STRUCTURE

NCSEA | CASE | SEI FEBRUARY 2019

CFS/
Steel

INSIDE: Tall Buildings in Mexico City 18

Composite Steel Deck-Slabs 10

Welded Steel Moment Frames 15
Oakland International Airport 26
Universal Pin Conectors ™

and Custom Castings.

Baystate Noble Hospital Entryway Renovation
Steffian Bradley Architects with BVH Integrated Services

Photography by J. Michael Worthington, Jr.

 LeMessurier Calls on Tekla Structural
Designer for Complex Projects
For over 55 years,
LeMessurier has
provided struc-
tural engineering
services to architects, owners, contractors, developers
and artists. Led by the example of legendary structural
engineer and founder William LeMessurier, LeMessuri-
er provides the expertise for some of the world’s most
elegant and sophisticated designs while remaining
true to the enduring laws of science and engineering.
Known for pushing the envelope of the latest tech-
nologies and even inventing new ones, LeMessurier
engineers solutions responsive to their clients’ visions
and reflective of their experience.
An early adopter of technology to improve their de-
signs and workflow, LeMessurier put its own talent to
work in the eighties to develop a software solution that
did not exist commercially at the time. Their early appli-
cation adopted the concept of Building Information
Modeling (BIM) long before it emerged decades later.
While LeMessurier’s proprietary tool had evolved over
three decades into a powerhouse of capability, the
decision to evaluate commercial structural design
tools was predicated on the looming effort required to
modernize its software to leverage emerging
platforms, support normalized data structure integra-
tion and keep up with code changes.
After a lengthy and thorough comparison of commer-
cial tools that would “fill the shoes” and stack up to the
company’s proprietary tool, LeMessurier chose Tekla
Structural Designer for its rich capabilities that ad-
dressed all of their workflow needs. According to Derek
Barnes, Associate at LeMessurier, ” Tekla Structural
Designer offered the most features and the best inte-
gration of all the products we tested. They also offered
us the ability to work closely with their development
group to ensure we were getting the most out of the
software.”
One Model for Structural Analysis & Design
From Schematic Design through Construction Docu-
ments, Tekla Structural Designer allows LeMessurier
engineers to work from one single model for structural
analysis and design, improving efficiency, workflow,
and ultimately saving time. “Our engineers are working
more efficiently because they don’t need to switch
between multiple software packages for concrete and
steel design. Tekla Structural Designer offers better
integration of multiple materials than we have seen in
any other product,” said Barnes.
LeMessurier engineers use Tekla Structural
Designer to create physical, information-rich models
that contain the intelligence they need to automate the
design of significant portions of their structures and
efficiently manage project changes.
TRANSFORMING THE WAY THE WORLD WORKS
“Tekla Structural Designer has streamlined our
design process,” said Craig Blanchet, P.E., Vice Presi-
dent of LeMessurier. “Because some of our engineers
are no longer doubling as software developers, it allows
us to focus their talents on leveraging the features of
the software to our advantage. Had we not chosen
to adopt Tekla Structural Designer, we would have
needed to bring on new staff to update and maintain
our in-house software. So Tekla Structural Designer is
not just saving us time on projects, it is also saving us
overhead.
Efficient, Accurate Loading and Analysis
Tekla Structural Designer automatically generates an
underlying and highly sophisticated analytical model
from the physical model, allowing LeMessurier engi-
neers to focus more on design than on analytical model
management. Regardless of a model’s size or com-
plexity, Tekla Structural Designer’s analytical engine
accurately computes forces and displacements for use
in design and the assessment of building performance.
“Tekla Structural Designer offers better
integration of multiple materials than
we have seen in any other product.”
“Tekla Structural Designer gives us multiple analysis
sets to pull from, which gives us lots of control. Most
programs don’t have the capability to do FE and
grillage chase-down. For the design of beam supported
concrete slabs, Tekla Structural Designer allows us to
separate the slab stiffness from the beam stiffness, so
if we choose to we can design the beams without con-
sidering the influence of the slab. In the same model
we can use a separate analysis set to review the floor
system with the beams and slab engaged,” said Barnes.
Barnes also shared similar benefits with concrete
column design. “Tekla Structural Designer does
grillage take-downs floor-by-floor, finds the reactions
and applies them to the next floor. This allows us
to view column results both for the 3-dimensional
effects of the structure as a whole and from the more
traditional floor-by-floor load take-down point of view.
Doing both has always required significant manual
intervention, but Tekla Structural Designer puts it all in
one place.” “We reduce the possibility for human error
because with Tekla Structural Designer less user input
is required,” said Barnes. “Tekla Structural Designer
automatically computes many of the design parame-
ters, such as column unbraced lengths. The assump-
tions made by the software are typically correct, but we
can easily review and override them when necessary.”
Interoperability and Time Saving Tools
Tekla Structural Designer was developed specifically
to maximize collaboration with other project parties,
including technicians, fabricators and architects. Its
unique functionality enables engineers to integrate the
physical design model seamlessly with Tekla Structures
or Autodesk Revit, and to round-trip without compro-
mising vital design data.
“We’re able to import geometry from Revit, design in
Tekla Structural Designer and export that information
for import back into Revit. If an architect makes
geometry updates or changes a slab edge, we’ll send
those changes back into Tekla Structural Designer, re-
run the analysis and design, and push updated design
information back into Revit.”
Tekla Structural Design at Work:
The Hub on Causeway
Positioning a large scale mixed-use development next
to an active arena, a below grade parking garage, and
an interstate highway, and bridging it over two active
subway tunnels makes planning, phasing and
engineering paramount. Currently under construction,
The Hub on Causeway Project will be the final piece in
the puzzle that is the site of the original Boston Garden.
Despite being new to the software, LeMessurier
decided to use Tekla Structural Designer for significant
portions of the project. “Relying on a new program for
such a big project was obviously a risk for us, but with
the potential for time savings and other efficiencies, we
jumped right in with Tekla Structural Designer. It forced
us to get familiar the software very quickly.”
“Tekla Structural Designer allowed us to design the
bulk of Phase 1 in a single model,” said Barnes. The proj-
ect incorporates both concrete flat slabs and compos-
ite concrete and steel floor framing. “Tekla Structural
Designer has the ability to calculate effective widths
based on the physical model which is a big time saver,”
said Barnes. “On this project, the integration with Revit,
along with the composite steel design features enabled
us to work more efficiently. Adding the ability to do con-
crete design in the same model was a bonus because
we had both construction types in the same building.”
“Tekla Structural Designer helped this project run more
efficiently, and in the end it was a positive experience,”
said Blanchet.
“Tekla Structural Designer provided the best fit
for our workflow compared to other commercially
available software.”
Want to Evaluate
Tekla Structural Designer?
tekla.com/TryTekla
 ADVERTISER INDEX
Adhesives Technology Corp ......................... 8
Please support these advertisers

Nucor Vulcraft Group ................................ 38

STRUCTURE ®

Cast Connex ............................................. 2
Clark Dietrich Building Systems ................... 37
GeoDesign, Inc........................................ 13
Fyfe ....................................................... 35
Integrated Engineering Software, Inc ............ 43
Integrity Software, Inc. ................................. 4
KPFF ...................................................... 36
LNA Solutions .......................................... 25
NCEES .................................................. 21
Nucor Vulcraft Group – Redicor .................. 14 MARKETING & ADVERTISING SALES
sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
Post-Tensioning Institute............................... 42
Joe Murphy
RISA ...................................................... 52
jmurphy@STRUCTUREmag.org; Tel: 203-254-9595
Simpson Strong-Tie ............................. 17, 29
Denis O’Malley
Strongwell ............................................... 33 domalley@STRUCTUREmag.org; Tel: 203-356-9694, ext. 13
Structural Engineering Institute ..................... 41
Structural Engineers, Inc. ............................ 28 EDITORIAL STAFF
StructurePoint ............................................. 6 Executive Editor Alfred Spada
Trimble ..................................................... 3 aspada@ncsea.com

New Millennium Building Systems ............... 11 USG Corporation ..................................... 51 Publisher Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
csloat@STRUCTUREmag.org

Get YOUR name on this list!

Associate Publisher Nikki Alger
nalger@STRUCTUREmag.org

Creative Director Tara Smith

Visit our website to see what advertising graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org

opportunities are right for you!

EDITORIAL BOARD
STRUCTUREmag.org Chair John A. Dal Pino, S.E.
FTF Engineering, Inc., San Francisco, CA
chair@STRUCTUREmag.org

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

Our readers are interested in hearing your questions and opinions. STRUCTURE maga-
ARW Engineers, Ogden, UT
zine is always looking for Structural Forum (opinion) articles and Letters to the Editor. We
Erin Conaway, P.E.
preserve a page at the end of the magazine to print these types of articles, as space permits. AISC, Littleton, CO
Please send your pieces to publisher@structuremag.org. And don’t forget – post questions Timothy M. Gilbert, P.E., S.E., SECB
or comments on the digital versions of articles on the STRUCTURE website. TimkenSteel, Canton, OH

Linda M. Kaplan, P.E.

STRUCTURE looks forward to hearing from you! Pennoni, Pittsburgh, PA

Charles “Chuck” F. King, P.E.

Urban Engineers of New York, New York, NY

Emily B. Lorenz, P.E.

Bentley spending ® Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago, IL

Jessica Mandrick, P.E., S.E., LEED AP

Gilsanz Murray Steficek, LLP, New York, NY

out of control? Jason McCool, P.E.

Robbins Engineering Consultants, Little Rock, AR

Brian W. Miller
Davis, CA
• Prevent Quarterly and Monthly Overages
Evans Mountzouris, P.E.
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

• Whitelist allowed applications, block all others „ SofTrack controls
• Control all Bentley® usage, prevent overages
• Block use of all un-owned Bentley® applications
• Automatically queue users when access is
blocked, notify when license ready
• Give users visibility of who is using licenses now
• Warn and optionally terminate idle usage
• Historical Usage Reporting of all applications
• Introducing: Bentley CONNECTIONS Visa
®
(desktop) per-user control
CALL US TODAY:
(866) 372 8991 (USA/Canada)
(512) 372 8991 (Worldwide)
The DiSalvo Engineering Group, Danbury, CT
Bentley® usage by
Product ID code and
John “Buddy” Showalter, P.E.
American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA
counts (pipe, inlet,
Eytan Solomon, P.E., LEED AP
pond, and all others)
Silman, New York, NY
and can actively
block unwanted STRUCTURE® magazine (ISSN 1536 4283) is published monthly by
product usage The National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (a nonprofit
Association), 645 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 540, Chicago, IL 60611
312.649.4600. Application to Mail at Periodicals Postage Prices is
Pending at Chicago, IL and additional mailing offices. STRUCTURE
„ SofTrack reports and magazine, Volume 26, Number 2, C 2019 by The National Council
of Structural Engineers Associations, all rights reserved. Subscription
optionally controls
usage of all Autodesk®
services, back issues and subscription information tel: 312-649-4600,
or write to STRUCTURE magazine Circulation, 645 N. Michigan
products by Version,
Avenue, Suite 540, Chicago, IL 60611. The publication is distributed
to members of The National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
Feature Code, and through a resolution to its bylaws, and to members of CASE and SEI
paid by each organization as nominal price subscription for its members
Serial Number!
as a benefit of their membership. Yearly Subscription in USA $75;
$40 For Students; Canada $90; $60 for Canadian Students; Foreign
$135, $90 for foreign students. Editorial Office: Send editorial mail
to: STRUCTURE magazine, Attn: Editorial, 645 N. Michigan Avenue,
„ SofTrack reports and
©
controls ESRI® ArcMap
Suite 540, Chicago, IL 60611. POSTMASTER: Send Address changes
to STRUCTURE magazine, 645 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 540,

www.softwaremetering.com concurrent and single

Chicago, IL 60611.

STRUCTURE is a registered trademark of the National Council of Structural

use license activity Engineers Associations (NCSEA). Articles may not be reproduced in whole
© 2018 Integrity Software, Inc. Bentley is a registered trademark of Bentley Systems, Incorporated
or in part without the written permission of the publisher.

4 STRUCTURE magazine
 Contents FEBRUARY 2019

Features Columns and Departments

7 Editorial Leadership Is Showing Up
By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB

9 InFocus My Thoughts on the Future of STRUCTURE

By John A. Dal Pino, S.E.

10 Structural Design Composite Steel Deck-Slabs with

Supplemental Reinforcing Bars
By Vitaliy Degtyarev, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.

15 Northridge – 25 Years Later Welded Steel Moment

Resisting Frames
26 OAKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT By Ronald O. Hamburger, S.E., and James O. Malley, S.E.

By Jamison Curry, S.E., Peter Revelli, S.E., and Marko Schotanus, S.E., Ph.D.
18 Structural Performance Structural Design Challenges
This Terminal 1 building’s retrofit scheme introduced new vertical
for Tall Buildings in Mexico City – Part 2
seismic force-resisting elements at the perimeter, consisting of special By Ahmad Rahimian, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., et.al
reinforced concrete shear walls and buckling-restrained braced frames.
A new diaphragm was created at the roof level by the addition of a 22 Structural Systems Mid-Rise Wood-Frame Buildings
By Richard McLain, P.E., S.E.
horizontal truss system comprised of hollow structural sections.

34 Historic Structures Joseph B. Strauss Bascule Bridge

By Frank Griggs, Jr., D.Eng., P.E.

39 Legal Perspectives Indemnification versus Defense – Part 1

By Gail S. Kelley, P.E., Esq.

50 InSights Performance-Based Design is the Future

By Donald O. Dusenberry, P.E., SECB

In Every Issue
4 Advertiser Index
42 Resource Guide – Bridge Resource
44 NCSEA News
46 SEI Update
48 CASE in Point
30 HISTORIC GOODMAN LIBRARY
By Chris Jonas, S.E., and Steve Heyne, S.E.
On the Cover
The Goodman Library’s stone walls sustained damage in the form The Torre Siqueiros project is an example of recent Performance-Based
of cracks during the powerful earthquake that struck in 2014 in Design of a super tall building in Mexico City. Read how PBD approaches
downtown Napa, California. However, it was the partial collapse are allowing buildings to reach greater heights and deeper basements in
the Structural Performance article on page 18. (Project Architects: Bunker
of its prominent tower that was remarkable. Repairs required a lot of
Arquitectos and Colonnier y Asociados)
engineering finesse and close attention to historic detail.

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

F E B R U A R Y 2 019 5
 EDITORIAL
Leadership Is Showing Up
By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
I t is a tremendous honor for me to serve as the 26th President of the
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA).
Unlike most (perhaps all) of my predecessors in this office, I am not
the owner of my own firm, or a partner, or a principal, or a project
manager, or a department head, or a supervisor of any kind. How
did an ordinary practicing structural engineer like me wind up in
such a lofty position?
Like many in our profession, my undergraduate degree was in civil
engineering. Therefore, it was natural for me to join the American
Society of Civil Engineers as a freshman in college, a membership that
I have retained ever since. In 1998, ASCE established the Structural
Engineering Institute and I eagerly signed up as a Charter Member.
I have been active in both ASCE and SEI in various ways over the
years, including several leadership roles at the national level.
It must have been only a year or two later that I started receiving a
magazine that I had never seen before. It was called STRUCTURE,
and it consistently contained articles that struck me as being of
immense value to a practicing structural engineer like myself. It
also provided information about groups called Structural Engineers
Associations; as someone living in Kansas and working in Missouri, I
had never heard of those. There was even a National Council of such
organizations, and it apparently had a committee for helping people
start new ones in their states.
In the summer of 2001, I sent an e-mail to its chair, Marc Barter,
asking whether there was any such effort underway in my area. The
gist of his reply was, “There is now!” Before long, he had connected
me with others who had also expressed interest, and four of us ulti-
mately co-founded the Structural Engineers Association of Kansas
& Missouri (SEAKM) – the first, and still the only, explicitly bi-state
Member Organization of NCSEA.
I attended my first NCSEA Structural Engineering Summit that fall,
although we called it the Annual Conference back then. The keynote
speaker was Leslie Robertson, who gave an emotional presentation
STRUCTURE magazine
about his most famous project, the World Trade Center towers in
New York. This was only a few weeks after the tragic events of 9/11.
A couple of months later, I became aware of a new industry initiative
called The Infrastructure Security Partnership (TISP). Its purpose was
“to minimize the effects of terrorism on the U.S. through effective
and efficient planning, design, construction, and operation of the
built environment.” I promptly volunteered to represent NCSEA
and did so for a few years. During the same time frame, I joined the
Advocacy Committee and its Clients & Prospects Subcommittee,
becoming chair of the latter in 2003; these are now part of the
Communications Committee.
My “big break” came in 2005. Ron Hamburger, who was finishing
up his term as NCSEA President, asked me to consider becoming
chair of the Editorial Board for STRUCTURE. I was receptive, since
I enjoyed writing and editing, and had worked with the publisher on
articles previously. I was especially intrigued by the prospect of author-
ing a regular column on topics of my choosing. I took the job, and
then kept it for the next decade, producing 60 bimonthly “InFocus”
pieces along the way. During those years, I also participated actively
in the NCSEA Structural Licensure Committee.
When I decided to step down from the Editorial Board in 2015,
I was looking forward to taking a break; but it was not to be. Brian
Dekker, then NCSEA Vice President and Chair of the Nominating
Committee, asked me to join the Board of Directors for a two-year
term as Secretary. That placed me in the rotation to become Vice
President last year, and now President.
The point of reciting this history is to highlight the fact that any
practicing structural engineer can become a leader in our profession.
The single most important qualification is simply seeking and seizing
ways to get involved. As Richard Weingardt, a prominent structural
engineer in Colorado who passed away a few years ago, often empha-
sized in his many writings and speeches, “The world is run by those
who show up.”
One such opportunity is on the horizon within NCSEA: developing
a new Strategic Plan over the coming months. The current Mission
Statement – “NCSEA advances the practice of structural engineering
by representing and strengthening its Member Organizations” – has
served us well, helping us focus on what makes NCSEA distinctive.
Having now gotten our institutional house in better order, the next
plan needs to be more genuinely strategic, beginning with a Vision
Statement that is truly aspirational.
The Board of Directors, Committee Chairs, and staff will be direct
participants in the process. However, we need input and energy from
all of our constituents to be successful – not just this year,
but also into the future. How will you show up and make a
difference in our profession and our world?■
Jon A. Schmidt is a Senior Associate Structural Engineer in the Aviation &
Federal Group at Burns & McDonnell in Kansas City, Missouri. He serves
as President on the NCSEA Board of Directors, was the founding chair of
the SEI Engineering Philosophy Committee, and shares occasional thoughts
at twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt. (jschmid@burnsmcd.com)
F E B R U A R Y 2 019 7
 HIGHEST PERFORMING
ANCHORING EPOXY
− PERIOD −

ESR-4094
MH61032 DOT Approved
ANSI / NSF 61

The first and only

Code Compliant
anchoring adhesive
approved for
bulk dispensing
systems!

“ Why limit the

performance of your
critical structural
specifications to “
inferior products?

Visit www.atcepoxy.com for the full line of IBC/IRC Code Compliant

anchoring systems for every jobsite and weather condition.
Download the new PRO ANCHOR DESIGN Software.

www.atcepoxy.com 1.800.892.1880 atcinfo@atcepoxy.com


My Thoughts on the Future of STRUCTURE
By John A. Dal Pino, S.E.
I am quite honored to have been selected as the next Chair of
the STRUCTURE Editorial Board. I joined the Board four
years ago and have been privileged to serve under past Chairs Jon
Schmidt and Barry Arnold, and to work alongside our dedicated,
volunteer Board members. This group has worked diligently to
carry on traditions, to refine our internal processes, and to improve
the magazine’s content and effectiveness. It takes a lot of effort
and commitment to publish a magazine every month, rain or
shine, good times or bad. There are no schedule extensions in the
magazine industry. I want to thank all of them for what I have
learned from them and the examples they have set.
As you may have noticed, we are currently refreshing the maga-
zine’s appearance. Expect to see a new look and style in the coming
year. The same quality content you have come to rely on will still
be inside. However, the Board is discussing and exploring ideas
focused on keeping the content relevant and informative and
broadening the appeal of the magazine to all readers – younger
and older, experienced and less experienced, owners and non-
owners, leaders and future leaders, and more. We must also be
responsive to our advertisers because, without them, there would
be no magazine. Our goal is for you to stop what you are doing
when the magazine lands on your desk and to open it up to see
what is inside.
The responsibilities of individual Editorial Board members include
developing the topics to be published each year by helping to create
a roadmap for us to follow, finding and working with authors in
completing the articles and getting them ready for publishing, and
occasionally writing articles themselves. In addition to my role
change, we are starting 2019 with four new members. Therefore,
the content of the magazine will undoubtedly change a bit as it
takes on the personality of this Board and reflects its interests,
while still focusing on the technical content our readers enjoy.
I like to think of a structural engineer as being much more than
just a technical expert. A structural engineer is a critical part
of the broader construction industry, and to be effective and
valuable must also be familiar with and speak intelligently on a
variety of issues: building owner issues – land acquisition, zoning,
approvals, financing; construction issues – planning, scheduling,
techniques, material and equipment availability, costs; architec-
tural issues – planning, design, code issues. Therefore, I hope to
encourage a greater focus on a broader range of topics. However,
each Board member is free to develop the content of his/her liking
STRUCTURE
engage • enlighten • empower
STRUCTURE magazine
INFOCUS
bounded only by our mission. One of
our greatest strengths is our diversity
(age, gender, technical specialties, and
geographic location), and you should
see this reflected in the magazine content. If there are topics you
would like to see published in the magazine, please let one of us
know. Better yet, please contact us about authoring an article
yourself! From personal experience, it is fun and quite rewarding.
A side benefit is well-deserved publicity for you and your firm.
Lastly, you might ask why I volunteered to take on the role of
Chair? The answer comes in three parts. First, I like to read his-
tory, learn new things, ask “why,” and “connect the dots” so that
I can make sense of a chaotic and unpredictable world. Through
the magazine and its voice, I am better able to help bring relevant
and timely information on a variety of topics to our readers and
hopefully help them become better, well-rounded structural engi-
neers. Secondly, I get great satisfaction and enjoyment in working
with young engineers and helping them advance and succeed in
their careers. I heard recently that, for young people, the jobs of
the future have not been invented yet, so the four skills essential
to being prepared for what may come are: thinking, managing,
creating, and communicating. I am not suggesting that engineering
will fundamentally change but staying abreast of new trends and
future developments is crucial. My personal goal is to work with
the Board to create content that speaks to these skills across the
broad field of structural engineering. And lastly, it was just my
time. As I have moved through my career and my kids have grown
up and are about to finish college, I decided it was time for me
to attempt to make a significant contribution to our industry. I
worked for many years at a firm where this is just what one did in
terms of advancing the profession. Volunteering wasn’t a written
requirement; it was just expected.
As I mentioned above, the magazine’s content and style may
change a bit. Hopefully, you will like it. Please send
comments, positive or critical. Article ideas and authors
are welcomed too!■
John A. Dal Pino is a Principal with FTF Engineering located in San
Francisco, California. He serves as the current Chair of the STRUCTURE
Editorial Board. (jdalpino@ftfengineering.com)
MISSION: The Editorial Board will engage, enlighten, and empower
structural engineers by publishing interesting, informative, and
inspirational content in STRUCTURE magazine that is professionally
relevant, technically reliable, and intellectually refreshing.
F E B R U A R Y 2 019 9
 structural DESIGN
Composite Steel Deck-Slabs with
Supplemental Reinforcing Bars
By Vitaliy Degtyarev, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.

C omposite steel deck-slabs, referred to hereafter as composite slabs, have

been successfully used without supplemental reinforcing in buildings with
relatively short spans and typical design loads. As slab spans become longer or slab
design loads become heavier, adding reinforcing bars is an effective alternative to
making the composite slabs deeper and the steel decks thicker. Properly designed
supplemental reinforcing allows for light, slender composite slabs that can span
longer distances and results in large open interior spaces. This is in addition to
the benefits of conventional composite slabs, such as reductions in construction
time and cost. This article discusses different strategies for achieving economical
composite slab designs by adding steel reinforcement and gives practical guidelines
Figure 1. Floor plan with composite slab and
for the design of composite slabs with supplemental reinforcing bars. supplemental reinforcing bars.

shows an example of a floor plan with a composite slab including supple-

Typical Designs mental reinforcing bars. Figure 2 illustrates the typical locations of the
Designers usually specify composite slabs based on composite steel top and bottom bars within the composite slab cross-section.
deck load tables developed and published by deck manufacturers. The
load tables are generally applicable to simple-span slabs; although, load
tables for continuous slabs with supplemental top bars over interior
Top Bars for Slab Continuity
slab supports are available. Allowable loads published in these load Properly designed top reinforcing bars installed above interior supports
tables have been determined based on comparisons of slab capaci- make the composite slab continuous. A composite slab without such bars
ties for different limit states with slab internal forces. The American is considered simply supported even when the steel deck is continuous
National Standards Institute/Steel Deck Institute C-2017, Standard over several spans. When gravity loads are applied to a composite slab
for Composite Steel Floor Deck-Slabs (ANSI/SDI C-2017), gives provi- without top continuity bars, cracks form in the concrete above the interior
sions for calculating slab capacities. The internal forces are determined supports, which causes the slab to behave as a series of simply supported
from structural analysis of a composite slab as a beam. For simply slabs. The maximum positive bending moment and maximum deflec-
supported slabs and uniform loads, the structural analysis consists tion of a continuous slab due to applied loads are considerably smaller
of using well-known expressions for maximum shear, moment, and than those in a simply supported slab with the same spans and loads,
deflection in a simply supported beam. Slab deflections are calculated which allows for longer continuous spans when compared with simply
using the average of cracked and uncracked moments of inertia of the supported slabs of the same depth (Figure 3).
transformed section and are compared to required deflection limits.
To achieve a longer span or greater allowable loads for a simply sup-
ported composite slab without reinforcement, the designer should
Design of Continuous Slabs
specify a deeper slab, a heavier deck, or greater strengths of the For the analysis, the composite slab is divided into strips based on the
materials. Adding properly designed reinforcing bars may be a more support layout and loading conditions. For example, the single-span
appealing option, which results in a shallower composite slab formed composite slab area adjacent to the opening in Figure 1 would be one strip,
on a lighter steel deck. and the remaining composite slab area, with
Reinforcing bars can be added in three three unequal spans, would be another strip.
different locations. Top bars above interior Because composite slabs are designed as
supports provide composite slab continu- one-way slabs, every strip is analyzed as a
ity. Bottom bars between composite slab beam accounting for load combinations
supports contribute to improved positive required by the building code.
moment capacity and allow for establishing For simple cases of approximately equal
fire resistance of the slabs. Top bars between spans, applied moments and shears can be
composite slab supports help to control determined using moment and shear coef-
long-term deflections of the slabs. Figure 1 Figure 2. Typical locations of reinforcing bars in slab cross-section. ficients tabulated in the American Concrete

10 STRUCTURE magazine
 Figure 3. Simply-supported and continuous composite slabs.

Institute’s (ACI) Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI
318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14), similar to the process for
simply supported slabs. Composite slab deflections can be calculated using
deflection coefficients for continuous beams with equal spans available
in the technical literature. When spans are unequal, the composite slab
should be analyzed using a general purpose structural analysis software
considering pattern loading and load combinations required by the
building code. Figure 4, page 12, shows an example of such analysis and
resultant moment, shear, and deflection diagrams.
The calculated composite slab internal forces are compared with
composite slab capacities calculated in accordance with ANSI/SDI
C-2017. The composite slab’s flexural resistance in positive bend-
ing, vertical shear capacity, and the average moment of inertia can
be obtained from the deck manufacturer or can be back-calculated
from composite slab allowable loads published in manufacturers’
deck load tables. The negative moment capacity of a composite slab
is determined in accordance with ACI 318-14, neglecting the steel
deck contribution, as follows:
ΦMn = Φfy Atr(dtr - 0.5a)
where
a = (fy A tr)/(0.85f´c bb) and all other variables are as defined in ACI
318-14 and in Figure 5, page 12.
The negative moment reinforcing detailing – including the concrete
cover, reinforcement spacing, and minimum reinforcement area – are
determined in accordance with ACI 318-14. The tensile strain in the
negative moment reinforcing bars, εt = [(dtr - c)/c]εcu ,
is required to be at least 0.004 by ACI 318-14 to prevent brittle
failures. This requirement may prohibit the use of large amounts of

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

OPTIMIZE YOUR MULTI-STORY Advanced long-span

composite floor systems
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Create open spans up to 36 feet
with solutions that can be 40%
lighter than cast in place. Reduce
installation costs and improve field
safety. Achieve your vision with
architecturally exposed deck-ceiling
and acoustical options. Fire, sound
and vibration code compliant.

• Efficient Construction
• Aesthetics and Performance
• Two Distinct Profiles

YO U R N ATI ONWI DE RESOURCE FOR CUSTOM- EN GINEERED STRU CTU R A L STE E L BU IL DIN G SYSTE M S

www.newmill.com

18-NMBS-2_structure-MSR.indd 1 12/7/18 4:56 PM

F E B R U A R Y 2 019 11

Figure 4. An example of analysis results for a continuous slab with unequal spans.
reinforcement in composite slabs with relatively narrow ribs, which
will limit the maximum negative moment capacity that the slab can
achieve. If that is the case, the tensile strain in the top bars can be
increased by providing bottom (compression) reinforcement in the
slab ribs in the negative bending moment region. The larger tensile
strain will allow for a greater amount of the top reinforcement and a
greater negative moment capacity of the slab.
Additional Bottom Bars for Moment Capacity
Bottom reinforcement may be provided in composite slab ribs between
supports to improve the positive moment capacity of the composite slab.
A greater positive moment capacity may be required to attain longer spans
or to accommodate heavier design loads. Adding bottom reinforcement
for the higher moment capacity is an alternative to using a heavier-gauge
steel deck. This option may be justified where a heavier-gauge steel deck
is not available or where the greater moment capacity is required for a
relatively small slab area, such as the slab area adjacent to the opening in
Figure 1. Instead of introducing a different gage for the steel deck over a
small floor area, bottom reinforcing bars can be added to the composite
slab to achieve the required moment capacity. However, a heavier-gage
steel deck (if available) is generally a better option when a greater moment
capacity is required over a large area of the floor. In those cases, the heavier-
gauge steel deck will eliminate expenses associated with the additional
reinforcement installation and will produce longer unshored spans, which
may reduce or eliminate the required deck shoring.
The positive moment capacity of a composite slab with supplemen-
tal reinforcement can be determined using a general strain analysis
(GSA) method outlined in the American National Standards Institute/
American Society of Civil Engineers’ Standard for the Structural Design
of Composite Slabs (ANSI/ASCE 3-91). The GSA method is based on
the considerations of the composite slab internal-forces equilibrium
and strain compatibility, as well as on the constitutive material models
for the steel and concrete. Figure 6 illustrates the method. The follow-
ing equilibrium equations of the internal forces and moments can be
written for the composite slab cross section:
Fc + Fdt + Fdw + Fdb + Ftr + Fbr = 0
Fc x c + Fdt xdt + Fdw xdw + Fdb xdb + Ftr xtr + Fbr xbr = Mn
where
Fc, Fdt, Fdw, Fdb, Ftr, and Fbr are internal resultant forces in con-
crete, steel deck top flange, steel deck web, steel deck bottom
flange, top reinforcement, and bottom reinforcement, respectively
(positive when in tension and negative when in compression);
xc, xdt, xdw, xdb, xtr, and xbr are distances from the neutral axis of the com-
posite section to the internal resultant forces in concrete, steel deck
12 STRUCTURE magazine
top flange, steel deck web, steel deck bottom flange, top
reinforcement, and bottom reinforcement, respectively
(positive when resultant force is below neutral axis and
negative when resultant force is above neutral axis); and
Mn is nominal moment capacity of composite section.
The internal forces in the concrete, steel deck and rein-
forcement are expressed in terms of the internal stresses
in the slab components and the areas of the components
to which the stresses are applied. Afterward, the stresses
in the components are expressed based on the assumed
stress-strain relationships for the materials, as functions of
strains. The strains in the slab components are related based
on the hypothesis of plane sections shown in Figure 6.
The resulting equations of the GSA method are quite
cumbersome and generally require a computer to solve.
Some deck manufacturers can provide positive moment
capacities of composite slabs with supplemental reinforcement cal-
culated using this method.
It should be noted that either the ultimate flexural strength of the
composite slab section or the bond between the steel deck and the
concrete may govern the flexural resistance of a composite slab in
positive bending. The GSA method, which is based on the assump-
tion of the perfect steel deck-to-concrete bond, allows for determining
the ultimate flexural strength. The composite slab flexural capacity
governed by the bond should also be checked. The bond-governed
strengths of composite slabs are steel-deck-profile specific and can be
provided by the deck manufacturer.
Additional Bottom Bars for Fire Resistance
Bottom reinforcing bars can also be added between slab supports
to establish fire resistance of the composite slab by rational design
in accordance with the building code. This approach may be justi-
fied when an Underwriters Laboratory (UL)-approved slab design
assembly is not available or when the rational design results in
a more economical solution when compared with the available
UL designs. The 2015 International Building Code (IBC) permits
establishing fire resistance of concrete slabs by calculations in
accordance with ACI/The Masonry Society Code Requirements for
Determining Fire Resistance of Concrete and Masonry Construction
Assemblies (ACI/TMS 216.1-14). To apply ACI/TMS 216.1-14
to composite slabs, the steel deck is neglected in the design for a
fire event and the slab is analyzed as a reinforced concrete slab.
Because the steel deck is neglected, the required moment capac-
ity of the concrete slab in positive bending is achieved by adding
bottom reinforcement.
In a fire, heat transmission and structural end-point behaviors govern
slab design. Based on heat transmission end-point behavior, the concrete
slab must meet the minimum required equivalent thickness speci-
fied in the building
code. The mini-
mum required
concrete slab thick-
ness is a function of
the required fire-
resistance rating
and concrete type.
Thicker concrete
slabs and lesser
concrete densi- Figure 5. Composite slab design diagrams for
ties provide higher negative bending moment calculations.
fire-resistance ratings. The
building code gives guidelines
for calculating the equivalent
thickness of a concrete slab
with ribbed soffit, which is a
function of the slab’s cross-sec-
tional shape and dimensions.
Based on structural end-
point behavior, the reduced
capacity of the reinforced
concrete slab is determined
using multiple charts given
in ACI/TMS 216.1-14 for Figure 6. Design diagrams for the GSA method.
different concrete types and
durations of fire exposure, which correspond to fire-resistance ratings. reinforced concrete flexural members showed the beneficial effect of
First, temperatures of concrete and bottom reinforcement are deter- compression reinforcement on the reduction of long-term deflec-
mined. The reinforcement temperature depends on the concrete rib tions. For a load duration of 5 years and more, the composite slab
width and the distance from the reinforcement to the bottom of the long-term deflection factor can be calculated using either the ANSI/
slab. Once the reinforcement and concrete temperatures have been ASCE 3-91 equation
established, the reduced strengths of the materials are determined λ = [2-1.2(A's /A"s ] ≥ 0.6
using ACI/TMS 216.1-14 charts, which show percentages of the or the ACI 318-14 equation
retained material strengths as functions of the material temperatures. λ = 2/(1+50ρ´ )
Finally, the slab’s nominal moment capacity is calculated using the where
reduced strengths of the reinforcement and concrete and compared A´s and A"s are areas of steel in compression and tension, respectively;
with the unfactored full-service load moment in the concrete slab. ρ´ is the ratio of compression reinforcement.
The bottom reinforcement amount is adjusted as needed for the Therefore, top reinforcing bars between supports reduce composite slab
concrete slab to achieve the required moment capacity after the long-term deflections and may be a cost-effective alternative of using
required period of fire exposure. a deeper section in the cases where deflections govern composite slab
design. Top reinforcing bars have a small effect on the composite slab
positive moment capacity and can be conservatively neglected in positive
Long-Term Deflection Control moment capacity calculations. If desired, the described GSA
According to ANSI/SDI C-2017, additional composite slab deflection method can be used to account for the effect of the top bars
due to concrete shrinkage and creep shall be taken into consideration. on the composite slab positive moment capacity.■
The 2015 IBC also requires the long-term deflection of floors due
to concrete shrinkage and creep be considered in the composite slab Vitaliy Degtyarev is a Design and Research Engineer with New Millennium
design. Deflection requirements rarely govern the design of conven- Building Systems. (vitaliy.degtyarev@newmill.com)
tional composite slabs with relatively short spans and typical design
loads. For slender, long-span composite
slabs, deflection control is a primary
design consideration that often governs
composite slab design. Research on the
long-term behavior of composite slabs is
limited, but the available experimental
studies clearly show that deflections of

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

composite slabs increase over time under
constant loads due to concrete shrink-
age and creep, similarly to deflections of
reinforced concrete members.
Due to the limited research on com-
posite slabs, ACI 318’s long-term
deflection provisions have been con-
sidered applicable to composite slabs.
The long-term deflection of a composite
slab is determined by multiplying the
calculated instantaneous slab deflection
due to sustained loads by the long-term
deflection factor, ∆LTD = λ∆i,sust. The long-
term deflection factor is a function of the
sustained load duration and the amount
of reinforcement in the concrete com-
pression zone. Experimental studies on

F E B R U A R Y 2 019 13
Redi.
Set.
Go.
REDICOR SIMPLIFIES AND ACCELERATES THE
CONSTRUCTION OF REINFORCED CONCRETE CORES.
Conventional methods of constructing reinforced concrete shear
cores can be a challenge. Unpredictable onsite construction
timelines frequently delay framing, and unacceptable concrete
tolerances or improperly located steel embed plates often bring
production schedules to a halt.

Now there’s a better way.

RediCor is a pre-fabricated, ready-to-set modular

steel form system that simplifies and accelerates
the construction of reinforced concrete stair and
TM

elevator cores. Our steel modules are factory built-

to-spec with structurally true, load-bearing vertical
and horizontal structural connections pre-engineered to ensure
that framing fits perfectly – saving time, energy and money.
VISIT US AT REDICOR.COM FOR THE REDICOR STORY.
Powerful Partnerships
www.redicor.com Powerful Results
NORTHRIDGE 25 YEARS LATER

Welded Steel Moment Resisting Frames

The Earthquake-Resisting System that Surprised the Profession
By Ronald O. Hamburger, S.E., and James O. Malley, S.E.

T his is one of a series describing surprising lessons

engineers have learned from earthquakes and,
in particular, the January 17, 1994, Northridge earth-
quake. Engineers have been learning from earthquakes
for more than 100 years by observing the patterns of
damage earthquakes have caused in the built envi-
ronment. Sometimes, things only partly true were
part of the lesson, discovering the mistake only after
a later earthquake causes unexpected damage. Such Figure 1. Early steel frame high rises, sole survivors of the SF earthquake and fire.

was indeed the case with steel moment frame structures and the 1994 Northridge earthquake.

Steel framing was first used for building construction in the 1880s Construction technology changed little in the next 30 years; then
when it became a popular construction system for long-span industrial further development was abruptly halted by the Great Depression
structures and the new “high rise” buildings that began to spring up followed by World War II. After the war, unreinforced masonry con-
in major cities. The invention of the elevator safety break by Elisha struction became uneconomical and, in California, was not permitted
Otis made high rise construction practical. However, unreinforced by code following the 1933 Long Beach earthquake. Some steel struc-
masonry bearing wall construction could not practically extend tures were constructed with cast concrete walls replacing the masonry.
beyond 5 or so stories, as the weight of the masonry would exceed However, architectural styles evolved favoring glazed curtain walls,
its strength. Engineers turned to a transitional masonry construction and the steel frames had to rely on more compact moment resisting
wherein steel frames were provided to bear the building’s weight, connections for lateral resistance. Riveted connections gave way to
while relatively thin masonry walls provided enclosure and interior bolted varieties, with WT sections replacing angles and brackets as
partitioning. These early steel frames used built-up steel box and wide connection elements. As design forces began to exceed the practical
flange sections, constructed of rivet-connected plates and angles. capability of bolted connections, welding, first introduced in the
Beam-to-column connections comprised riveted shipbuilding industry, found its way into building
top and bottom seat angles as well as heavier construction. By the 1960s, engineers commonly
bracketed connections, both of which provided designed connections employing bolted angles or
moment-resistance, albeit as partially-restrained, tabs to transfer beam shear forces to columns and
partial strength joints. Engineers often designed complete joint penetration groove welds to join
the beams as simply supported for gravity loading beam flanges to columns for moment-resistance
and fixed-ended for wind resistance and, indeed, (Figure 2). In 1972, Popov and Stephen published
the heavier beam-column connections were often research validating the performance capability of
designated as “wind connections” on drawings. these connections, and the welded unreinforced
The masonry walls which provided most of the flange, bolted web (WUF-B) connection became
actual lateral resistance in these structures were the standard for steel moment frame and high-rise
considered architectural and neglected. In April construction in the western U.S.
1906, a large number of these structures were Though no structures of this type had yet expe-
subjected to strong earthquake shaking, and rienced strong earthquakes, in the early 1960s,
then fire, in the great San Francisco earthquake. engineers placed language in the Uniform Building
Engineers observed the remarkably good perfor- Code (UBC) requiring that all buildings, in excess
mance of these high-rise steel frames compared of 13 stories or 160 feet in height, be provided with
with other structures (Figure 1). Similar superior a moment-resisting steel frame capable of resist-
performance was observed in later earthquakes, ing at least 25% of the required seismic forces. In
including the 1926 Santa Barbara and 1933 Long the building booms of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s,
Beach events. Figure 2. Typical WUF-B connection. engineers designed hundreds of these structures in

F E B R U A R Y 2 019 15
 major west coast cities. In February 1971, downtown Los Angeles
experienced moderate shaking from the San Fernando earthquake
and engineers observed that the new high-rise buildings performed
well. Downtown Los Angeles and San Francisco continued to see
moderate shaking in a series of earthquakes in the 1980s, including
the 1983 Coalinga, 1984 Morgan Hill, 1987 Whittier-Narrows,
and 1989 Loma Prieta earthquakes. In each case, following cursory
inspections, steel frame buildings mostly appeared undamaged, bol-
stering the profession’s confidence. A few fractures were discovered
in some buildings, both in 1971 and 1989, but their significance was
not understood nor was their presence disseminated. By 1988, most
engineers believed they truly knew how to design earthquake-resistant
structures and the Welded Steel Moment Frame (WSMF) structure
was the gold standard for earthquake resistance. Although some
engineers perceived problems with the now typical WUF-B connec-
tion, the 1988 UBC required the use of this detail in steel moment
frames used for seismic resistance unless the engineer proved other
connections would perform adequately, even including a “penalty
factor” of 1.25 on the connection forces for other connections. This
all changed on the morning of January 17, 1994.
One of the first discoveries of damage was at the Getty Art Museum,
a WSMF structure then under construction in the hills between West
Los Angeles and Sherman Oaks. Workers returning to the site observed
strange cracks (fractures) in the still exposed steel moment connections.
Then, an engineer performing a post-earthquake inspection of the
Santa Clarita City Hall was surprised when a fractured bolt fell on
his head when he opened a ceiling. Removal of fireproofing revealed
similar cracking in that building’s connections. Engineers observed
that the U.S. Borax Corporation headquarters building in Valencia
and the nearby Southern California Automobile Association Building
(Figure 3) had large, permanent interstory drift and found fractured
connections in those buildings as well. Fracture patterns varied. In
some cases, the fracture severed the welded bottom beam-flange-
to-column-flange joint. In others, the fracture progressed into the
column flange, forming a loose divot of column flange material. In
a limited number of other cases, the fracture propagated into the
column and across the column web (Figure 4). In some cases, bolted
web connections also failed, shearing bolts or fracturing shear tabs.
Engineers rapidly lost faith in these structures and began perform-
ing detailed inspections of many building connections, using visual
inspection and ultrasonic testing (UT). Visible connection fractures
were found in more than 20 buildings and, in a few cases, more than
half the connections were damaged. Potentially more concerning was
that UT inspection revealed rejectable flaws, interpreted as incipient
cracks, in many buildings (well over 100). An emergency code change
removed the prescriptive WUF-B connection from the building code,
substituting a requirement to demonstrate, by testing, that moment
connection details could perform acceptably, effectively rendering
WSMF construction impractical for new buildings. Los Angeles
County then adopted a
requirement for manda-
tory inspection of steel
buildings within the zone
of intense shaking.
Structural engineers
desperately needed guid-
ance on inspecting these
structures, repairing
damage, evaluating and
Figure 4. Fracture extending from CJP weld across upgrading undamaged
column web. buildings, and designing
16 STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 3. The Southern California Automobile Association Building. To the right, a
large permanent drift in the building.
new buildings. The Structural Engineers Association of California
(SEAOC), Applied Technology Council (ATC), and California
Universities for Earthquake Engineering (CUREE) formed the SAC
Joint Venture and entered into a cooperative agreement with the
Federal Emergency Management Agency to conduct $12 million
of field, laboratory, and analytical research into the problem. This
research found that the connection fractures were the result of many
factors, including an inherently flawed connection geometry; poor
construction; poor welding technique, lack of adequate inspection;
use of poorly controlled base and weld filler metals. Research revealed
similar damage had occurred in steel buildings in the 1971 San
Fernando, 1989 Loma Prieta, and 1993 Landers Big Bear earthquakes.
In January 1995, the Kobe earthquake produced similar damage in
Japanese steel buildings. The FEMA/SAC project concluded in 2000
with the publication of a series of guideline and research reports
(FEMA 350, FEMA 351, FEMA 352, FEMA 353, FEMA 354
and FEMA 355). These publications resulted in massive changes to
design practice, reflected in AISC 341, the introduction of a new steel
material specification (ASTM A992), and new design specifications
(AISC 358, AWS D1.8). Also, a far more measured approach was
instituted for the introduction of new systems and requirements in
the building code.
Many lessons were learned from the effort to respond to the damage
to WSMF buildings in the Northridge earthquake that hopefully
will result in much better performance in future large earthquakes.
However, a larger lesson remains. Structural technology is continually
changing and evolving with new code requirements, materials, detail-
ing practices, and systems constantly being introduced. As a profession,
we are more careful about the adoption of new approaches on a wide
scale basis than we once were. As individuals, engineers must use new
approaches with caution, think through the possible pitfalls,
and proceed cautiously, lest the next earthquake teaches us
unpleasant lessons about our practice.■
The online version of this article contains references.
Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
Ronald O. Hamburger is a Senior Principal with Simpson Gumpertz
& Heger in San Francisco. Following the Northridge earthquake, he
served as Project Director for the SAC Steel Project, responsible for the
development of engineering guidelines. He is a past President of NCSEA.
(rohamburger@sgh.com)
James O. Malley is a Senior Principal with Degenkolb Engineers. He was
responsible for the analytical and testing investigations performed as part of
the SAC Steel Project in response to the Northridge earthquake damage.
Jim is Chair of the AISC Specifications Committee and the Past-Chair of the
AISC Seismic Subcommittee. (malley@degenkolb.com)
 It swivels. It slopes.
It skews.
(Oh yeah, and it’s retrofittable. )

45º 0º 45º

45º

Our high-strength LSSR slopeable and skewable rafter hanger has

Customer many new features to ensure installation is done right. Its hinged swivel seat
Requested adjusts easily, its flanges skew up to 45º, and it can be installed even after all
the rafters have been tacked into place.
Strong-Tie
Innovated Replace your LSSU hangers with the patent-pending LSSR. To learn more,
visit go.strongtie.com/lssr or call (800) 999-5099.
© 2019 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. LSSR19E
 structural PERFORMANCE
Structural Design Challenges for Tall
Buildings in Mexico City
Part 2: A 20-year Perspective
By Ahmad Rahimian, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. F.ASCE,
Rodolfo E. Valles Mattox, Ph.D., Esteban Anzola, P.E.,
Ilya Shleykov, Ph.D., P.E., LEED AP BD+C,
Sissy Nikolaou, Ph.D., P.E., D.GE, F.ASCE,
and Guillermo Diaz-Fanas, P.E.

I nnovation and resourcefulness in the engineering of tall

buildings are one of the cornerstone requirements of build-
ing resilient cities and communities. Successful performance
of these structures during extreme natural events is living
proof of the value of design that targets resilient performance,
enhancing the confidence of the stakeholders and the public
for the engineering and technologies used. Mexico City is a
mega-city where performance-based design using cutting-edge
technologies in the past two decades has been tested repeatedly
by large earthquakes, floods, and winds. This city has evolved
from the ancient Aztec capital to one of the most prominent
modern metropoles of Latin America. The economic growth in
recent years has resulted in an increase of the city’s footprint by
Figure 9. Paseo de la Reforma development in the past two decades (top). Location of
a factor of 100 to accommodate the millions of people that have the iconic towers Torre Mayor and Cuarzo Reforma (bottom). (Top left ©2003-2006
moved into Mexico City from rural areas, generating an ever- by V. Shmatikov; top right by S. Ruiz).
increasing demand for taller buildings and deeper basements.
The design and construction challenges that the City of Mexico avenues that have been home to tall buildings since the 1990s with
presents are multi-faceted due to its location in one of the most the development of Torre Mayor, the tallest building at the time of
adverse geologic and tectonic environments in the world, as its construction until recently. The opulent urban landscape reflects
described in Part 1 of this article (STRUCTURE, December the city’s position as the financial center of Latin America and one
2018). This article discusses specific challenges that continue to of the largest economic powers worldwide.
grow with the increasing demand, and design solutions that are In this continuously evolving city, tall buildings are towers that
also advancing with time. Key seismic features of several iconic feature deep basements to accommodate parking spaces and
high-rise buildings are presented, and their performance in recent mechanical, electrical, and plumbing demands. It is not uncom-
major earthquakes are discussed by the designers and co-authors. mon for a modern tall building in Mexico City to have 9 to 10
The overall resilient behavior of these structures can be attributed to underground levels which, in combination with the city’s unique
two fundamental factors: (i) enforcement of higher code design and geology and seismic hazard exposure, imposes its own challenges
construction standards following the devastating 1985 Michoacán in design and construction. Specifically, as described in detail
Ms8.0 Earthquake, a major event exactly 32 years prior to the in Part 1 of this article, a large portion of Mexico City is built
2017 Mw7.8 Puebla-Morelos Earthquake, and (ii) advancements on a basin formerly occupied by the ancient Lake Texcoco. The
in the state of practice for tall buildings using performance-based subsurface conditions are largely comprised of extremely soft
engineering that go beyond the minimum code requirements, and compressible lacustrine clay deposits, with unusually high
integrate geotechnical and structural performance objectives, and plasticity and natural water content, and low seismic shear waves
incorporate seismic protective technologies. velocity of propagation. Since the beginning of the 20th century,
these saturated soft deposits have settled approximately 9 meters
(30 feet) because of their consolidation due to continuous water
Higher Heights and Deeper Depths pumping and exploitation of the aquifers underlying those soil
Development of tall buildings over the past two decades has increased strata, and loading from new construction. These factors caused the
exponentially to accommodate the rapid social and economic growth city to continue to sink with damaging differential deformations
of Mexico City. The complex architecture of the city is a mix of colonial of many of the monuments and structures built in the former lake
architecture, modern high-rises, and its grand Paris-style boulevard, area, affecting the city’s architectural heritage.
Paseo de la Reforma, where the national stock market resides (Figure 9). In Mexico City, the preferred foundation system is a combination of
This wide downtown avenue that runs diagonally across the city perimeter slurry walls (known as “Milán” walls that are used during
serves as one of its “arteries” and is one of the first and oldest city construction and later become permanent support elements) and deep

18 STRUCTURE magazine
cast in-situ piles and barrettes. The latter in using less steel to achieve the performance
extend more than 40 to 50 meters (130 to objectives.
160 feet) below the ground surface to reach This seismic protective system proved its
competent soil strata below the soft clay worth immediately after completion of the
lake deposits and to accommodate the high tower as the Mw7.5 Tecomán, Colima earth-
vertical and lateral load demands, often with quake shook the city in January 2003, merely
enhancement of post-grouting technologies. a month after it was occupied. Not only did
Figure 10 shows the reinforcement of a typi- the building survive undamaged, but the
cal barrette from a recent high-rise project occupants at the time of the event did not
in Mexico City. realize a tremor had occurred. The same was
Maintaining serviceability of new build- reported during later events, including the
ings in these ever-changing site conditions recent 2017 Mw7.1 Puebla-Morelos earth-
requires long-term planning and solutions quake. The creative engineering solution
during the design process in anticipation applied in Torre Mayor was far ahead of
of settlements of the site and its surround- its time and pioneered the implementation
ings. Since the conditions vary depending on of a PBD philosophy for tall buildings in
age, loading conditions, and use, attention Mexico City, while comprehensive PBD seis-
should be given to the spatial distribution of mic guidelines for tall buildings in the U.S.
Figure 10. Reinforcement of a typical barrette from a
the rates of settlement (e.g., street areas that recent high-rise project in Mexico City that has a length were developed a half decade later (FEMA,
typically have been subsiding at a higher rate of 40 meters (130 feet). 2006; TBI, 2010). To this date, Torre Mayor
than the building structures), but also to the is a celebrated iconic tower that is a real-life
interaction between buildings that are close to each other and that example of seismic resilience and has enhanced the people’s confidence
have different basement depths. This consideration becomes a critical in engineering ingenuity. It is known as the building that people
functionality factor for building access points such as ramps, drive- run into, rather than out of when an earthquake strikes (Popular
ins, and walkways, and can be addressed by including overbuild into Science, 2003).
the access areas which can be gradually adjusted as the surroundings The successful implementation of high-performance design elements
settle due to the continuous and non-uniform sinking of the city. in Torre Mayor was followed by advancements in seismic design guide-
lines that took into consideration the response characteristics of tall
Seismic Resilience – buildings. One of the latest towers, the Cuarzo Reforma, located promi-
nently along Paseo de la Reforma, was completed in 2017 (Figure 12).
Design Examples 20-Years Apart This new development is comprised of two buildings connected with
Over the past two decades, multi-hazard resilience considerations have a common base: an iconic 40-story mixed-use tower and a 27-story
been integrated by the authors into the structural design of numerous hotel. The design combines experience with tall buildings in the area
tall buildings spread across the Mexico City area. Two signature project with PBD developments and the latest technology in seismic energy
examples, Torre Mayor and Torre Cuarzo on Paseo de la Reforma, dissipation systems. Friction dampers were designed and installed
were designed and constructed within this period. Both projects along the building height. The lateral force-resisting system features
incorporate seismic protective systems and were designed after
the devastating 1985 Michoacán Ms8.0 Earthquake that resulted
in a toll of more than 39,000 deaths and nearly 10,000 build-
ing collapses. Since that event, combined with the historic high
seismic activity in the region, there have been significant changes
in design criteria and a shift in the philosophy of developers and
design professionals in applying cutting-edge advancements in
earthquake engineering, analytical tools, and protective tech-
nologies to safeguard lives and properties.
The first tower that went beyond conventional prescriptive
building code objectives, by following a Performance-Based
Design (PBD) approach, is the 55-story, 235-meter (774-foot)
tall office tower Torre Mayor (Figure 11). From its completion
in late 2002 until 2010, Torre Mayor was the tallest building in
Latin America. Viscous damper technology, originally developed
for military use, was used for the design of a patented diamond
configuration (Post, 2003), rather than the typical X pattern
that greatly improved the seismic performance of the tower.
The lateral force-resisting system of Torre Mayor is equipped
with 96 viscous dampers, effectively dissipating seismic energy
and minimizing inelastic demands to structural components.
Strategically located in an overlapping diamond-shaped array,
four mega trusses with large-stroke energy dissipation devices Figure 11. Torre Mayor tower, completed in 2003. The tallest building in Latin
enhanced the lateral-force-resisting system (Rahimian, 2007). America until 2010 and the first application of PBD with use of seismic protective
The innovative diamond-shaped layout is more efficient, resulting devices in a unique, innovative layout (Rahimian, 2007).

F E B R U A R Y 2 019 19
 Distrito Federal, OGDF, 2017) and its corresponding design
and construction standards (Normas Técnicas Complementarias,
OGDF, 2017). A comparison between characteristic records
from the 1985 and 2017 events is shown in Figure 6 of Part
I of this article for selected strong motion locations and site
conditions. The updated design standards mark a significant
technical development with respect to the previous 2004 edi-
tion. Specifically, the 2017 standards have incorporated explicit
performance objectives for different seismic hazard levels, allow-
ing for alternative structural systems that meet the intent of the
standards and are approved by the building code enforcement
officials in a similar approach to contemporary United States
building codes.
The aspect of functionality and immediate occupancy is also
addressed in the 2017 standards, with specific requirements for
continued functionality and maintenance of occupancy under
frequent events of low to moderate intensity that may occur
more than once during the design life of the structure. For the
Design Base Earthquake (DBE or DE), no major structural
Figure 12. The high-performance Torre Cuarzo tower, with energy dissipation and restoring
failures or loss of life should occur; however, significant damage
mechanisms that led to resilient behavior during the 2017 earthquake. Courtesy of Richard
Meier & Partners Architects LLP, and Diámetro.
or deformations may arise that could affect functionality and
may require significant repairs. Foundation systems are gener-
a unique restoring mechanism – double-story diagonals with friction ally expected to behave within the elastic range for the frequent events,
dampers passing through intermediate horizontal flexural members essentially being designed for higher seismic loads than that of the
which contribute to recovering the original geometry of the tower superstructure, recognizing that structural systems can develop higher
once energy dissipation devices are activated. The structural elegance forces due to inherent system redundancy and material over-strength.
of the system, combined with high-performance devices, supports a In applying an alternative Performance-Based Design approach based
unique architectural appearance with a clean, minimalistic geometry. on international developments for tall buildings (TBI, ASCE41), a
The presence of dampers, acting as “fuses,” avoided the use of heavy wider range of seismic hazard demands is incorporated, from high
connections at bracing diagonals that otherwise would have been required probability and low intensity to very low probability and high intensity,
for special concentrically braced frame systems for high Seismic Design with associated performance targets. This PBD approach addresses
Categories (SDCs) as per ASCE 7 in United States designs. Although the additional layer of a rare Maximum Considered Earthquake
the Mexico City local code does not use the SDC term, it was used as a (MCE) for which the performance objective is within the life safety-
reference to provide the required level of detailing based on international to-collapse prevention range, depending on the structural occupancy
engineering practice. It further informs PBD procedure which relies on or importance of the structure. Figure 13 depicts the local code seismic
the proper detailing of structural components in accordance with ACI performance objectives as they relate to the PBD methodology with
(2014) and AISC (2016) in prediction of cyclic nonlinear behavior. explicit and implicit underlain assumptions in both approaches.
This approach ensures both compliance with local code and validation Going beyond the above standards, special aspects related to the
of performance objectives for varying earthquake levels. Mexico City environment should be considered, including: (i) levels
Indeed, Torre Cuarzo went through a series of moderate-magnitude of differential and total settlements and lateral deformations; (ii)
earthquakes during construction and experienced the far stronger 2017 Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI) – parameters and soil and foundation
Mw7.1 Puebla-Morelos earthquake after its completion. Despite being testing needed to derive and incorporate them into the structural
in one of the most adverse site locations in the city that recorded the model while addressing strain dependency; (iii) depth at which
highest ground motions, the behavior of Torre Cuarzo was excep- the input ground motions will be derived from (e.g., at the ground
tional during the 2017 event – as with its almost 15-year senior surface or lower) and applied to the structural model, (iv) drainage
neighbor Torre Mayor – and proved the resilience provided by the or corrosive soils issues that may affect the foundation materials,
PBD approach and the use of advanced
protective technologies.

Evolution of Local Code

and PBD Criteria
The prescriptive local building code and
construction requirements have historically
evolved over the years, incorporating lessons
learned from actual events such as the 1985
Ms8.0 Michoacán earthquake. The 2017
Mw7.1 Puebla-Morelos earthquake also
influenced Mexico City officials to release
the most recent edition of the local Building
Code (Reglamento de Construcciones del Figure 13. Mexican Code seismic performance objectives and correlation with PBD approach and methodology.

20 STRUCTURE magazine
such as the pile wall thickness; and (v) interaction with existing
adjacent structures, underground structures, or utilities. To address
these challenges, a synergy among involved disciplines is needed,
as well as the implementation of state-of-the-art PBD method-
ologies, protective technologies, and analytical tools, all combined
with global experience in the design of unique high-performance
tall structures. Participation of the designers in the development
of codes and guidelines both in Mexico and the United States
benefits the advancement of seismic design practice. The Mexican
high-rise structures presented in this article, along with over thirty
more structures that the authors contributed to the design of, have
proven seismically resilient in the past two decades. This is a direct
result of compliance with improved local regulations coupled with
advances in seismic engineering and ingenuity.
Conclusions
Unique geologic conditions and exposure to the high earthquake hazard
of Mexico City require rigorous and holistic approaches to the seismic
design of tall building structures and considerations that go beyond
minimum code requirements. Close collaboration between structural and
geotechnical disciplines during the very early design stages has become
one of the main cornerstones of building design in Mexico City. The
growing complexity of structural systems requires the utilization of state-
of-the-art analysis and design techniques to allow better prediction and
an overall understanding of building performance for seismic events of
varying intensities. Local code, with explicitly stated performance objec-
tives and allowance for alternative analysis and design procedures that
meet the intent of the code, provides a framework for implementation
of Performance-Based Design philosophy. This leaves room to integrate
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org
National Council of Examiners
for Engineering and Surveying®
P.O. Box 1686, Clemson, S.C. 29633
864.654.6824
international experience and technological developments to offer the best
engineering practice for finding innovative solutions for the numerous
challenges of the Mexico City environment and to reach greater heights
and deeper basements. The real-life testing of this approach with multiple
frequent moderate seismic events and the recent 2017 major Puebla-
Morelos earthquake has proved the resilience of these tall structures,
with minimal or no damage and without functionality interruption. For
designers, enhanced public trust is a significant benefit; conversations
about community resilience now include specific examples of the efficacy
of engineering advancements for high-performance building
structures, making stakeholders feel safer and more comfortable
about future developments.■
The online version of this article contains references.
Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
Ahmad Rahimian is the USA Director of Buildings Structures, WSP New York.
(ahmad.rahimian@wsp.com)
Rodolfo E. Valles Mattox is Mexico’s General Director, WSP Mexico.
(rodolfo.valles@wsp.com)
Esteban Anzola is a Vice President of Buildings Structures, WSP Miami.
(esteban.anzola@wsp.com)
Ilya Shleykov is a Vice President of Buildings Structures, WSP New York.
(ilya.shleykov@wsp.com)
Sissy Nikolaou is an Assistant Vice President of the Geotechnical & Tunneling
Technical Excellence Center, WSP New York. (sissy.nikolaou@wsp.com)
Guillermo Diaz-Fanas is a Senior Technical Principal of the Geotechnical
& Tunneling Technical Excellence Center, WSP New York.
(guillermo.diazfanas@wsp.com)
RECORDS
“An NCEES Record makes it
fast, easy, and convenient to
apply for additional P.E.
licenses in other states.”
Alexander Zuendt, P.E.
Zuendt Engineering
Record holder since 2011
Build your NCEES Record today.
ncees.org/records
F E B R U A R Y 2 019 21
 structural SYSTEMS
Mid-Rise Wood-Frame Buildings
Safe, Cost Effective, and Sustainable
By Richard McLain, P.E., S.E.

T here is a reason more developers and building

designers are using wood-frame construc-
tion for large mid-rise projects. Designed to code,
wood-frame buildings are safe, cost-effective, and
sustainable, and increasing the use of wood in
these projects can enhance their value proposition.
Podium buildings with up to six stories of wood con-
struction over another construction style (typically
concrete) are one of the best ways to add density while
keeping costs in check (Figure 1). Podiums allow develop-
ers to maximize height and number of stories, while the Figure 1. 5-over-2 podium building in San Diego, CA. Courtesy of Brett Drury.
wood-frame portion above is efficient and economical.
Safety is paramount, and wood buildings designed to code are just as Code Acceptance: Achieving the Same
safe as code-compliant buildings made from other materials. Building
codes require all building systems to perform to the same rigorous stan-
Scale as Type II Buildings
dards for safety based on the construction type used, and wood systems Of the five construction types in the International Building Code
can be designed to meet or exceed code requirements. Wood framing (IBC), mid-rise wood-frame buildings generally fall under Types III
offers the added benefits of construction speed, design versatility, and and V. Each is further subdivided into A and B, which have different
a light carbon footprint fire-resistance rating requirements (A being more rigorous) and allow-
Structural engineers are often called upon to help make early project able sizes. For Type III buildings, the IBC allows up to five stories of
decisions on material type selection, and many of the factors that go wood construction for residential occupancies and six for business,
into these decisions go beyond what might be seen as the normal scope while Type V buildings have a maximum of four stories.
of an engineer. WoodWorks provides project support and education There are several options for using wood to more affordably achieve
related to the design of wood buildings, and the purpose of this article is the scale of Type II buildings, which are generally steel or concrete. For
to help design and construction professionals make informed decisions multi-family occupancies, the allowable height, stories, and per-story
about material use. It touches on key topics related to mid-rise wood area of Type IIIA construction are identical to Type IIA. Likewise,
design – such as fire, seismic and wind resistance, thermal impacts of Type IIIB can be used to achieve the same height, stories, and area as
structural materials, acoustics, and cost. Type IIB (Table 1).
Across the U.S., podium buildings have typically been 4-over-1 or
5-over-1, meaning they have four or five stories of wood over a single-
Sustainable and Durable Design level podium. In the 2015 and 2018 IBC, there is no limit on the number
When specifying any building material, it is important to consider of podium stories, giving rise to more 5-over-2 buildings.
its life cycle environmental impacts. Wood is renewable, and wood
products have less embodied energy, are responsible for less air and
water pollution, and have a lighter carbon footprint than other com-
Cost and Construction Type
monly used materials. Wood can contribute to a building’s energy International Code Council (ICC) Building Valuation Data is an
efficiency and is thought to have a positive impact on the health and effective way to compare the average cost of buildings, which, as shown
well-being of occupants. The fact that it is durable and adaptable also in Tables 2 through 4, varies widely by construction type. Table 3
creates opportunities for renovation, re-use, and recycling. highlights the difference between Type IIA, which is typically steel
Durability is also an essential principle of sustainable design. However, or concrete, and IIIA, which is typically wood-frame. As noted, both
despite many examples of wood buildings that have stood for centuries, have the same allowable heights and areas, but the average Type IIIA
wood has a perception issue when it comes to longevity. building costs $20 per square foot less. In Table 4, Type IIB construc-
A study by the Athena Sustainable Materials Institute looked at the tion is compared to Type IIIB (again the same size) and shows an
longevity of buildings in Minneapolis and found that wood buildings $18/square-foot savings for the wood building.
were typically the oldest, the majority older than 75 years. In contrast, Factors that make wood-frame construction economical typically
80% of the steel buildings demolished were less than 50 years old include lower material costs, construction speed, and wood’s relatively
(FPInnovations 2005). light weight (which can reduce the need for foundation capacity).

22 STRUCTURE magazine
Table 1. Multi-story residential occupancy allowable building sizes. levels of resiliency, resulting in lower damage
Construction Type Options: 5 Stories Construction Type Options: 3-4 Stories
and higher occupant safety during and follow-
ing an earthquake or high wind event.
Wood Framing Steel/Concrete Wood Framing
• When compared to normal load durations
Construction Type IIIA IIIB IIA IIB VA VB (e.g., live loading on a floor structure),
Storiesa
5 5 5 5 4 3 wood structures can resist 60% higher
Height (feet) 85 75 85 75 70 60 wind and seismic loads as permitted by
a 1.6 load duration factor in the NDS.
Allowable Floor
72,000 48,000 72,000 48,000 36,000 21,000 • Wood buildings tend to be comprised of
Areab (square feet)
repetitive framing attached with numerous
Total Building Areac fasteners and connectors. This creates more
216,000 144,000 216,000 144,000 108,000 63,000
(square feet) load paths and better redundancy, so there is
a
Assumes NFPA 13 sprinklers throughout (IBC Table 504.4)
less chance the structure will collapse should
b
Assumes NFPA 13 sprinklers throughout (IBC Table 506.2), multi-story building, no frontage increase some connections fail.
c
Assumes three or more stories (IBC 506.2.3), no frontage increase • Wood-frame buildings are relatively light-
weight. Since seismic forces are proportional
to weight, this means lower seismic forces
Further savings can be realized with off-site construction, which which could result in further cost savings.
ranges from prefabricated components and panelized assemblies to
full modular units.
Thermal Advantages
While many people know that wood building materials store carbon
Fire and Life Safety and typically require less energy to manufacture than other building
Wood buildings are designed to meet the same level of fire performance materials, their advantages from an operational energy perspective
as buildings made from other materials. This is achieved by combining can be overlooked.
various levels of fire resistance, fire class, and fire protection systems. Thermal bridging is an essential consideration for the design of
• Passive fire resistance is related to the degree of passive protection building envelopes. It references the conduction of heat more readily
provided to the structure itself. It is usually achieved with a gypsum through structural/support members relative to the adjacent cavity
product, but fire endurance for exposed wood can also be shown insulation. This, in turn, reduces the overall effective thermal per-
through calculations described in Chapter 16 of the American formance of the assembly under consideration. For exterior walls
Wood Council’s (AWC’s) National Design Specification® (NDS®) and roofs, the choice of structural framing material has a significant
for Wood Construction. impact on the relative amount of thermal bridging. For example,
• Fire class is specific to the finishes of a building and addresses a 6-inch nominal wall with R-19 batt insulation has an effective
criteria such as flame spread and smoke development potential. R-value of 16 when framed with 2x6 wood studs at 16 inches on
• Active fire protection references the active fire protection systems center (o.c.). In contrast, the same R-19 batt insulation would have
of a building, such as sprinklers and fire/smoke alarms. an effective R-value of 7.1 when the wall is framed with 6-inch
Exterior walls must be fire-retardant-treated (FRT) wood or a noncom- metal studs at 16 inches o.c.
bustible material and require a 2-hour rating when load bearing to achieve While energy-efficiency requirements vary, many states adopt the ICC
the larger size of a Type III building. Exterior walls in a Type VA building volume of codes that includes the International Energy Conservation
may be framed with standard untreated lumber and require a 1-hour Code (IECC). One of the code-compliance paths in the IECC is
fire-resistance rating when load bearing. In both types, wood can be used prescriptive, where walls, floors, and roofs have specific insulation
for interior structural elements. Opportunities to increase allowable size requirements based on framing type and climate zone.
include firewalls, open perimeters, and continued on next page
automatic sprinkler systems.
Although less than 1% of build- Tables 2-4. Average cost by construction types. Published $/square-foot of building area.
ing fires occur during construction,
special care must be taken to protect
buildings before required fire protec-
tion elements – such as gypsum, fire
doors, smoke alarms, and sprinklers
– are in place. For best practices, visit
www.constructionfiresafety.org.

Wind and Seismic Safety

Wood has several characteristics that
contribute to effective seismic and
wind-resistive design. In addition to
meeting code requirements for lat-
eral loading, wood-frame structures
can be designed to achieve enhanced

F E B R U A R Y 2 019 23

Figure 2. Wood-frame exterior walls in a 5-over-1 project in Virginia.
The IECC recognizes wood’s advantages from a thermal bridging
perspective by requiring continuous insulation in metal-frame walls
but not wood-frame walls. For example, in IECC 2015 Table C402.1.3,
above-grade metal-frame walls in all climate zones are required to have
R-13 cavity insulation and some amount of continuous insulation
applied to one face of the wall (R-5 or R-7.5 depending on climate
zone). However, in climates zones 1-5 (other than zone 5 group R), no
continuous insulation is required for wood-frame walls; cavity insula-
tion alone is adequate. The R-20 wood-frame wall is the only option
available in the IECC prescriptive wall path using prescribed R values
that does not require continuous insulation for above-grade walls.
Occupant Comfort:
Exceeding Acoustic Minimums
The acoustics of a multi-family/mixed-use wood structure can be
designed to meet or exceed minimum requirements, depending on
the expectations of the developer, buyer, and tenants.
The IBC specifies minimum Sound Transmission Class and Impact
Isolation Class ratings of 50 for assemblies separating dwelling units,
and there are many options for acoustically-tested assemblies that meet
and surpass code minimums.
In multi-family buildings, unit separation walls must perform multiple
objectives. In addition to acoustic performance, they must meet fire
separation requirements and serve as part of the lateral-force-resisting
system (shear walls). They are often called upon to support hung cabinets
or other features and need to take up minimal space.
Because of these and other considerations, many designers use stag-
gered wood unit separation walls. A common construction includes
2x6 wall bottom and top plates with 2x4 studs at 8 inches or 12 inches
o.c., alternating from one side of the plates to the other. STC ratings
of staggered wood walls in the range of 50-63 can be accomplished.
Maximizing Value with Podium Designs
Maximizing the size and area of a wood-frame building is a cost-
effective way to achieve five or six stories of saleable or rentable space.
Adding a podium increases the value of a project further with retail
and parking. Concrete podiums are the most common, and the upper
slab typically acts as both a fire separation and structural transfer slab
for the framing above.
24 STRUCTURE magazine
Podium-style buildings are a product of the horizontal building
separation provision (IBC Section 510.2). Separated by a 3-hour fire-
resistance-rated horizontal assembly, they are treated in the code as two
separate structures, built one on top of the other, to determine area
limitations, continuity of firewalls, the allowable number of stories,
and type of construction.
For the podium to be considered a separate and distinct building, the
podium and construction below must be of Type IA construction and
equipped with an NFPA 13 sprinkler system. Occupancies above the
podium are permitted to be A, B, M, R or S, while occupancies below are
permitted to be any except H. The overall height of the two buildings
is measured from grade plane and is limited by the provisions of IBC
Chapter 5 (with increases) for the more restrictive of the two buildings.
Wood-frame exterior walls can be used within the podium level(s)
(Figure 2) to improve energy efficiency and further reduce costs.
Although Type IA construction (which typically requires all non-
combustible framing) is required, there are several opportunities for
the use of FRT wood wall framing in Type I and II buildings per IBC
Section 603.1. One example is non-rated, non-bearing exterior walls,
where using wood offers two advantages:
1) The building enclosure details utilized for the wood-frame build-
ing above the podium can also be used below the podium, and
2) The requirements for continuous insulation versus cavity insula-
tion are the same above and below the podium. In contrast, using
steel studs below the podium would require continuous insulation,
likely causing the need to shift the wall framing into the building
to accommodate a thicker thermal barrier.
When a building has an NFPA 13 sprinkler system throughout, only a
1-hour rating is required when separating enclosed parking areas from
occupancies such as B, M, and R per IBC Table 508.4. This indicates that
a mixed-use building consisting of an enclosed parking area and other
occupancies could be entirely framed with wood if allowable building
size calculations permit the use of Types III, IV or V construction under
a separated occupancies approach. Even if other materials are used in
the building (perhaps as lower walls or columns), there is value from a
cost perspective in classifying the entire building as the least restrictive
construction type as permitted by IBC Section 602.1.1.
Conclusion
Wood-frame construction is an excellent option for developers and
designers looking to maximize the value of their mid-rise projects.
Building codes require wood structures to meet the same level of safety
and performance as structures made from other materials, and
wood offers added advantages such as cost savings, construc-
tion speed, and sustainability.■
The online version of this article contains references and a list of
resources. Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
Discussion about cold-formed steel framing on podiums will be
included in an upcoming issue of STRUCTURE.
Richard McLain is a Senior Technical Director in the Project Resources and
Solutions Division of WoodWorks. He is Executive Director of the Structural
Engineers Association of Vermont and a member of the ASCE Structural
Wind Engineering Committee, SEI Blast Protection of Buildings Standards
Committee, and NIBS Offsite Construction Council Board.
(ricky.mclain@woodworks.org)
 A view of the completed project. Courtesy of Thomas Harris Photography.

T he Terminal 1 renovation at
Oakland International Airport
OAKLAND
INTERNATIONAL
involved a unique structural solution
that helped the airport achieve its
goals of continued operations, sus-

AIRPORT
tainability, and modernization. The
original terminal building dates back
to the early 1960s, and consisted of
four primary structures, all of rein-
Terminal 1 Security Checkpoint Building Renovation and Retrofit
forced concrete and supported on By Jamison Curry, S.E., Peter Revelli, S.E., and Marko Schotanus, S.E., Ph.D.
piles. The terminal was modified over
time to follow the changing requirements of air travel, resulting in several additions. The
most recent multi-phased renovation and seismic retrofit program started in 2006 with the
seismic evaluation of all Terminal 1 buildings. It resulted in multiple construction projects that
were delivered using the CM At-Risk method, with a design team led by Bill Olechnowicz of
MWA Architects and Turner Construction as the general contractor. Completed projects to
date include the seismic retrofit of the concourse and central plant, as well as construc-
tion of a new central plant and electrical substation.
The building that is addressed by the seismic retrofit project presented herein functions
as a security checkpoint and Port of Oakland offices. It is one of the original four structures
and consists of a two-story, above-grade building over a crawl space. The building has
plan dimensions of approximately 238 feet by 238 feet. Forty-eight concrete columns, at
34-feet on-center each way, support a normal weight concrete flat slab at the first floor, a
lightweight concrete waffle slab at the second floor, and weakly interconnected lightweight
Figure 1. Original construction. Courtesy of Port
precast concrete shells at the roof (Figure 1). of Oakland.

26 STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 2. Various design configurations of the cast collar; actual casting on the right.
The vertical elements of the original seismic force-resisting system
consisted of concrete walls at the crawl space level, reinforced masonry
walls at the first story, and cantilever columns at the second story. The
original Air Traffic Control Tower for the airport was located within
the footprint of this building but was seismically separated from the
two-story building by a joint. The tower was demolished as part of
the renovation and retrofit project, its function having been replaced
by a new tower located nearby.
The retrofit scheme for the remaining structure introduced new
vertical seismic force-resisting elements at the perimeter, consisting of
special reinforced concrete shear walls at the crawlspace and first story,
and buckling-restrained braced frames at the second story. Columns
and local areas of the existing concrete floor slab were improved using
FRP. A new diaphragm was created at the roof level by the addition
of a horizontal truss system comprised of hollow structural sections
connected at column locations using a cast steel column collar.
Because a new lateral system was provided for the existing structure,
design criteria were based on a combination of the 2010 California
Building Code and ASCE 41-06, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing
Buildings, with the Basic Safety Objective as defined in ASCE 41-06
as the target performance level. Response spectrum analysis was used,
and the base shear from the ASCE 41 analysis was scaled up to 85%
of the 2010 CBC static base shear to determine seismic demands
on both new and existing elements. Steel roof truss elements are
designed to remain elastic while developing the overstrength of the
Buckling-Restrained Braces (BRBs), assuming simultaneous yielding
of the BRBs in the two orthogonal directions.
Truss Connection Challenges
A key constraint imposed on the project team was that the security
checkpoint located in this building needed to remain operational
throughout construction to avoid impacts to the traveling public.
From a structural perspective, the primary challenge involved the
connection of the new truss members at the top of the existing
columns. This connection took on many shapes during design
to meet the varying demands of strength, constructability, and
aesthetics. The original connection of the existing roof shells to
the columns resulted in a highly congested, reinforced concrete
section at the top of the columns. In addition, roof drainage was
routed down each column. To avoid drilling through the column,
early concepts for the connection considered a built-up section
of steel plates to form a square collar around the column. This
approach resulted in a considerable volume of weld material at
collar corners. Making these welds in the field would have been
very costly and time consuming. As an alternative, a steel casting
was explored with Pacific Steel Casting of Berkeley, California. A
cross section was developed iteratively in consultation with the
architect, contractor, and the foundry that responded to structural
requirements, aesthetics, constructability, and production sched-
ules. The collar consisted of two identical halves that are joined
around the column in the field, resulting in a total of 96 castings
for 48 connection nodes. Welded gusset plates were added to
the cast collars for different configurations of brace connections
(Figure 2). In collaboration with the contractor, it was decided
that welding the cast collar halves together would add complexity
in the field, and so the design was further modified to allow field
bolting. A C-shaped cross section was revised to a T-shaped one
with stiffening ribs at locations where gussets for horizontal truss
members could be placed. The T-shape provided better access for
bolt installation. This change also facilitated the casting opera-
tion since molten metal flows into the pattern (mold) and cools
in a more controllable way. Using cast steel became the preferred
alternative after mock-ups in the existing structure showed that
the shape of the casting could be integrated into the project in
an aesthetically pleasing manner. R+C performed a finite-element
stress analysis of the casting to determine an acceptable structural
configuration. The material chosen for the casting was ASTM
958, Grade SC8620 Class 80/50. This material has properties
compatible with ASTM A572 Grade 50, specified for the gusset
plates, and ASTM A500, Grade B, specified for the horizontal
truss members.
Cast Collar Fabrication Process
Olson Steel was the steel fabricator and erector for the project.
They contracted with Cast Connex and Bradken to fabricate the
production castings. R+C worked with Cast Connex to further
Figure 3. Olson’s lifting rig – to the left is a casting being lifted into place; the rig is
on the right. Note the top of the roof ribs.
F E B R U A R Y 2 019 27
 refine the casting design, specifica-
tions, and quality assurance/quality
control specifications to achieve the
appropriate level of quality and reli-
ability of the casting. In addition,
Cast Connex/Bradken performed a
finite element analysis for the cast-
ing production to show how molten
metal flows into the casting and cools
to optimize the pattern for produc-
tion. The castings were fabricated in
Bradken’s Missouri facilities. Quality
control, performed by Bradken, and
quality assurance, performed by the
Airport’s testing agent Construction
Testing Services Inc./Diversified
Services, were implemented at Figure 4. Shell infill – to the left is the installation of light gauge framing; it supports the metal decking shown on the right,
Bradken’s production site before creating a level roof plane. Courtesy of MWA Architects.
the castings were shipped to Olson
Steel. A prototypical casting, the First Article, was tested using assembled. The tolerances required Olson Steel to cut and weld
visual inspection, magnetic particle testing (MT), ultrasonic test- one end of the horizontal brace members in the field to account
ing (UT), and radiographic testing (RT). Samples of the casting for existing conditions.
metal were taken, and tensile tests and Charpy V-notch testing
were performed. For the production castings, RT was eliminated
and UT frequency was reduced, but the remaining testing was as
Roofing Enhancements
required for the First Article. Castings were machined to toler- The original 48 hyperbolic paraboloid roof shells formed indi-
ances that would facilitate subsequent steel fabrication; particular vidual “inverted pyramids” supported by a column, resulting in an
attention was paid to bearing surfaces at the bolted collar halves undulating roof plane where each shell had to be independently
and to surfaces to receive welded gussets. drained. One of the project goals was to create a “flat” roof with
a global drainage plane to improve the roofing system’s reliability
and simplify its maintenance. The original 1960 design accounted
Cast Collar Erection Process for ponding of water in each shell, and so the initial plan for the
Olson Steel’s concept for the erection of the cast collars was to retrofit was to fill the shells with EPS and foam – within the pond-
place the two halves around columns in the field on the floor ing load allowance – and maintain distributed loading. When the
level below the roof, bolt them together, and finally lift them into roofing contractor advocated an alternate infill design consisting
place. Each collar was supported from four existing roof shell ribs of a light gauge framing “lid” (Figure 4), R+C developed a detailed
using a through-bolted bearing connection. Given that each collar computer model to analyze the significantly different way in which
weighed about 3 tons, this was no mean feat. Olson mocked up this scheme applies loads to the shells. In-situ load testing was used
an assembly process in their yard using two forklifts, but this to validate the analysis results.
proved too difficult to achieve a safe, vertical lift of the collar.
Olsen then devised a custom-made chain-hoist which allowed the
collars to be picked at four points and reliably lifted to the top
Summary
of the column (Figure 3, page 27). The collars were bolted to the Construction on this $85 million phased project started in mid-2014.
existing roof ribs and grouted in place to provide good bearing The Port of Oakland moved into their office space in September of
between the existing column and the collar. The bracing was then 2017 with the project substantially completed. The renovation and
retrofit of Terminal 1 resulted in a sustainable approach to achieving
the project’s objectives (since the demolition and replacement of the
New Release existing building were avoided), while at the same time affording
FloorVibe v3.0
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

continued operation of the security checkpoint.

Software based on the AISC Design Guide 11 2nd Ed. Formal LEED certification under the USGBC LEED rating
Vibrations of Steel-Framed Structural Systems Due to Human Activity system for Commercial Interiors (v2) for improved sus-
It’s like having an in-house floor vibration expert! FloorVibe v3.0 helps solve problems tainability is currently being pursued, and the project
with structure vibration due to human activity in offices, residencies, health clubs, con-
vention centers, and buildings housing sensitive equipment and occupancies. Plus, linear
is on track to achieve a LEED Gold rating.■
stairs and footbridges.
• Expert Advice such as what live loads to use, how to estimate damping,
recommended acceleration or velocity limits, and more. Jamison Curry is an Associate Principal at R+C. (jcurry@ruthchek.com)
• Makes use of the new complex analysis procedures for sensitive equipment
and occupancies in DG11 2nd Ed. easy. Peter Revelli was the Executive Principal and EOR on the project.
• Has Databases for hot-rolled sections and castellated beams. (prevelli@ruthchek.com)
• Supports all types of Joists & Joist-Girders and User Defined sections.
• Automatically generates Notes and Warnings. USC and SI units. Marko Schotanus is a Senior Associate at R+C.
Order or upgrade at FloorVibe.com. E-mail FloorVibe@gmail.com (mschotanus@ruthchek.com)

28 STRUCTURE magazine
Upgrade
your
coiled
strap.

Introducing our innovative CSHP coiled strap.

Our new, patent-pending high-performance CSHP coiled strap
features an embossment that makes it easy to install with a
standard pneumatic framing nailer. This new tested feature
provides improved performance — resulting in fewer nails,
shorter straps and an overall lower installed cost.
Upgrade your coiled strap, visit go.strongtie.com/cshp
or call (800) 999-5099.
© 2019 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. CSHP19
 Repair an d
Retrofit in t he
Af term ath of
th e 2014 Napa
Earthquak e
By Chris Jonas, S.E., and Steve Heyne, S.E.

D uring the early morning hours of August 24,

2014, many of Downtown Napa’s historic

h i s toric
buildings sustained moderate to heavy damage due
to the powerful 6.0 magnitude earthquake that

GOODMAN
struck just over 5 miles away to the southwest.
Among those was the iconic Goodman Library
located in the heart of the city. All the building’s

LIBRARY stone walls sustained damage in the form of cracks,

Restoration of the Goodman Library completed December 2017. Courtesy of
Justin Lopez Photography.
but it was the partial collapse of its prominent tower
that was remarkable (Figure 1). Shocked passers-by
and news media assembled to view the stone rubble
strewn about the sidewalk and to contemplate a
“what if ” scenario had the earthquake occurred
during the downtown music festival just a half
day prior. Barricades were established around the
front of the building to protect bystanders from
the dangers of large stones that could still come
down. The partially-collapsed tower seemed to
defy the laws of gravity, and even the smallest
aftershock could quickly complete the demolition
process, but, to everyone’s disbelief, most of the
historic tower remained in place, damaged but
not destroyed.

30 STRUCTURE magazine
 Built in 1901, the historic Goodman Library is a centerpiece of the
downtown district in Napa, California. The structure is named for George
Goodman, a local banker and philanthropist, who donated land and
funds for the construction of the library. Upon his passing, the library
was donated to the City of Napa with the caveat that it must be used as a
free library; otherwise, ownership would revert to his heirs. Local architect
Luther Turton, also the designer of several local churches, designed the
Goodman Library in the Richardson Romanesque style and utilized
native Napa field stone for construction. With an architectural style more
typically associated with places of worship, the library presented a distinct
façade amongst the predominantly Victorian-styled brick and wood
structures of downtown. The library encompasses 5,400 square feet over
two floor levels extending back within a deep, narrow lot. It is constructed
with double wall unreinforced stone masonry: two wythes of mortared
stone separated by a gap loosely filled with stone chippings and mortar.
The stone exterior of the structure also features a castellated parapet and
a stone tower over the main entry that displays a sandstone sign bearing
the ‘Goodman’ name. The roof is framed with original repetitive timber
trusses that are embedded into the stone walls for support. The interior
spaces have maintained much of their original historical finishes, includ-
ing wood trim, shelving, plaster walls, and pressed tin ceilings (Figure 2).
The Goodman Library is the longest continuously operated library in
California, previously housing the Napa County main library until 1971
and now home to the Napa County Historical Society, which has oper-
ated a non-circulating research library on site since 1976. The structure
was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in January 1974.
Shortly after the earthquake, a state of emergency was declared in
Napa thus freeing up federal funding for the County. This funding
stream was critical in allowing rehabilitation to take place but also
required strict stipulations with respect to the historic aspects of the
building. To receive funding, all repairs and strengthening measures
required full review by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
for conformance to the Department of Interior’s National Guidelines
for Historic Preservation. Knowing these strict criteria had to be met,
the City of Napa hired local historic preservation architect, Stephen
Cuddy with Napa Design Partners, to assist with the documentation
of damage and preparation of repair specifications.
The need to secure public funding and maintain historic status contrib-
uted to a prolonged schedule. It took more than a year before a temporary
steel enclosure was finally secured around the damaged 8-foot-tall tower,
intended to reduce the risk of harm to adjacent threatened buildings, as
well as provide for a safe and complete assessment of damage.
The architectural and structural engineering teams performed an
extensive survey of the damage. It was evident upon closer inspection
that there was significantly more damage to the stone walls than initially
suspected. Each stone and every crack was recorded by hand on building
elevations for later conversion to electronic drawings (Figure 3, page 32).
Stones that were damaged or dislodged were noted in detail, as this
Figure 2. Original interior finishes. Courtesy of Justin Lopez Photography.
process was also required
to secure federal fund-
ing and to demonstrate
compliance with historic
standards.
Although the seismic
damage was significant,
it was also expected.
Unreinforced masonry
(URM) buildings are
stiff and brittle, with lim-
ited ductility and energy
dissipation capacity pro-
vided by the fracturing of
mortar joints and rocking
of wall piers. The over-
arching goal of seismic
Figure 1. Library after the earthquake.
retrofit work in URM
buildings is to address critical life-safety concerns to increase the
likelihood that occupants can exit the building after an earthquake.
Inherently, retrofit work does help protect the structure and limit the
damage, but not avoid it altogether. The Goodman Library underwent
two retrofits prior to the Napa Earthquake. In the 1970s, a tie-rod
diaphragm system was added above the roof in an apparent attempt
to anchor and support the stone parapets, mitigating one of the most
significant hazards to public safety. In 2004, a more extensive retrofit
and rehabilitation was performed by the City of Napa in advance of
its upcoming URM retrofit ordinance. The retrofit design was based
on the 1997 Uniform Code for Building Conservation (UCBC) with
a design base shear of 0.10g (ASD) and out-of-plane wall anchorage
demands of approximately 0.66g and 1.06g (ULT) at the 2nd floor
and roof, respectively. Comparing these loads to the actual seismic
event in 2014, the acceleration for the building was likely between
0.90g and 1.20g (based on a ground motion monitoring device less
than ¼ mile away) (FEMA P-1024). The ASCE 7-10 design base
earthquake acceleration is 1.35g for the building. Using a response
modification factor of R = 1.5 for an ordinary plain masonry shear
wall structure, the resulting design acceleration is 0.90g, though the
California Historic Building Code (CHBC) permits further reduction.
The 2004 retrofit performed quite well during the 2014 seismic event,
despite the overall ragged appearance of the building immediately
following the earthquake: the transverse concrete shear walls exhibited
little to no signs of distress, as did the roof and floor diaphragms and
wall anchors. The historic stone walls, which acted as the building’s
shear walls in the longitudinal direction and at the rear of the building
in the transverse direction, performed as expected, dissipating energy
by cracking along joint lines.
The focus of the post-earthquake damage investigation was the tower,
where the partial collapse allowed large stones to fall 30 feet to the
sidewalk below. Exploration within the tower cavity revealed minimal
existing lightweight steel frames for support. These frames, likely part of
the 1970s retrofit work, lacked adequate stiffness to prevent substantial
displacements of the stone. Additionally, the rock anchors from the steel
frame to the stone masonry were an expansion style anchor embedded
only into the inner wythe, leaving the outer wythe unsupported. Not
only was a new, stronger frame needed within the tower, but external
bracing from the backside of the tower to the roof framing was also
recommended to reduce displacement of the tower and alleviate the
deficiency. Before embarking on the design, however, SHPO required
a visual assessment of the impact of the proposed external steel braces
from street-view. Approval was granted after a simulation using BIM
F E B R U A R Y 2 019 31
 modeling was developed to demonstrate the permeable and softer, allowing the masonry
bracing had little visual impact on the street- to “breathe” and to prevent fracturing of the
level view of the historic façade. stone units themselves during an earthquake.
The new steel space frame, composed of The replacement mortar must also match the
angles and channels, was designed to fit historic mortar in color, texture, and tooling.
within the core of the vulnerable tower, As an added benefit, the grout injection of
acting as a backbone (Figure 4). Provisions the cracks filled voids present between the
from ASCE7-10 for a braced non-structural individual wythes of the stone wall, bonding
cantilever element were used as the basis of them together.
design, the same as would be used for a braced Additional damage was observed during
parapet or chimney. It is worth mention- an investigation of the attic area. Several
ing that the CHBC requires parapets and existing timber roof trusses, whose chord
similar exterior decorations to comply with members were separated at the heels, were
regular code requirements for anchorage and repaired using plywood gusset plates. As an
strength, recognizing the public safety hazard added measure of precaution, the oversized
these elements present. Though inserting a pockets in the stone walls receiving and
stiff space frame could result in higher accel- supporting the trusses were fully grouted
erations at the tower, it was the preferred and pointed. Anchoring the new tower
solution to limit local displacement which Figure 3. Extensive documentation of damage. braces to the roof required several of the
could lead to wide, cracked mortar joints original trusses to be reinforced with steel
and then dislodged falling stones. Detailing side plates at chord-to-web connections to
of the frame was explicitly designed for flex- provide additional capacity, and chords were
ibility of installation by skilled masons from braced for increased compression loads. The
Rainbow Waterproofing & Restoration Inc. steel beams added to distribute forces from
As individual layers of stones were rein- the braces to the trusses were detailed as
stalled in their original positions around the relatively short and light pieces due to the
tower, heavy steel straps were laid within the limited access to the attic area; opening up
horizontal mortar beds, interconnecting the the roof was not a viable option due to cost
interior and exterior wythes, and attached to and risk of exposure to weather.
the steel frame with self-drilling screws (or As a building occupant, the Napa County
field welds) at specified locations. The closely- Historical Society was integral in the restora-
spaced straps were attached to the stones with tion process and maintaining the historical
two vertical adhesive anchors and hidden accuracy of the library. All materials were reused
within the bed joints of the tower walls. or replaced in kind where possible. Wooden
This versatile connection detailing allowed fixtures and trim were cataloged for repair and
for flexibility during the installation by the reinstallation, damaged terra cotta columns at
masons as they reconstructed the tower over the entry were recreated, dislodged tin ceilings
several months. During reinstallation, some were reinstalled, and the damaged sandstone
stones were deemed too damaged for reuse. sign at the top of the tower was repaired and
Fortunately, a nearby historic URM building restored. Work on the Goodman Library was
Figure 4. New steel space frame designed to fit
recently completed a remodel and had leftover completed in December 2017, three years after
within tower core.
matching stones available, allowing the tower the earthquake. With the addition of a new
to be rebuilt entirely from local, historically accurate materials. support structure at the tower, restored historical stone construction,
The dual-wythe construction of the exterior walls of the library strengthened critical connections, and rejuvenated finishes inside and out,
posed added challenges. During the 3-month assessment process, the Goodman Library will continue to be an integral part of Napa’s history
the exterior damage was apparent and abundant, but damage to the for years to come. Of note, the library restoration project has been recog-
interior wythe remained hidden beneath wood-framed furring walls nized on both local and national levels, having won the American Public
with historic wood lath, wood trim, and plaster finishes. Rather than Works Association (APWA) National Award for Historical Restoration &
specify that all interior historic wall finishes be removed to allow Preservation as well as preservation awards from the Structural
inspections to occur, the design team assumed that the exterior wythe Engineers Association of Northern California (SEAONC) and
damage was mirrored at the interior. Localized areas of plaster were California Preservation Foundation (CPF).■
selectively demolished to check the stability of the interior stone wall
wythe and review the extent of structural damage. Fortunately, the Chris Jonas is a Principal Engineer with ZFA Structural Engineers in Napa,
assumption was verified, and interior furring walls were only specified CA. (chrisj@zfa.com)
to be removed at isolated areas reflecting exterior damage, saving time Steve Heyne is an Associate with ZFA Structural Engineers in Santa Rosa,
and cost, as well as maintaining the historic finishes as best possible. CA. (steveh@zfa.com)
Segments of the stone walls that were displaced and significantly cracked
Both Chris Jonas and Steve Heyne provided repairs and rehabilitation
were to be documented, then disassembled and rebuilt to historic stan-
design on many private and public historic and non-historic buildings
dards. Other less damaged areas were repointed and grout-injected with
post-earthquake and assisted the Applied Technology Council with their
historically accurate lime-based grout to regain the structural integrity preparation of the FEMA P-1024 document regarding the performance of
of the wall. Contrary to popular belief, replacement mortar and grout buildings and nonstructural components in the wake of the Napa Earthquake.
should contain low amounts of cement compared to lime so that it is

32 STRUCTURE magazine
 DO IT ONCE
WITH MATERIALS THAT LAST

ID

M
E A
FL A GE BE
N

C
US R
TOM VE
LOU

CH
ANNEL

Sea Star Base, Galveston, TX

Although it may look like steel, this structural perimeter
louvered wall system is made from Strongwell fiberglass (FRP)
structural shapes. Strongwell FRP was chosen over traditional
materials due to superior performance in the corrosive coastal
environment, lighter weight, and better UV performance.

VISIT WWW.STRONGWELL.COM/STRUCTURE TO LEARN MORE

STEEL STRONGWELL PRODUCTS PROUDLY

The World Leader in Pultrusion and

FIBERGLASS Pultruded Fiberglass Structures & Shapes
ISO 9001 Quality Certified
Manufacturing Plants 276-645-8000 • info@strongwell.com
www.strongwell.com

Joseph B. Strauss Bascule Bridge
By Frank Griggs, Jr., Dist. M.ASCE, D.Eng., P.E., P.L.S.
A fter graduating from the University
of Cincinnati in 1892, Joseph Strauss
(STRUCTURE, October 2012) became a
draftsman for the New Jersey Steel and Iron
Company at Trenton, NJ. At the end of the
year, Joseph went to the Lassig Bridge and
Iron Company of Chicago for two years,
working as a detailer, inspector, estimator,
and designer. He then spent two years as a
designer for the Sanitary District of Chicago,
which was in the process of building a drain-
age channel from Chicago to Lockport using
water from Lake Michigan. The project
was finished in 1899 and Strauss became a
Principal Assistant Engineer in charge of the
Chicago office of Modjeski & Angier.
He was charged with studying the use of bas-
cule (from the French meaning seesaw) bridges
across the Chicago River that would not need
a mid-river swing pier, as the War Department
declared swing bridges with a central pier were
obstacles to the free movement of shipping.
Modjeski had been basing his bascule designs
on some of the early bascules spans by William
Scherzer and John Page. The earliest bascules
used cast iron ingots as counterweights. Strauss
presented Modjeski a design that would use
concrete as counterweights, with his own
system of links to lift the bridge. Modjeski
did not like the plan, so Strauss resigned and
went to work for the Rall Bascule Bridge
Company, serving as Chief Engineer. After a
year, Strauss left Rall and opened up his own
office in Chicago under the name of Strauss
Bascule & Concrete Bridge Company. At this
time, 1902, the City of Chicago had devel-
oped an improved plan for bascule bridges
and built its first one, a trunnion bascule, at
Clybourn place with the counterweight under
the approach to the span.
The first bascule span Strauss built on
his own was for the Wheeling and Lake
Erie Railroad (W. & L. E. or Wabash) in
Cleveland, Ohio, over the Cuyahoga River.
He wrote of its conception,
“High cost was, in fact, characteristic of all
types of bascule bridges, due principally to
the use of iron as counterweight material, and
also in the underneath design to the neces-
sity of deep pits. Elimination of these pits or
frequently merely making them shallow, to
reduce their cost, meant curtailment of the
counterweight arm and consequent increase
of counterweight to a prohibitive degree. As a
result, in 1901 the limit of length and weight
34 STRUCTURE magazine
historic STRUCTURES
Winning design for Copenhagen Bridge.
of bascule spans and consequently the field concrete counterweight by all designers of
of usefulness, though greater than in 1893, both bascule and lift bridges. Although thus
when the Metropolitan Elevated Scherzer first applied in the overhead type of bridge
Bridge was built, was still greatly restricted. in 1904, the pin-connected concrete coun-
In that year the writer, who had been terweight was originally proposed by the
associated with the work on practically all writer for the underneath counterweight
types of bascules in use, undertook the task type of bascule in 1901 in a series of plans
of removing the limitations above referred which became the subject of much discus-
to by selecting of the available types that sion and which later were embodied in
which promised greatest efficiency and by patent application No. 738,954, applied for
modifying the counterweighting mecha- in December, 1902, and issued September,
nism in such manner as to reduce the cost 1903.”
without sacrificing efficiency. Determining Its span was 150 feet, and it opened in
upon the ‘fixed trunnion’ type as the most October 1905. Engineering News reported
dependable, he substituted concrete for the on the proposed design in 1904 as follows,
cast-iron counterweights, effecting [sic] at “The Strauss bridge is of the trunnion
once a saving in cost proportional to the type, but differs from other designs in its
relative cost of the two materials… arrangement of the counterweight, by
The counterweight is further supported by which the use of cast-iron weights and
means of a rigid member termed a ‘coun- watertight tail pits is dispensed with, thus
terweight link,’ one end being pivoted to reducing the first cost and maintenance
the counterweight and the other to the expenses. The tail end of the bridge is made
fixed tower, forming the trunnion support. short enough to clear the water line, and
This link is parallel and equal in length to at its extreme end are pins on which the
a line joining the main and counterweight counterweight is carried… A pair of braced
trunnions forming the so-called ‘parallel links, pin-connected to the fixed portion
link’ counterweight system, which obtains of the bridge, guides the box, the motion
through all the various forms of the
writer’s types of bascule… It will be
evident that if the counterweight
trunnions are correctly located it is
immaterial where the actual center
of gravity of the counterweight mass
is located. It can either be located
above the roadway, as just described,
or below the roadway…without
raising the center of gravity (i.e.,
the trunnions) of the structure as
a whole.
The result in the case of the W.
& L. E. bridge was a saving of
approximately $20,000 in first Wheeling and Lake Erie Railroad Bascule. Counterweight system
cost and the ultimate adoption of where box moved down and towards the end of the span.
 of which is downward and forward as the narrow channel, causing eddying currents, clearance, whereas the swing bridge must
bascule leaf opens. The action is that of hindering navigation, and obstructing the be opened fully in any event. The reason
a parallel link mechanism, in which the flow, while the draw protection, if not for this is that the entire width of navi-
main leaf trusses, the links, the fixed por- maintained, causes damage to passing gable channel must be clear to permit
tion, and the counterweight box are parallel boats, with resultant expensive lawsuits. passage, which is obviously impossible if
and equal elements… It also permits the 2) Future addition of immediately adjoining the swing bridge be only partly opened.
elimination of all curved structural work bridges or additional track on either or 4) As a corollary it follows that a quicker pas-
and track girders, which tends to greater both sides of existing bascule bridges is sage of vessels and resumption of traffic
economy in design, greater’ accuracy in obtainable, which is impossible in case results than with the swing bridge.
shop work, and greater speed in construc- swing bridges are used. 5) In a double-leaf bridge the bascule offers
tion and erection... 3) For small vessels, the bascule need only an effective barrier against highway traf-
The builders of this bridge state that… open far enough to give sufficient vertical fic going off the roadway into the river,
the Wabash Ry. Bridge at Cleveland…
the Strauss design proved its economy
by having less material in both sub-
structure and superstructure than was
called for in any of the other designs of
bascule bridges proposed by compet-
ing bidders.”
To sell his design, he placed a full-
page advertisement of this bridge, and
his patented ribbed concrete bridge, in
the March 1906 issue of Engineering
World: A Weekly Technical Journal of
Civil, Mechanical, Electrical, Mining, and
Architectural Engineering. This overhead
counterweight trunnion bascule bridge
was the first of its kind built by Strauss.
In his later Album of Bridge Designs, he
wrote,
“The illustration on the preced-
ing page is a view of the first Strauss

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

Bascule Bridge, erected in 1904, for
the Wheeling & Lake Erie Railroad, at
Cleveland, Ohio. It is a 150-foot single-
leaf, single-track span, and represents
the first marked advance in bascule
bridge construction. Of its advantages
the principal one was economy, due
partly to the first application of concrete
as a counterweight for bascule bridges.
Up to that date, counter-weighting had
been effected with cast iron or more
expensive materials. The substitution
of concrete involved novel means of
supporting same, but the cost of con-
crete being (weight for weight) much
less than that of cast iron, the resul-
tant effect was a material reduction in
cost, and it is a matter of record that in
this first bridge a saving of twenty-five
thousand dollars in construction cost
was realized.”
He sold his idea for a bascule bridge
rather than a swing bridge by making
nine points. “In general, the advantages
of the bascule over the swing may be
summed up as follows:
1) The center pier and draw protection
of the swing bridge are eliminated.
These are especially objectionable in

F E B R U A R Y 2 019 35

Portal as designed.
a class of accidents common with the
swing bridge.
6) The bascule can be erected without inter-
ruption to land or water traffic.
7) The bascule does not encroach on adjacent
property or docks and does not isolate the
operator from shore when open.
8) In railroad bridges, mitered rail joints
can be used without the necessity of rail-
lifting devices.
9) All stresses are statically determinate, ordi-
narily in the swing bridge continuous
beam action takes place.” [Note, in his
first patent application, he had 18 claims
to originality]
The Chief Engineer for the Wabash Railroad
Company wrote, “I consider the bridge lately
put up for the Wabash Railroad Company at
Viking Pavilion at the Peter W. Stott Center
Portland State University
Portland, Oregon
Photo by Christian Columbres
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org
LEED
GOLD
KPFF is an Equal Opportunity Employer
www.kpff.com
36 STRUCTURE magazine
Portal as built in 1909.
Cleveland the cheapest and best lift bridge
on the market today. It is so well balanced
that it can be stopped in any position and
will remain there after the brakes have been
released. I cannot illustrate this better than by
saying that the addition of two or three hun-
dred pounds of weight in the counterweight
box makes difference enough in the balance
of the bridge to affect the electric current
sufficiently to be indicated by the ammeter
reading. I understand that the bridge has been
looked at by many Engineers, and all those
who are unbiased have declared it to be the
best structure of its kind they have seen.”
With this bridge, modified over time, Strauss
began his career as the leading designer and
builder of bascule bridges. He wrote, “but
not until two years after the completion and
Seattle San Francisco St. Louis
Tacoma Los Angeles Chicago
Lacey Long Beach Louisville
Portland Irvine New York
Eugene San Diego
Sacramento Boise
thorough demonstration of
the W. & L. E. Bridge was
the great economic advan-
tage of the all-concrete
counterweight recognized by
the engineering profession,
in general, and universally
adopted for all types of lift
bridges. The W. & L. E.
design, while having rendered
excellent service at Cleveland,
has been superseded by later
and more economical forms which the parallel
link counterweight system has taken.”
In 1906, he won an international competi-
tion to design a monumental Bridge across
the Inner Harbour in Copenhagen, Denmark,
called the Knippel Bridge.
The double leaf bascule measured 106 feet
6 inches from operating pinion to operat-
ing pinion. When closed, the arch halves
connected and the bridge acted like an arch
bridge under live loading. It totaled 238 feet
10 inches in length with flanking plate girder
spans. The decorated concrete counterweights
were located between flanking ornamental
towers and dropped down to stop traffic when
the bridge was opened. This was a significant
project and cost approximately $230,000.
He became a fierce enforcer of his many
patents for bascule bridges and was suc-
cessful in suing several major cities for
bascule bridges built by others that he
claimed infringed on his patents. These
early bridges, along with his patents,
made Strauss the leading designer and
builder of bascule bridges that competed
with the lift spans of J. A. L. Waddell and
swing spans of Alfred P. Boller and others.
In August 1906, he linked up with the
Wallace-Coates Engineering Company.
Henceforth, Strauss would concentrate
on the design and Wallace-Coats on the
construction of the bridges. He went on
to obtain 15 bridge patents, with the last
two for the Golden Gate Suspension Bridge
for which he was the Chief Engineer. The
reader is urged to read Strauss’ online paper
to the 2nd Pan American Scientific Congress
1917, Vol. 6, pages 304-322, in
which he traces the evolution of
his bascule designs.■
Dr. Frank Griggs specializes in the
restoration of historic bridges, having
restored many 19 th Century cast and
wrought iron bridges. He was formerly
Director of Historic Bridge Programs for
Clough, Harbour & Associates LLP in
Albany, NY, and is now an Independent
Consulting Engineer. (fgriggsjr@twc.com)
OUR NEW DRIFT CLIPS KEEP RUNAROUND
FROM WREAKING HAVOC.
No longer does finding a connection that allows vertical and lateral movement
mean frantic searches or urgent calls. Our vast ClipExpressSM lineup is a one-
stop solution that protects your schedule. See how at clarkdietrich.com/clips.

© 2019 ClarkDietrich Building Systems

DRIFT FASTCLIP™

DRIFT HEAD-OF-WALL DRIFT RAIL AND CLIP

 Say
Vulcraft 3N Deck

Hello
to the
New
3N Deck.
It’s still N deck. It’s just wider
With an extra eight inches in coverage,
the wider 3N deck from Vulcraft will still
meet all of your design needs.
The extra eight inches gives you:
• Faster installation
• Fewer bundles to lift
• Fewer sheets to spread
• Fewer sidelaps to connect
• Compatible with Hilti, Pneutek,
Simpson and other fasteners
Available versions (FM and UL Listed)
3NL-32 Nestable sidelap
3NI-32 Interlocking sidelap
®
3PLN-32 PunchLok II system

Learn the advantages of our new wider deck

vulcraft.com/decks

Indemnification versus Defense
Part 2: Why the Difference Matters
By Gail S. Kelley, P.E., Esq., LEED AP
T he previous article in this series
(STRUCTURE, November 2018)
looked at the concept of indemnification.
Stated simply, to indemnify someone means
to financially protect them against specified
claims from third parties. The party providing
the financial protection (the “Indemnitor”)
can be required to pay the amount of an
award or settlement for a claim in place of
the party being protected (the “Indemnitee”),
or reimburse the Indemnitee for amounts the
Indemnitee has already paid. The indemnifica-
tion clause in many engineering agreements
is similar to that found in § 8.1.2 AIA C401,
Standard Form of Agreement between Architect
and Consultant.
The Consultant shall indemnify and hold
the Architect and the Architect’s officers and
employees harmless from and against damages,
losses and judgments arising from claims by
third parties, including reasonable attorneys’
fees and expenses recoverable under applicable
law, but only to the extent they are caused
by the negligent acts or omissions of the
Consultant, its employees and its consultants
in the performance of professional services
under this Agreement.
A key point concerning indemnification
is that the indemnification obligation does
not arise until liability has been determined
through either litigation or arbitration, or
the parties agree to a settlement. This follows
logically from the definition of indemnifica-
tion – if it is determined that the Indemnitee
is not liable for the claim, the Indemnitee will
not need to pay any monies and hence will
not need to be reimbursed. Likewise, if the
indemnification is only to the extent the claim
was caused by the negligence of the Engineer
and it is determined that the Engineer was
not responsible for the claimant’s injuries or
damage, the Engineer would not owe a duty
of indemnification.
The Defense Obligation
While the indemnification obligation does
not arise until liability has been determined,
if a claim is brought against a party that the
Engineer has agreed to indemnify, the indem-
nified party will likely incur considerable costs
legal PERSPECTIVES
for attorneys’ fees, court filings,
and expert witnesses before the
trial or arbitration even begins.
As a result, clients may require
that the indemnification clause
also include a duty to defend
against claims “arising from
the Engineer’s services.” If the
Engineer has a duty to defend
the Indemnitees, the Engineer would be
responsible for an Indemnitee’s costs of
defense as soon as a claim is filed, even if it
were ultimately found that the Indemnitee
had no liability for the claim or the damage
was caused by someone other than the
Engineer.
Indemnification clauses requiring defense
can be extremely far-reaching; for example:
To the extent permitted by law, Engineer
will indemnify, defend and hold Owner
and Architect harmless against and from all
claims, damages, judgments, fines, penalties,
and costs arising out of or in any way con-
nected with the Engineer’s Services.
The words “arising out of or in any way
connected with” the Engineer’s services can be
interpreted very broadly. As long as the claim
is written in such a way that it appears the
claimant’s injuries arose from the Engineer’s
services, the Engineer could be held respon-
sible for the Indemnitee’s defense.
Defense of an
Indemnified Party
Unless an Engineer provides services that
require them to spend a considerable amount
of time at the project site, virtually all claims
against the Engineer will fall under its
Professional Liability Insurance (PLI). In cases
where the Engineer is working on site and
there is an accident involving the Engineer’s
tools or equipment, or instructions that the
Engineer has given, the resulting claim could
fall under the Engineer’s Commercial General
Liability (CGL) claim. However, even in such
cases, the Engineer’s CGL carrier will gener-
ally try to deny coverage, alleging that the
claim arose from the Engineer’s professional
services and is thus subject to the professional
services exclusion of the CGL policy.
Which policy a claim falls under can be very
significant – CGL insurance will cover the
defense of an indemnified party; PLI will not.
This is not something the Engineer can change
through an endorsement to its PLI policy or by
changing insurance carriers. While professional
liability policies cover the defense of the insured
party (the Engineer), they will not cover the
defense of an indemnified party. An Engineer
who agrees to a defense obligation will likely
end up paying for the defense of the indemni-
fied party out of their own pocket.
Editing the
Indemnification Clause
If the Client insists that the indemnifica-
tion clause include a defense obligation, the
Engineer can try to edit the clause such that
the Engineer is not agreeing to uninsurable
liability. Two such options for editing are:
• change the word “defend ” to “defend
(except for professional liability claims)”;
or,
• change the word “defend ” to “defend to
the extent covered by Engineer’s insurance”
If the Client does not agree to either of these
changes, the Engineer can leave the word
“defend” but add a sentence at the end of the
indemnification clause stating:
The Engineer’s defense obligation shall
not extend to professional liability claims;
however, the Engineer shall reimburse the
indemnified party for reasonable attorneys’
fees and legal costs to the extent such claims
are caused by the Engineer’s negligence or
willful misconduct.
While the above wording could leave the
Engineer responsible for the attorneys’ fees
that it is required to reimburse, the obligation
would not arise until liability for the claim
had been determined. This means that the
F E B R U A R Y 2 019 39
 Engineer avoids responsibility for defense of
claims where the Engineer had no liability
for the damages.
The Engineer can also propose a bifur-
cated indemnification clause that separates
indemnification for professional liability from
indemnification for general liability. A simple
example of such a clause would be:
7.A Professional Liability. The Engineer shall
indemnify and hold Client harmless for losses,
damages, and costs arising from third-party
claims to the extent such claims are caused by
the Engineer’s negligence or willful misconduct
in the provision of its professional services.
7.B General Liability. Except for those claims
covered under section 7.A, the Engineer shall
indemnify, defend, and hold Client harmless
from and against allegations and claims arising
from the Engineer’s acts, errors, or omissions.
Separating the indemnification for profes-
sional and general liability also allows the
Engineer to agree to a broader indemnifica-
tion for claims that do not arise from their
professional services. While coverage under
a PLI policy is limited to the extent of the
Engineer’s negligence, both CGL and auto
policies will cover the entire claim, provided
the claim arose from the Engineer’s services.
This is reflected in the wording of 7.B (above),
which indemnifies against “allegations and
claims arising from the Engineer’s acts, errors or
omissions,” rather than “to the extent caused by
the Engineer’s negligence.” Although the differ-
ence in the wording may seem trivial, it can be
quite significant with respect to how a court
will interpret the indemnification obligation.
Reimbursement by the Client
If the client will not delete the defense obli-
gation for professional liability claims, the
Engineer can propose a requirement that the
Client reimburses the Engineer if the allega-
tions of the Engineer’s negligence are false.
An example would be:
Client shall reimburse the Engineer’s reason-
able attorneys’ fees and legal costs incurred
in defending the Client against professional
liability claims, to the extent such claims are
not caused by the Engineer’s negligence or
willful misconduct.
This is the least desirable of the suggested
changes, as it means the Engineer will be
responsible for covering the Client’s defense
fees until liability is established, at which
point the Engineer can request reimburse-
ment. However, it is also the hardest for the
Client to argue against. If the Client has
required the Engineer to defend it against a
claim and the claim was not caused by the
Engineer’s negligence or willful misconduct,
40 STRUCTURE magazine
the Engineer should not be held responsible
for the Client’s defense costs.
Willful Misconduct
The AIA C401 indemnification clause limits
the indemnification obligation to the extent
of the Engineer’s negligence, which is what
will be covered by the Engineer’s profes-
sional liability insurance. However, like the
reimbursement provision described above,
many indemnification clauses also require
indemnification to the extent the Engineer’s
willful misconduct caused the claim. Claims
due to willful misconduct are not covered by
professional liability insurance – professional
liability insurance is designed to cover claims
due to negligence (unintentional mistakes) as
opposed to intentional misconduct. However,
in terms of basic fairness, it is not reason-
able for the Engineer to refuse to indemnify
another party when the Engineer’s willful
misconduct caused the claim. On a posi-
tive note, claims against engineers based on
willful misconduct are extremely unlikely.
Although the wording of court holdings on
willful misconduct can vary, depending on the
circumstances surrounding the claim, a party
claiming willful misconduct must generally
show that the other party has intentionally
acted or failed to act knowing that his or
her conduct will probably result in injury
or damage.
Contracts Governed by
California Law
As discussed above, indemnification and
defense, while related, are separate obliga-
tions. However, under California law, based
on the cases Crawford v. Weather Shield
Manufacturing, 44 Cal.4th 541 (2008) and
UDC Universal Development L.P v. CH2M
Hill, 181 Cal.App.4th 10 (2010), if a design
professional agrees to indemnify another party,
there is an implied duty to defend. Unless the
duty to defend is explicitly disclaimed, the
design professional can be required to defend
the indemnified party against claims arising
from the design professional’s services.
The California legislature revised the code
section that addresses the enforceability of
indemnification requirements for design pro-
fessionals (California Civil Code § 2782.8)
such that, for contracts entered into on or
after January 1, 2018, a design professional
cannot be required to indemnify or defend
another party “except to the extent the claims
against the indemnitee arise out of, pertain
to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or
willful misconduct of the design professional.”
Section 2782.8 also states that “In no event
shall the cost to defend charged to the design
professional exceed the design professional’s pro-
portionate percentage of fault.”
However, the revised code section is silent
on the implied duty to defend, which means
the duty probably still exists. Thus, unless
the duty is explicitly disclaimed, the design
professional can be required to defend an
indemnitee; once liability is determined,
the design professional would have to seek
reimbursement to the extent it was not
liable for the claim. The wording of the
disclaimer can be quite simple; it is enough
to add the statement “The Engineer shall
not be required to defend the Client against
professional liability claims.”
The 2017 edition of AIA C401 added an
explicit disclaimer to its indemnification
clause; the clause now includes the statement:
“The Consultant’s obligation to indemnify and
hold harmless the Architect and its officers and
employees does not include a duty to defend.”
While the addition of the disclaimer to the
standard agreement is helpful when the agree-
ment is governed by California law, it can be
confusing to those who do not understand
the reason for its inclusion.
Conclusion
The indemnification clause is often the
most difficult clause to negotiate in a design
agreement, as most clients seek to limit their
exposure to claims. Although the indemnifica-
tion clause is a legitimate means of allocating
risk between the parties, engineers should be
careful about agreeing to obligations that will
not be covered by insurance. In particular,
engineers should be aware that the defense
of indemnified parties will gener-
ally not be covered by professional
liability insurance.■
Disclaimer: The information in this article is
for educational purposes only and is not legal
advice. Readers should not act or refrain from
acting based on this article without seeking
appropriate legal or other professional advice as
to their particular circumstances.
Gail S. Kelley is an LEED AP as well as a
professional engineer and licensed attorney in
Maryland and the District of Columbia. Her
practice focuses on reviewing and negotiating
design agreements for architects and engineers.
She is the author of Construction Law: An
Introduction for Engineers, Architects, and
Contractors, published by Wiley & Sons.
(gail.kelley.esq@gmail.com)
 FESSIONA
RO
WWW.STRUCTURESCONGRESS.ORG EARN UP TO

L
S
DEV

UR
LO

O
E
PMENT H

STRUCTURES
CONGRESS 2019
Orlando, Florida April 24–27

Experience the Premier Event in Structural Engineering

JOIN US IN ORLANDO TO LEAD

AND INNOVATE:
•Build your career through interactive
presentations and practical application
•Special Sessions: Grenfell Tower
|Workshop on Conceptual Design|
Improve Your Communication/Presentation
Skills
•Meet the Leaders for Students and Young
Professionals
•A fantastic evening Celebrating the Future
of SE hosted by CSI
•Consider Flex registration for your
company
•Register by February 13 for best rate

WHAT’S THE NEXT BEST THING TO ATTENDING STRUCTURES

CONGRESS IN PERSON?
Livestream a sample of up to three select sessions on Friday, April 26, US Eastern Time.
Register for 1-3 sessions and earn up to 1.5 PDHs per session. Individual registration only.
Choose from:
• Behavior and Design of Diaphragms, Chords and Collectors for Steel Buildings
Livestream Made
• Structural Optimization in Everyday Design Tasks Possible By
• Diverse and Illustrative Bridge Case Studies

LIVESTREAM REGISTRATION BEST RATE THROUGH FEBRUARY 20.

Learn more and register at structurescongress.org/livestream

Adhesives Technology Corporation
Phone: 800-892-1880
Email: atcinfo@atcepoxy.com
Web: www.atcepoxy.com
Product: ULTRABOND®
Anchoring and Doweling Products
Description: A leading manufacturer of
construction and industry related adhesives in
epoxies, urethanes, acrylics, ester blends and
polyureas. ULTRABOND®, CRACKBOND®,
and MIRACLE BOND® are some of the
most recognized products in North America.
ULTRABOND HS-1CC is currently the
industry’s highest performing anchoring epoxy.
Dlubal Software, Inc.
Phone: 267-702-2815
Email: info-us@dlubal.com
Web: www.dlubal.com
Product: RFEM
Description: Capable of linear, non-linear, static, and
dynamic analysis, RFEM is complete with moving
load generation (AASHTO library), influence lines,
cable form-finding, parametric modeling, and multi-
material design considerations. This FEA software is
seamless in the design and analysis of pedestrian and
highway cable-stayed, suspension, arch, and beam
bridge structures.
Dynamic Isolation Systems
Phone: 775-359-3333
Email: sales@dis-inc.com
Web: www.dis-inc.com
Product: Lead Rubber Bearing
Description: For Base Isolation of bridges. Allow
bridges to survive earthquakes with no damage
while providing cost savings on substructures due to
reduced forces. They require no maintenance and are
extremely durable.
PTI 2019 Convention
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org
May 5-8, 2019
Seattle, Washington, USA
www.post-tensioning.org
42 STRUCTURE magazine
BRIDGE resource guide
ENERCALC, Inc.
Phone: 800-424-2252
Email: info@enercalc.com
Web: http://enercalc.com
Product: Structural Engineering Library
Description: Quickly completes calculations for the
design of footings, columns, beams, pedestals, shear
wall,s and other concrete structures. Our new 3-D
sketches let you avoid expensive, complicated software.
RetainPro provides detailed concrete earth retention
design/calculation tools. Clear, concise reports are
ideal for client/agency reviews.
Hexgaon PPM
Phone: 281-890-4566
Email: sales.cas.ppm@hexagon.com
Web: http://www.coade.com/products/gtstrudl
Product: GT STRUDL
Description: Fulfills your modeling, analysis, and
design requirements for steel and concrete structural
projects. Leverage powerful solvers and trusted
accuracy in your analysis of bridge structures,
including cables. Multiple modeling environments
offer easy-to-use tools for fast model creation. See the
new GT STRUDL ‒ download a trial version today.
IES, Inc.
Phone: 800-707-0816
Email: info@iesweb.com
Web: www.iesweb.com
Product: ConcreteSection
Description: Computes the 3-D interaction
surface for complex reinforced concrete sections
based on the ACI or CSA codes and calculates the
cracked section properties and stress distribution.
It has a wide variety of applications from bridges
to buildings to environmental structures.
Technical Sessions
Committee Meetings
Networking Events
Exhibit Hall
Pieresearch®
Phone: 817-277-3738
Email: stanagee@pieresearch.com
Web: www.pieresearch.com
Product: Rebar Reinforcing Alignment and
Centralizer Products
Description: The industry leader in rebar reinforcing
alignment products; durable, reliable, economical,
and proven alignment products for drilled shafts,
micropiles, augercast piles, soil nails, and rebar-
reinforced earth retention anchors. New Unibar™
Centralizer products are designed for the installation
of soil nails and related earth retention elements.
Simpson Strong-Tie®
Phone: 800-925-5099
Email: web@strongtie.com
Web: www.strongtie.com
Product: FX-70® Structural Piling Repair and
Protection System
Description: Repair damaged concrete, steel, or
wood piles in place with the FX-70 system that
utilizes custom fiberglass jackets and high- strength
grouting materials. The FX-70 system eliminates
the need to dewater the repair site or take the
structure out of service, dramatically reducing the
overall cost of restoring damaged structures.
Product: Fabric-Reinforced Cementitious Matrix
(FRCM)
Description: Combines a high-performance
sprayable mortar with a carbon-fiber grid to
create a thin structural layer that will not add
significant weight or volume to the existing
structure. FRCM can be used to repair and
strengthen concrete and masonry structures for
seismic retrofit or loading rating upgrades.
Tensar International Corporation
Phone: 800-836-7271
Email: svance@tensarcorp.com
Web: www.tensarcorp.com
Product: Mechnically Stabilized Retaining
Wall Systems
Description: Effective solutions for
construction of bridge abutments – so effective
that the need for pilings is routinely eliminated.
Lower cost alternative to conventional retaining
walls; approved by most DOTs; feature Tensar
Geogrid; incorporate a positive mechanical
connection; and provide a variety of wall face
dimensions, colors, textures, and finishes.
Trimble
Phone: 678-737-7379
Email: jodi.hendrixson@trimble.com
Web: www.tekla.com
Product: Tekla Structures
Description: First class structural software
for steel, concrete, wood, and composite
bridge structures and details. Increase
productivity through higher automation of
fabrication and 4-D product management.
Drawings and reports can be automated
generally from the constructible 3-D model
and the detailed model can bring efficiency
to bridge maintenance and repairs.
F E B R U A R Y 2 019
“How do I calculate a
torsion constant?
”
Structural Software
Easy. Versatile. Productive.

ShapeBuilder
Get your free trial: www.iesweb.com/sb

Download your free trial today:

iesweb.com 800.707.0816
 NCSEA News
Call for 2019 Structural Engineering Summit Abstracts
The NCSEA Structural Engineering Summit Committee is seeking presentations for
the 2019 Summit in Anaheim, California, November 12-15, 2019. Ideal presentations
will deliver pertinent and useful information that is specific to the practicing structural
engineer, in both technical and non-technical tracks. Sessions will be 45-90 minutes
total, including time for Q & A.
Submissions on best-design practices, new codes and standards, recent projects,
advanced analysis techniques, management, and business practices would be of
interest. Other desired topics mentioned in the 2018 post-Summit survey include:
• Case Studies • Accounting
• Lessons Learned • Client Growth
• Snow Loads • Connection Design
• Ethics • Wind Design
• Bettering Communication

The online form must be completed in full by March 30, 2019. Speakers will be
notified of abstract acceptance by April 30, 2019. Visit www.ncsea.com to complete
the form now. Speakers will be provided with required guidelines after acceptance
of abstract. Standard AV equipment will be in the room: podium, laptop, wireless
microphone, projector, and screen. All speakers receive free registration on the day of
their presentation.

Volunteer for an NCSEA Committee in 2019

NCSEA has a variety of committees that work to further the association’s mission to constantly improve the level of standard of practice of
the structural engineering profession throughout the United States, and to provide an identifiable resource for those needing communica-
tion with the profession.
NCSEA SEA members may apply for committee positions throughout the year using the online Volunteer Application. Most com-
mittees admit new members on a rolling basis while others add members only once per year. Once submitted, the application will be
reviewed to confirm Member Organization/SEA membership and then forwarded to the committee chair(s) for review. Please expect a
response within 30 days.
Visit www.ncsea.com/committees to learn about NCSEA's Committees and to complete a volunteer application.

2019 EXCELLENCE IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING AWARDS

The NCSEA Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards annually highlight some of the best examples of structural engineering
ingenuity throughout the world. Projects are judged on innovative design, engineering achievement, and creativity. Structural engineers
and structural engineering firms are encouraged to enter. Learn more by visiting www.ncsea.com!

Engineering Structural Glass Design Guide

Authored by Marcin March, P.E., CEng, MIStructE, and Franklin Lancaster, P.E, and published with the
assistance of the NCSEA Publications Committee, the Engineering Structural Glass Design Guide is
aimed at structural engineers who are experienced in designing building structures and elements using
traditional materials but with little to no experience in using glass to transfer forces. The purpose of
this Design Guide is to provide the Engineering Professional with sufficient background knowledge
and current methods to determine the specification of glass elements in buildings. The intent of this
Guide is to collate relevant design references, requirements, and analysis methods into a single source
for easy reference.
The NCSEA Engineering Structural Glass Design Guide is available as an electronic version as well
as paperback. Visit www.ncsea.com to learn more about this publication.

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

Prepare for April's SE Exam with NCSEA Save the Date for
The Best Instructors. The Best Material. Available to you immediately! NCSEA's Structural
NCSEA's restructured SE Refresher & Exam Review course is completely on-demand. Review Engineering Summit
course materials and watch the recordings when it is convenient for YOU. This on-demand
course provides the most economical SE Exam Preparation Course available. The course
includes 30 hours of instruction: 9 Vertical Sessions and 11 Lateral. The course will give you
November 12-15, 2019
preparation tips and problem-solving skills to pass the exam. All lectures are up-to-date on the Disneyland ® Hotel
most current codes, with handouts and quizzes available.
PLUS ... students have access to a virtual classroom exclusively for course attendees! Ask the Anaheim, CA
instructors directly whenever questions arise. This SE Exam Preparation Course allows you to
study at your pace but with instant access to the material and instructors. Several registration
options are available; visit www.ncsea.com to register yourself or to learn more about special Learn more about
group pricing! the NCSEA Summit
by visiting
Public Outreach Challenge www.ncsea.com!
Communications Committee Hosts New Competition for SEAs.
Can structural engineers improve the public visibility and recognition of the profession? The
NCSEA Communications Committee thinks so, and wants to encourage you and your SEA
to participate. Through the creation and distribution of information and content via news
articles, videos, blogs, and a multitude of other methods, SEAs can spread the message about
our profession and its critical role in society.
The NCSEA Communications Committee invites NCSEA Member Organizations to partici-
pate in the very first Member Organization Public Outreach Challenge. The goal is to inform
and educate other industries, professions, and the general public about Structural Engineering.
Learn more about the challenge and eligibility by visiting www.ncsea.com/challenge.

NCSEA Webinars Register by visiting www.ncsea.com.

February 12, 2019
Insurance and Indemnification: What You Don’t Know Can Cost You
Gail Kelley, P.E., Esq.
This webinar will reduce the confusion that can arise when trying to decipher the sometimes very-creative wording of an
indemnification clause by taking a step back and looking at what it actually means to indemnify another party.

February 26, 2019

Code Compliance & Existing Structures
Patrick Sparks, P.E.
This course will explore key factors to consider when evaluating and rehabilitating existing structures, and will discuss the
application of various approaches to understanding existing structural systems.

March 14, 2019

Economical Design of Insulating Concrete Form Walls (ICFs)
Lionel A. Lemay, P.E., S.E., LEED AP, and Shawn Lothrop, P.E., S.E.
The presentation will discuss preliminary wall sizing and placement along with structural design considerations including
design details and construction inspections. It will also provide guidance on how to minimize the cost of construction to
take full advantage of these benefits, resulting in long-term value for building owners.

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

F E B R U A R Y 2 019 45
 SEI Update
Membership
Call for Members
NEW SEI Global Activities Committees
Members interested in SEI Global Activities are invited to apply to join these new standing committees:
• Global Professional Development & Qualifications Committee
• Inter-Organizational Collaboration Committee
• Global Credentials Committee
Learn more and apply at www.asce.org/SEIGlobal.

SEI Sustainability Committee

The SEI Sustainability Committee develops resources for structural engineers and other building professionals to help them address the
environmental impacts of structural materials and systems. The committee has published three technical reports: Sustainability Guidelines
for the Structural Engineer, Structural Materials and Global Climate, and Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment: Reference Building Structure
and Strategies, and written numerous articles. www.seisustainability.org.
Committee working groups lead technical efforts in areas such as climate change, life-cycle assessment, disaster resilience, thermal bridg-
ing, and infrastructure. To join this collaborative group of structural engineers from across the country, working in industry, academia, and
industry organizations, apply at www.asce.org/structural-engineering/sei-tad-committee-application.
For more info, contact committee Co-chairs Megan.Stringer@holmesstructures.com or Mark Webster mdwebster@sgh.com.

Join or Renew SEI/ASCE

For innovative solutions and learning, to connect with leaders and colleagues, and to enjoy member benefits such as SEI Member
Update monthly e-news opportunities and resources – visit www.asce.org/myprofile or call ASCE Customer Service at
800-548-ASCE (2723).

Advancing the Profession

Announcing 2019 SEI Fellows Recognized
as Leaders and Mentors in the Profession
Join us to congratulate them at Structures Congress in April:
Lisa Anderson, P.E., F.SEI, M.ASCE
Michele Barbato, Ph.D., P.E., C.Eng, F.SEI, M.ASCE
Michel Bruneau, Ph.D., P.E., P.Eng, F.SEI, F.ASCE
Robert Driver, Ph.D., P.Eng, F.SEI, M.ASCE
Gregory Fenves, Ph.D., NAE, F.SEI, F.ASCE
Thomas Heausler, P.E., S.E., F.SEI, M.ASCE
Camille Issa, Ph.D., P.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE
Susan Jorgensen, P.E., F.SEI, M.ASCE
Learn more at www.asce.org/SEIFellows.
Carl Josephson, P.E., S.E., F.SEI, M.ASCE
Chun Lau, P.E., P.Eng, S.E., F.SEI, M.ASCE
Abbie Liel, Ph.D., P.E., F.SEI, M.ASCE
Daniel Linzell, Ph.D., P.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE
Kevin Mackie, Ph.D., P.E., F.SEI, M.ASCE
Gian Andrea Rassati, Ph.D., P.E., C.Eng, F.SEI, M.ASCE
Frederick Rutz, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., F.SEI, M.ASCE
Partha Sarkar, Ph.D., F.SEI, M.ASCE
Ignasius Seilie, P.E., P.Eng, S.E., F.SEI, M.ASCE
Kenneth Sharpless, P.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE
Arpan Tailor, P.E., S.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE
John van de Lindt, Ph.D., F.SEI, F.ASCE
Michael West, P.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE
Gergis William, Ph.D., P.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE

SEI Online
Follow SEI SEI Standards SEI News
on Twitter Visit www.asce.org/SEIStandards to:
• View ASCE 7-22 Committee Meeting schedule and archive
Read the latest news items
@ASCE_SEI • Submit proposals to revise ASCE 7 at www.asce.org/SEI

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

46 STRUCTURE magazine
 News of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
Learning / Networking

Thank you to Premier Sponsor Computers & Structures, Inc. for funding programs on leadership, innovation, career development, and
more, to inspire and develop the next generation of structural engineering leaders.
Register for the best rate by February 13 and make sure to include your tickets for the CSI Special Evening Reception April 26
www.structurescongress.org.

Electrical Transmission and Substation

Structures Conference Wrap-up
It was a powerhouse SEI Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures Conference,
November 4-8 in Atlanta – with more than 1,400 attending the expert technical program and
enjoying a sold-out exhibit hall with 115 booths and fun events. Dedicated to Strengthening Critical Infrastructure, ETS attracts structural/civil
engineers, suppliers, and many more from the electric power, foundation, and construction industries. Thank you, attendees, speakers, spon-
sors, exhibitors, planning committee, and staff! Save the date for the next ETS September 19-23, 2021 in Orlando www.etsconference.org.

SEI San Francisco Chapter hosts Orthotropic Bridge Conference

The SEI San Francisco Chapter announces the 5th International Orthotropic Bridge Conference (5OBC), August 14-16, 2019, at Santa
Clara University, in partnership with Santa Clara University and the Capital Branch of the ASCE Sacramento Section.
5OBC encompasses the interests of bridge owners, contractors, designers, researchers, maintenance personnel, and vendors involved with
orthotropic bridges. New topics include Orthotropic System for Non-Bridge Structures (e.g., Marine, Offshore, Terrestrial or Extraterrestrial
structures) and Use of Orthotropic Concept for Non-Steel Materials (e.g., Aluminum, Carbon fiber, etc.).
Learn more about program, abstract submissions and registration at www.5obc.org.

Joint International Conference:

Iconic Global Structures:
Collaboration Efficiency Safety
what can we learn?
• •

Dubai, UAE | 29-30 September 2019

Join structural engineers and project stakeholders to explore
the successes and challenges of constructing nine complex
structures across the world. Participate in panel discussions
with industry experts to share best practice and promote the
highest standard of engineering globally.

Learn more at —
https://structuresdubai2019.cvent.com

F E B R U A R Y 2 019 47
 CASE in Point
Did you know?
CASE has tools and practice guidelines to help firms deal with a wide variety of business scenarios that structural engineering firms face
daily. Whether your firm needs to establish a new Quality Assurance Program, update its Risk Management Program, keep track of the
skills young engineers are learning at each level of experience, or need a sample contract document – CASE has the tools you need! CASE
has several tools available for firms to use for managing projects and training staff:
Tool 3-2 Staffing and Revenue Projection Tool 4-2 Project Kick-off Meeting Agenda
Tool 3-4 Project Work Plan Templates Tool 4-5 Project Communications Matrix
Tool 3-5 Staffing Schedule Suite Tool 4-6 Project Team Coordination
Tool 4-1 Status Report Template Tool 5-5 Project Management Training Guide

CASE Practice Guidelines Currently Available

CASE 962 – National Practice Guidelines for the
Structural Engineer of Record (Updated in 2018)
The purpose of this document is to give firms and their employ-
ees a guide for establishing Consulting Structural Engineering
Services and to provide a basis for dealing with Clients, generally,
and negotiating Contracts in particular. Since the Structural
Engineer of Record (SER) is normally a member of a multi-
discipline design team, this document describes the relationships
that customarily exist between the SER and the other team
members, especially the team leader. Further, this Guideline pro-
motes an enhanced Quality of Professional Consulting Structural
Engineering Services while also providing a basis for negotiating
a fair and reasonable compensation. Additionally, it provides a
basis for Clients to better understand and determine the Scope
of Services that the Structural Engineer of Record should be
retained to provide.
CASE 962-B – National Practice Guidelines for Specialty
Structural Engineers
This document has been prepared to supplement CASE’s National
Practice Guidelines for the Structural Engineer of Record by defining
the concept of a specialty structural engineer and the interrelation
between the specialty structural engineer and the Structural Engineer
of Record. CASE encourages the concept of one Structural Engineer
of Record for an entire project. However, for many if not most
projects, there may be portions of the project that will be designed
by different specialty structural engineers. The primary purpose
of this document is to better define the relationships between the
SER and the SSE and to outline the usual duties and responsibili-
ties related to specific trades. This is done for the benefit of the
owners, the PDP, the SER, the SSE and the other members of the
construction team. The goal is to help create positive coordination
and cooperation among the various parties.

CASE 962-A – National Practice Guidelines for the
Preparation of Structural Engineering Reports for Buildings
The purpose of this document is to provide the structural engineer
a guide for not only conducting conditional surveys, code reviews,
special purpose investigations, and related reports for buildings
but includes descriptions of the services to aid with the client risk
management communication issues. This Guideline is intended to
promote and enhance the quality of engineering reports. A section
of this Guideline deals specifically with outlines for various reports.
While it is not intended to establish a specific format for reports, it
is believed there may be certain minimal information that should be
contained in a report. The Appendix includes disclaimer language
which identifies statements one might consider to clarify the depth
of responsibility accepted by the report writer.
CASE 962-C – Guidelines for International Building
Code-Mandated Special Inspections
The CASE Guidelines Committee has developed three distinct ver-
sions of the Guidelines for International Building Code-Mandated
Special Inspections covering the following IBC Code Updates:
2012, 2015, 2018.
The Guideline describes the roles and responsibilities of the parties
involved in the special inspection and testing process, how to prepare
a special inspection and testing program, the necessary qualifica-
tions of the special inspectors, how to conduct the program, and
who should pay for the special inspections and test. The Appendix
contains sample forms for specifying special inspections and tests
and sample letters to be filed with code-enforcement agencies after
the program is completed.

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

Follow ACEC Coalitions on Twitter – @ACECCoalitions.

48 STRUCTURE magazine
 News of the Council of American Structural Engineers
NEW!! CASE Tool 3-5: Staffing Schedule Suite
By effectively projecting and balancing workloads, firms can maximize employee productivity and profit by reducing employee burnout
and turnover.
This tool helps firms answer the following questions:
• What are our employees working on day-to-day and week-to-week?
• Do we have enough work to keep our people busy, productive, and profitable?
• Do we have enough staff members to complete current assignments on-time?
You can purchase these and the other Risk Management Tools at www.acec.org/bookstore.

Share Innovative Ideas!

Does your firm have an innovative idea or method of practice?
Are you looking to get more involved in short duration projects?
We are inviting you to “share the wealth” and submit a proposal for a web seminar topic, publication,
or education session you would like to see CASE present at an upcoming conference. Our forms
are easy to use, and you may submit your information via email. Go to www.acec.org/coalitions
and click on the icon for Idea Sharing to get started.
Questions? Contact us at 202-682-4377 or email Heather Talbert at htalbert@acec.org. We look forward to helping you put your best
ideas in front of eager new faces!

Donate to the CASE Scholarship Fund!

The ACEC Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE) is currently seeking contributions to help make the structural engineering
scholarship program a success. The CASE scholarship, administered by the ACEC College of Fellows, is awarded to a student seeking a
Bachelor’s degree, at a minimum, in an ABET-accredited engineering program. Since 2009, the CASE Scholarship program has given
$29,000 to help engineering students pave their way to a bright future in structural engineering.
We have all witnessed the stiff competition from other disciplines and professions eager to obtain the best and brightest young talent from
a dwindling pool of engineering graduates. One way to enhance the ability of students in pursuing their dreams to become professional
engineers is to offer incentives for educational support.
Your monetary support is vital in helping CASE and ACEC increase scholarships to those students who are the future of our industry. All
donations toward the program may be eligible for tax deduction, and you don’t have to be an ACEC member to donate! Contact Heather
Talbert at htalbert@acec.org to donate.

Fresh EJCDC Contracts to Meet Modern Market Demands

EJCDC’s newly released 2018 Constructions (C-Series) Documents are a significant modernization, revision, and expansion of the 2013
C-series and now the state-of-the-art in construction contract documents.
The updated edition comprises 25 integrated documents, including:
• Fundamental contract documents such as the Standard General Conditions, the Small Project agreement, and Supplementary Conditions
• Forms for gathering information needed to draft bidding documents
• Instructions for bidders and a standard bid form
• Bonds including bid, performance, warranty (new for 2018), and payment bonds
• Administrative forms, such as change orders and a certificate of substantial completion
EJCDC C-700, Standard General Conditions of the Construction Contract, has been extensively refreshed and updated, too. The new EJCDC
2018 C-Series also includes expanded and updated, “Notes to Users” and “Guidelines for Use” to provide more specific instructions and it
eliminates the need for notary and corporate seals.

You can purchase these and other EJCDC documents at www.acec.org/bookstore.

F E B R U A R Y 2 019 49

Performance-Based Design is the Future
By Donald O. Dusenberry, P.E., SECB, F.SEI, F.ASCE.
W e, as structural engineers, often find ourselves confined by
a situation we created for ourselves. We operate in a design
environment with easy access to information, have the ability to
collect and analyze extensive data, and have access to robust and
reliable analysis and design software. Nevertheless, prescriptive codes
and standards we have developed prevent us from fully leveraging
these capabilities. As we face multiple goals for our designs – safety,
economy, serviceability, sustainability, and robustness – we can be
constrained to follow a prescriptive path to a solution that often does
not optimally satisfy any of them.
Although nearly all modern design specifications strive to achieve
some level of performance, they do not establish specific performance
levels. Rather, design conformance to prescriptive criteria on materials,
configuration, detailing, strength, and stiffness is implicitly taken as
evidence the desired performance will be achieved. We believe our
structures are safe, but we rarely know the true safety margins or
whether other design solutions would provide superior performance.
To make matters worse, we rarely state, or even know, what perfor-
mance levels we should strive to achieve.
As a result, we are not able to apply our full capabilities to the
design process. We are evolving into masters of the Code, who
add value by being able to navigate the complexity of prescriptive
provisions rapidly, rather than by developing creative and innova-
tive solutions to multi-faceted problems. The societies we serve are
not getting maximum value from their limited resources of time,
money, energy, and materials. Instead, they are getting designs that
are constrained by prescriptive codes that attempt to address all
conditions for all structures serving all purposes, with uncertain
reliability because design by prescription neither quantifies nor
directly evaluates performance.
Performance-based design is founded on the premise that structural
systems must meet specific performance objectives. Specific perfor-
mance expectations are set for the completed design, and processes
are prescribed in minimal terms. Performance-based design, therefore,
reverses the design process by defining the end goal as the starting
point. The engineer then engages creativity and innovation employ-
ing science and principles of structural and material mechanics,
unencumbered by unnecessary and in many cases counterproductive
prescriptive requirements, to identify optimal solutions to multiple,
and sometimes competing, objectives. The design is completed by
demonstrating complying performance through analysis, simulation,
testing, or a combination thereof.
Defined performance objectives are keys to the process because
they establish the expectations for the design. The profession needs
to describe for the public the damage levels or service states that are
attainable for a variety of hazards acting at specific intensities on
structures serving certain purposes and occupancies. For instance,
engineering practice following performance-based approaches requires
quantitative criteria such as 1) the structure should have less than
a 10% chance of collapse given the occurrence of the Maximum
Considered Earthquake and 2) no more than one wind event in 10
years should cause swaying troubling to occupants. Setting these
performance goals and agreeing on them among the stakeholders
will be challenging but critical to the process.
50 STRUCTURE magazine
INSIGHTS
Performance-based design offers several advantages over prescrip-
tive design. First, properly executed performance-based approaches
enable desired performance to be attained with greater confidence and
expectations of reliability mainly because of the focus on the damage
states. Second, since the performance objectives for the design are
explicitly defined, the stakeholders can select the expected perfor-
mance levels that are appropriate and satisfy their own needs. Third,
since performance is evaluated directly as part of the engineering
process, engineers need not be limited by requirements to conform to
prescriptive solutions, thereby allowing for innovation and creativity
using new materials and systems, and using existing materials and
systems in new ways.
Structural engineers will be able to declare the expected performance
of individual building designs and demonstrate compliance by working
with all stakeholders. Structural engineers will be able to innovate and
develop designs that respond to needs for resilience, robustness, and
sustainability. Performance-based design approaches in civil engineer-
ing will allow structural engineers to influence broader public debates,
beyond the design of individual structures, to impact public safety,
welfare, and resilience at the site, community, regional, and national
levels. Structural engineers will advance their roles to become more
informed and critical partners in the design team and the community.
While performance-based design processes are routine in many
engineering disciplines, they are unfamiliar to most of the stakeholders
in the construction industry. The process demands more of structural
engineers, including a better understanding of risk assessment and
management. Peer reviews likely will be vital to the validation pro-
cess. However, performance-based engineering approaches encourage
research and development, and innovative engineering processes. The
result is the freedom to solve harder problems with better structures.
Performance-based design approaches are not needed for most
structures. In the future, we could easily have dual code approaches
for structural design. Design of routine structures could default to
prescriptive requirements, with a performance-based option for those
interested in exploring its benefits. However, performance-based
design processes should become an accepted protocol for complicated,
high-value, and mission-critical structures (e.g., hospitals, emergency
facilities and shelters, high-rise and iconic buildings, etc.), since the
communities they serve will benefit from the innovation and creativity
performance-based approaches foster.
To understand more about performance-based design and to learn
what the Structural Engineering Institute is pursuing to advance
performance-based design, see the report from which this article is
adapted: Advocating for Performance-Based Design (April 5,
2018, Task Committee Report to the Structural Engineering
Institute Board of Governors, https://goo.gl/XwiFBG).■
This article is adapted by Donald O. Dusenberry. Mr. Dusenberry is a
Consulting Principal of Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., Waltham, MA.
He has spent decades developing codes and standards in common use by
structural engineers and presently chairs the Structural Engineering Institute
Committee to Advance Performance-based Structural Engineering.
F E B R U A R Y 2 019
USG
Structural
Solutions

WHAT DANGERS ARE HIDING IN YOUR POURED CONCRETE ROOF DECK?

USG Structural Panel Concrete Roof Deck
Choose a dry construction method that’s a safer alternative to poured concrete.
Learn more at usg.com/structuralroofdeck

© 2018 USG Corporation and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

The trademarks USG, IT’S YOUR WORLD. BUILD IT., the USG logo, the design elements
and colors, and related marks are trademarks of USG Corporation or its affiliates.