Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
J
o
i
n
t
P
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
N
C
S
E
A
|
C
A
S
E
|
S
E
I
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
February 2010
Steel
NCSEA Winter Institute
Coronado, California
March 12 & 13
Feb10 cover saddle stitch.indd 1 1/19/2010 2:46:09 PM
Powers Fasteners, Inc.
2 Powers Lane
Brewster, NY 10509
www.powers.com
P: (914) 235-6300
F: (914) 576-6483
Keep on top of the latest building code changes now
requiring code listed and compliant anchors in all states.
Powers has the products, the tools and the information you
need to help you specify compliant anchors.
Powers currently has the most code compliant anchors on the market*,
satisfying a range of needs including mechanical and adhesive anchors.
Our FREE PDA software is an anchor design interface
that puts technical data into a real-time environment
to help you visualize, consider
and specify anchors with our tabbed Design
feature, pull-down menu options, interactive
3-D graphics and anchor information bar.
Understanding the newcode is vital. Powers
makes information about compliancy a
priority, offering informational pieces,
and a hotline to connect you one-to-one with an expert who can help
answer your questions.
Get Compliant with Powers.
* AS OF DECEMBER 2009, 46 STATES INTHE USAHAVEADOPTEDEITHERTHE 2003 OR 2006
INTERNATIONAL BUILDINGCODE.
Powers can help you
make the change efficiently.
Blank.indd 1 12/11/2009 4:45:36 PM
STRUCTURE magazine February 2010
C O N T E N T S
Publication of any article, image, or advertisement in STRUCTURE
February 2010
Steel
NCSEA Winter Institute
Coronado, California
March 12 & 13
COLUMNS
FEATURES
DEPARTMENTS
IN EVERY ISSUE
ON THE COVER
3
20 Cold-Formed Steel Faade Framing
By Anthony D. Coviello, P.E., S.E.
It is important that structural engineers have a good understanding of the limitations
of Cold-formed Steel (CFS), as well as its possibilities. This article outlines some
common CFS faade framing issues and how the Engineer of Record can resolve
them with early consideration.
22 A Gem in the Mountains
By Carol A. Stevens, P.E., SECB and Phillip A. Warnock, AIA, NCARB
The Upshur County Courthouse, built in 1899, is constructed of brick with a
rock face sandstone foundation and monumental sandstone columns supporting
the portico. The dome is supported by a brick tower that draws ones eye to the
top of the structure, where decorative Corinthian cast iron columns adorn the
faade. Time and weather had taken a toll on this gem, which has suffered the
consequences of good intentions.
5 Editorial
Understanding National Standards
Provisions for Seismic Design
By James Malley, S.E.
6 Structural Design
Structural Design of Steel Pipe
Support Structures
By Kasi V. Bendapudi, P.E., S.E.
10 Construction Issues
Planning to Minimize Damage to
Buildings Adjacent to Construction
Sites in Urban Environments
By Milan Vatovec, Ph.D., P.E., Paul
Kelley, P.E., Michael Brainerd, P.E.,
and Charles Russo, P.E.
14 Structural Performance
A Solution to Seismic
Bracing Restrictions
By John W. Lawson, S.E.
16 Structural Sustainability
Can Using More Wood Reduce Your
Environmental Footprint?
By Roxane Ward
41 Structural Forum
The Failure of the Five Es
By Barry Arnold, P.E., S.E., SECB
24 InSights
Soil/Cement Slurry Strengthens
Weak Soils
By Jonathan Bussiere, E.I.T.
27 Quality Assurance Corner
Validating the Results of Structural
Engineering Software
By Clifford Schwinger, P.E., SECB
and Eric J. Heller, E.I.T.
33 Spotlight
Upholding Tradition
By Brent Bonham, P.E., S.E. and
Jeffry S. Adams, P.E.
4 Advertiser Index
30 Resource Guide Bridge
34 NCSEA News
36 SEI Structural Columns
38 CASE in Point
TOC Feb10.indd 1 1/21/2010 8:55:09 AM
Visit STRUCTURE magazine on-line at
www.structuremag.org
Visit STRUCTURE magazine on-line at
www.structuremag.org
Visit STRUCTURE magazine online at
www.STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURE
is a registered trademark of
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA).
Published By:
C
3
Ink
A Division of Copper Creek Companies, Inc.
148 Vine St., Reedsburg WI 53959
P-608-524-1397 F-608-524-4432
publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
C
3
Ink
ADVERTISING ACCOUNT MANAGER
Interactive Sales Associates
Chuck Minor Dick Railton
Eastern Sales Western Sales
847-854-1666 951-587-2982
sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
EDITORIAL STAFF
Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE
execdir@ncsea.com
Editor Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
Associate Editor Nikki Alger
publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
Graphic Designer Rob Fullmer
graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org
Web Developer William Radig
webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
National Council of Structural
Engineers Associations
Jeanne M. Vogelzang, JD, CAE
Executive Director
312-649-4600
execdir@ncsea.com
Council of American Structural Engineers
David Bixby
Director, Coalitions
202-347-7474
case@STRUCTUREmag.org
Structural Engineering Institute
John E. Durrant, P.E.
Manager
ASCE Engineering Programs
703-295-6360
sei@STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURE magazine February 2010
STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE
A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T
F
o
r
A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,
v
i
s
i
t
w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
4
ADVERTISER PAGE #
American Galvanizers Association Page 30
Computers & Structures, Inc. Page 44
CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp. Page 13
Design Data Page 40
ESAB Welding and Cutting Products Page 19
Fyfe Co. LLC Page 7
Geopier Foundation Company, Inc. Page 29
Integrated Engineering Software, Inc. Page 42
KPFF Consulting Engineers Page 4
MidaSoft, Inc. Page 31
National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) Page 17
Powers Fasteners, Inc. Page 2
QuakeWrap, Inc. Page 28
RISA Technologies Page 43
SidePlate Systems, Inc. Page 25
Simpson Strong-Tie Page 9
Steel Deck Institute Page 11
StrucSoft Solutions, Ltd. Page 32
Struware, Inc. Page 27
Valmont Tubing Page 15
Wheeling Corrugating Page 26
Advertiser Index free information from advertisers
C-Index-Ed-InFoc-Feb10.indd 1 1/19/2010 2:47:02 PM
STRUCTURE magazine February 2010
Editorial
5
Understanding National Standards
Provisions for Seismic Design
By James Malley, S.E.
Vice President, NCSEA
As a member of the committee that writes and updates the AISC
seismic design standard for structural steel in AISC document 341,
I am able to participate in the discussions and dialogues that are
held whenever a new provision is proposed, or an existing provision
is modied. This is a unique opportunity to understand both of
the fundamental philosophies for, and the detailed reasons behind,
the AISC 341 provisions. I know that every meeting held by our
committee will be a great learning experience for me, as I try to take
in all of the expertise that is shared by my fellow committee members.
Unfortunately, most practicing engineers do not have this opportunity
and therefore have to rely on other means to complete their project
designs, such as their own interpretation of the provisions, review of
the accompanying commentary, and discussion with colleagues. The
seemingly never-ending series of changes and additional complexity,
built into every edition, makes proper application of our seismic design
standards one of the signicant challenges of our profession.
If you have ever felt that this challenge was frustrating, and maybe
even a bit overwhelming, then attending the 2010 NCSEA Winter
Institute on March 12
th
and 13
th
in San Diego may be just the ticket for
you. Titled Seismic Design: Explaining the Y Factor from One Generation
to the Next, this seminar will focus on presenting the fundamental basis
for, and reasons behind, our national standards provisions for seismic
design. This Winter Institute will include seven lectures given by leading
seismic researchers and practicing engineers on such topics as the basic
seismic design provisions, requirements for the four primary structural
materials, nonstructural component design, soil-foundation-structure
interaction (SFSI), and the next generation of performance-based
design criteria. The presenters will describe recent changes and will
focus on areas of the code that have been the more frustrating or less
understood. Their emphasis will be on how to systematically implement
good fundamental seismic design concepts, to result in buildings and
structures that will meet our seismic design objectives.
NCSEA Winter Institute Presenters:
Professor Chia-Ming Uang, UCSD
ASCE 7 and Steel Design Concepts
Professor Benson Shing, UCSD
Masonry Design Methods and Issues
Professor Jose Restrepo, UCSD
Concrete Performance Factors and Design
Mr. Phil Line, URS Corporation
Wood Design Provisions, Past and Present
Professor Tara Hutchinson, UCSD
Nonstructural Components and Systems
Dr. Farzad Naeim, John A. Martin & Associates
Modeling SFSI, Easy, Difcult, or Impossible?
Mr. Ronald Hamburger, SGH
Next-Generation Performance-Based Design
In addition to the lectures, there will be a Friday afternoon tour of
the world-renowned structural testing laboratory and shake table at the
University of California at San Diego. These facilities include a strong
wall for full scale component tests, a lab specically designed for testing
base isolators, and the outdoor shaking table that can test full scale
Chair
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
Burns & McDonnell
Kansas City, MO
chair@structuremag.org
Executive Editor
Jeanne M. Vogelzang, JD, CAE
NCSEA
Chicago, IL
execdir@ncsea.com
Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECB
CBI Consulting, Inc.
Boston, MA
Richard Hess, S.E., SECB
Hess Engineering Inc.
Los Alamitos, CA
Mark W. Holmberg, P.E.
Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc.
Marietta, GA
Editorial Board
Brian J. Leshko, P.E.
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Pittsburgh, PA
John A. Mercer, P.E.
Mercer Engineering, PC
Minot, ND
Brian W. Miller
AISC
Davis, CA
Mike C. Mota, P.E.
CRSI
Williamstown, NJ
Evans Mountzouris, P.E.
The DiSalvo Ericson Group
Ridgeeld, CT
Matthew Salveson, Ph.D., P.E.
Dokken Engineering
Folsom, CA
Greg Schindler, P.E., S.E.
KPFF Consulting Engineers
Seattle, WA
Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
Kramer Gehlen & Associates, Inc.
Vancouver, WA
John Buddy Showalter, P.E.
AF & PA/American Wood Council
Washington, DC
buildings. We are currently planning a tour that includes observing
multiple tests in action, as well as a shaking table test.
If this isnt enticing enough, I havent even mentioned the venue, the
Marriott Coronado Island Resort and Spa, on world famous Coronado
Island across the bay from San Diego. The resort boasts a full spa,
tennis courts and three pools on site, and easy access to the beach and
downtown San Diego. Combining the hotel with the expected warm,
but not hot, weather year round in San Diego should make for an
enjoyable stay during the event.
Check out pages 34 and 35 of this issue and the NCSEA website
(www.NCSEA.com) for more details on the Winter Institute schedule,
to register, and to reserve your room at the Marriott Coronado Island
Resort. Then plan to join us in San Diego this March 12
th
and 13
th
. I
am sure that you will learn a lot, catch up with colleagues, meet new
engineers, and maybe even work on your tan before heading home!
C-Index-Ed-InFoc-Feb10.indd 2 1/21/2010 8:56:00 AM
d
e
s
i
g
n
i
s
s
u
e
s
f
o
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
D
E
S
I
G
N
STRUCTURE magazine February 2010
6
Structural Design of Steel Pipe Support Structures
By Kasi V. Bendapudi, P.E., S.E.
It is common to overemphasize the struc-
tural design of pipe support structures,
rather than focus on detailing for stability
or economics and practical aspects of the
steel structure and the foundations. This
is sometimes referred to as over-designing
and under-detailing. Sometimes the
hanger-type pipe supports or the trapezes
supported by another structure, such as
the main building frame, are referred to
as pipe support structures. For the pur-
poses of this discussion, the terms pipe
racks, pipe supports, and pipe support
structures are interchangeable. Essential
elements for limit states of pipe support
systems are often ignored, since these
systems are comprised of secondary ele-
ments and rarely impact the structural
integrity of any industrial facility.
Structural failures of pipe supports are
neither documented nor disseminated to
the structural community. The structural
design of pipe racks varies widely depend-
ing upon the plant operations and the
associated plant standards. However, pipe
rack failures could cause serviceability
problems for plant operations. Failures
of pipe support systems could potentially
impact the health, welfare, and safety of
plant personnel due to pipe breakage or
leaks. The following discussion includes
a review of the considerations involved
in the design, detailing, and structural
stability of pipe racks. Optimal solutions
are still governed by the judgment of the
design engineer.
Overview of piping design
In general, pipes are designed to move
freely on their supports in the longitudinal
direction (along the axis of the pipe),
except at the anchor points. Pipe anchor-
ages are required to account for expansion
and contraction of pipes due to variations
in the ambient temperatures. The expan-
sion/contraction of pipes resulting from
changes in temperature and pressure of
the contents is taken into consideration by
the piping engineers during piping design.
Anchor points will be required to maintain
the pipes in a state of equilibrium. Expan-
sion loops are also used to limit pipe stresses
and the associated failures in the piping
systems. The movements of the pipes
occur due to expansion, contraction, and
transient loads. System shutdowns and re-
starts could also cause movements in the
pipes. Transverse guides limit the lateral
displacements of the pipes.
Temperature effects
Ambient temperature differentials induce
forces in both pipes and pipe supports.
These forces are generally induced over a
period of time if they are due to variations
in the ambient temperature. However, the
forces occur more rapidly if the thermal
variations are affected by the contents in
the pipes. Particularly during the time
of plant startups and shutdowns, these
forces can occur rapidly. A pipe rack or
a pipe support is not typically subjected
to noticeable punishment under seasonal
temperature differentials, because it re-
sponds like an accordion. Thermal
variations due to the contents of the pipe
result in anchor forces that are more severe
Structural steel pipe supports are extensively utilized in
industrial and manufacturing facilities. Lack of uniform
industry standards for this topic leads to each organization
adopting its own engineering standards, at times, without
a clear understanding of the underlying theoretical concepts
and the cost implications. This is the rst of a two-part series of
articles on the behavior and design of steel support structures
for pipes. This article (Part 1) discusses the effects of ambient
temperature changes, expansion joint requirements, and an
introduction to design loads. Part 2 concludes with the continu-
ation of design loads, structure stability concepts and detailing
for stability requirements.
SYMM ABOUT C
L
SYMM ABOUT C
L
TYPICAL LOCK-IN BRACE
PREFERRED BRACE
Figure 1: Vertical bracing arrangements.
Side view of 4 tier process pipe rack with longitudinal bracing. Courtesy of Midrex Corporation,
Inc., Charlotte, NC.
X
Y
130F
60F
50F
30F
30F
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
A
N
G
E
U
S
E
D
I
N
E
X
A
M
P
L
E
MEAN TEMP. OF ERECTED
STRUCTURE (ASSUMED)
STRUCTURE
ERECTION
ASSUMED CYCLICAL ANNUAL VARIATIONS
IN ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURES
+ t
(EXPANSION DOMAIN)
t
(CONTRACTION DOMAIN)
Figure 2: Thermal variations of structure.
C-StructDesign-Bendapudi-Feb10.i1 1 1/19/2010 2:48:37 PM
STRUCTURE magazine February 2010
A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T
-
F
o
r
A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,
v
i
s
i
t
w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
7
and should be considered in the design of the
supporting structure.
The effects of temperature change (expansion
or contraction) occur with respect to the
center of thermal stiffness of the structure. As
a matter of good practice, lock-in bracing
(Figure 1) should be avoided. Such vertical
bracing provided at the ends of the pipe rack
structure, in any given straight segment of the
structure, tends to restrain the thermal forces.
On the other hand, if the vertical bracing is
provided at the center or close to the center
of the pipe rack structure, the accordion
effect can be achieved in the structural system.
Expansion joints are not necessary for pipe
rack structures less than approximately 400 to
500 feet (125m to 155m) in length, if lock-in
bracing is avoided. Failures of pipe rack struc-
tures due to lack of expansion joints are rare,
and no recorded evidence is readily available.
The coefcient of linear expansion () is the
change in the length, per unit length, for a
change of one degree of temperature. The thir-
teenth edition of the AISC Steel Construction
Manual recommends a value of 0.0000065
for each degree Fahrenheit (F) as a reasonable
approximation of the coefcient of thermal
expansion for temperatures less than 100
degrees F.
The change in length
l = tl Equation 1
Where l is the original length of the
member and t is the change in temperature.
The force imparted (P) due to restraint
of free thermal expansion (l)
P = AE (l )/l Equation 2
Substituting tl for l in Equation 2 the
change in stress ) (psi) is expressed as
) = E t Equation 3
P = A ) = A E t , Equation 4
where A is the cross-sectional area of
the member.
The metrics for establishing ambient temper-
ature differential are to some extent subjective
and should be based on recorded historical
data of the atmospheric temperature conditions,
preferably site-specic. The variations in the
seasonal temperature with respect to the in-
place condition of the structure need not be
more than 80 F at most locations of the struc-
tural systems (Figure 2). A similar temperature
gradient diagram should be established for
each project location.
Variation of 80 F in temperature would
cause an elongation (Equation 1) of approxi-
mately -inch in a 20-foot-long structural
member and, if fully restrained, would cause
a stress of 15.1 ksi (Equation 3). For a pipe
rack longitudinal beam (W12x26), the inter-
nal force induced to restrain the elongation
would be 116 kips (Equation 4). Design con-
siderations should be segregated between the
design of the piping for its own movements
and the design of pipe rack steel for the effects
of variations in the ambient conditions. The
movements of pipes during the operating
conditions, or at the time of startups and
shutdowns, could either happen in the ex-
pansion domain or the contraction domain
(Figure 2). Any attempt to establish a design
basis for the pipe rack steel to combine both
of these effects occurring concurrently is very
cumbersome and impractical.
Any attempt to restrain such forces at each
frame of the pipe rack would also be imprac-
tical and uneconomical. Therefore, lock-in
bracing as shown in Figure 1 should be avoided.
For example, in a 440-foot-long stretch of pipe
rack with frames spaced 20 feet apart, the middle
two frames should be braced in accordance
with the preferred method as shown in Figure
1. In this arrangement, the extreme column
would be displaced approximately 1.25 inches
(0.125 x 10 bays) at the top in the longitu-
dinal direction. Column slope caused by this
expansion is H/480 for a column height of 50
feet. Typically, longitudinal drift will not cause
serviceability problems. There are no codes or
industry standards that prescribe limits on lon-
gitudinal drift. For long stretches of pipe racks,
the pipe stress engineer should be consulted
for any special requirements for longitudinal
drift control. As a matter of interest, Process In-
dustry Practice (PIP) Structural Design Criteria
2007 (STC 01015) limits transverse drift of
the pipe rack bents to H/100, which is very
lenient. Therefore, the column displacement
at the top is not signicant, and the structure
should be allowed to expand and contract due
to the variations of the ambient temperatures.
The total column displacements would be re-
duced along the longitudinal direction (see
in Figure 3) if the column bases are xed in the
longitudinal direction; however, this is neither
a common practice nor necessary. No expan-
sion joints in the pipe racks are necessary for
rack lengths less than 500 feet (approximately
155m). Under such provisions (Figure 3), the
structure is considered stable and serviceable.
SYMM ABOUT
COMPRESSION BRACE
10 BAYS @ 20 = 200
DISPLACEMENT
AT POINT A @ COL. LINE 1 H / 480
A
(
~
1
6
m
)
H
=
5
0
0
10 BAYS @ 20 = 200
OF BRACING
AND THERMAL STIFFNESS
C
L
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Figure 3: Partial elevation of pipe rack with no expansion joints.
T y f o
F i br wr ap
S y s t e ms
FYFE
Co.
LLC
NSFFFR
Certied to NSF/ANSI 61
Over 20 years ago we created the industry...
today we set the standard
Structural Strengthening
FRP Installation
Seismic Upgrade
Blast Mitigation
Concrete Retrot
Specialty Gunite
Underwater & Coastal Repairs
Expansion & Seismic Joints
Pipe Repair and Renewal
Large and Small Diameter
PCCP, RCP, Steel Structural Repairs
Carbon Fiber Structural Liners
Concrete Restoration
Epoxy Crack Injection
Spall Repair
Corrosion Protection
Advanced Fire Protection
8380 Miralani Drive, San Diego, CA 92126
Tel: 858.642.0694
z
Fax: 858.444.2982
www.fyfeco.com
continued on next page
C-StructDesign-Bendapudi-Feb10.i2 2 1/19/2010 2:48:44 PM
STRUCTURE magazine February 2010
8
Design loads
Pipe racks should be designed for all gravity
and natural hazards such as wind and seismic
loads, internal forces induced by restraint of
free thermal expansion, and the pipe anchor
and guide support loads. Gravity loads are the
largest of the operating loads during normal
plant operations or under the hydro-test con-
dition. The primary anchor forces consist of
longitudinal and transverse forces. Calculated
and identiable load paths for strength and
stability should be provided. The longitudinal
anchor forces are typically resisted by the ver-
tical bracing of the pipe rack (Figure 3, page 7).
If adequate stiffness for the bracing is provided,
it will function as a lean-on brace. Pipe
anchor supports should be stabilized in both
orthogonal planes. Bracing in the longitudinal
direction for long stretches (greater than 500
feet) are typically located at or near the center
of thermal stiffness. The transverse bracing, or
bracing perpendicular to the length of the pipe
rack, does not provide restraint to the longitu-
dinal thermal movements of the pipe rack.
Designing pipe supports for seismic conditions
consists of two parts: 1) design of connections
(anchorage or fastening) of the pipes to the
supporting structure for the seismic loads;
and, 2) design of the pipe support structure
for the seismic forces. These two cases are
independently investigated and should not be
combined. The controlling combinations for
loads are specied in the governing codes and
standards. The base shears at the pipe support
structure must be transferred to the founda-
tions by means of appropriate anchorage.
The guidance given by the building codes is
minimal in this regard, since pipe racks are not
considered to be buildings and must be treated
as Other Structures.
Design of the pipe support structure, including
the lateral-load-resisting elements, should
typically be on the basis of the equivalent
lateral force procedure. ASCE 7 and the
International Building Code (IBC) also permit
the modal analysis procedure and linear
response history analysis for non-building
structures. Dynamic analysis may not be nec-
essary unless the contents of the pipes are
hazardous to the environment and there is a
concern for public safety. Pipe support struc-
tures should maintain symmetry and uniformity.
Irregularities should be eliminated as much
as possible.
Proper fastening of the pipes to the supporting
structure is essential in the seismic design
of pipe racks. The design of connections be-
tween the pipes and the supporting structure
should be based on the seismic base shear
attributable to the dead weight of the pipes
and their contents. Such seismic force should
be applied at the centroid of the pipe, and the
associated eccentricity should be considered
in the design of the fastening system between
the pipe and the supporting structure. All pipe
support structures should be provided with
adequate bracing required for frame stability
as discussed in this article. Horizontal bracing
(plan bracing) underneath the pipes may be
required to transmit the horizontal seismic
loads applied at the centroids of the pipes
(Figure 4). The plan bracing would function
as a collector element (diaphragm) in order
to transmit the seismic loads to the vertical
bracing. The transverse force component of
anchor loads should be assumed to be shared
by the adjoining two frames on either side of the
anchor point. This load-sharing concept assumes
decay of this force beyond these ve frames. This
is only possible when the plan bracing is pro-
vided. Therefore, it is imperative that the anchor
points be located with at least two frames before
the end of the pipe support segment.
B
A
1 4
2 3
(~4.5m)
15 0 (TYP)
(~6.0m)
20 0 (TYP)
(
~
4
.
5
m
)
1
5
0
(
T
Y
P
)
PLAN BRACING
NOTE: VERTICAL BRACING FOR
PIPE RACKS II & III NOT SHOWN
SEPARATE FRAME
AT INTERSECTION
DIRECT CONNECTION TO
INTERSECTING PIPE RACK
COLUMN
S
H
E
A
R
T
R
A
N
S
F
E
R
@
C
O
L
2
8
&
3
8
PIPE RACK I
PIPE RACK II
PIPE RACK III
ELEVATION AT COL. LINE -A
PLAN
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
A
T
C
O
L
.
L
I
N
E
S
-
3
&
4
N
Figure 4: Intersecting pipe racks.
Summary
Part 1 of this two-part series discussed tem-
perature effects on pipe racks, including the
forces imparted, recommended bracing arrange-
ments, drift control requirements, and an
introduction to design loads. The upcoming
Part 2 will discuss the interaction between the
pipe support structure and the pipes, stability
requirements, and detailing for the stability of
pipe racks.
Kasi V. Bendapudi, P.E., S.E. is the Chief
Civil, Structural, and Architectural Engineer
with BE&K Inc., at Houston, Texas. He can
be reached at kasib46@yahoo.com.
The online version of this article
contains references. Please visit
www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
Elevation of multi-tier process pipe racks bridging across the roadways. Courtesy of Midrex
Corporation, Inc., Charlotte, NC.
C-StructDesign-Bendapudi-Feb10.i3 3 1/19/2010 2:48:45 PM
The only code-listed
stacked shearwall solution.
2010 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. SSW10-S
If youre planning to stack prefabricated shearwalls, make sure theyre Steel Strong-Wall
shearwalls.
Simpson Strong-Tie is now the only manufacturer to have a code-listed, two-story solution. Available
in widths as narrow as 15 inches for stacked applications, our engineered walls allow you to design
multistory homes and buildings with larger windows, doors and open spaces without sacricing the
high load values required for the project.
To ensure your walls stack up, look to Simpson Strong-Tie for the widest selection of shearwalls code listed
to the 2006 IBC (see ICC-ES ESR-1679). Visit www.strongtie.com/strongwall or call (800) 999-5099.
Blank.indd 1 1/6/2010 9:20:15 AM
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
o
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
s
u
e
s
a
n
d
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
I
S
S
U
E
S
STRUCTURE magazine February 2010
10
Planning to Minimize Damage to Buildings Adjacent
to Construction Sites in Urban Environments
By Milan Vatovec, Ph.D., P.E., Paul Kelley, P.E., Michael Brainerd, P.E., and Charles Russo, P.E.
This is the second in a three-part series on the topic of planning and managing building response to adjacent construction.
The rst, Monitoring Building Response to Adjacent Construction, was published in the November 2008 issue of STRUCTURE
www.sdi.org
We are pleased to announce that our new
American National Standards Institute
(ANSI ) / Steel Deck Institute ( SDI )
standards for Steel Roof Deck (RD1.0),
Composite Steel Floor Deck (C1.0) and
Non-Composite Steel Floor Deck (NC1.0)
are now available for FREE download
on our website. These standards are also
highlighted in our Steel Deck Institute
Steel Deck Design Manual #31 which
can also be ordered from our website.
Set your standards high.
P.O. Box 25 Fox River Grove, IL 60021
(p) 847.458.4647
Weve got
NEW 2009
downloadable.
And now theyre
standards.
A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T
-
F
o
r
A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,
v
i
s
i
t
w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
C-ConstrIssues-Vatovec-Feb10.ind2 2 1/19/2010 2:49:28 PM
STRUCTURE magazine February 2010
12
typically be required. In general, responsibility
for any damage that is shown to be a result
of adjacent-site construction will rest with
the party performing the construction. Other
building code requirements may include pro-
tection of roofs, skylights, and walls, protec-
tion against water entry, protection and lateral
support of party walls exposed as a result of
demolition, installation pedestrian bridges for
protection against falling debris, etc.
Despite common sense, common law, and
building code requirements, construction in
urban areas, once damage is alleged, seldom
goes smoothly. Adjacent owners may not be
sufciently informed, are unaware of their
rights, or are not familiar with the plans for
adjacent development until it is too late.
Sometimes building code requirements are
vague or incomplete in terms of guidance, re-
quirements, and responsibility of the involved
parties. Occasionally, owners of damaged
properties inform their insurance companies
too late, or blindly request their insurance
carriers to pay for damage that is not covered by
their policies. At other times, cause of dam-
Monitoring of vertical building displacements.
The map on the right shows areas where the
threshold limits for displacement established prior
to construction were exceeded. Early detection
of exceedance can be used to quickly develop a
mitigation plan.
age is disputed or new damage is not easily
discerned from the pre-existing damage. In
general, without well-dened and planned proj-
ect processes in place, disputes regarding
causation and amount of damage (no precondi-
tion surveys), or disruption, easily develop and
occasionally escalate, requiring involvement of
experts, consultants, and ultimately attorneys.
Ensuing litigation can in turn quickly engulf
other parties (architects, engineers, contractors,
and insurance carriers) in the dispute.
Managing the Process to
Minimize Damage to
Buildings (Anticipate)
So, how does someone avoid getting their
building damaged when faced with irrespon-
sible, under-budgeted, under-qualified, or
uncommunicative prospective developers of
a property next door? The assumption here is
that, unless one of the four adjectives above is
true, the project would be well-planned, man-
aged, implemented, and designed to minimize
damage-risks described earlier. The following
focuses on some common issues and strategies
available to building owners.
Up-front Research
At least some information regarding new
developments is typically available in the public
domain. Specically, plans for new buildings
should be on le with the building depart-
ment in the appropriate municipality. Owners
of adjacent buildings should research the
building department records, which are often
available on the internet, at the rst sign of
adjacent development (e.g. the windows of the
existing building next door are being boarded
up), especially if they have not already been
approached by the developing party next door.
Generally, even if plans related to operations
that are most likely to affect adjacent properties
(such as excavation) are not available, sufcient
information regarding the identity of involved
parties can usually be obtained from the building
department records. Additional useful infor-
mation, such as past violations associated with
the development site or with the developer in
question, may also be available.
C-ConstrIssues-Vatovec-Feb10.ind3 3 1/19/2010 2:49:28 PM
STRUCTURE magazine February 2010
13
A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T
-
F
o
r
A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,
v
i
s
i
t
w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
Communication
Owners of adjacent buildings should try to
contact, and get properly informed directly
from, representatives of the adjacent devel-
opment. A savvy building owner should be
able to recognize if the development is well
planned, if due attention is given to demoli-
tion, excavation, and construction methods,
as well as how the planned activities relate to
existing adjacent building(s). For less experi-
enced owners, the appropriate contact person
on the development side should be able to
walk them through all the processes, and help
them understand and anticipate all potential
issues. However, if plans and procedures are
not made available, if the monitoring plan
and staff that will implement protection is
not dened or divulged, or if full access to all
matters pertaining to the next-door property is
not given, there should be reason for concern.
Regardless of the response from the developers
side, however, owners may choose to retain
an independent consultant (adjacent owners
engineer) to help them through the process
and help mitigate risks. The adjacent-owners
engineer would review the design approach
and preconstruction-survey data, spot-check
monitoring and quality-control programs,
review monitoring data and reports, and visit
the site periodically to review project progress
and condition of the adjacent building. If the
project is going well, the adjacent-owner engi-
neers involvement and time-commitment can
be minimal. If the project is not going well,
if damage is incurred, if information is not
forthcoming, or if any other problem arises,
the engineers role may grow. They may take
on some monitoring and evaluation duties
ordinarily belonging to the developer and
design team or the adjacent property contractor,
as well as provide engineering guidance re-
garding protection and damage management
during construction.
Unfortunately, if the adjacent-building owner
is faced with an unresponsive developer next
door, there are few pleasant options. They may
rely on their independent consultant and their
insurance company to help them navigate
through issues that may arise throughout the
project, but this typically puts them in the
reactive mode. If they dont become part of
the planning process, and if the process is not
managed well, they will only be able to deal
with issues and damage as they occur; they will
not be able to prevent them.
Agreements
One way to attract the attention of an adja-
cent (and unresponsive) developer is to involve
attorneys. This does not necessarily mean that
litigation is imminent, or that some level of
damage was already incurred. Attorneys can
typically reach the appropriate parties on the
other side, and work towards developing a
rm, contractual agreement between neigh-
boring parties even before the project is started.
Ideally, irrespective of whether attorneys are
involved or not, this agreement would typically
dene steps, procedures, and reimbursements
for design and construction review; for access,
monitoring, property protection, responsibility
for damage and repair; and, other factors
that can be anticipated during the course of
the project. Although often not ideal, this
approach offers a clean, agreed-upon method of
resolution for any issues arising from construc-
tion, and it is a better alternative to unplanned
disputes and litigation. In general, there are
three ways for an owner of the adjacent building
to get protection against damage: through
insurance (their own or the adjacent develop-
ment owners), through contractual agreement
with the adjacent development owners, or
through some form of litigation.
Conclusion
Congested urban construction is difcult and
often results in damage to adjacent structures.
Damage and associated disputes can usu-
ally be avoided if proper project planning,
monitoring, and execution are employed.
Early coordination between parties can pre-
vent disputes and reduce risks. Preconstruction
agreements, whether procured through attorneys
or not, are invariably benecial when it comes
to minimizing and resolving damage claims.
Further discussion regarding evaluation and
remediation of building damage, once it has
already incurred, will be presented in the
third article of this series.
Paul L. Kelley, P.E. is a Senior Principal
at Simpson Gumpertz and Hegers ofce in
Boston and a head of East Coast Structural
Engineering operations.
Charles Russo, P.E. is a Senior Principal with
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., and is
Head of Structural Engineering Practice in
their Washington, DC ofce.
Michael Brainerd, P.E. is a Senior Principal
with Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc, and is
their National Practice Leader for Structural
Repair and Rehabilitation.
Milan Vatovec, Ph.D., P.E. is a Senior
Principal with Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
Inc., and is Head of Structural Engineering
Practice in their New York ofce.
C-ConstrIssues-Vatovec-Feb10.ind4 4 1/19/2010 2:49:30 PM
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
i
s
s
u
e
s
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
t
o
e
x
t
r
e
m
e
e
v
e
n
t
s
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
P
E
R
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
STRUCTURE magazine February 2010
14
A Solution to Seismic Bracing Restrictions
Expanding the Acceptance of New Large HSS Sections
By John W. Lawson, S.E.
Concentric Braced Frames of steel hollow
structural sections (HSS) have a long his-
tory of providing efcient designs to resist
lateral forces especially in seismic zones.
The workhorse material standard, ASTM
A500, has provided tubular sections with
a good history of performance. However,
with the adoption of the 2006 edition of
the International Building Code (IBC) in
conjunction with the AISC 341-05 Seismic
Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, it
has become difcult to utilize these sections
in taller clear-height buildings and heavily
loaded applications due to the current
scope of the ASTM A500 standard. Ex-
panding the scope of ASTM A500 to
include the thicker wall sections currently
being produced will provide engineers more
seismically compact sections to choose
from and result in more efcient designs.
In the seismically active Western United
States, very large distribution/warehouse
facilities of 100,000 square-feet to over
two-million square-feet incorporate large
concentric braced frames. The inverted-V-
type bracing conguration, in conjunction
with an Ordinary Concentric Braced Frame
system (OCBF), has been preferred in the
past by allowing material handling ow
beneath and simplied bracing connec-
tions at the expense of higher design base
shear. Figure 1 was taken last year at a
facility in Southern California and depicts
a completed 1,400,000 square-foot dis-
tribution warehouse for a national brand
undergarment manufacturer. This large
building consists of concrete tilt-up walls
with a hybrid panelized at roof system.
The buildings interior utilizes large Hol-
low Structural Sections for the columns
(HSS 10x10x0.3125) and for the seismic
resisting braced frame diagonals (HSS
14x14x0.500).
With the adoption of the 2006 IBC
and referenced AISC 341-05, tubular
sections larger than 10 inches no longer
meet the new limits for seismically com-
pact sections. For an OCBF as used in this
example building, the allowable width/
thickness ratio for square brac-
ing members b/t < 110(F
y
)
was relatively low under the
1997 UBC through 2003 IBC.
For these larger cross-sections,
thinner wall sections were per-
mitted under the code and
complying HSS members were
widely available. In the 2006
IBC, the braces for OCBF
and Special Concentric Braced
Frames (SCBF) both have a
limited width/thickness ratio
of b/t < 0.64(E/F
y
) for square
and rectangular bracing members.
The background of this building code
change can be traced to the Northridge
Earthquake in 1994 and the subsequent
width/thickness ratios incorporated into
the 1997 UBC. Ongoing research has
shown that brace ductility is in large part
determined by the prevention of fracture
due to local buckling behavior under low
cycle fatigue. HSS sections are suscep-
tible to localized buckling. Because both
OCBFs and SCBFs are expected to un-
dergo some limited buckling under severe
ground motions, the braces are required
to meet the special width/thickness ratios
for seismic compactness. Unlike compact-
ness dened for gravity shapes where local
buckling is prevented before the onset of
strain-hardening, seismic compactness
provides resistance to local buckling when
stressed into the inelastic range.
Initially, a new width/thickness ratio limit
was applied only to SCBF by the adop-
tion of IBC 2003, but because SCBFs
require special detailing and because large
sections meeting the seismic compactness
criteria were not available, heavily loaded
and larger clear-height buildings continued
to use OCBFs. X-type bracing congu-
rations (Figure 2b) were avoided due to
perceived erection complexity, the larger
number of connections, and brace obstruc-
tion closer to oor level. Until recently, the
inverted-V-type congurations (Figure 2a)
have been preferred in single story large
clear height buildings.
Researchers cautioned that Hollow
Structural Sections (HSS) under seismic
loading should be avoided unless more
restrictive seismic compactness limita-
tions were adopted. Under the 2006 IBC
(AISC 341-05), width/thickness ratios
for OCBFs now are identical to SCBF
systems. The use of HSS under grav-
ity and wind loading was unaffected by
these changes.
An unexpected consequence of the more
restrictive width-to-thickness ratio is the
elimination of all HSS sections larger than
10 inches square for use in concentric
braced frames. Currently, only ASTM
A500 sections are available for square
braces in seismic applications. Because
the current ASTM A500 standard limits
its scope to a maximum wall thickness of
approximately inch, 12-inch, 14-inch
and 16-inch square sections are unable to
comply with seismic compactness, despite
thicker walled sections being available
from Japan.
One Japanese manufacturer, Nippon Steel
& Sumikin Metal Products Co., Ltd
(NSMP), is producing large HSS products
and exporting them to the United States.
According to Masao Sonoda, General
Manager of Building Products Develop-
ment, NSMP is regularly producing 12-,
14-, 16-, 18-, 20- and 22-inch square sec-
tions with 0.750-inch and 0.875-inch
wall thicknesses. As Table 1 shows, these
large HSS with thicker walls could give
structural engineers a new tool to comply
with the tighter restrictions under the
2006 IBC. By providing heavier walls,
12- and 14-inch square sections can once
again be used for concentric seismic brac-
ing to accommodate heavy loads or long
bracing situations.
In gravity or wind loading situations
where braces or columns are not required
to be seismically compact, cross sections
larger than 16-inch square may be desired;
however, ASTM A500s scope currently
limits section perimeters of 64 inches
or less. While not yet being produced
by North American steel manufacturers,
Figure 1: Large HSS shapes have been common in braced frames
in the seismically active western United States. Expanding the
scope of ASTM A500 will allow use of these shapes that already
comply with the new seismic compactness requirements.
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 2: Examples of concentrically
braced frames.
C-StructPerformance-Lawson-Feb101 1 1/19/2010 3:42:58 PM
STRUCTURE magazine February 2010
A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T
-
F
o
r
A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,
v
i
s
i
t
w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
15
Compactness Requirements:
Width/Thickness Ratio = b/t
(1) Earthquake loading:
b/t < 0.64(E/F
y
) Seismically Compact
(2) Gravity, Wind loading:
b/t < 1.12(E/F
y
) Compact
E= Young Modulus F
y
=Yield Strength
t = 0.93 times the nominal wall thickness
b = the clear distance of at portion between corners.
The outside corner radius equates to 1.5 times of the wall thickness.
t
HSS
t
1.5t 1.5t
B
b
Figure 3.
Japans NSMP is manufacturing 18-, 20- and 22-inch
square sections that could comply with ASTM A500
if the Standards scope were to expand. Without being
subject to the special seismic compactness restrictions,
these extra large HSS shapes provide many additional
opportunities for architects and engineers.
In an effort to continue providing concentric braced
frames in large clear-height buildings, some engineers have
experimented with using round pipes (HSS16x0.625)
as a substitute, but it is difcult to obtain seismically
complying material. And, the reduced radius of gyra-
tions in these sections increases the slenderness and thus
restricts their use to shorter applications.
Another unorthodox option is to ll the 12-, 14- and
16-inch tubes with concrete to stabilize their walls.
However, in addition to the extra material costs, it is
undesirable to bring a concrete subcontractor back out
to the job so late in the process and pump concrete
upwards of 40 feet.
A better approach to the conict between the current
ASTM A500 standard and AISCs compactness limi-
tations is to expand the standards scope of regulation.
Currently, there are applications where these large
HSS sections are being used despite being outside the
dimensional scope of ASTM A500 but equivalent in
quality. At the current time, some US service centers
have started to stock them in their warehouses for lim-
ited uses.
Unfortunately, ASTM A500 currently regulates its
scope to total periphery up to 64 inches, wall thick-
ness up to 0.625 inches. An increase in this standards
scope would once again provide a larger range of brac-
ing sections available for engineers to utilize. At this
time, NSMP has submitted a proposal to ASTM to
expand the dimensional scope to 88-inch periphery
and 0.875-inch wall thickness. With the opportunity
for foreign and domestic producers to supply larger,
thicker HSS material complying with ASTM A500,
more efcient structural systems can provide tall, open
spaces as well as accommodate heavily loaded seismic
bracing conditions.
Size
(in.)
Nominal Wall thickness (in.)
0.250 0.375 0.500 0.625 0.750 0.875
4 x 4 OK OK OK
6 x 6
OK OK
8 x 8
OK OK
10 x 10
OK
12 x 12
OK
14 x 14
OK
16 x 16
18 x 18
20 x 20
22 x 22
Table 1: Seismic Compactness.
John W. Lawson S.E. is a practicing Structural Engineer and Assistant Professor in the
Architectural Engineering Department at California Polytechnic State University, San
Luis Obispo. He can be reached at jwlawson@calpoly.edu.
T u b u l a r s e c t i o n s
custom built
to the highest standards.
Yours.
SuperStruct tubular sections hold up to the strictest
design standards without holding them back.
ManuIacIurcd In a varIcIv oI sIacs and sIzcs Io
vour sccIIIcaIIons
Largc sIzcs Iron 12 u Io 4S squarcs and rccIangIcs
LcngIIs u Io 55'
WaII IIIckncss 5/16 Io 1
LxccIIcnI coIunn sIrcngII and IorsIonaI rocrIIcs
AcsIIcIIcaIIv acaIIng
S00-S25-666S vvv.vaInonI.con VaIIcv, NcLraska
ConIacI KvIc DcBusc aI VaInonI TuLIng IoII-Ircc aI 1-800-825-6668 ext. 3558 or
kld2@valmont.com Io Icarn norc on IIc dcsIgn ossILIIIIIcs oI HSS SucrSIrucI.
Shaded areas indicate availability, but not meeting the scope
of ASTM A500.
C-StructPerformance-Lawson-Feb102 2 1/19/2010 2:50:52 PM
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
s
t
h
e
y
p
e
r
t
a
i
n
t
o
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
S
U
S
T
A
I
N
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
STRUCTURE magazine February 2010
16
Can Using More Wood Reduce Your Environmental Footprint?
By Roxane Ward
Building designers have long recognized
the inuence they have in addressing the
worlds most pressing environmental issues.
In the late 1970s, the oil crisis helped to
initiate what has now been 30+ years of
increasing energy efciency. Today, con-
cern about climate change is resulting in
a similar focus on carbon dioxide (CO
2
).
However, while buildings in the United
States account for approximately 39 per-
cent of the countrys energy consumption
and contribute 38 percent of its CO
2
emissions, there is growing awareness
that material choices also factor greatly
and that wood, in particular, can have
a positive impact on a buildings environ-
mental footprint.
Carbon Absorption
and Storage
The fact that wood is the only major
building material thats renewable and
sustainable is just part of the picture, says
Dwight Yochim, national director of the
WoodWorks program, which provides ed-
ucation and technical support to engineers
and architects designing non-residential
wood buildings. Sustainably managed
forests such as those in North America,
and the products made from those forests,
also have the potential to play a signicant
role in addressing climate change.
As a tree grows, it absorbs CO
2
from
the atmosphere, using the carbon (C) for
growth and releasing the oxygen (O
2
).
Thats as much as most people think
about, says Yochim. But wood is about
50 percent carbon by weight and wood
products continue to store this carbon
indenitely. In a building, for example,
its stored for many decades. But wood
buildings are also easily adaptable and
its becoming increasingly common to
see the wood reclaimed for other uses
so the carbon is actually kept out of the
atmosphere considerably longer.
According to the research rm Dovetail
Partners, Inc., the amount of carbon stored
in U.S. wood products is about 3.5 bil-
lion metric tons (including landll sites).
However, more important from a climate
change perspective is the cumulative impact
over time. Each year, new wood products
represent an estimated 60 million metric
tons of additional stored carbon. Most
of this is in the nations housing stock,
so assuming that more homes are built
than dismantled, and adding any increase
in non-residential wood buildings, the
amount of stored carbon can be expected
to grow considerably.
Given that wood is made using the suns
energy, greenhouse gas emissions are also
avoided when wood is used in place of
materials which require large amounts of
fossil fuels to manufacture. For example,
although cost and speed of construction
were the reasons that HMC Architects
chose wood as the main framing and
structural material for Harada Elementary
School in California, the building includes
more than 23,000 cubic feet of wood,
which stores an estimated 490 metric tons
of carbon and is responsible for another
990 metric tons in avoided CO
2
emis-
sions. The 2010 Olympic Speed Skating
Oval in British Columbia, which has a
six-acre free-spanning wood roof, includes
almost 135,000 cubic feet of wood, stores
an estimated 2,940 metric tons of CO
2
and is responsible for avoided emissions
of another 8,820 metric tons of CO
2
.
Two things complete the cycle, says Yochim
the use of biomass as a carbon-neutral
energy source and forest regeneration.
Forests absorb more carbon when theyre
young because thats when theyre grow-
ing most vigorously. As they get older
they absorb less, until eventually they
start to decay and begin releasing their
stored carbon back into the atmosphere.
Obviously this doesnt mean that all forests
should be managed for timber. North
American forests can and should be
sustainably managed to provide a full range
of environmental, social and economic
values. However, those that are managed
for wood products help to reduce green-
house gases in an endless cycle of carbon
absorption and storage.
Choosing Materials Based
on their Life Cycle Impacts
In terms of material choices, the green
building movement is shifting away from
a prescribed approach and toward the life
cycle evaluation of actual performance,
says Lisa Podesto, P.E., a technical director
for WoodWorks and current chair of the
Structural Engineers Association of Central
California Sustainable Design Committee.
A prescribed approach assumes that
certain materials or practices are better
for the environment regardless of the
situation, says Podesto. For example,
some people might think that recycled
Olympic Oval. Courtesy of FII.
Forest regeneration. Courtesy of Sandy McKellar.
C-StructSustainability-Ward-Feb11 1 1/19/2010 2:51:21 PM
STRUCTURE magazine February 2010
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
17
products are automatically preferable even
though they may require a large amount of
energy to produce and transport, and the
alternate choice may be wood from a local,
sustainably managed forest. It isnt that you
shouldnt use recycled materials, just that other
considerations may weigh more heavily on the
products life cycle environmental impacts,
depending on the situation. Its important for
designers to be able to assess the impacts of
their choices.
To compare materials, life cycle assessment
methodology, or LCA, has received strong
support from the international scientific
community and is increasingly being integrated
into green building rating systems such as the
U.S. Green Building Councils Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED
)
system and the Green Building Initiatives
Green Globes
+ Dual Shield
+ Coreshield
+ Spoolarc
F
o
r
A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,
v
i
s
i
t
w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
27
Validating the Results of Structural Engineering Software
By Clifford Schwinger, P.E., SECB and Eric J. Heller, E.I.T.
The previous Quality Assurance Corner article
discussed the limitations of structural engineering
software. This article discusses methods for validat-
ing the results of structural engineering computer
analysis using simple manual calculations.
Engineers use computers because they can
perform repetitive analysis and design cal-
culations thousands of times faster than if
performed manually with a calculator and pencil.
Obviously, if the wrong data is entered into
the computer, the results will be incorrect.
The purpose of validating a computer gener-
ated design with manual computations is to
verify that data was entered into the program
correctly, and that the software is employing
rational and valid methodologies for design
and analysis.
The goal of performing manual calculations
to verify computer generated design is not
necessarily to match the precise design pro-
vided by the computer analysis, but rather to
get an answer that is comfortably close to the
design provided by the program. As a general
rule, if quick manual computations are within
approximately10 percent of the results provided
by the software, it is reasonable to assume that
the computer analysis and design is correct.
However, if manual computations differ from
computer results by more than 20 percent,
then there is a high likelihood that an error
was made somewhere. Errors in computer-
generated designs are usually the result of
incorrect input, incorrect understanding of
program default settings or lack of under-
standing as to how the software works.
The rst thing an engineer should do when
reviewing a computerized design is to step
back, look at the big picture and ask, Does
this make sense? Although this might seem
so obvious as to not warrant stating, its some-
thing that often does not happen. The engineer
verifying if a computerized design makes
sense obviously has to be an engineer with
some level of experience. No structural en-
gineering rm should ever allow a computer
generated design produced by a junior level,
inexperienced engineer to leave the ofce
without a review by a senior level engineer.
Validating Design of
Gravity Load Framing
The strategy for validating the design of oor
framing plans is to manually design one typical
slab, beam, girder, column and foundation. If
the manual design for these members closely
matches the computer-generated design, then
there is a high likelihood that the computer
input, analysis and results for the other gravity
framing members are correct. Manual design
calculations should also be performed to
review the design of critical members such as
transfer girders. If the manual calculations do
not closely match the computer output, then
the model should be investigated for errors.
Printing reactions on structural steel oor
framing plans can be extremely benecial for
verifying that the correct design loads were
used. Manually computed reactions for typical
beams and girders should closely match the
computer generated values. Printing the re-
actions on steel framed oor plans allows the
engineer to see the ow of the load through
the structure. Mistakes that are commonly
made when using a computer program to
design gravity framing include not counting
or double counting the structure self-weight
(a software default setting) and not using or
improperly using live load reductions and im-
properly assigning design loads. The accuracy
of computer-generated designs is also highly
dependent on the geometry that is dened by
the user. Figure 1 shows a corner column in
a concrete at plate oor. On the left is the
slab edge as modeled. On the right is the nal
required slab edge location. Architectural rene-
ments such as slab edge locations often occur
when the structural design is almost complete.
In the situation illustrated in Figure 1, moving
the slab edge in from the faces of the column
can result in signicant loss of punching shear
strength at the slab-to-column connection.
Architectural changes such as this must be
updated in the structural model to investigate
what impact they have on the structure.
Validating Design of the
Lateral Force-Resisting System
The multitude of building code-mandated
load cases and combinations makes manual
review of computer-designed lateral load re-
sisting systems a bit more complex than manual
review of gravity load framing systems.
slab edge
corner
column
Slab edge as modeled Actual slab edge location
Figure 1: Illustration of discrepancy between slab edge as modeled and actual slab edge location.
The easiest to use software for calculating
wind, seismic, snow and other loadings for
IBC, ASCE7, and all state codes based on
these codes ($195.00).
Tilt-up Concrete Wall Panels ($95.00).
Floor Vibration for Steel Beams and Joists
($100.00).
Concrete beams with torsion ($45.00).
Demos at: www.struware.com
continued on next page
D-QACorner-Schwinger-Feb10.indd 1 1/19/2010 2:53:52 PM
STRUCTURE magazine February 2010
28
While the complexity of precisely analyzing
the various wind load cases and seismic load
combinations is daunting, there is a way to
quickly compute wind and seismic forces on
regular shaped building structures to a level
of accuracy sufcient for verifying designs
produced by computer software.
The following procedures, while not precise
enough for design, are generally accurate
enough to verify that the computer results are
correct for regular shaped buildings of low to
moderate height. These procedures will ush
out signicant errors that might otherwise
have slipped by had manual computations not
been performed to validate the computer-
generated results.
Validating the Magnitude and
Distribution of Wind Loads
Investigate wind loads in each
orthogonal direction. (This
is the basic wind load case.
Investigate other load cases
if appropriate for buildings
with unusual geometries or
framing congurations.)
Compute wind pressure
(windward and leeward) at
the base of building and roof.
Interpolate linearly from
ground level to roof.
Compute the average
pressure.
Compute the total wind
load base shear.
Distribute wind loads to the lateral
force-resisting elements in proportion to
their tributary area. (Modify distribution
where stiffnesses of lateral force-resisting
elements vary signicantly.)
Analyze braced frames, moment frames
or shear walls using the proportioned
wind load.
Validating the Magnitude and
Distribution of Seismic Loads
Investigate seismic loads in each orthogonal
direction. (Note: This procedure is
appropriate for SDC A and B. For
SDC C and higher, results from manual
computations may be less than computer
generated results depending on geometry
and framing conguration.)
Compute the base shear in each direction
using the computer calculated building
period, T.
Compare the manually calculated value
to the base shear determined by the
computer analysis.
Distribute the load in a triangular load
pattern (centroid of loading located
two thirds of the building height above
the base)
Distribute loads to the lateral force-
resisting elements in proportion to the
tributary mass around each element.
Analyze braced frames, moment frames
or shear walls using the proportioned
lateral load.
The procedures above will generally be ac-
curate enough for regular shaped buildings of
moderate height in areas of low to moderate
seismicity within a level of accuracy that will
catch signicant errors in a computer analysis.
A common mistake with computer design of
lateral force-resisting systems is the failure to
consider load path issues where lateral loads
pass through oor diaphragms from one lateral
force-resisting element to another. Figure 2
illustrates a condition where an out-of-plane
offset irregularity in a braced frame transmits
lateral loads into the oor diaphragm. While
many software programs allow oor slabs to
be assigned as diaphragms, not all programs
will design the diaphragms. Validation of the
computers results in these situations requires
recognition of which structural members may
not have been designed by the software.
Conclusion
Validating computer-generated structural de-
sign with manual computations is essential
and can be accomplished quickly within an ac-
ceptable level of accuracy using rudimentary
calculations. While those calculations may not
be to a level of precision accurate enough for
design, they are usually accurate enough to help
engineers spot errors in a computer model.
LEVEL 4
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 2
DESIGN LEVEL 2 FLOOR DIAPHRAGM
FOR SHEAR AND MOMENT. THIS
DESIGN MAY NOT BE PERFORMED
BY THE SOFTWARE.
BF1
BF2
BF3
V
V
Figure 2: Illustration of a structural member
(oor diaphragm) not designed by the software.
Clifford Schwinger, P.E., SECB is a Vice
President at The Harman Groups King of
Prussia, PA ofce where he is the Quality
Assurance Manager. He may be reached at
cschwinger@harmangroup.com.
Eric Heller, E.I.T. is a graduate of Villanova
University and is a Design Engineer at The
Harman Group. He may be reached at
eheller@harmangroup.com.
www.quakewrap.com www.pipemedic.com www.superlaminate.com www.pilemedic.com
SuperLaminate
F
o
r
A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,
v
i
s
i
t
w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
D-QACorner-Schwinger-Feb10.indd 2 1/19/2010 2:53:53 PM
Blank.indd 1 12/30/2009 2:21:08 PM
2010 BRIDGE RESOURCE GUIDE
a denitive listing of major bridge professionals and suppliers
STRUCTURE magazine February 2010
ADVERTISEMENT For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTURE.org
Company Product Description
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
V
e
n
d
o
r
ADAPT Corporation
Phone: 650-306-2400
Email: info@adaptsoft.com
Web: www.adaptsoft.com
ADAPT-ABI
An easy-to-use, cost effective, and practical bridge design software for concrete bridge types: balanced
cantilever (cast-in-place or precast), incrementally launched, span-by-span, cable-stayed, precast-prestressed
girders with eld splicing and topping slab, box girder bridges and more. Handles geometry and stress
control during construction and reports service load design values.
GT STRUDL
Phone: 404-894-2260
Email: joan.incrocci@ce.gatech.edu
Web: www.gtstrudl.gatech.edu
GT STRUDL
Structural Design & Analysis software from the Georgia Tech-CASE Center offers linear and nonlinear
static and dynamic analysis features including response spectrum, transient and pushover analyses, plastic
hinges, discrete dampers, base isolation, and nonlinear connections. New Multi-Processor Solvers enables
the solution of static/dynamic models with over 300,000 DOF.
RISA Technologies
Phone: 949-951-5815
Email: info@risatech.com
Web: www.risa.com
RISA-3D
With RISA-3Ds versatile modeling environment and intuitive graphic interface you can model any
structure from bridges to buildings in just minutes. Then get the most out of your model with advanced
features such as moving loads, dynamic analysis, and over 40 design codes. Structural design has never
been so easy!
Strand7 Pty Ltd
Phone: 252-504-2282
Email: anne@beaufort-analysis.com
Web: www.strand7.com
Strand7
Strand7 is a sensibly priced FEA system. It comprises preprocessing (with CAD import, automeshing),
solvers (linear, non linear, dynamic and thermal) and postprocessing. Release 2.4s many new features
include staged construction, a moving load module, new solvers including quasi-static for shrinkage and
creep/relaxation problems.
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp.
Phone: 800-929-3030
Email: jong@ctscement.com
Web: www.ctscement.com
Rapid Set
Low-P Cement
and KSC
Type-K Shrinkage-
Compensating Cement
Rapid Set
low permeability cement for bridge deck overlays and repairs. Crack-free bridge decks are
possible using KSC
shrinkage-compensating technology.
Decon USA Inc.
Phone: 866-332-6687
Email: frank@decon.ca
Web: www.deconusa.com
Macalloy Tension Rods
Decon USA Inc. offers a wide range of high strength tension rods, compression struts and cables in
stainless steel and carbon steel, diameters of -inch up to 4-inch.
Wheeling Corrugating
Phone: 304-234-2326
Email: bensonmw@wheelingcorrugating.com
Web: www.wheelingcorrugating.com
Stay-In-Place Steel
Bridge Forms
Wheeling Bridge Form is a heavy-duty steel decking system for forming bridge slabs quickly and
permanently. High strength, galvanized Wheeling Bridge Deck is specially designed to sustain heavy loads
and adapts to pre-stressed concrete, built-up girders, or steel beam bridges. Wheeling Bridge Deck also
provides a safe, solid, working platform.
Williams Form Engineering Corp.
Phone: 616-866-0815
Email: williams@williamsform.com
Web: www.williamsform.com
150 KSI All-Thread-Bar
Williams Form Engineering Corporation has been providing threaded steel bars and accessories to the
bridge construction industry for over 85 years. Williams pre-stressing / post tensioning 150 KSI All-
Thread-Bars are high tensile steel bars available in seven diameters from 1- to 3-inch, with guaranteed
tensile strengths to 969 kips.
30
bridge guide Feb10.indd 1 1/19/2010 2:54:21 PM
Blank.indd 1 1/8/2010 10:03:08 AM
Blank.indd 1 11/5/2009 10:07:48 AM
SPOTLIGHT
award winners and outstanding projects
STRUCTURE magazine February 2010
Structural Engineer: HNTB Corporation, Kansas City, MO
Architect: HNTB Architecture with Isaksen Glerum Wachter, LLC, Urbana, IL
Construction Engineer: Roecker Consulting Engineers, Inc., Morton, IL
Steel Fabricator: Blattner Steel, Cape Girardeau, MO
Steel Erector: Prairie States Steel, Champaign, IL
Construction Manager: Hunt Construction, Indianapolis, ID
West Stadium General Contractor: Williams Brothers, Peoria, IL
33
Upholding Tradition
Historic Structure Renovated
From the Inside Out
By Brent Bonham, P.E., S.E. and Jeffry S. Adams, P.E.
After more than 80 years in use, the historic
World War I Memorial Stadium, in Champaign,
Illinois, was due for renewal. The mandate
to preserve this remarkable assembly of 200
Doric columns and other unique faade em-
bellishments dened the design challenge that
distinguished this project. In addition, the
work had to be completed while the stadium
was occupied. The project began in January
2007, and the facility remained operational
for the 2007 football season. It had to be com-
pleted in time for the kickoff of the 2008 season
in September of that year.
The renovation included: wider public
concourses; a portal entryway system; new
restrooms and concessions; permanent seating
additions in the north end zone; an Illini Hall
of Fame; a state-of-the-art press box; luxurious
hospitality facilities, including suites; and, ad-
ditional indoor and outdoor club seating.
While most stadium renovations are ap-
proached from the outside, this one required
an inside-out solution. The additions were con-
structed inside, through and above the existing
facility to preserve the historic structure.
This design concept posed additional, sub-
stantial challenges for the structural engineers,
including:
Adapting, in-place, signicant portions
of the existing upper balcony steel and
precast bleachers below the new suites.
Limiting the deections and vibrations
of the 25-foot long cantilevered oors to
acceptable parameters.
Dealing with differential settlement
between the old and new structures.
Transferring different bay sizes from
the old to new structures. The new
structure is based on a radial grid, with
columns spaced about 30 feet of center
on the arc, and the project team had
to transfer that down to the 45-foot
spacing of the existing columns. None
of the grids aligned.
To further complicate the project, HNTB
Architecture and university ofcials determined
that the new construction needed to upgrade
the facility to comply with current seismic
code requirements; the stadium is located near
the New Madrid fault line. This decision proved
fortuitous when a 5.4 magnitude earthquake
struck southern Illinois in the spring of 2008.
The largest in a century for this region, the
quake rippled through the bedrock of the
Great Plains, the southeast and eastern seaboard
and as far north as Canada. The stadium with-
stood the brunt in shining fashion, while other
masonry structures in the region were damaged.
Designers chose structural steel because of the
complexity of the design, the height of the pro-
posed structure and the speed of construction.
The facilitys existing structural steel showed no
deterioration and was strong enough to with-
stand new construction, including modern
welding. The path, however, was circuitous.
Project teams phased the project over two ses-
sions to allow for continuous use of the facility.
To demolish portions of the main trusses,
resolve differential settlement between the old
and new foundations and minimize cracking
of the existing masonry, the project team engi-
neered the structure to incorporate a unique
jacking system. This required the existing
structure to be shored, jacked, selectively demol-
ished, re-jacked and supported while minimizing
any movement. The solution was to provide
shoring columns and beams to support the
existing trusses prior to being supported on new
transfer trusses which were erected from below.
The foundations were designed to support the
shorting columns and temporary loads. The
construction team continuously monitored the
masonry faade and other brittle elements to
ensure they were not damaged.
While the building had to remain occupied
during construction, building codes did not
address interim construction details. The project
team worked with university building ofcials,
who accepted the use of ASCE 37-02, Design
Loads on Structures During Construction, as
the source for provisions to guide the interim
construction bracing.
Thanks to the creativity of the entire team
and the Universitys leadership, the stadium
has retained its eligibility for the National
Register of Historic Places and for designation as
a National Historic Landmark. The University
of Illinois Memorial Stadium is poised to
continue honoring the fallen while serving the
living for generations to come.
HNTB Corporation was presented an NCSEA Outstanding Project Award for the University
of Illinois Memorial Stadium Phased Development Plan in the 2009 NCSEA Excellence in
Structural Engineering Awards Program.
Brent Bonham, P.E., S.E., serves as
Structural Engineering Quality Manager
(bbonham@hntb.com), and Jeffry S. Adams,
P.E., serves as Structural Project Engineer for
HNTB Architecture (jadams@hntb.com).
Project Team
D-Spotlight-Bonham-Feb10.indd 1 1/19/2010 2:55:02 PM
N
C
S
E
A
N
e
w
s
N
e
w
s
f
o
r
m
t
h
e
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
o
f
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
STRUCTURE magazine February 2010
34
NCSEA 2010 Winter Institute The Marriott Coronado Island Resort
March 12 & 13, 2010 Coronado, California
A two-day seminar featuring Seismic Design: Explaining the Y Factor From One Generation to the Next
Included in the program Friday is a tour of the Charles Pankow Structures Laboratory and the Robert and
Natalie Englekirk Structural Engineering Center at the University of California San Diego.
Friday, March 12, 2010 8.0 Professional Development Hours
7:00 a.m. 8:00 a.m. REGISTRATION AND CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST
8:00 a.m. 8:30 a.m. ASCE 7 Chia-Ming Uang
8:30 a.m. 10:00 a.m. Underlying Concepts in Seismic Design Codes: Application to Steel Building Structures
Seismic loadings and materials design codes have evolved signicantly over the past few decades; but the underlying concept
remains more or less the same. This presentation will demystify these ever-sophisticated codes from a historical perspective.
The 2010 AISC Seismic Provisions will be used to demonstrate how these principles are implemented in the code.
Chia-Ming Uang, Ph.D., is a Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of California, San Diego.
His research area is in seismic design methodology, large-scale testing, seismic analysis and design of steel structures.
Professor Uang is a recipient of two awards from the American Society of Civil Engineers: the Raymond C. Reese
Research Prize in 2001 and the Moisseiff Award in 2004.
10:15 a.m. 11:45 a.m. Design Issues and Evaluation Methods for Masonry Structures
This talk will cover basic concepts on the seismic design of reinforced masonry structures using the strength design method,
including issues and pitfalls in current code provisions. The expected performance of reinforced masonry wall systems
designed according to current codes will be discussed. Analytical methods for performance assessment of different masonry
systems, including older unreinforced masonry structures, will be presented.
Benson Shing, Ph.D., is a Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of California, San Diego. He
has been engaged in masonry research for a number of years, including large-scale testing and nonlinear analysis
of masonry structures. His current research areas include the seismic performance of reinforced and unreinforced
masonry structures, and the development of analytical tools for performance assessment.
11:45 a.m. 12:30 p.m. Q & A with Benson Shing and Chia Ming Uang
12:30 p.m. 1:30 p.m. LUNCH
1:30 p.m. 2:00 p.m. Discussions enroute to UCSD Laboratory
2:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. Tours of UCSD Laboratory and UCSD Shake Table Facility
Attendees will have the opportunity to visit the Charles Pankow Structures Laboratory and the Robert and Natalie
Englekirk Structural Engineering Center at the University of California San Diego. Large scale dynamic and static tests are
often performed in these two laboratories. The most recently commissioned Englekirk laboratory hosts the NEES Large
Outdoor High-Performance Shake Table, a blast simulator and two soil pits for performing soil-foundation studies.
6:30 p.m. 7:30 p.m. RECEPTION
Saturday, March 13, 2009 7.5 Professional Development Hours
7:00 a.m. 8:00 a.m. REGISTRATION AND CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST
8:00 a.m. 9:30 a.m. System Performance Factors for Concrete Structures from a Displacement-Based Perspective
One feature of displacement-based methods of analysis is that they do not rely on R-factors to derive the design lateral
forces. This presentation will compare the design lateral forces obtained using the conventional force-based methods as
prescribed in ASCE 7-05 with those obtained from a displacement-based method. The seminar will also examine the
seismic response of a full-scale 7-story, load-bearing building slice tested on the NEES-UCSD shake table. The building
slice that was designed for lateral forces was computed using a displacement-based method and was subjected to gradually
increasing intensity input ground motions, including the strong record obtained at Sylmar Hospital during the 1994
Northridge Earthquake.
Jos I. Restrepo, Ph.D., is a Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and
Director of Operations of the Charles Lee Powell Structural Research Laboratories, the largest Structures Laboratory
complex in the United States and the world. Dr. Restrepo has received a number of awards, including the 2006
Chester Paul Siess Award from ACI for Excellence in Structural Research, the 2006 Charles C. Zollman Award from
the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute for the best technical paper in the PCI Journal, and the 2008 James Cooper
best-paper award at the National Seismic Conference on Bridges and Highways.
NCSEA News Feb 2010.indd 1 1/19/2010 2:55:53 PM
N
C
S
E
A
N
e
w
s
N
e
w
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
o
f
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
STRUCTURE magazine February 2010
35
Reservations:
The Marriott Coronado Island Resort
1-800-228-9290 or 1-619-435-3000
9:45 a.m. 11:00 a.m. Design Provisions for Wood Construction A Comparison of Past and Present
Early thinking on how to safely design with wood permeates provisions of todays wood design standards for structural
design. A comparison of wood design provisions, past and present, will highlight differences and similarities, as well as expose
underlying considerations embedded in todays wood design provisions. Wood design issues covered include design of wood
structural panel shear walls, connection design, member design, and implementation of LRFD for wood.
Phil Line, P.E., works extensively with wood industry technical committees on the development of wood design
standards, including the National Design Specication
(NDS