inappropriate cement-based patching materials and transfer individual
stones to the on-site laboratory for conservation (Figure 7). Stones are
placed back in their position following desalination, consolidation,
and treatment of fractures and breaks. An important component of the
rebuilding effort is limited and selective installation of a series of 2mm
lead sheets to augment the roof’s passive drainage system. Observations
during the 2009 monsoon season demonstrated that the repaired roof
structure is working flawlessly. The WMF team expects a preliminary
review of the work by the Cambodian APSARA Authority and UNESCO
in June 2010, leaving time to make small scale modifications so that final
completion can be achieved in December 2010.
Preservation Engineering and Conservation
Being involved with heritage masonry structures provides a certain sense
of fulfillment, knowing that your efforts will be appreciated by future
generations. Engineering analysis and stabilization of heritage masonry
structures requires a willingness to dig deep to understand historic
materials and construction methodologies. If you are interested in more
exposure to preservation engineering and historic masonry, get involved
with the Association for Preservation Technology International’s Preserva-
tion Engineering Committee (www.apti.org) and The Masonry Society’s
Existing Masonry Committee (www.masonrysociety.org).▪
Michael Schuller, P.E., is president of Atkinson-Noland & Associates.
Mr. Schuller is vice president of the Association for Preservation
Technology International and is on The Masonry Society’s Board of
Directors. He may be reached at mschuller@ana-usa.com.
Glenn Boornazian is president of Integrated Conservation Resources
and Technical Director of the World Monument Fund’s conservation
efforts at the Angkor World Heritage Site, Cambodia. He may be
reached at gboornazian@icr-icc.com.
The online version of this article contains references.
Please visit www. STRUCTUREmag.org.
28 May 2010
 2010 STEEL/COLD FORMED STEEL PRODUCTS GUIDE
a definitive listing of steel/cold-formed steel product manufacturers/distributors and their product lines

Company Product Description

Bentley Systems RAM Elements offers finite element analysis plus stand-alone or integrated design tools all in one
Phone: 800-236-8539 package. Whether you are designing trusses, continuous beams, frames, retaining walls, masonry
Bentley’s RAM Elements
Email: structural@bentley.com walls, tilt-up walls, shear walls, footings, or other design tasks, RAM Elements delivers the most
Web: www.bentley.com productive and easy-to-use engineering analysis and design toolkit.

CSC Inc. Fastrak Building Designer is the market leading steel building design solution for low-rise
Phone: 877-710-2053 construction. Used by 1000s of engineers worldwide, Fastrak Building Designer is now defining
Fastrak
Email: sales@cscworld.com a new standard for building design software in the USA. Simple and intuitive to use, Fastrak
Web: www.cscworld.com provides rapid modeling and automated design.

GT STRUDL GTSTRUDL for the analysis & design of civil works facilities, industrial, nuclear, offshore,
Phone: 404-894-2260 transportation, and utilities. Key analysis features include linear/nonlinear static, dynamic, pushover,
GT STRUDL
Email: joan.incrocci@ce.gatech.edu and buckling analysis. US and International Steel Design Codes plus ACI and British Concrete
Web: www.gtstrudl.gatech.edu Design Codes. NEW modules available for Base Plate Analysis and Muti-Processor Solvers.
Hilti Hilti’s Profis DF Diaphragm Software 2.0 optimizes fastening solutions for steel deck roof
Phone: 800-879-8000 Hilti Profis DF and floor systems using Hilti fasteners. Profis DF calculates diaphragm shear, wind uplift and
Email: custserv@us.hilti.com Diaphragm Software 2.0 combined loading analysis, incorporating the latest ICC-ES AC43 performance data. The
Web: www.us.hilti.com program features enhanced graphical user interface with easy-to-read screens and color breakouts.

IES, Inc. ShapeBuilder performs “Effective Section Analysis” for custom thin-walled channels, hats, or
Phone: 800-707-0816 ShapeBuilder and similar member shapes. Engineers can combine primitive shapes to create complex assemblies,
Email: keitha@iesweb.com VisualAnalysis or import outlines from a spreadsheet or DFX file. VisualAnalysis offers a way to build structural
Web: www.iesweb.com models like they would by hand, and solves everyday analysis and design problems.

MIDASoft Inc.
Phone: 212-835-1666 midas Gen 2010 Provides analysis of static, dynamic, pushover, inelastic time history, material/geometry

Software
(Building and nonlinear, masonry structures, cables, pre/post-tensioning, time-dependant material models,
Email: midasoft@midasuser.com
General Structures) column shortening, construction stage, and heat of hydration analyses.
Web: www.MidasUser.com

Nemetschek Scia How much steel could you save? Scia Engineer makes it easy to optimize the performance
Phone: 877-808-7242 of all types of steel structures. It is the only software that links structural modeling, analysis,
Scia Engineer
Email: usa@scia-online.com designs, and documentation in one program, and makes it easy for firms to plug-into today’s
Web: www.scia-online.com BIM process.

RISA Technologies Get the most out of your steel designs with RISAFloor and RISA-3D. The ability to use multiple
Phone: 949-951-5815 RISAFloor materials in one FEA model makes these programs your first choice for both hot rolled and cold
Email: info@risatech.com formed steel. With 16 steel databases and 21 steel codes, RISA has all your bases covered.
Web: www.risa.com
Strand7 Pty Ltd Strand7 is a sensibly priced FEA system. It comprises preprocessing (with CAD import,
Phone: 252-504-2282 automeshing), a complete set of solvers (linear and non linear, static, dynamic and thermal)
Strand7
Email: anne@beaufort-analysis.com and postprocessing. Release 2.4’s many new features include staged construction, a moving load
Web: www.strand7.com module, new solvers including quasistatic for shrinkage and creep/relaxation problems.

Strucsoft Solutions Ltd MWF – Wall framing extension running on Autodesk Revit Platform for wood and Light Gauge
Phone: 514-731-0008 MWF and CMS metal construction. CMS is a CADCAM software application dedicated to the production and
Email: d.deschamps@strucsoftsolutions.com manipulation of DSTV CNC file output format.
Web: www.strucsoftsolutions.com

Struware, Inc Struware’s steel beam/joist floor vibration program analyzes floor systems in accordance with
Phone: 904-302-6724 Floor Vibration AISC Design Guide #11 and can compare up to 4 systems side by side. Struware also offers other
Email: email@struware.com structural software. Demos on the website.
Web: www.struware.com

Tekla, Inc. Tekla Structures is the BIM solution for structural engineers that can take any building project,
Phone: 877-835-5265 no matter how large or complex, from conceptual design to detailing and construction. You can
Tekla Structures
Email: info.us@tekla.com exchange model data with architects and other designers, work with popular A&D programs,
Web: www.tekla.com/us and much more!

CMC Steel Products CMC Steel Products manufactures the cellular and castellated SMARTBEAM – an innovative,
Phone: 972-772-0769 SMARTBEAM®,
economical and sustainable alternative for floor and roof framing systems. Manufactured from
Castellated and
Email: marketing@cmc.com recycled materials, the beams are lightweight, have superior deflection properties, and can
Cellular Beams
Website: www.cmcsteelproducts.com integrate MEP systems through the web openings. SMARTBEAM – The Intelligent Alternative

SAS Stressteel, Inc. SAS Stressteel, Inc. provides innovative products + solutions for the construction industry. SAS
Phone: 973-244-5995 Hot-Rolled Fully hot-rolled thread bar sizes from #6 to #24 in grades 80, 97, and 150ksi used in a wide range of
Suppliers

Email: info@stressteel.com Threaded Steel Bars applications from rock and soil anchors to multi-bar caissons to high strength reinforcing bars
Web: www.stressteel.com for concrete structures.

TrusSteel, An ITW Company
Phone: 888-565-9181
Email: info@TrusSteel.com
Web: www.TrusSteel.com
TrusSteel CFS trusses are easy to specify, design and inspect (Guide Specs available). And, they
are easy to handle and install because of their superior stiffness and high strength-to-weight ratio.
TrusSteel®
Local TrusSteel fabricators provide sealed truss designs, standard details, guide specifications,
An ITW Company hardware, estimates and finished trusses.

Wheeling Corrugating Wheeling Corrugating is the nation’s most experienced decking manufacturer; 120 years of quality
Phone: 800-922-3325 and performance and a future focused on innovation and customer service. Wheeling Corrugating
Steel Decking
Email: karnsa@wheelingcorrugating.com has 12 facilities strategically located throughout the USA. Our NASCC booth will feature the ICC
Web: www.wheelingcorrugating.com Approved Seismic ShearLoc System for pneumatically crimping decking sidelaps.

Not listed? Please contact STRUCTURE® magazine at guides@STRUCTUREmag.org

with your company information. We will be sure to include you in the 2010 Guide reminders. All Resource Guides and Updates for the 2010 Editorial Calendar are now available
on the website, www.STRUCTUREmag.org. Sign up for any of the Guides today! Listings are provided as a courtesy. STRUCTURE magazine is not responsible for errors.

STRUCTURE magazine 29 May 2010

 Special Section: Steel Construction Materials,
Products and Software

Companies Still Grappling with Sluggish Economy

By Larry Kahaner

It’s STILL the ECONOMY.

No matter who you talk with, whether it is steel fabricators and suppliers or those
involved with steel-related software, the keys to success in this down economy are the
same: adapt to new conditions and markets, listen and respond even more closely
to users’ needs by offering new products and service, and take advantage of new
technologies and regulations.
For example, for many steel companies, the onset
of AC 237 (Acceptance Criteria For Threaded High
Strength Steel Bars For Concrete Reinforcement) is
YEAH...
becoming a windfall. So far, Sunny Isles and Miami,

#20
Florida, and most recently New York City, have
THAT’S A
adopted the new standard that will allow Grade
97 steel to be used for concrete reinforcement.
“Concrete capacities have consistently risen in the
last half century, yet steel reinforcement technol-
ogy has remained stagnant until only recently. It’s THREADED
a huge step for the construction industry,” says
Greg Moormann, Project Engineer & Manager at ATTENTION
BAR

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

SAS Stressteel, Inc. (www.stressteel.com), with NEW YORK CITY:
U.S. headquarters located in Fairfield, New Jersey. GRADE 97 ksi
The primary owner of the company is Stahlwerk HIGH-STRENGTH
Annahütte Max Aicher GmbH & Co KG (SAH), CONCRETE
based in Hammerau, Germany.
REINFORCEMENT
“A few high rises in Florida, designed by very
NOW ACCEPTED
well known structural engineers, were able to take
BY NYC DOB !
advantage of the full capacity of Grade 97 steel,” (AS PER AC237)
says Moormann. “It cut down on steel tonnage and
also cut down on congestion issues in the columns.”
He says that his company is currently supplying
Grade 97 steel for the construction of World Trade
SAS G-97 SYSTEM
Center Tower 4 in New York City. “Construction
WITHIN COLUMNS AND
on Tower 4 started out with smaller diameter, lower SHEAR WALLS OF

SAS
grade standard reinforcement with the requirement WORLD TRADE
of mechanical splices, resulting in major congestion CENTER TOWER 4
issues.” Implementing larger diameter, Grade 97
STRESSTEEL
continuously-threaded steel reinforcement (currently
available up to #24) has proven to be a cost sav- 100 NEW DUTCH LANE
FAIRFIELD, NJ 07004
ings and has helped the concrete contractor increase P: 973 . 244 . 5995
productivity by using a system that alleviated the WWW.STRESSTEEL.COM F: 973 . 244 . 0544
original issues. continued on next page
STRUCTURE magazine 31 May 2010
 Special Section
One company that has adapted to the current economic conditions
is Wheeling Corrugating, a division of Severstal North America, head-
quartered in Wheeling, West Virginia (www.wheelingcorrugating.com).
Founded in 1890, the company has 12 plants located throughout the
United States. They manufacture roll-formed products for residential,
agricultural, construction, highway and bridge-building markets. They
also offer roofing and siding for agricultural and residential applica-
tions, according to Rob Rutherford, General Manager of Sales for the
Construction Products Division, Steel Deck Products.
“Business is tougher than ever, but we’re doing well,” he says. The
company has focused on heavy complex work like stadia and high
rises. “We have unique and unparalleled experience with these types of
projects.” He adds, however, that some steel fabricators are struggling,
and they’re running out of their backlog of work. Rutherford also
notes that his company is involved in bridge construction and is
taking advantage of the increasing infrastructure building coming from
government stimulus funds.
One issue that he and others are grappling with is steel price stability.
Rutherford has experienced at least three increases this year from his
mills. “It’s a challenge when bidding on long-term projects,” says
Rutherford. He’s seeing a “reactionary effect” on the part of well-
educated owners who are buying directly to secure pricing. “Owners-
buying-directly has not [traditionally] been the norm, but it has
become more common on large projects within the past several years.”
As evidence of pricing pressures, Rutherford is seeing joist suppliers
offering 15 days on quotes. He states, “We’re currently standing behind
our quotations for 30 days.”
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
Is there a curved roof
design on your horizon?
Be prepared to meet it with the new TrusSteel
Any Radius Chord truss system.
ARC trusses are a part of the first pre-engineered
CFS truss system with smoothly curved top and
bottom chords.
Contact us today and we will send you
information on ARCTM trusses as well as the
industry’s only comprehensive Design Manual for
Cold-Formed Steel trusses - straight or ARC.
®
info@TrusSteel.com
888-565-9181
An ITW Company
STRUCTURE magazine
Last year, in order to attract new customers and keep their current
ones, TruSteel, an ITW company in Arlington, Texas (www.itwbcg.com),
began offering their ARC (Any Radius Chord) Truss. “In the past, the
top portion of trusses would be straight; however, we can bend the
top or bottom chords and make a smooth curve,” says Dave Goodwin,
National Marketing Director. ARC trusses can clear-span over 80 feet
depending upon the configuration, and overhangs or cantilevers are
no problem, according to Goodwin. For tall roofs, ARC trusses can
work in piggyback truss situations. For long spans, ARC trusses can be
fabricated, shipped in sections, and spliced at the job site.
Goodwin also notes that his company is embracing the green
revolution. He says that, setting aside the economy, green issues are
high on the list of issues facing the industry. “Steel is the most recycled
construction material in the world. It’s easy to find local recyclers; and,
as an engineered product, there’s almost no scrap. What scrap we do
produce in our shops goes directly to recycling. We try to be good,
green citizens.”
SidePlate Systems, Inc. (www.sideplate.com), located in Laguna Hills,
California, also offers its own specialized steel product, i.e., a suite of
high-performance steel frame connection technologies that have suc-
cessfully been tested to provide protection against blasts, progressive
collapse, and earthquakes. The technology was originally developed in
response to the devastation caused by the 1994 Northridge earthquake
in California; but, it has been proven to provide protection for other
hazards as well.
“We’re seeing a lot of healthcare building and military projects,”
says President Henry Gallart, P.E., S.E. “Folks that weren’t in that
continued on page 35
32 May 2010
For critical welds,
the right product is crucial.
ESAB Seismic Certified filler metals.
When it comes to structural fabrication, ESAB Seismic Certified
products deliver the strength you need to get the job done.

+ Meet AWS ‘D’ designator requirements

+ Excellent welding option for when FEMA 353, D1.1 or D1.8 is utilized
+ Let our experts determine the best solution for your application
+ Your satisfaction is guaranteed by ESAB – the welding authority

Get started today. Visit esabna.com/seismic for a brochure, and

we’ll even send you a free do-rag.

Atom Arc® + Dual Shield® + Coreshield® + Spoolarc®

esabna.com/seismic + 1.800.ESAB.123
 Special Section
marketplace are trying to get into it. Fortunately, we were already immersed in it.” Although
the technology has been particularly suited to structures where protection against earthquake
or terrorist bombings is desired, changes incorporated into the new SidePlate FRAME
moment connection have made it economically desirable even for buildings with wind as the
controlling design loading. Active projects using Sideplate technologies include: Courthouses
in Mississippi and Utah; Hospitals and Medical Office Buildings in Connecticut, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, Kentucky, Kansas, Washington & California; and Federal and/
or Military buildings in Virginia, Montana, Texas and Florida. Gallart further noted that Tekla
and SDS2 have incorporated the SidePlate connection technologies into their steel detailing
software programs. (See ad on page 30.)
Also paying attention to the effects of earthquakes is ESAB North America (www.esabna.com),
a subsidiary of Anderson Group Inc. Founded more than 100 years ago, ESAB Cutting &
Welding is involved in welding and cutting equipment, welding consumables, welding
automation and cutting systems. “We’re looking at demand-critical welding tied to the
earthquakes in Haiti and Chile,” says Dan Spackman, Product Develop Manager. “We are
working hard to qualify welding wires to meet AWS D1.8 specifications. That’s the structural
welding seismic supplement to D1.1 for use in seismic applications.” He notes that he’s starting
to see seismic requirements in Mexico, which could bode well for business.
Spackman says that the company is taking initiatives to help clients who are not only struggling
with the economy, but also dealing with a lack of qualified welders. To this end, ESAB offers How Much Steel
Could Eiffel Have

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

the Dual Shield X-Series of flux-cored wires. The new wires are much more forgiving than

“...setting aside the economy, green issues are Saved with the
high on the list of issues facing the industry.”
Right Software?
traditional flux-cored wires, especially for less-experienced welders, says Spackman. “There’s a
lack of qualified welders, and the full line Dual Shield X-Series helps less-experienced welders
be productive and helps experienced welders be even more productive.”
Like others, Spackman is seeing infrastructure stimulus money being spent on bridges, as well
as water and gas systems. That is positive for his company, but it also presents new challenges Find Out...
because of the move toward lighter, thinner and higher-strength steel. “We’re looking at devel-
oping wires for higher strength steel that still maintain their strength,” he says.
www.SciaAmerica.com
While those in the steel industry are finding ways to add value and efficiencies to their
customers’ projects, software developers are doing the same for their clients in this current
Scia Engineer 2010 makes it easy to
economic downturn.
Reducing Requests for Information (RFIs) has been a continual challenge for construction optimize the performance of all types
companies, but advances in software are helping to mitigate it. “Reducing RFIs is a huge of structures. It is the only software
issue,” says Dan Monaghan, North American Managing Director for Nemetschek Scia that links structural modeling, analysis,
(www.scia-online.com). “New software will reduce RFIs by building projects inside the designs, drawing and reports in one
computer before building it on site… If you have to delay a crew for even a day because program, and makes it easy for firms to
of a design conflict, then the cost is many times that of the software’s price.” With world plug-into today’s BIM process.
headquarters in Belgium, Nemetschek Scia opened its U.S. office in Columbia, Maryland
last October because, as Monaghan puts it: “The market [for structural design and analysis
software] was not ready until now.” Although many U.S. companies employ BIM, they are Find out how much Scia Engineer can
behind European companies, according to Monaghan. save your firm. 877-808-Scia (7242),
The company has just released Engineer 2010, a BIM program. “With Structural BIM www.SciaAmerica.com
programs like Scia Engineer 2010, modeling, design, analysis, and documentation are all
linked together, so a change anywhere is reflected everywhere, saving time and eliminating
coordination errors. For example, if you change the size or shape of a beam, that change
is automatically reflected in your structural model, drawings and calculation reports,” says
Monaghan. He adds: “Owners are always looking for increased value. BIM gives it to them.”
Another way that software companies are addressing engineers’ demands, to keep their costs
low, is by offering different pricing plans. “Times are tough, and we’re responding to economic
conditions through innovative licensing,” says Raoul Karp, Director, Product Management Scia Engineer 2010
for Bentley Systems, Incorporated (www.bentley.com), in Exton, Pennsylvania. Karp notes Go Beyond Analysis.
Explore. Optimize. Collaborate.
continued on page 37

STRUCTURE magazine 35 May 2010

 Trusses
Columns
Detailing
Integrate Your Steel Foundations
Steel
Connections
Stiffene
Analysis, Design and
Pile Caps
Shear Studs
Analysis Shear Walls
Columns Design
Anchors
Documentation Workflows
Bolts Documentation
TrussesPile Caps
Stiffeners Detailing
ReinforcementBaseplates
buildings

Trusses

Web Openings

visit us a
nAScc 2 t
booth #1 010
119

IncreASe Your effIcIencY AnD Improve to learn more now, please join us at our
workshops showcasing the latest technology
Your buSIneSS WIth A complete Steel updates. A digital camera will be given away
project WorkfloW from bentleY. at each workshop.

thursday, may 13th (7:00am – 7:45am)

Structural engineers are confidently doing more with less using a complete steel Steel building Design including
project workflow from Bentley. connections for Seismic loads
find out how at nAScc 2010! and load combinations
thursday, may 13th (5:30pm – 6:15pm)
If you’re struggling with BIM as you try to tame the broad mix of technologies producing contract
Drawings through Structural
found on today’s project sites, Bentley can help. Bentley’s innovative software is Information modeling
empowering structural engineers to get the most out of their modeling as they
friday, may 14th (7:00am – 7:45am)
work collaboratively with other disciplines – from architects to fabricators to
Integrated Detailing for Structural
general contractors – regardless of the technology platform being used.
and miscellaneous Steel

Realize the many benefits of an integrated steel, analysis, design and All workshops will be held in
meeting room “Sun 3-4”.
documentation workflow on your projects. For more information, visit
www.bentley.com/structure0410, email structural@bentley.com,
or phone 1-800-bentleY.

© 2010 Bentley Systems, Incorporated. Bentley, the “B” Bentley logo, RAM and STAAD are either registered or unregistered
trademarks or service marks of Bentley Systems, Incorporated or one of its direct or indirect wholly owned subsidiaries.
Other brands and product names are trademarks of their respective owners.
 Special Section
that organizations deal with multiple projects, often at the same time,
and they are forced to buy development tools specific to that project.
They buy individual software licenses on an ad hoc basis, which can
be inefficient and expensive. “The Bentley Structural Passport, mainly
intended for smaller companies, is a subscription licensing system
that bundles products together. “It’s a lot cheaper than purchasing all
the products,” says Karp. “Software is offered by the product suite. It
includes training and support. The idea is to help our customers get
into new markets,” he says.
RISA Technologies, LLC. (www.risatech.com) of Foothill Ranch,
California is taking a similar tack. The company develops and markets
software for structural engineers and does what it can to make their
products easier to use, while allowing customers the opportunity to
explore new markets. “We see our software as a tool for engineers,”
says Bruce Bates, Founder and President. “We maintain all codes for
our software with an emphasis on being user friendly and with a high
quality of support.” RISA’s offerings have also expanded. “We used to
be seen as a low-to-middle provider; but in the last five years, we’ve
moved toward the higher end in complexity. With RISA 2D, RISA-3D
and RISA Floor, we can handle just about anything.”
Currently, RISA is developing a steel connection design program called
RISA Connection which will be out in June. It will be integrated into
RISA-3D and RISA Floor. “Like all companies, we’re working towards
a soup-to-nuts solution, where users can do as much as possible within
our package,” Bates says. (See ad on page 51.)
Keeping codes current is a crucial component for engineers, according to
Rob Madsen, President of Devco Software, Inc. (www.devcosoftware.com),
so the company makes sure their products – AISWIN, LGBEAMER
and D-CODER – are up to date. “Our focus now
is to keep up with code changes. There have been
many changes in the past few years, and some
significant changes to cold-rolled steel in the torsion
and distortional buckling areas.” The company,
which specializes in software for cold-rolled steel,
currently is updating LGBEAMER, designed with
the steel-framing design professional in mind.
“Mostly, people want software that meets codes
and has standards sections,” says Madsen. “We’re
CSI recently released an updated version of the SAP2000 program,
with new enhancements to the bridge module. “It has received a lot of
attention,” says Tovani.
He notes that while the economy has been tough, his firm has been
able to ride it out because of their global reach. “Engineers tell us that
their level of work will dictate how many copies of software they will
purchase and how often they will update. Our products look at the
global economy, so we are able to work in different economies.” Like
others, he’s beginning to see more bridge designs as a result of stimulus
money being spent on infrastructure. (See ad on page 52.)
Helping smaller firms compete is CSC, Inc. (www.cscworld.com).
The company recently launched Fastrak Building Designer Limited
Edition (LE), a code-based building design software for small structural
engineering businesses, mainly for low to mid-rise construction. “We
support Revit [Autodesk®] directly,” says Matthew Newton, President.
“You can start your model in either Revit or Fastrak.” CSC opened an
office in Chicago in 2007, and the U.S. has become the company’s
fastest growing market. “Owners are expecting everyone to discount
their fees. Our customers are discounting fees, so they’re really wanting
to reevaluate their processes. It’s an opportunity for us. With our
solutions, they can run their businesses much more efficiently.” (See
ad on page 39.)
Another trend that hasn’t escaped software makers’ notice is that
of pushing BIM information downstream, so that all levels in the
construction process can benefit. “Early in the BIM trend, we [the
industry] made our tradesmen use products that weren’t suitable for
them, whether they were plumbers, electricians or anyone else,” says
continued on page 39

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

structural engineers first, and we design software to
use it ourselves – from our perspective.” Madsen
hears from many engineers about their products.
“We get a lot of feedback. They especially like our
software’s ease of use and interfaces.”
Rob Tovani, Director of Verification, Validation
and Training at Computers & Structures, Inc.
(www.csiberkeley.com) agrees. “The common thread
is that users are looking for something that’s easy
to use.” Each of the firm’s programs is tailored to
specific classes of structures, allowing the engi-
neering community to work at more productive
and efficient levels than are possible with “general
purpose” type programs. SAP2000 is intended for
use on civil structures, such as bridges, dams, stadia,
industrial structures and buildings. ETABS has
been developed specifically for multi-story building
structures, such as office buildings, apartments and
hospitals. The SAFE System provides an efficient
and powerful program for the analysis and design
of concrete slabs and foundations.

STRUCTURE magazine 37 May 2010

 Welcome to Florida.

13 Jacksonville
SDS/2 steel software provides the
framework for facilities across
Florida — and around the globe.
Come take an inside look at these
buildings and more at NASCC in
Orlando, Florida.

Booth #1101

6 11
9

5 Orlando 7
12 Cape Canaveral
10
Lake Buena Vista

12
Tampa
Melbourne
3 4

1 - Dino-Rama, Disney’s Animal

Kingdom
2 - Disney’s Beach Club Villas
3 - Elephant Barn at Busch Gardens
4 - Jungala at Busch Gardens
5 - Lodge Annex, Disney’s Animal Kingdom
6 - Lost Continent, Universal Studios’ Islands
of Adventure
7 - NASA Mobile Launch Base
8 - NW 17th Avenue Bascule Bridge
9 - Seuss Landing, Universal Studios’ Islands of
Adventure
10 - Tree of Life, Disney’s Animal Kingdom
11 - VCC Public Safety Institute Building
12 - Viera Health First 8
13 - Whole Foods Market Miami

www.sds2.com 800.443.0782 402.441.4000 e-mail: info@sds2.com

Copyright © 2010 Design Data, Inc. All rights reserved.

 Special Section
Doug Evans, Vice President of Sales for Lincoln, Nebraska-based Design
Data (www.sds2.com), which focuses on the steel industry’s fabrication,
detailing and engineering sectors. “Tradesmen need to use the best
tools for them, and that has to integrate with other people’s tools...
Interoperability is catching up to what people want as a work process.”
Evans notes that a related trend he’s seeing is that the lines are blurring
on model-building responsibility. At the same time, however, there’s
increasing pressure to have accurate models. “Some engineers are
detailing more, making models, and some manufacturers are dealing
with design…There’s a teaming approach and they’re winning the
work.” All of this, of course, requires software that is easier to employ
and interoperable for all team members, adds Evans.
Carl Taylor, Tekla, Inc.’s Business Manager for Engineering, based in
Atlanta (www.tekla.com), has also noticed an increased interest among
engineers to work closely with others on projects, through interoperable
software. “Engineers we talk to are interested in working more closely
with contractors and being able to supply models that can be used
downstream,” he says. “We hope to bring to engineers an understanding
of what people downstream from them want.” The company has just
released version 16 of Tekla Structures, a BIM software that enables the
creation and management of accurately detailed, highly constructible
3D structural models, regardless of material or structural complexity.
To that point, Taylor says: “3D modeling for structural steel is very well
established; and what we’ve been seeing over the past year or so is that
the concrete industry is waking up to the possibility of modeling at
design, detailing and construction stages. It’s driven by the recognition
that virtual construction can avoid congested areas, in rebar modeling,
for example. They can avoid problems by building models and have a
smoother construction process.” (See ad on page 40.)
At StrucSoft Solutions (www.strucsoftsolutions.com) in Montreal,
the emphasis is on serving niche markets, according to Emir Masood,
Vice President of Marketing and Business Development. Currently
the firm has two product lines – MWF, a light gauge steel and wood
framing solution for Autodesk’s Revit, and CMS, a CAD/CAM ap-
plication dedicated to creating, editing and managing DSTV-NC files.
CMS is available as a stand-alone or as an add-on for Autodesk Inventor,
Solidworks as well as MBS. “Walls meeting doors and windows makes
framing very complex. MWF has done very well, considering the market
environment,” says Masood. He says his company goes after software
improvements and add-ons that are too small to be addressed by large
software companies. “We do custom versions of things that customers
often suggest to us, things we hadn’t thought of… Our whole business
is built on going after niche markets that larger companies ignore.”
(See ad on page 3.)▪
ADVERTISING OPPORTUNITIES
STRUCTURE® magazine is planning several
additional SPECIAL ADVERTORIALS
in 2010.
To discuss advertising opportunities, please contact
our ad sales representatives:
CHUCK MINOR DICK RAILTON
Phone: 847-854-1666 Phone: 951-587-2982
Sales@STRUCTUREmag.org

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

NA V
Bo SCC isit u
NEW! Get the competitive ot St s a
h e
Or 120 el C t the
lan 1, on
edge with Fastrak do Ma fere
, F y 1 nc
lor 2-1 e
ida 5,

Fastrak Building Designer is the ultimate steel building design solution Don’t just take our
for low-rise construction. With our unique BIM integration, businesses word for it...
across America are competing more effectively in today’s market. “Fastrak integrates with Revit
Structure. Now that we use Fastrak,
1000s of engineers worldwide enjoy the benefits of Fastrak our project communication is second
• Integrate bi-directionally with AutoCAD and Revit Structure. to none.”

• Design simple and complex buildings with speed and ease. Craig S Young, PE, SECB (Principal)
Ahler & Young LLP (Tennessee)
• One model, one interface, means saving valuable billable hours.
• Automated wind loading, composite design and drawings.
• Receive professional advice from our US technical support team.

Discover the benefits of Fastrak for yourself

Call: 877.710.2053 (Toll Free) or visit www.cscworld.com/fastrak/usa

STRUCTURE magazine 39 May 2010

 WAtCH Model image courtesy of USC School of Cinema
and Gregory P Luth & Associates

r e s e n t a tions
BIM p
e a t u r i n g Greg
f at
rs
and othe im2010
b
la.us ay
/b
www.tek

FroM DeSiGn
De to
ConStrUCtion

Greg, Kristen, and John of Gregory P. Luth & Associates (GPLA) know how to ensure the best end result
to their projects. With Tekla, GPLA has moved from design to construction-driven engineering, adding
value to clients by delivering models that are used downstream. Sharing the Tekla model allows all of
the project team members to stay in the building information loop in real-time.

Tekla Structures BIM (Building Information Modeling) software provides

a data-rich 3D environment that can be shared by contractors, structural
engineers, steel detailers and fabricators, and concrete detailers and
manufacturers. Choose Tekla for the highest level of constructability and
integration in project management and delivery.

Reinventing 690 Market Street
Historic Structure Reclaimed, Vertically Expanded
By Navin R. Amin, S.E. and Vivian L.K. Wan, S.E.
T his transformation of an historic office
building into a modern residential tower
is a testament to the engineer’s key role in revi-
talizing the urban landscape.
690 Market Street dates back to 1890. Origi-
nally an 8-story tower built as the headquarters
for the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper, it
was designed by architects Burnham and Root
in the “Chicago School” style that was gaining
prominence. At the time, it was considered one
of the world’s most innovative buildings. It
was the West Coast’s first steel-frame sky-
scraper, with a tower that boasted the world’s
largest clock.
The building withstood the 1906 earthquake
but suffered 2 major fires. The clock tower
was destroyed, not to be replaced. The building
underwent several alterations and expansions,
including a 16-story annex in 1905. The
Chronicle eventually relocated its headquarters,
and the building was “modernized” in the
1960s; the architecturally rich bay windows
were destroyed and the remaining façade was
masked with a metal and marble cladding.
In 2004, new owners received approval to
expand the building to 24 stories and used
this opportunity to restore the façade, in-
cluding re-construction of the original bay
windows. The resulting 24-story, 258,000
square foot building contains 44 private and
57 fractional residences.
The complexities of this assignment were
considerable. The site, at the intersection of
the City’s main boulevard and two other major
streets, was extremely constricted. In addition,
an underground transit tunnel lay beneath the
building. Temporary shoring, demolition, and
initial design were performed with limited in-
formation and no available structural drawings.
Since the building had undergone multiple
expansions over the years, the resulting structural
components were of various materials (cast
iron columns, hollow clay tile floors, unre-
inforced masonry, steel moment frames, wind
gussets and riveted joints). The foundations
had various elevations, again with different
components: steel grillages, cast iron columns,
and brick piers over piles and pile caps.
The structural design team found creative
solutions to the various design challenges. The
new building has an eccentric core and irregular
floor plans; in order to reduce torsional irregu-
larity, it was necessary to optimize stiffness
STRUCTURE magazine
award winners and outstanding projects
Middlebrook + Louie was presented an NCSEA
Outstanding Project Award for The Ritz Carlton
Club & Residences in the 2009 NCSEA Excellence
in Structural Engineering Awards Program
(Category – New Buildings $30M to $100M).
distribution of the combined structural systems.
For the new structure, a lateral load resisting
system combining shotcrete walls, SMRF and
SCBF was devised, and a new foundation was
added. The design met the 1997 Uniform
Building Code (UBC).
New floor systems and lateral framing were
added in core areas. New slabs were tied to
existing slabs to form a complete diaphragm.
Existing slabs were connected to new shotcrete
walls to transfer lateral forces. A non-typical steel
braced frame connection detail was designed to
accommodate the building’s relatively small
core bay.
Shotcrete walls were applied to the unrein-
forced masonry perimeter walls, providing
out-of-plane resistance and forming part of
the lateral resisting system. The minimal ap-
plication of 10-inch shotcrete to support these
walls was very cost-effective. Various analyses
were performed, evaluating the impact of the
wall stiffness on the overall building performance
during earthquakes.
Several features of the original structural sys-
tem (perimeter masonry walls, perimeter bay
floor framings and slabs) were to be retained
in the new design. Great effort was taken to
integrate these existing materials, minimize
demolition complications and accommodate
construction sequencing. For example, new
concrete encasements augmented existing cast
iron columns and brick piers at lower levels, to
support additional floor loads.
A new 5-foot mat foundation integrated
various pre-existing foundation elements, and
supports the additional gravity loads and over-
41 May 2010
SPOTLIGHT
Courtesy of Tom Paiva / Plant Construction.
turning moments associated with the vertical
expansion. Since the new building has multiple
setbacks, transfer girders consisting of double
and triple beams support the transfer columns.
Special details connect these girders to the
concrete-encased cast iron columns. Given
the complexity of this project, the outcome
was highly successful. Even with complications
during demolition and analysis phases, the
project was built on schedule. The structural
design was also a large factor in achieving budget
goals, which are critical to housing projects.
The use of shotcrete walls directly benefited
the owner in 2 ways: sellable space was maxi-
mized and, since potential falling hazards from
the exterior were reduced, the insurability of
the building was enhanced.
The new building is clearly in sync with the
historic nature of the environs, including Lotta’s
Fountain, an iconic San Francisco sculpture at
the site where the city annually commemorates
the 1906 earthquake.
The owner is touting the building as “an
historic skyscraper reincarnated.” One major
architecture critic stated that the team “seized
a once-in-a-career opportunity to make things
right on a historic corner of San Francisco.”▪
Navin Amin began his structural design career
in Chicago, working with the late Fazlur
Khan on Sears Tower and other notable
buildings. He joined Middlebrook + Louie
Structural Engineers in 1997 as a Principal.
Vivian Wan joined Middlebrook + Louie in
1999, and is an Associate of the firm.
 Quality assurance corner
meeting and exceeding requirements and expectations
Tips for Reducing RFIs
By Clifford Schwinger, P.E., SECB and Albert J. Meyer, Jr., P.E.
There’s no better way to ruin the structural
design budget of a project than to be plagued
with RFIs (Requests for Information) from
contractors during construction. A common
refrain from many engineers on the receiving
end of RFIs is “Why are they (the contractor)
asking this question? The drawings are per-
fectly clear!” The unfortunate facts, however,
are that many engineers are not the best com-
municators and contractors are, unfortunately,
not mind-readers.
Most RFIs originate from flaws in the contract
documents. Most flaws can be attributed to
either missing or conflicting information.
Accordingly, performance of meticulous in-
house Quality Assurance (QA) reviews of
contract documents is the best way to reduce
RFIs. QA reviews are best performed by an en-
gineer who was not involved in the project. A
fresh set of eyes on a set of structural drawings
will usually find more flaws than will someone
who has intimate knowledge of the project.
The QA reviewer must scrutinize the drawings
through the eyes of the various contractors
who will be reading them and, in doing so,
visualize constructing the building from the
information provided. This effort also involves
becoming familiar with the architectural and
mechanical designs as well, and understanding
Figure 1: Do not rely on multiple details to piece together what occurs at specific
locations. Better to provide specific details showing everything that occurs.
STRUCTURE magazine
how those elements and systems interface with
the structural system.
Missing information
Contractors need to know the dimensions
and the dimensioned location of every structural
member. Engineers who rely on contractors
to “figure it out” will most likely be rewarded
with an inbox full of RFIs. Sections should
be provided around the entire perimeter of a
building, as well as at all locations where any-
thing unusual is occurring – slab depressions,
catwalks, roof screens, etc. If a project require-
ment is to design connections for reactions,
moments and axial forces indicated on the
drawings, that information must be provided.
Incomplete details
Attention to detail is essential. Typical details,
while important, do not always show the en-
tire picture. In particular, multiple conditions
occurring at a single location can often cause
problems during construction unless they are
addressed during design. Figure 1 illustrates a
seemingly straightforward connection, between
an HSS girt and a column, that is not buildable
as detailed due to conflict with a beam-to-
column moment connection occurring at the
same location.
Figure 2: Engineers must consider constructability when framing structures.
42 May 2010
Conflicting information
Engineers should strive to avoid duplicating
information on the contract documents.
Doing so not only adds work, it increases the
likelihood that conflicts will occur. If dimensions
are shown in a plan view, those dimensions
should not be duplicated in the sections.
Project requirements delineated in the specifi-
cations should not be repeated on the general
notes. The author has seen a number of projects
where the contract documents refer to the 1989
American Institute of Steel Construction
(AISC) Specification, the 1993 AISC Specifi-
cation and AISC 360-05.
Unrealistic design requirements
Some engineers delegate responsibility for de-
sign of structural steel connections to the steel
fabricator and, in doing so, often place ex-
cessively conservative and difficult to achieve
design requirements on those connections. A
common requirement by some engineers is
to specify that beam shear connections be
designed for the “full shear strength” of the
beam. The presence of flange copes and bolt
holes in beam webs will usually make the
design of connections for full shear strength very
costly to achieve – often requiring measures
such as web reinforcing plates, staggered rows
of bolts and otherwise excessive numbers of
bolts. A better solution is to show the actual
beam end reactions on the drawings. Doing so
will reduce connection cost (a benefit that will
pay dividends to the project through lower bid
prices for steel), improve constructability and
eliminate RFIs from the connection designer
pleading for the actual end reactions.
 Figure 3: Engineers must consider whether reinforcing steel can be installed and properly developed.
Constructability
While any framing configuration can be easily
modeled in a computer, not all can be easily
constructed. Consideration of constructability
during design will facilitate construction and re-
duce RFIs. While a computer can easily model
eight beams framing to a column, detailing
connections for such a condition is extremely
difficult. Figure 2 illustrates a beam-to-column
connections that would be very difficult to
detail and fabricate. Engineers must consider
constructability of steel connections even when
they opt to delegate connection design to the
steel fabricator’s engineer.
Most engineers have experienced at least one
phone call from the field asking if reinforcing
bars can be cut to facilitate installation. When
this call comes in, it usually means that the
bars have already been cut. Figure 3 illustrates
a condition at a corner column where standard
hooks on the ends of the top reinforcing steel
in a slab are too large to permit their proper
installation. Areas of heavily congested rein-
forcing should be examined to determine if all
of the reinforcing steel can be installed. With
the continued evolution of three dimensional
building information modeling (BIM) software,
this task is becoming easier to perform.
Coordination issues
While BIM software now provides a valuable
tool for design, interferences can occur unless
careful coordination of the structural model
with the architectural and MEP models occurs
prior to construction.
Careful attention must be particularly paid to
insure that those structural elements, not doc-
umented in the BIM model, will not interfere
STRUCTURE magazine
with elements of the architectural design or
ADVERTISEMENT – For Advertiser Information, visit www.structuremag.org
mechanical systems. Examples of such structural
elements include column base plates, column
splice connections, braced frame and truss
gusset plates, and secondary structural members,
such as joist bridging, brick shelf relieving angle
braces, and truss bracing. Examples of such
interferences include column base plates pro-
jecting into elevator pits and truss gusset plates
clashing with ducts and piping.
Likewise, just because a complex section
of a building structure can be successfully
framed in a BIM model, careful review with
the architectural model is required to insure
that the geometry between structure and ar-
chitecture match.
Summary
A comprehensive in-house review of structural
drawings and specifications is essential to assure
that they are complete, correct and coordinated
before they are issued for construction. Such
a review will reduce the number of RFIs, fa-
cilitate the construction process, benefit the
entire design and construction team, improve
profitability, and enhance the reputation of the
structural engineer.▪
Clifford Schwinger, P.E., SECB is a Vice
President at The Harman Group’s King of
Prussia, Pa. office where he is the Quality
Assurance Manager. He may be reached at
cschwinger@harmangroup.com.
Albert J. Meyer, Jr., P.E. is a Project
Engineer, Field Engineer and Assistant
Quality Assurance Manager at The
Harman Group. He may be reached
at ameyer@harmangroup.com.
43 May 2010
 News form the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
NCSEA News

STRUCTURE magazine
44
May 2010
 NCSEA News
Next NCSEA Webinar May 20
Detailing Load Bearing Masonry Buildings for both Crack Control and Structural Performance
Presented by Susan M. Frey, P.E., S.E., LEED ® AP
Susan Frey is a principal structural engineer serving as a designer, The presentation will delve into
design manager, structural technical quality assurance reviewer, material and detailing selection
and multi-discipline team quality assurance manager on vari- to control cracking in masonry
ous types of projects during her 33 years with CH2M HILL. buildings. Topics will include rules
She has been involved in the design or quality review of various of thumb for locating joints in load
specialized structures, including water and wastewater treatment bearing masonry walls versus those
plants, reservoirs, office buildings, performing arts centers, com- in veneer and non-load-bearing
mercial and industrial buildings, laboratories, and libraries, as walls. Material selection to control
well as upgrading or retrofitting various hydraulic structures and cracking and shrinkage-cracking
building systems for deterioration due to corrosion, settlement, mitigation will be discussed. The
or for life span extension as well seismic upgrades. Sue is active in session will include a 10-to-15
various code and standard committees, including masonry and minute interactive exercise in improving example building
prestressed concrete tanks. She teaches a masonry and building plans and elevations to reduce cracking and enhance overall
forces class annually at Oregon State University. structural performance.

The cost is $250 per internet connection. Several people may attend for one connection fee.
AL

EN
UR

GIN
CT

News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

This course will award 1.5 hours of continuing education, with a $5 fee for each continuing
EE
RU

RS
ST

NCSEA
education certificate requested. The times will be 10:00 Pacific, 11:00 Mountain, 12:00
NG

N
IO
UI

Central, and 1:00 Eastern. Register at www.ncsea.com.

AT
IN
NT

UC
CO

ED

Diamond
Reviewed
Approved in All 50 States

ICC-ES and NCSEA Agreement Marks

a New Milestone for Building Safety
“Due to the complexity of innovation taking place with structural related products, systems, and methods
of construction, ICC-ES saw the benefits of expanding its relationship with NCSEA and the structural
engineering community,” said ICC-ES President Mark Johnson. “This expanded relationship with NCSEA
addresses an industry need to formulate consensus and provide solutions on complex structural issues.”

ICC Evaluation Service, Inc. (ICC-ES) and NCSEA have

signed an agreement that will provide active NCSEA par-
ticipation and support for the ICC-ES Evaluation Program.
Under the agreement, NCSEA will establish panels of experts
to review proposed acceptance criteria for complex structural
products and systems. After a review, the assigned panel will pro-
vide a report to ICC-ES staff and the Evaluation Committee.
Evaluation reports, based on acceptance criteria developed
through this process, will ensure report users that a balanced
and thorough approach has been applied when considering
alternative structural products and systems. Also under the
agreement, there will be joint efforts to educate users of evaluation
reports on the proper use and application of acceptance criteria
and evaluation reports.
Look for more information, as it becomes available, on the
NCSEA website and in NCSEA’s bi-monthly newsletter,
Structural Connection, emailed to Delegates for distribution to
NCSEA Code Advisory Committee Chair Ron Hamburger, NCSEA
their Structural Engineers Associations.
President Bill Bast, ICC-ES President Mark Johnson, NCSEA CAC
Evaluation Service Advisory Subcommittee Chair Bill Warren.

STRUCTURE magazine 45 May 2010

 2010 Structures Congress with
NASCC the Steel Conference
Making Connections
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE

May 12 -15, 2010

Gaylord Palms Convention Center
Orlando, Florida
For the first time ever, the leading programs for those
involved in the design and construction of buildings
and bridges will all be held under one roof. And with
the uncertain economy, the combined conferences are
happening at a propitious moment – now you can pay
one low fee of just $390 (SEI and AISC members)
and have your choice of more than 200 seminars,
network with colleagues and potential clients, and
visit the industry’s largest exhibit hall.
Look at the variety of Short Courses being offered…
Register for a Short Course today!
HSS Connection Design Simplified Seismic Design Provisions of ASCE 7-10
Speaker: Donald Sherman Speaker: Ronald O. Hamburger

Stability and Bracing Requirement For Beams Wind Loads of ASCE 7-10
Presented by the Structural Stability Research Council Speaker: T. Eric Stafford

Performance-Based Plastic Design of Best Practices: Guidelines for Structural Fire Resistance
Earthquake–Resistant Steel Structures Design of Concrete and Steel Buildings
Presented by the International Code Council Speakers: TBA

Workshop on ASCE 24 Flood Resistant Design and Effective Steel Design: Step-by-Step Design
Construction Standard for Commercial Buildings
Speakers: Chris Jones and Bill Coulbourne Speaker: Michael A. West

Full descriptions of the short courses appear on pages 6 & 7 of the Advance Program
Structural Columns

available on the official conference website: www.aisc.org/nascc.

See the SEI Website at www.seinstitute.org for information on the Structures Congress Technical Sessions.
Register at www.aisc.org/nascc before May 6, 2010 to receive the lower fee.

Schedule for Committee Meetings 2011 SEI/ASCE Student

at the 2010 Structures Congress
Available on Website
The schedule for committee meetings during the 2010 Struc-
tures Congress in Orlando, Florida has been posted on-line. The
schedule will be updated weekly and will also appear in the final
Congress program. There are close to 60 meetings scheduled
between Wednesday, May 12 and Saturday, May 15. To view the
schedule, visit our website at www.seinstitute.org.
Structural Design Competition
The Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE sponsors a struc-
tural design competition for universities. Innovative projects
demonstrating excellence in structural engineering are invited
for submission.
Awards include cash prizes and an opportunity to present de-
signs at the 2011 SEI Structures Congress in Las Vegas, Nevada,
April 14-16, 2011.
Deadline for Submissions: June 30, 2010.
For competition guidelines, entry form and a poster to promote
the competition, visit: www.SEInstitute.org

STRUCTURE magazine 46 May 2010


STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE
Don’t Gamble On Your Future – Come To The 2011 Structures Congress
Call For Sessions And Proposals
For Structures ’11 Congress
Authors are invited to submit session proposals and/or paper
abstracts for the April 14-16, 2011 Structures Congress, which
will be held at the Green Valley Ranch, Resort & Spa in Las
Vegas, Nevada.
Abstracts and session proposals must be submitted online
through the Structural Engineering Institute’s website at:
http://content.asce.org/conferences/structures2011/call.html
Suggested technical paper topics include Bridge and Transpor-
tation Structures; Buildings; Non Building and Special Structures;
Non Structural Systems and Components; Advances, Applica-
tions and New Research; Business and Professional Practice;
Forensics; Blast Loading and Response of Structures; Radical
Structural Engineering
All submissions are due June 14, 2010.
News from the ACI/ASCE Committee 446
Fracture Mechanics of Concrete
ACI/ASCE Committee 446 Fracture Mechanics of Concrete
is working on a new report entitled Fracture Toughness Testing of
Concrete. Part I of this report contains two proposed laboratory
tests for characterizing the fracture behavior of concrete. Both of
the proposed fracture tests use identical geometry and loading: a
notched beam loaded in three-point bending.
ACI/ASCE Committee 446, after consideration of many
proposed test methods and much deliberation, has determined
that these two proposed tests are the most suitable candidates as
possible ASTM standard tests.
The first test, described in Chapter 1, is a Level I test (requiring
only measurement of peak loads), while the second, described
in Chapter 2, is a Level II test, requiring a closed-loop testing
machine. The Level I test may be used, for example, to determine
the initial portion of a stress-crack opening displacement curve.
It can also be used to determine the parameters of various
size effect models. The second test, a Level II test, capable of
determining an approximation of the entire stress-crack opening
versus displacement curve. It can also be used to determine the
parameters of the two-parameter fracture model.
The laboratory tests described in Part I are deliberately kept free
of theoretical interpretation. The parameters of several different
fracture models can be determined from the results of the two
tests. Methods for calibrating specific models from the test data
are described in Part II: Chapter 3 (linear approximation of the
STRUCTURE magazine
Structural Columns
Key Dates
Session/Paper Requests Due: June 14, 2010
Notice of Acceptance: September 30, 2010
All Final Papers Due: January 8, 2011
For more information on submitting an abstract, log on to
http://content.asce.org/conferences/structures2011/call.html
Errata
SEI posts up-to-date errata information for our
publications at www.SEInstitute.org. Click on
“Publications” on our menu, and select “Errata.”
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
If you have any errata that you would like to submit,
please email it to Jim Rossberg at jrossberg@asce.org.▪
initial portion of the cohesive crack model), Chapter 4 (bilinear
approximation of the entire cohesive crack model), and Chapter
5 (two-parameter fracture model). Other fracture models can be
similarly calibrated based upon the results produced from the
Level I and the Level II tests.
The precision and bias of these fracture toughness tests are as yet
unknown. It is hoped that, after this report is published, enough
researchers will try out these test methods that precision and bias
can be determined. It is also hoped that a consensus will develop
that the test methods are efficient, reliable, and useful, so that
these can ultimately become the basis of ASTM standards.
Because there are many fracture mechanics models currently in
favor by various researchers (various types of the cohesive crack
model, various types of the size effect model, various effective
linear elastic crack models, and the two-parameter model), it
is best at this point to keep the fracture tests described in Part
I as free of theoretical interpretation as possible. By so doing,
we avoid the future possibility of locking in as a standard an
obsolete legacy theoretical fracture model.
The report has successfully passed the balloting stage, and is
now being reviewed by TAC. It is expected to be completed
within the next six months.
When the committee is sufficiently comfortable with the test
method, an ASTM standard for fracture toughness testing of
concrete will be proposed.
47 May 2010
 The Newsletter of the Council of American Structural Engineers

CASE Risk Management Convocation

Comes into Orlando This Month
The CASE Risk Management Convocation will take place in conjunction with the first-ever combined Structures Congress/North
American Steel Construction Conference at the Gaylord Palms Convention Center in Orlando, Florida, May 12–15, 2010. The
Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE (SEI) and the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) are joining forces in 2010
to host this first-ever combined event. To register for this event, go to AISC’s website: www.aisc.org. A preliminary program is
available for viewing on SEI’s website: www.seinstitute.org.
The following CASE Convocation sessions are scheduled to take place on Friday, May 14:

6:45 am – 8:00 am CASE Breakfast: Changes to AISC Code of Standard Practice –

What SE’s Need to Know
Speaker: David B. Ratterman, Secretary and General Counsel, AISC
The AISC Code of Standard Practice has served as a specification guideline and statement of custom and usage in the fabricated
structural steel industry since approximately 1921. The Code is regularly updated and maintained by a balanced committee of
industry professionals; approximately one-third of the Code Committee is comprised of practicing structural engineers. Mr.
Ratterman is a graduate engineer and counsel to the Code Committee. He will discuss the relationship of the Code to the practice
of structural engineering.

8:00 am – 9:30 am Steel Design Dos & Don’ts – A Construction Friendly Perspective
Speakers: Carol Drucker, Drucker Zajdel Structural Engineers; Chris Simonson,
Zalk Josephs Fabricators, LLC; Larry Dearman, Strahs, Boitz & Associates
This session will be led by a licensed structural engineer specializing in connection design who will comment on document quality
as it relates to potential risk management issues for the structural engineer of record. Often, problems in steel design are not so
apparent until after the job has been awarded and is in detailing, fabrication or erection. Small oversights can have big impact and
may cause delays or additional costs. Potential issues are avoidable by understanding structural steel systems and their connections.
This seminar will address different aspects of lateral system design, main member design, connection design and avoidable problems.
CASE in Point

Actual examples from real projects will be highlighted and discussed. The session will include discussion from a steel detailer and a
steel fabricator related to the associated construction costs and/or change orders resulting from document quality and clarity.

1:45 pm – 3:15 pm A Day in the Life of a Project Manager

Speakers: John Aniol, Walter P Moore; Corey Matsuoka, SSFM International
Follow a structural project manager as he struggles through a day filled with risk and discovers tools to help him mitigate those
risks. Some of the tools he will discover include communication, corporate culture, planning and prevention, education, scope and
contracts, construction documents and construction.

3:30 pm – 5:00 pm Managing Expectations and Risks During the Steel Detailing Process
Speakers: Glenn Bishop, LBYD, Birmingham AL; Will Ikerd, RLG Engineers, Dallas, TX
The AISC Code of Standard Practice provides two options for structural steel connections: either fully detailed by the engineer or
selected and completed by the detailer. After much discussion, AISC is considering adding a third option for connection: design by
a specialty structural engineer retained by the fabricator. This session will explore the needs and expectations of both the engineer
and the fabricator for each of these three options. Also discussed will be how these expectations might change in the BIM world.

STRUCTURE magazine 48 May 2010



CASE to Conduct Code
Complexity Panel Discussion
at NASCC in Orlando
In addition to the CASE Risk Management Convocation
in Orlando next month at the 2010 Structures Congress,
CASE is conducting a program on the business impacts and
risks associated with code complexity at the North American
Steel Construction Conference (NASCC). As reported earlier,
the Structures Congress and the NASCC are combining their
events for the first time. Code Complexity – Risks and Cost
to the Profession, and how this issue is affecting the “bottom
line” will feature a panel discussion moderated by Edward W.
Pence, Jr, Stroud, Pence and Associates, with three practicing
structural engineers who are responsible for the operation
of their respective firms. The panelists include James C.
Parker, Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger; Art Johnson, KPFF
Consulting Engineers; and Jaime Vasquez, Walter P Moore
and Associates, Inc.
CASE in Point
ACEC Urges California
Supreme Court to Review
Major Indemnification Case
ACEC has joined ACEC/California in urging the California
Supreme Court to review a state appellate court decision in the
case of UDC-Universal v. CH2M Hill, which orders a design
firm to pay the legal fees of a client after that client was sued by
a third party.
”The legal ruling in UDC imposes liability on design profes-
sionals in the complete absence of negligence, and it is imperative
that we fight it,” said Paul Meyer, executive director of ACEC/
California. “We are grateful to ACEC for the Minuteman Funds
it has provided, as well as its ongoing assistance with our legal
and legislative efforts to reverse this decision.”
ACEC has provided Minuteman Fund assistance to ACEC/
California to support legal and legislative efforts to overturn the
decision, and will strongly support an amicus brief fighting this
unfair ruling if the High Court hears the case.

CASE is a part of the American Council of Engineering Companies

Add Expert Witness Services to Your Portfolio
With Courtroom Know-How
Applying Expertise as an Engineering Expert Witness
June 10 -11, Denver, CO
Adding new services that capitalize on your firm’s existing
expertise is a solid business strategy, and though your key staff
may well be qualified, only the court-savvy engineer should
take on potentially lucrative assignments as an expert witness
in legal proceedings.
Applying Expertise as an Engineering Expert Witness, ACEC’s
unique 1½-day course, will be presented June 10-11 in Denver,
CO, to prepare participants for legal service with recognition
and a certificate of course completion.
The course is designed for professional engineers, architects
and surveyors interested in earning credentials for legal service
engagements professionally or as an added client service.
Discussion will include deposition behavior, permissible out-
of-court statements, ethics, pre-courtroom testimony preparation,
courtroom demeanor, how to maintain credibility, the differences
between a fact witness and an expert witness, plus the agreement
and compensation for taking on an assignment.
Attendees completing this course who wish to further enhance
their professional credentials will have taken important first steps
towards applying for the professional designation of Engineer
Expert Witness (EXWSM).
For details and to register contact LaCreshea Makonnen at
ACEC at education@acec.org or 202-347-7474.

STRUCTURE magazine 49 May 2010

 The Two Sides of Responsibility
By Emile W.J. Troup, P.E., SECB and William L. Livingston, P.E.
In the days of the Master Builder, the issue
of responsibility for project outcomes, fit
for use, was centered in the Master Builder
himself. Full responsibility was balanced
with full authority. The last half century,
however, saw significant change to the
scope of Structural Engineer of Record
(SER) services, unilaterally reducing project
influence including: site visits discouraged
by Professional Liability (PL) insurers,
project control preempted by third party
inspectors, design services commoditized.
The state of today’s SER duties and re-
sponsibilities is not due to changes in the
laws that determine SER compliance. The
supreme law of SER design outcome respon-
sibility, Canon I.1 of the National Society
of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of
Ethics for Engineers, i.e., holding paramount
stakeholder safety, health and welfare (dam-
age prevention), goes back uninterrupted to
the Law of Moses: “In case you build a new
house, you must also make a parapet for your
roof, that you may not place bloodguilt upon
your house because someone might fall from
it.” (Deuteronomy 22v8, 1780 BCE). The
other half of SER responsibility, after the
fact of structural failure (damage reaction),
was first codified by Hammurabi (1760
BCE) in a schedule of punishments aligned
with the damage report. His policy of an “eye
Structural Forum
for an eye” has spawned a plethora of codes,
standards, statutes and permits that govern a
wide spectrum of engineering design.
The Two Sides
opinions on topics of current importance to structural engineers
The law has not changed the principal
obligations of the SER to the public. It does
reflect the distinctions it made over time
between hindsight compliance – set by
regulatory agency, and foresight compliance
– tort. In hindsight, explicit duties are ad-
ministered by various regulators via a set of
ever-changing codes and standards based on
past events that establish minimum rules for
design (e.g., ICC, AISC, ASCE/SEI). Obey
these rules and you have demonstrated hind-
sight law due diligence. Any slipups here are
covered by your PL insurance.
The SER’s role in foresight law, i.e., tort,
is shaped by the SER. There are no task
injunctions, no check lists in tort. The
focus of tort is responsibility for outcomes
Structural Forum is intended to stimulate thoughtful dialogue and debate among structural engineers
and other participants in the design and construction process. Any opinions expressed in Structural
Forum are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI,
®
C 3 Ink, or the STRUCTURE magazine Editorial Board.
STRUCTURE magazine
and consequences of the design in the fu-
ture, namely Canon I.1. Whereas rules for
design are given, which greatly simplifies
things, responsibility for Canon I.1 compli-
ance can only be taken by an individual. No
law mandates and assigns a responsibility to
the SER for design results and consequences
to be obtained in the future. Outcome
responsibility can only be taken by a pro-
fessional engineer’s own free will and moral
touchstone. No other scheme can work.
The law gives the SER freedom to meet the
responsibility any way thought best. The
SER is permitted a seal to apply to design
drawings to help assure that this design,
and only this design, will be constructed.
Along with the seal is granted the right to
veto any construction that fails to repro-
duce the design as sealed. For taking the
accountability burden of Canon I.1, the
SER is given authority commensurate to
that responsibility. The overriding signifi-
cance of Canon I.1 is affirmed by the fact
that noncompliance with damage prevention
(Canon I.1) is a PL policy exclusion.
The great bulk of litigation relating to
the work of the SER is hindsight law. The
disputes are not about damage prevention
responsibility (Canon I.1), but rather who
is going to pay for the damage incurred. In
this arena, the SER is surrounded by various
institutions engaged in damage-compensation
risk transfer – no holds barred. The cost of
litigation in foresight law, however, is so
high, only those legally culpable with large
treasure are considered players.
Foresight Law
In foresight law litigation, the SER stands
alone. Once the question of “foreseeability”
is settled by jury, using a retroactive stan-
dard of care the Court creates fresh for the
occasion, the SER is either on or off the
hook. The responsibility of Canon I.1 is
preventing preventable stakeholder damage.
The jury is charged to decide if the damage
event of the case was foreseeable or not.
The strategic challenge the SER faces is
that advances in technology have drastically
reduced the spectrum of what is truly un-
foreseeable to a narrow and shrinking wedge.
Only the PE (SER) has the compliance
burden to Canon I.1 law; it is unique to
50 May 2010
engineering. Canadian SER law is explicit.
In its Engineers & Geoscientists Act, Section
20: “Subsequent to the application of the
seal, the engineer assumes full responsibility
for the sealed documents and for the perfor-
mance of the service or product described in
those documents.”
Other disciplines have no responsibility
whatsoever to prevent preventable damage
or even to warn stakeholders that damage is
heading their way. (Canon I.1 of the AIA
code, e.g., covers a different topic.) When
litigation over damage enters the arena of
tort and its retroactive “foreseeability” stan-
dard, the SER stands in the spotlight of
responsibility alone – and no excuses.
Even though the PL policy covers only
hindsight law, the insurance matter for
Canon I.1 negligence is easily handled. The
SER can create a job-specific standard of
care for Canon I.1. By documenting the
handling of “foreseeability” during project
design and construction, not after a dispute
has arisen, and by using the best available
technology to identify and preempt stake-
holder damage potentials, the SER creates
his/her own authority to control the project.
By attending to the engineering principles
in a systematic way, which must be done
in any case, the SER creates a tort litigation
poison pill. Is any Court going to override
a standard of care created and document-
ed by the designer? No one else has the
equivalent store of knowledge to create the
project-specific standard of care.
And who else but the Professional Engineer
can be legally responsible to prevent foresee-
able damage to his design as built, holding
paramount the safety, health and welfare
of the public? The Architect? Authority
Having Jurisdiction? Quality Assurance
Inspector? Owner? Construction Manager
or Design-Builder?
In the “Wizard of OZ” after Dorothy’s or-
deal has climaxed, Glinda, the good witch,
tells Dorothy that she had the power to re-
turn to Kansas ever since she first donned
her sister’s Ruby Slippers – triggered by
three heel clicks. The SER, like Dorothy,
has never lost complete responsibility or
complete control. SERs have Ruby Slipper
equivalents … waiting to be clicked.▪
Emile W.J. Troup, P.E., SECB is a steel
design and construction consultant in
Jensen Beach, FL, and a past president of
NCSEA. He may be reached via email
at steelstruk@aol.com.
William L. Livingston, P.E. is a
compliance consultant with FES, Ltd. In
Jensen Beach, FL. He may be reached via
email at vitalith@earthlink.com.