SEI Magazine

STRUCTURE
14 th Annual NCSEA Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards
December 2011 Soils & Foundations
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI
SEISMIC ACTIVITY IS NOT JUST A WEST COAST PHENOMENON
Dont Take A Risk With Mother Nature

Natural disasters have been in the news lately. Both here in the U.S., and abroad, Mother Nature has been reminding us that earthquakes are not just a ring of fire occurrence but can happen anywhere, anytime. Thats why in the United States our building codes have been updated to take into account earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados and other seismic activity. Powers is committed to providing products that meet the latest building code requirements and helping designers and engineers understand the importance of specifying code compliant anchors. To help assist the engineering community, Powers Register today for FREE has developed real-time anchor PDA2 software download at: www.powersdesignassist.com software which is now available in a FREE download and our 6th Edition Technical Manual, available through your local Powers representative
Powers has the most code listed anchors in the industry!
Powers Fasteners, Inc. 2 Powers Lane Brewster, NY10509
www.powers.com P: (914) 235-6300 F: (914) 576-6483
Intelligent Structural Design

RAM Structural System V8i (SELECTseries 4)
RAM Elements V8i (SELECTseries 3) RAM Connection V8i (SELECTseries 3)
RAM Structural System V8i (SELECTseries 4)
Complimentary Training With Each New RAM Structural System or RAM Elements Purchase!
Purchase a new software license for RAM Elements or the full RAM Structural System Suite, between now and December 31, 2011, and receive a complimentary registration for up to five LIVE training courses in the virtual classroom a $2200 value! Youll also earn up to 32 Learning Units, Bentleys equivalent to Professional Development Hours. Upon completion of each course, users can self-report Learning Units to their professional associations to maintain credentials. Contact us to learn more.
Software Created Specifically for the Analysis and Design of Buildings

The RAM Structural System is the only fully integrated engineering software with complete building analysis, design, and drafting for both steel and concrete structures. l Leverage a complete building solution l Automate tedious and repetitive design tasks l Increase profitability and provide a better service to your client l Deal with changes in a timely manner l Benefit from an intuitive user interface all easily coordinated with the architect and other team members and their design applications such as AutoCAD, Revit, MicroStation and more.
www.Bentley.com/freeRAMtraining
2011 Bentley Systems, Incorporated. Bentley, the B Bentley logo, MicroStation, RAM, and STAAD are either registered or unregistered trademarks or service marks of Bentley Systems, Incorporated or one of its direct or indirect wholly owned subsidiaries. Other brands and product names are trademarks of their respective owners.
Features
CONTENTS
December 2011
Columns
9 Editorial
The Japan Tohuku Tsunami
By Gary Chock, S.E.
10 Lessons Learned
Exploring the Deep
By Chris A. Kopchynski, P.E. and Joel E. Bahma, P.E.
13 Building Blocks
Controlled Modulus Columns
By Michael Walker, P.E., Frederic Masse and Sonia Swift, P.E.
16 Structural Design
Rational Approach to Design and Analysis of Piers and Marginal Wharves Part 3
32 InSights
By Vitaly B. Feygin, P.E.
Structural Software Interoperability

By Raoul Karp, S.E.
22 NCSEA Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards

At their annual meeting in Oklahoma City, OK on October 22, NCSEA announced the winners of the 2011 Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards. Outstanding Project Awards were presented in eight categories. STRUCTURE presents an overview of all the winning entries.
Departments
34 CASE Business Practices
Why not Risk Management Development?
By Brent White, P.E., S.E., SECB
42 Structural Forum
The Role of Structural Engineers in Clean Energy Supply
By Ashvin A. Shah, P.E., F. ASCE
STRUCTURE
on
14 th Annual NCSEA Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards
the
Cover
In every Issue
6 Advertiser Index 35 Resource Guide (Earth Retention) 36 NCSEA News 38 SEI Structural Columns 40 CASE in Point
December 2011 Soils & Foundations
The Zahner Facility Expansion is a 7,500 square foot structure that houses fabrication and functions as the primary loading dock for their campus. It had to have a column-free floor and 24-foot interior clear height with an overhead crane that could reach every part of the floor. Zahner Sheet Metal is the premier architectural metal fabricator in the world and is well known for producing iconic structures. See NCSEA Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards on page 22.
Publication of any article, image, or advertisement in STRUCTURE magazine does not constitute endorsement by NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C 3 Ink, or the Editorial Board. Authors, contributors, and advertisers retain sole responsibility for the content of their submissions.
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI
STRUCTURE magazine
December 2011
ADVERTISER INDEX
Bentley Systems, Inc. ............................... 4 Computers & Structures, Inc. ............... 44 CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp........ 19 DBM Contractors, Inc. ........................... 6 Fyfe Co. LLC ........................................ 18 Geopier Foundation Company................ 7 Hayward Baker, Inc. .............................. 12 The IAPMO Group............................... 17 Integrated Engineering Software, Inc..... 35 Irvine Institute of Technology.................. 6 KPFF Consulting Engineers .................. 35 MacLean-Dixie ..................................... 31
PLEASE SUPPORT THESE ADVERTISERS

NCEES ................................................. 15 NCSEA ................................................. 11 Pile Dynamics, Inc. ............................... 33 Powers Fasteners, Inc. .............................. 2 RISA Technologies ................................ 43 Simpson Strong-Tie............................... 21 StrucSoft Solutions, Ltd. ......................... 3 StructurePoint ......................................... 8 Struware, Inc. ........................................ 34
IRVINE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

C.V. Chelapati, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE
PE/SE License Seminars Webcast Nationwide/Worldwide Guaranteed Pass or 1 year of free archives NCEES, SE Vertical, SE Lateral 16 hour Also PE (Civil), PEME, PEEE (Power), PEEE (Computer), PEEE (Electr), PE (Env), P (949) 585-9137 Surveying (FS, PS), PMP, Contracts and Legal, CA Seismic and CA Survey
F (949) 585-9126
www.irvine-institute.org
Editorial Board
Burns & McDonnell, Kansas City, MO chair@structuremag.org
ertisement.indd 1
Jon A. Schmidt, SECB 5/10/2011 P.E., 2:33:39 PM
Chair
ADVERTISING ACCOUNT MANAGER

Interactive Sales Associates Chuck Minor
Eastern Sales 847-854-1666
Dick Railton
Western Sales 951-587-2982
Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECB

CBI Consulting, Inc., Boston, MA
Brian W. Miller
Davis, CA
sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
Hess Engineering Inc., Los Alamitos, CA
Richard Hess, S.E., SECB
Mike C. Mota, Ph.D., P.E.

CRSI, Williamstown, NJ
Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc., Marietta, GA
Mark W. Holmberg, P.E.
The DiSalvo Ericson Group, Ridgeeld, CT
Evans Mountzouris, P.E.
EDITORIAL STAFF
Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE Editor Associate Editor Graphic Designer Web Developer Christine M. Sloat, P.E. Nikki Alger
execdir@ncsea.com publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org
Roger A. LaBoube, Ph.D., P .E.

CCFSS, Rolla, MO
KPFF Consulting Engineers, Seattle, WA
Greg Schindler, P.E., S.E.
HDR Engineering, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA
Brian J. Leshko, P.E.
Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.

BergerABAM, Vancouver, WA
Mercer Engineering, PC, Minot, ND
John A. Mercer, P.E.
John Buddy Showalter, P.E.

American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA
Rob Fullmer
webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org
William Radig
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURE (Volume 18, Number 12). ISSN 15364283. Publications Agreement No. 40675118. Owned by the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations and published in cooperation with CASE and SEI monthly by C3 Ink. The publication is distributed free of charge to members of NCSEA, CASE and SEI; the non-member subscription rate is $65/yr domestic; $35/yr student; $90/ yr Canada; $125/yr foreign. For change of address or duplicate copies, contact your member organization(s). Any opinions expressed in STRUCTURE magazine are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C3 Ink, or the STRUCTURE Editorial Board. STRUCTURE is a registered trademark of National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA). Articles may not be
Design/Build Earth Retention Foundation Support Slope Stabilization Ground Improvement Dewatering
reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher.
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

WWW.NCSEA.COM
C3 Ink, Publishers
800-562-8460
A Division of Copper Creek Companies, Inc. 148 Vine St., Reedsburg WI 53959 P-608-524-1397 F-608-524-4432 publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
www.dbmcontractors.com
STRUCTURE magazine
Visit STRUCTURE magazine magazine on-line at Visit STRUCTURE online Visit STRUCTURE magazine on-line at at www.structuremag.org www.structuremag.org www.STRUCTUREmag.org
December 2011
GEOPIER Ground Improvement
Grouted Displacement IMPACT PIERS
GEOPIER PROVIDES DESIGN-BUILD GROUND IMPROVEMENT SOLUTIONS FOR ALL SOIL TYPES
soft compressible soil liquefaction mitigation unstable soils below groundwater uplift/lateral loads tanks slope stabilization replace costly deep foundations heavy loads walls & embankments power plants & towers variable fill
866-265-4969 www.geopier.com
Offices coast-to-coast in the U.S. Internationally in Canada, Latin America, Europe and Asia
Work quickly. Work simply. Work accurately.

StructurePoints Productivity Suite of powerful software tools for reinforced concrete analysis & design
Finite element analysis & design of reinforced, precast ICF & tilt-up concrete walls
Analysis, design & investigation of reinforced concrete beams & one-way slab systems
Design & investigation of rectangular, round & irregularly shaped concrete column sections
Analysis, design & investigation of reinforced concrete beams & slab systems
Finite element analysis & design of reinforced concrete foundations, combined footings or slabs on grade
StructurePoints suite of productivity tools are so easy to learn and simple to use that youll be able to start saving time and money almost immediately. And when you use StructurePoint software, youre also taking advantage of the Portland Cement Associations more than 90 years of experience, expertise, and technical support in concrete design and construction.
Visit StructurePoint.org to download your trial copy of our software products. For more information on licensing and pricing options please call 847.966.4357 or e-mail info@StructurePoint.org.
STR 6-09
Editorial
The Japan Tohuku Tsunami

By Gary Chock, S.E.
new trends, newDisaster techniques and current industry issues Learning from
he ASCE-Structural Engineering Institute Tohoku Tsunami Reconnaissance Team visited Japan in mid-April to examine tsunami effects to buildings, bridges, and coastal protective structures within the inundation zone along over 150 miles of coastline. In the August and October issues of STRUCTURE, we reported on some of our observations and findings on the effects of the March 11, 2011 Tohoku Tsunami, generated by the Great East Japan Earthquake of Moment Magnitude (Mw ) 9.0. Our objective every day was to operate as a mobile failure analysis investigative team to capture as much documentable evidence as daylight permitted. The results of that intense work on the ground, combined with further independent research and collaboration with Japanese researchers, will soon be available from the ASCE Structural Engineering Institute as a 350-page monograph, Tohoku Japan Tsunami of March 11, 2011 Performance of Structures. This comprehensive report will bring forward factual information and numerous photographs on the following topics: The Great East Japan Earthquake and Tohoku Tsunami Pre-Survey Preparatory Research Tsunami Warning and Evacuation Flow Velocity Characteristics Debris Loading Building Performance Bridge Performance Breakwaters Seawalls and Tsunami Gates Quays and Wharves Scour Effects Other Structures Failure Mode Analyses Initial Recovery Efforts Recommendations for Tsunami Mitigation, Future PostTsunami Surveys, and Research Needs I would offer the comment that it has been particularly gratifying to see the results of the failure mode analysis hydrodynamic loading formulation arising from laboratory research appear to be working quite well in predicting observed structural effects. Looking forward, the case studies from this reconnaissance and others will be highly beneficial to the present efforts to develop and validate a modern set of tsunami criteria and loading provisions for the U.S. The ASCE 7 Subcommittee on Tsunami Loads and Effects has nearly 30 members working on this effort. Recent research in developing quantifiable measures of the reliability against collapse inherent in current seismic design methodologies should also provide a framework for tsunami design criteria. For this to someday successfully save lives in addition to mitigating the level of physical destruction, there is also a need for greater evacuation preparation along the Pacific coast. Robust tall buildings can serve as intuitively recognized refuges and, in seismic zones where a level of structural reserve capacity is typically provided, that may be quite economically achievable. However, in proximity of subduction zones, we may need to determine the expected seismic performance level of buildings and essential facilities prior to the onset of tsunami inundation. From another perspective, in looking back at the experiences since March, I have been struck by the differences in media treatment of the earthquake disaster between the United States and Japan. Unfortunately, as an engineer I found the coverage from the U.S. mainstream 24/7 televised media too often to be factually shallow, STRUCTURE magazine
confusing, primarily emotive and generally disinclined to attempt to present numerical data and unable to provide useful summary analyses. Somehow, despite repetitive opportunities, it never seemed to improve in content or accuracy. Before we made our first survey in April of this year, I had replied to a media question that our greatest challenge was to remain focused and on task in the midst of the great expanse of destruction. Unfortunately, it was the U.S. mass media itself that quickly lost discipline in covering the extent of the tsunami devastation, and in failing to follow the societal and economic issues inherent in Japans desire to reconstruct with improved mitigation against tsunami rather than just rebuilding as it was. This makes engineering investigations essential not only as a means of documenting perishable data, but also as a means of conveying the full impact of disasters on communities. On the other hand, English versions of NHK and Japanese print media and various websites (including the Japan Society of Civil Engineers) provided abundant, regularly updated detailed information, as well as offering a greater selection of unabbreviated videos of the tsunami that were very insightful. Rather than emphasizing some aspiring celebrity-newscasters face and ad-hoc commentary as we seem to do in the States, the Japanese reports primarily emphasized actual footage of the disaster and informative content from the field. These were often accompanied by illustrative maps of geography and presented diagrams of infrastructure or failure modes. How could that information possibly be considered boring? The present style of U.S. broadcast journalism coverage generally does the American public a disservice on critical events with societal issues of primary concern to the engineer; that is, the risk of natural hazards, explanations of their effects using quantifiable systems of reference, and to what extent engineered systems and emergency response plans have performed to their criteria and sometimes beyond. It may well be that disciplined practitioners of engineering and the physical sciences are now a counter-culture resource, one that still values formulating hypothesis from facts and remaining open to changing a technological approach based on new data or better insight. We go out to the construction site to validate constructability, and so, too, we visit the research community and disaster sites to validate our design methods. For structural engineers, this cycle of research and development, practical application to the built environment, and learning from natural disasters and technological failures is fundamental to the integrity of our profession. This mode of technical merit-based discernment is also part of a much-needed philosophical counter-weight for society. Why not answer questions first from our perspective without watering it down, thereby forcing a follow-up and deeper explanation of the engineering approach? Then, perhaps, we can deliberately strive to inject content-rich responses to such questions facing society and, when necessary, more bluntly demand that broadcast reporting and journalists provide the technological knowledge the public needs and deserves. American society should be challenged also to learn something meaningful from disasters. Gary Chock, S.E. is the President of Martin & Chock, Inc. and chairs the ASCE 7 Standard Tsunami Loads and Effects Subcommittee. He led the ASCE 2011 Tohoku Tsunami Reconnaissance Team and the EERI 2010 Chile Tsunami Reconnaissance Team. Mr. Chock is also an NCSEA delegate from the Structural Engineers Association of Hawaii.
December 2011
Lessons Learned
problems and solutions encountered by practicing structural engineers
he Casselman Wind Power Project in Pennsylvania sits atop parts of former coal mines unsuitable sites for conventional wind-turbine foundations (Figure 1). To enable Iberdrola Renewables to construct wind turbines on these mine spoils, a team of engineers from Barr Engineering Co. designed a wind-turbine foundation that uses micropiles to reach the bedrock located 50 to 100 feet below ground.
The Project Begins

Wind whips over western Pennsylvanias coal-rich Allegheny Ridge, making it an ideal location for wind turbines. In 2006, Iberdrola Renewables began planning the regions newest wind farm, which would include a complete geotechnical investigation of 23 prospective wind-turbine locations, the design of wind-turbine foundations, and the observation of the foundations construction.
Figure 1: A string of wind turbines along the ridge.
Exploring the Deep

Innovation in Wind-Turbine Foundation Design
By Chris A. Kopchynski, P.E. and Joel E. Bahma, P.E.
Unstable Soils
Chris Kopchynski, P.E. is a Vice President and Senior Structural Engineer at Barr Engineering Co. in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He can be reached at ckopchynski@barr.com. Joel Bahma, P.E. is a Vice President and Senior Civil Engineer at Barr Engineering. He can be reached at jbahma@barr.com.
Field investigations, which included soil boring and rock coring, revealed the types of soils and rock present at the 23 proposed turbine sites. The subsurface conditions varied, and natural soils consisting of sand, silty sand, silt, silty gravel, and gravel with both low- and high-plasticity clay were found near the surface. Bedrock was found anywhere from half a foot to nearly 100 feet below the surface. The investigation also discovered that, like much of southwestern Pennsylvania, this site was formerly used for coal mining. Rocks and soil generated during mining excavations the spoils were dumped in massive, hill-like piles, becoming the regions dominant characteristic and rising up to 96 feet above the bedrock. Beginning as loose piles of rubble and stone, these piles became overgrown with vegetation to resemble a natural landscape. The geotechnical behavior of mine spoils is difficult to predict, and there is a major risk that structures built on such spoils will be exposed to ground subsidence and uncontrolled settlement. The geotechnical investigation found that 8 of the 23 wind-turbine sites were on these unstable and risk-prone mine spoils.
An Engineering Challenge
Most buildings are not designed for significant dynamic loads. Wind turbines, by contrast, are designed as machines to catch and harness wind energy and produce electricity. At times, wind force a combination of aerodynamic and mechanical forces can be extreme and unpredictable, and the machine forces are widely varied and highly repetitive. A wind-turbine tower structure and its foundation receive a wide spectrum of millions upon
millions of fatigue load cycles during the turbines 20-year expected life span. The winds aerodynamic and mechanical forces concentrated at the top of the tower create a huge overturning moment at the tower base, and the wind-turbine foundation must be able to resist this large, concentrated force. More than 90 percent of the thousands of windturbine foundations that Barr has engineered are spread-footing foundations made of reinforced concrete, with typical plan dimensions ranging from 40 to 70 feet in diameter and depths of embedment 5 to 10 feet below the surface. A spread footing transfers the large overturning moment to soils by bearing downward on the soil at its base. Spread footings are relatively simple to construct and are the foundation of choice for most wind projects. However, they require stable soils 50 to 100 feet deep. At some sites with poor soils, spread footings can be used, but require modification of the underlying soils. Excavating and removing poor soils, and replacing and re-compacting the site with engineered fill is one method, but this is feasible only to depths of 15 feet. At the eight project sites, mine spoils were too thick in some places, nearly 100 feet thick for this technique to work. Dynamic compaction is another option, in which a large, heavy weight is dropped from a fixed height to impact, compress, and densify the loose soil. Again, this method was infeasible because the mine spoils contained too much clay and water, rendering dynamic compaction ineffective. Because the mine spoils could not be modified using these lesser expensive methods, a different approach was needed.
The Foundation Solution

The foundation engineers determined that the most viable option for Casselman would be deep-pile foundations. Each of the eight wind-turbine foundations would be supported by piles that extended through the mine spoils to carry the load from the
Figure 2: 24 micropiles installed and ready for the pile cap.
10 December 2011
NCSEA Winter INSTITUTE

Register online @ www.ncsea.com
Get an exclusive, behind-the-scenes tour of the Lake Borgne Surge Barrier. Learn about designing with soft soilwater and wind at this two-day seminar in New Orleans February 10 -11
AL
NCSEA
NT IN CO
ED
Earn 15.25 Diamond Reviewed continuing education hours.
RU
For more information, see page 37.
EN
UR
GIN
CT
EE RS
ST
UIN
Diamond Reviewed
foundation to the competent bedrock beneath. The main problem was how to get these piles through the mine spoils. Large boulders found in the spoils could deflect the piles during driving; augered piles would have similar problems and be even further limited to installation depths of 40 feet. To overcomes these issues, the engineers selected micropiles small piles only 8.5 inches in diameter that are often used when working in tight quarters or for underpinning structures, such as the subway tunnels around the World Trade Center re-construction. This would be the first time that micropiles would be used to support wind-turbine foundations. The micropile installation method proved to be innovative. A rotary drill rig and pneumatic hammer were used to install the outer steel shell of the micropile, which then served as the outer casing for the rotary drill bit. The bit drilled through the mine spoils soil, rocks, and boulders. High pressure air injected at the bit removed the cuttings by blowing them up the casing to the surface. The pneumatic hammer advanced the casing with the drill bit as it removed material. As the drill bit and outer casing advanced through the mine spoils, additional lengths of micropile casing were attached through threaded connections. Drilling continued until bedrock was reached, and the casing was socketed an additional 15 feet into the bedrock (Figure 2).
UC
AT
IO
The foundation design used 24 micropiles for each turbine. And each micropile was installed with an outward inclination of 15 degrees, causing the spoils to press down on the piles to increase stability and better handle the large overturning moment. Loads from the wind-turbine tower were transferred to the piles by a six-foot-thick reinforced-concrete pile cap. The pile cap was heavily reinforced so that it could transfer the highly concentrated moment from the tower into large axial loads through the micropiles. Although small, each micropile has a 450,000-pound capacity when filled with concrete and reinforcing steel. The micropiles installed at the Casselman turbine sites were expected to be subjected to a maximum load of 180,000 pounds under the most extreme conditions. Because the wind turbine was expected to subject the micropiles to countless repetitive load cycles, the design needed to consider stiffness and fatigue, which is unusual for conventional structures.
total construction budget for the eight micropile foundations was approximately $4 million, but final construction costs came in under budget at approximately $3.2 million. Construction at the mine spoil sites enabled Iberdrola to meet significant financial and power-supply commitments made for the project.
Conclusion
The deep-foundation design advances the state of the practice by making possible the safe construction of wind turbines in otherwise unsuitable soils. The design is transferable to other sites, and has been used successfully at similar projects in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. What might have remained an unusable tract of land is now the Casselman Wind Power Project, which generates enough electricity to power 10,000 homes a year. The economic benefits to the region, which has suffered job losses due to the decline of the coal industry, are notable. The project is expected to generate $375,000 annually for the local economy through taxes, easement payments, and landowner revenue. Permanent jobs will be created, and local people will help run and maintain the facility. In addition, the project will help Pennsylvania meet its 2021 target that 18 percent of all energy generated in the State come from alternative or renewable energy sources.
Successful Construction
Preliminary micropile foundation engineering began in October 2006 and the micropile foundations construction was completed in December 2007 in time to meet Iberdrolas critical schedule for delivery and installation of the wind-turbine towers and machinery. The
STRUCTURE magazine
11
December 2011
ith widespread acceptance in the market place, many engineers are choosing ground improvement techniques to provide a suitable subgrade for shallow foundations at sites that would have traditionally required deep foundations. This article discusses the Controlled Modulus Column (CMC) ground improvement technique and some case histories highlighting the use of this technique. CMCs are a sustainable and cost-effective ground improvement technology that transmit load from the foundation to a lower bearing stratum through a compacted soil load transfer layer and the composite CMC/soil matrix. CMCs are constructed using 2000-3000 psi grout and range in diameter from 11 to 18 inches. CMCs have been installed in a variety of soils including uncontrolled fill, organics, peat, soft to stiff clay, silt, municipal solid waste, and loose sands. Typically, the CMCs are installed through the soft or compressible soils and into dense sand, stiff clay, glacial till, or other competent material that serves as the bearing stratum. The CMC installation is an attractive option from an environmental perspective because it utilizes reverse flight augers, which displace the soil laterally. This installation technique achieves two goals: it densifies the soil around the CMC, which improves load transfer into the element, and it eliminates spoils and the associated disposal requirements and costs. The use of traditional augers, used to install auger-cast piles or drilled caissons, might appear to result in a similar foundation system but would not include the benefits of the CMC installation technique. In addition, the hole created by the displacement auger is backfilled with pressurized cement grout that further densifies the surrounding soils. The result is a CMC element that is significantly stiffer than the soil around it. Therefore, the CMCs attract load from above, and transmit that load to the more-competent deeper soils or bearing stratum. In the past, CMCs have been designed with a central steel reinforcing bar, if additional strength is required. When selecting the appropriate ground improvement technology, knowledge of the benefits of each system is key. Because CMCs are a relatively new technology many potential users are not aware of their benefits. Some of these benefits include: Promotes development of brownfield sites underlain by poor quality soils. Avoids excavation and replacement of poor quality soils and limits spoil, reducing waste generation. Avoids driving long steel piles to bedrock. Provides a cost-effective solution compared to conventional pile foundation systems. Allows for the lengths of CMCs to be adjusted in the field without splicing or cutting.
Reduces schedule for installation. Reduces the cost of a structure needing a traditional deep foundation, and its design, by replacing pile caps, grade beams and structural slabs with spread footings and slabs-on-grade. Improves the performance of a methane barrier system, when required, by eliminating complex detailing around pile caps. Eliminates the need to hang utilities under a structural slab, as utilities are installed directly within the load transfer layer. With CMCs, the slab-on-grade can be built after the building is erected, in a controlled environment, resulting in a better quality finish. With traditional pile foundations, the structural slab is typically built before the building. Reduces the carbon footprint associated with foundations. While CMCs are an attractive financial and sustainable option, it has also been demonstrated that the performance of the system is comparable to that of deep pile foundations. Typical CMC designs limit total settlement of a structure to 1 inch and differential settlement to 0.5 inch. Foundation subgrade is typically evaluated for both strength (bearing capacity) and service (settlement). The traditional approach was to use piles to control settlement at sites with poor quality soils. The piles became the supporting elements for the foundation and were designed to resist lateral and vertical loads applied to the foundation. However, the pile capacity required to control settlement may be significantly lower than that required to support the foundations. Therefore, the service goal may require an inefficient system because the pile system ignores the strength of the soil surrounding the piles. Ground improvement is typically more efficient because its design utilizes the strength of the surrounding soil and additional soil-improved strength to meet service load requirements. While the use of CMCs for building foundations are provided in the following case studies, CMCs also have been used for a variety of other applications including foundations for tanks, mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls, and embankments.
Building Blocks
updates and information on structural materials
Controlled Modulus Columns

An Attractive Alternative
By Michael Walker, P.E., Frederic Masse and Sonia Swift, P.E.
Michael Walker, P.E. is a Vice President of GEI Consultants (Woburn, MA), a multi-disciplined team of engineers and scientists. Michael may be reached at mwalker@geiconsultants.com. Frederic Masse is Vice President of Engineering for Menard (Bridgeville, PA), a ground improvement services firm. Frederic may be reached at FMasse@menardusa.com. Sonia Swift, P.E. is a project engineer at GEI Consultants. Sonia may be reached at sswift@geiconsultants.com.
Philadelphia Produce Market

Ground improvement using Controlled Modulus Columns (CMCs) was used at the site of a 550,000 square-foot warehouse on the southeast corner of Essington Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The original foundation design proposed the use of either 8-inch-diameter timber piles or 12-inchdiameter grouted steel pipe piles, both driven to
STRUCTURE magazine
13
CMC Installation at the Essington Warehouse Site. Multiple rigs were on site to accelerate the construction schedule.
a depth of approximately 50 feet. In addition, thickened reinforced pile caps, internal grade beams, and a 12-inch-thick reinforced, 2-way structural slab would be required to connect the piles to the superstructure. Instead, the warehouse was supported using 12.5-inch-diameter CMCs drilled to a depth of approximately 35 feet. The CMCs were placed under individual footings and beneath the slab. The CMC support allowed for the use of spread footings and a 6-inch-thick slab-on-grade, and eliminated the need for internal grade beams. The main purpose of the CMCs was to minimize the settlement of the warehouse, which could have been significant if some type of support was not provided. The building was constructed over municipal solid waste and organic soils that were present in the subsurface profile. CMCs were designed to penetrate the municipal solid waste and organic soil and terminate in the dense sand at depth. Because the site was a former landfill, the spoils would likely require special, costly handling for disposal. An obvious advantage to using CMCs, or any displacement installation method, is that no spoils are generated. In addition, CMCs contain grout only, which is a more sustainable material than reinforced concrete or steel. A comparison of the environmental impacts of a pile foundation and the CMC ground improvement showed a 25% reduction in the carbon footprint of the foundations when using CMCs. The carbon footprint offset calculation was based on the difference in quantity and carbon footprint values for the concrete, steel, and grout associated with the two different schemes. It does not include any benefits of the accelerated schedule associated with the CMC design, nor with the additional carbon footprint required to dispose of extra, potentially contaminated, soils associated with the deep foundation scheme. The ground improvement was completed in the summer of 2009, and the structure is in the final phases of construction.
Bayonne Crossing
Ground improvement using CMC was used at the site of seven new buildings, which form a new shopping complex, at Bayonne Crossing in Bayonne, New Jersey. The seven buildings vary in size from a restaurant measuring 1,645 square-feet to a box store measuring 146,583 square-feet. The difference in use, proposed loading, structural performance criteria, and soil conditions required specific analysis and design of the CMC system for each building. The CMC size, spacing and configuration can easily be modified to optimize the system for varying building geometries, loading and subsurface conditions. The CMCs were placed under individual footings and beneath the slabs for each of the structures, as required. The original design proposed the use of timber piles; however, CMCs were selected as an alternative design by the Contractor. The CMC support allowed for the use of spread footings and 4- to 6-inch-thick slabs-on-grade, and eliminated the need for internal grade beams and pile caps. Originally, CMCs were only selected to replace the piles for one of the buildings, a Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse. However, STRUCTURE magazine
CMC Layout at the Essington Warehouse. CMC support was provided in a grid pattern beneath the slab and beneath a utility line running along the exterior of the building.
as design and construction progressed and the benefits of using the CMC system became obvious, CMCs were selected for the remainder of the buildings. The soils at the site contained uncontrolled, contaminated fill, organics and sand. Environmental investigations performed at the site identified potential chemical hazards that may be present, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and metals including hexavalent chromium. Because the soils at the site were contaminated, December 2011
14
Because of the contamination at the site, using CMCs with the auger displacement system eliminated spoils, and reduced the time and costs associated with permitting and soil disposal. In addition, the schedule for the installation of the foundation system was significantly reduced. While a formal carbon footprint offset calculation has not been performed, past experience leads to anticipation of a 15 to 25% reduction in the carbon footprint of the foundations by selecting CMCs instead of pile foundations. As discussed previously, this would account for the difference in quantity and carbon footprint values for the concrete, timber, and grout associated with the two different schemes. It does not include any benefits of the accelerated schedule associated with the CMC design, nor with the additional carbon footprint required to dispose of extra, potentially contaminated soils associated with the deep foundation scheme. The ground improvement was completed in the summer of 2010 and the structures are currently under construction.
Aerial photograph of the completed Essington Produce Market Warehouse. Courtesy of R. Alan Adams Photography.
Conclusion
The use of ground improvement and the CMC system provide cost and schedule savings and a more sustainable method for construction of foundations on sites with poor quality soils as compared to a more traditional solution using piles, piles caps, grade beams and a structural slab. The CMC system is especially suited to Brownfield developments, and has been successfully designed and applied to a number of projects for warehouses, retail developments and condominiums. A carbon footprint calculation can be used to demonstrate the benefits of the system. A more detailed calculation, including soil disposal issues should be considered.
uncontrolled and compressible, CMCs were an attractive foundation option. In addition to the benefits described previously, the CMC installation auger can also penetrate obstructions in the underlying soils that may damage concrete piles or significantly slow the advancement of steel piles. The CMCs were designed to penetrate the uncontrolled fill and organic soil, and terminate in the dense sand at depth. More than 4,500 CMCs were installed beneath the seven buildings over 4 to 5 months. The length of the CMCs varied depending on the depth to the dense sand layer, with a total of over 165,000 linear feet of CMCs being installed.
STRUCTURE magazine
15
December 2011
Structural DeSign
design issues for structural engineers
Part 1 of this series of articles ran in the May 2011 issue of STRUCTURE, and Part 2 in the November 2011 issue. Please note that the numbering of figures, equations and tables is continuous across all articles. Part 1 and 2 can be accessed in the Archives at www.STRUCTUREmag.org. This simplified modeling technique neglects the t-z spring value developed within the top 5-7 feet below the mudline; however, it yields reasonably conservative results, making pile elastic supports only slightly softer. Another point that is worth mentioning: Elastic Foundation for piles supporting crane beams, unlike EF for piles of the transverse or longitudinal bents, can be modeled with simplified soil springs based only on the linear part of the P-y curves. The crane load for crane girder design should be modeled as a series of point loads from the wheels of two bogies. Load on the wheels of each bogie is based on several critical load cases, including the case of over the corner lift. All lift loads must incorporate an impact factor. Impact force, taken as a percent of the vertical force, is applied only to the crane wheel loads, and is considered only in the design of the crane girders and their connections. Impact is not considered in the pile analysis. The size of vertical impact force is a debatable issue. The primary reasons for vertical impact are: Vertical crane rail misalignment ( -inch) Load lift-off and unloading The paper presented by Griggs at the Canadian Structural Engineering Conference in 1976 indicated that the vertical impact force determined during tests have not exceeded 7% of the vertical static load on the crane wheel. The Whiting Crane Handbook further elaborates: Actual tests have shown that impact on the crane girders rarely exceeds 5% to 7% of static load, even for relatively fast hoist speeds, due to cushioning effect resulting from the torsion spring action of the ropes and leaf-spring action of the girders. The results, presented by Griggs and explained by Whiting Crane Handbook, are described by ramped impulse equation: max = st [1+ T/ *sin(/T)] (Equation 3)
Rational Approach to Design and Analysis of Piers and Marginal Wharves

Design of Seaside and Land Side Crane Girders Supporting Portal Cranes Part 3
By Vitaly B. Feygin, P.E.
Vitaly B. Feygin, P.E. is a Marine Structural Engineer. He is a Principal Structural Engineer with Marine and Industrial Consultants, with offices in Baltimore and Tampa. He is an author of two patents related to Sea Walls, Composite Cofferdams, Bridge Fenders and Port Structures. Mr. Feygin can be contacted at vfeygin.mic@gmail.com .
onventional crane girders are supported by transverse pile caps and intermediate piles spaced at 6 to 8 feet on center. Operation safety requires installation of crane girders at a distance of 6.0 to 7.5 feet from the pier face. The crane girder is designed as a beam on an elastic foundation. Finite Element analysis programs treat the pile as an elastic spring support. The pile length for that analysis is based on pile embedment adequate to develop the pile design load capacity at no appreciable vertical movement of the pile tip. Pile embedment length can be determined from analysis of two geotechnical curves: t-z curve, describes relationship between skin friction stress (t) and vertical displacement (z) q-z curve, establishes relationship between tip resistance stress (q) and vertical displacement (z) Investigation of both curves is extremely important for profiles with weak or moderately stiff soils. Each pile for a crane girder analysis should be modeled with two boundary conditions, based on: Pile length to the point of fixity. A pile is a vertical beam on an Elastic Foundation (EF). As such, the pile does not have a well defined fixity point. It is, rather, convenient approximated by the first 0 deflection point, and well developed shear and flexural forces along the pile elastic curve with at least two (2) 0 slope points. The definition of pile fixity point in reality describes partial fixity with linear rotational spring, kr=M /
The online version of this article contains detailed references. Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
where, is slope of the pile elastic curve and M pile flexural moment at 0-deflection point, sometimes defined as point of fixity Partial fixity modeled with partially restrained pile tip rotation, and vertical spring support. Vertical spring support is based on the linear elastic part of the t-z or q-z curves developed for pile length below the partially restraint fixity point. The pile tip in that model is defined not by the actual pile tip elevation, but the elevation of the 0-deflection point.
Where, [1+ T/ *sin(/T)] is dynamic amplification factor (see Timoshento, et al) is the duration of the impulse, and T is the first mode, known as Fundamental mode, natural period. Table 2 shows the dependence of dynamic amplification on the gradual rise of (). The summary of suggested vertical impacts referenced by different sources is illustrated in Table 3. Vertical impact is taken as a percent of the total force from the dead weight of the container crane or percent of the reaction caused by over the corner lift. The probability of over the corner lift and simultaneous crane run along the rail is next to zero. Modern high capacity container cranes do not have an over the corner lift option; therefore,
16 December 2011
Table 2: Theoretical impact value based on ramped impulse formula.
/T 1.00 0.50 0.25 0.125 0.00
max=st (1+T/*sin(/T)) 1.00st 1.63st 1.90st 1.97st 2.00st
data does not exist, the maximum recommended operational wind speed magnitude is restricted to 25 mph.
Tie Downs, Stowage Pins, Crane Rail Stops

Omissions in design of these seemingly unimportant crane way elements frequently become the reason for catastrophic failures and expensive losses. Design criteria and design of these elements will be covered in a separate article scheduled to be published in a future issue of STRUCTURE magazine.
deck at MLW or MLLW events. It also provides convenience for rubber fender installation. If the installation of a fascia beam is not feasible due to a high tide zone, the designer should consider the installation of discrete fascia panels and fender piles. The spacing of the fender piles should be adequate to prevent a small craft or tug boat from getting under the deck.
lift reaction attributed to the front and back bogies is equally shared by all wheels of the two bogies. Reduction in the impact load can significantly improve economical viability of the crane girder design. The load combinations suggested for design of waterfront crane runways are presented in Tables 4 and 5 (page 19). All piles supporting the front crane girder have to be designed for maximum gravity load produced by over the corner lift, or the most critical lift condition combined with downward wind reaction. No impact load is considered in the pile analysis. The back crane girder should be designed for loads that exclude uplift reaction. The Engineer shall consult with the local Port Authority on allowed operational wind magnitude. If such
Natural Frequency, Seismic Loads and Load Combinations

Determination of the structures Natural Frequency (fn =1/Tn) is based on the spring value of the combined resisting system. Seismic analysis will include a sufficient number of modes to obtain combined mass participation of at least 90% of the pier mass and attributed live load. The seismic response of the pier structure is dominated by the first
Fascia Beam
It is very practical to install a continuous fascia beam along the pier edge. A fascia beam can prevent small craft from getting under the wharf
Table 3: Vertical impact on crane railway.
Reference Griggs Whiting Crane Handbook Russian Standard, SNIP 2.01.7-85
Description 7% of the crane static load 15% from sum of hoist lifted load and weight of grappling device. 10% of the crane static load
STRUCTURE magazine
17
December 2011
or Fundamental Mode of response. Most of the pier mass is concentrated in the deck, and vibrates in that mode. The first mode Natural Period of the structure is determined using the well known expression: Tn =2*[W/(g*K)]
1/2
Where, (W) is the self-weight of the bent + 20% live load on the deck + 40% of crane self-weight (g) is the gravity acceleration in ft/sec2 or m/sec2 (K) is the combined spring constant of the equivalent bent. The first mode spectral analysis method, used for analysis of waterfront structures, is frequently reduced to the Uniform Load Method. The quasi-static seismic force determined from this method is equal to: pe = Csm *W Where, Csm Elastic Seismic Response Coefficient. The Elastic Seismic Response Coefficient (Csm) is determined from formulas described in Chapter 3.10.4.2 of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. It should be based on the point where the Fundamental Period of vibration, Tn, of the Pile Bent falls
within the Excitation or Response Spectrum Period Chart. The Modified (Plastic Response) Base Shear on the Pile Bent is determined using; V bs = Csm *W/R. R is the reduction in structural response due to plastic deformations, damping and over-strength. AASHTO Specifications provide reduction factors only for basic types of resisting systems. When the resisting system consists of two elastic resisting mechanisms, R analysis becomes identical to an analysis of springs in series. Both parameters are physically related. However, analysis of frame ductility is based on Moment-curvature relationship and a reduced stiffness element placed within the length of the plastic hinge, while analysis of other participating systems are based on comparable plastic deformations within the plastic plateau of the material. Ductility of the pile bent is based on the reduced effective stiffness of the concrete pile: EcIeff cr. = My/kyi Where, My is the moment at the point where first tension rebar yields, and kyi is the curvature corresponding to the first rebar yield point, where concrete strain reaches 0.002.
Similarly, equivalent stiffness of the plastic hinge section: EcIeff p.h. = Mp/km Where, Mp is the idealized plastic hinge moment, and km is the curvature at the strain limit corresponding to the investigated level of seismic event.
Notes on Corrosion Protection

The biggest enemies of structural steel in a marine environment are: corrosion abrasion ice The first two items can be readily addressed by modern technology. However, even the best corrosion protection material will be eventually peeled off the steel by sheets of ice in a tidal zone. Pile Protection Frequently, epoxy coating applied to pipe piles subjected to ice action is more damaging to the piles than no coating at all. Salinity of the water in estuaries makes an excellent electrolyte. The smallest chip in the epoxy coating
Fyfe Ad-Oct 2010.indd 1
STRUCTURE magazine
18
December 2011
12/1/10 10:55 AM
Table 4: Suggested Load Combinations. Service Loads.
Mode WOP1 * Crane Dead Load, DL Lift System, LS Lifted Load, LL Impact Load, IL Operational Wind, OWL Storm Wind Load, SWL Earthquake Load, EQ Collision Load, CL 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 / (0)
Operating WOP2** 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 / (0) WOP3*** 0.66 0.66
Stowed 1.0 /(0.66) 1.0 /(0.66)
0.1(LS+LL) 0.1(DL+LS+LL)
1.0
0.66(DL+LS) Operating WOP1 * WOP2** 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.6 / (0) 1.6 WOP3*** 1.0 1.0 1.2 / (1.0) 1.2 / (1.0)
Table 5: Suggested Load Combinations. Factored Loads.
Mode Crane Dead Load, DL Lift System, LS Lifted Load, LL Impact Load, IL Operational Wind, OWL Storm Wind Load, SWL Earthquake Load, EQ Collision Load, CL 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.6 / (0)
Stowed
0.1*1.6(LS+LL) 0.1*1.6(DL+LS+LL)
1.0(DL+LS)
NOTES: * Load Combination for load pick up ** Load Combination for load carried by crane along the crane way within the crane loading bay. *** Impact on Crane Stop Factors shown in parenthesis ( ) are given for case when wind load causes uplift.
may instantly initiate the corrosion process. A galvanic bridge establishes itself between the anode and cathode. Any source of potential difference can create the galvanic bridge: stress concentration proximity of the new and old metal sharp edges on flanges temperature difference (temperature difference is frequently coupled with difference in amount of dissolved oxygen) variation in oxygen content against the water depth mudline acidity metabolic activity of sulfate-reducing bacteria in low water metabolic activity of anaerobic sulfatereducing bacteria at the mudline Interesting phenomenon was reported by divers who investigated corrosion and deterioration of HP-sections, where accelerated
corrosion had started at flange edges and gradually progressed towards the web. At some point, the web of the HP-section became the anode for the flanges and deteriorated at a much faster rate than the flanges themselves. Obviously, the section with rounded surfaces and no sharp transitions stands a better chance of long term survival in a saline and abrasive environment. However, pipe pile sections will stand a much better chance if their surfaces within the pile length, with boundaries 2 feet above MHW and 5 feet below MLW, were protected with HDPE or Fiberglass Jackets. This arrangement is a viable option in cold and moderate climates. An alternate design option is to increase the steel thickness to account for the annual corrosion rate. The corrosion rate in cold climates is much lower than in moderate climate zones. In climates where ice compression strength is low and solid ice sheets do not
STRUCTURE magazine
19
December 2011
form around the pile, the best protection is provided by material produced by Flexcrete: Cemprotec E942. Kobayashi suggested that steel with traditional coal tar coating corrodes more severely in tidal and submerged zones than in a splash zone. Fast corrosion in the tidal zone can be attributed to mechanical abrasion and deterioration of the coating due to ice and wave activity. Corrosion in the zone of continuous immersion, however, cannot be easily explained. Corrosion mechanisms in that zone can be extremely complex. Even variation in the content of oxygen can create an initial galvanic bridge. In that case, the area with lower content of oxygen is anodic towards the area with higher oxygen content. Also, rust entraps oxygen, creating a never ending process. Deterioration, blistering and peel-off of coal tar epoxy coating within 2 to 5 feet below the MLW was frequently observed by divers during underwater inspection. Traditional coal tar epoxy coatings showed quick deterioration and peeling, initiated by mechanical abrasion, aggravated by corrosion and sun UV radiation. Restoration of traditional coal tar epoxy coating below the water is a technically impossible task. Such restoration requires application of a zinc phosphate primer, but the whole process has low dampness tolerance and cannot be used underwater. That makes the repair process of the surface applied corrosion protection a very complicated issue. A very thin layer of coal tar almost certainly guarantees abrasion damage, early corrosion in a tidal zone and deterioration of protection in a splash zone. An alternative coating, E942 offered by Flexcrete Technologies Ltd., makes corrosion protection much more durable, simplifies application and reduces maintenance cost. The coating is damp tolerant, tolerates early immersion, has superior abrasion resistance, and high alkalinity that passivates the steel. However, in areas subjected to heavy ice build-up, HDPE or Fiberglasspetrolatum jackets placed over zones of high abrasion should be considered.
tidal zone as well. The most dangerous type of corrosion for steel girders is Accelerated Low Water Corrosion (ALWC). This form of corrosion, also known as bacteriological corrosion, is frequently found in areas of sharp angular changes in the surface, and is characterized by soft orange corrosion residue, the life product of sulphate-reducing bacteria. Bacteria can reduce seawater sulphates into sulphuric acid. The annual rate of ALWC corrosion can be as high as 1 millimeter per annum. The best way to address this type of corrosion is not to use open sections and to reduce the number of sharp angles. This issue is of particular importance to girder bearing supports, where such deterioration should be prevented at any cost. The usage of Cemprotec E942 can solve the problem. Cemprotec E942 allows 5 times thicker coating than traditional coal tar epoxy coating, and tolerates much lower forms of surface preparation. The material also provides a quick fix maintenance solution. However, steel girders should not be the first choice in tidal zones where ice sheets can develop thickness in excess of 4 inches, and where girders can be partially submerged during high tides. Abrasion Abrasion resistance of structural steel girders can be improved by avoiding sharp angles and protection of the steel in area of ice fluctuation with HDPE or Fiberglass-petrolatum jackets. Buoyancy Buoyancy mostly affects structure during erection. A floating structure could be difficult to set in place. A contractor should proceed with erection during the low water tide, and the structure should be fully-anchored before high tide. Ice Crushing Force The ice crushing force acting on the box girder skin can be easily addressed by closely spaced internal diaphragms. The skin of the girder should be designed as a membrane supported by diaphragms. Skin deflection should be controlled between supporting diaphragms. Skin deflection between diaphragms creates an effect similar to tension field action in the plate girder, when the plate girder behaves like a truss. In that case, stiffeners behave like struts and a buckled web behaves as a tension diagonal. Deflection of such a truss is larger than the deflection of the original plate girder. Therefore, Serviceability of a girder with distorted webs and bottom flange should be closely investigated.
Welds and Fasteners

Selection of correct material for welds and fasteners in waterfront construction is frequently a neglected subject. However, the wrong selection of weld or bolt material can bear catastrophic consequences. Frequently observed extreme rust on welds and bolts in splash, tidal zone and zone of permanent submergence testifies to the significance of the problem. The root of the problem is the dissimilarity of weld and base metal. In the presence of oxygen and an electrolyte, galvanic bridge quickly establishes itself between dissimilar metals. If a weld, or even a fastener, becomes anodic to the base metal, the weld or fastener begins to quickly deteriorate. However, the rate of corrosion can slow down as newer, less corroded, steel is always anodic towards more corroded steel. Cathodic protection frequently favored by structural engineers for protection of submerged steel elements can also aggravate fatigue problems, as it increases production of hydrogen and encourages hydrogen embrittlement of the connection. The pros and cons of cathodic protection should be carefully reviewed for fully submerged structures, and particularly for fracture critical elements with stress ratio -1 R 1. For more information on that subject, interested readers are referred to Survival of Long Span Crane Truss in Marine Environment. In addition, the designer should discuss with the owner all pros and cons of using spiral welded pipes for piles in a waterfront project. While use of spiral welded pipes is well justified in fresh water environments, their susceptibility to corrosion makes them less suitable for projects in brackish or sea water, unless they are filled with concrete and protected with zinc impregnated cementitious epoxy coating on exterior. Additional provisions for protection of such piles in an ice fluctuation zone should also apply.
Protection of Steel Girders

Structural steel can significantly increase the span of the pile cap and reduce the number of piles required. However, there are several issues that have to be addressed by the steel girder designer: Corrosion Abrasion Buoyancy Ice Crushing Corrosion A steel girder is most likely to be located in a splash zone, but it might be overlapped by a
Sheet Pile Walls

Combined sheet pile walls utilizing soldier piles can stabilize the wall against backfill induced down drag. Using sheet piles in tension-compression elements of A-frames should be avoided for the following reasons: possible down drag forces, and weak uplift capacity of sheet piles. If a sheet pile wall is used as a resisting mechanism of the wharf, consideration of a combination sheet pile wall is strongly recommended. Soldier piles of a combination wall can prevent settlement due to soil down drag, and enhance wall stability against circular slip failure.
STRUCTURE magazine
20
December 2011
The new engineered choice.
SCB
SSB
SCW
FCB
Simpson Strong-Tie introduces our slide-clip and fixed-clip connectors for cold-formed steel curtain-wall construction. Unlike other manufacturers, Simpson Strong-Tie provides a total design solution, including the load values of the connector and its anchorage to the structure. By offering a wide selection of connectors that minimize calculations for designers and can accommodate stand-offs up to 11 ", you now have a choicean engineered choice for your curtain-wall projects. As with all Simpson Strong-Tie products, our new connectors for steel-stud framing carry our promise of quality and performance, and are backed by prompt, technical support. Learn more and download our new literature by visiting www.strongtie.com/cfsclips or by calling (800) 999-5099.
2011 Simpson
Strong-Tie Company Inc. CFSCWC11-E
ExcEllEncE in Structural EnginEEring

NCSEA 14th ANNuAl AwArdS ProgrAm
2011 Panel of Judges
The judging was held Wednesday August 17, 2011 in New York City, at the offices of Thornton Tomasetti. The 2011 awards jury included the following individuals: Eli Gottlieb, P.E. Thornton Tomasetti Vesna Hadzibabic, P.E., LEED AP NYC School Construction Authority Scott Hughes, P.E. Robert Silman Associates Tim Lynch, P.E. New York City Department of Buildings Chris Cerino, P.E. STV Incorporated Karl Rubenacker, P.E., S.E. Gilsanz Murray Steficek, LLP Jeff Thompson, P.E., LEED AP Buro Happold
t their annual meeting in Oklahoma City, OK on October 22, NCSEA announced the winners of the 2011 Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards. This awards program annually highlights some of the best examples of structural ingenuity throughout the world. Awards are divided into eight categories: four building categories which are separated based on construction cost, a bridge or transportation structure category, international structures, forensic-renovation-retrofit-rehabilitation structures and an other category which encompasses all types of non-building or bridge structures. All structures must have been completed, or substantially completed, within the past three calendar years. The 2011 Awards Committee was chaired by Carrie Johnson (Wallace Engineering, Tulsa OK). The judging took place in New York City this year, and the judges were all members of the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY). Ms. Johnson noted: We had a record number of entries this year, and the quality and complexity of projects being entered continues to grow. The judges had an enormous task to evaluate all of the projects, and they did an outstanding job. The judging was really close in several of the categories, and the judges indicated that they had an interesting time reading about the various creative ways structural engineers resolve unique and challenging problems. Outstanding Project Awards were presented in eight categories. Please join STRUCTURE magazine and NCSEA in congratulating all of the winners. More in-depth articles on several of the 2011 winners will appear in the Spotlight Department of the magazine over the course of the 2012 editorial year.
STRUCTURE magazine
22
December 2011
NEW BUiLDiNGS UNDER $10 MiLLiON

Outstanding Project
Fishers Island Residence Fishers Island, NY Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP The design of the Fishers island Residence is a response to its unique island setting and the very specific personal interests of the client. To this end, Thomas Phifer and Partners designed a 4,600 square-foot house that is unmistakably modern, but equally organic in its relation to the surrounding garden and landscape. As the projects structural engineers, SOM faced a unique challenge: to develop structural systems which could simultaneously meet the aesthetic architectural requirements and be economically viable and constructible given the site constraints and limited contractor capacity.
Award Winner
Raymond and Susan Brochstein Pavilion Houston, TX Haynes Whaley Associates
Award Winner
A. Zahner Company Facility Kansas City, MO Wallace Engineering Structural Consultants, Inc.
Brochstein Pavilion at Rice University is a simple building; it is a 6,042 square-foot coffee house with 10,700 square-foot of covered outdoor seating that is square in plan. But, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details. The architecture is understated simplicity. The building has floor-to-ceiling glass on all sides. The glass framing, the structure, perforated metal ceiling, overhead shading devices, and interior elements are all white. This simplicity puts the structural design and details front and center. The modern design is a break from Rices traditional architecture, and Brochstein Pavilion has become the social hub of the campus. STRUCTURE magazine
The Zahner Facility Expansion houses fabrication and functions as the primary loading dock for their campus. Well-known for producing iconic structures, Zahner gave the architect free reign to push the envelope on curtainwall design in a desire to create an icon in their hometown of Kansas City. The result is a billowing wave of aluminum that flows down the wall and around the corner. Daylight passes between the deep structural fins which act as mullions. The fins are built up aluminum plate girders comprised of a cut plate web that has a shaped closed section flange attached. December 2011
23
NEW BUiLDiNGS $10 MiLLiON TO $30 MiLLiON

Outstanding Project
HL 23 New York, NY DeSimone Consulting Engineers Located in Manhattans West Chelsea District at the corner of 23rd street and 10th Avenue, the HL23 project creates a new 14-story, 85,000 square-foot ultra-luxury residential building. The floor plate of the building, which is smaller at the base than at the top, owes its uniqueness to the existing elevated Exposed Retrofitted Highline Railway, located at the eastern portion of the building lot. A steel plate shear wall (SPSW) is located at the elevator and stair locations, and braced frames have been utilized for the secondary lateral system at the building perimeter.
Courtesy of Rinze van Brug.
Award Winner
Pasadena Department of Water & Power Building Pasadena, CA Brandow & Johnston, Inc.
Award Winner
Airport Trafc Control Tower Dayton, OH AECOM
Courtesy of Sibylle Allgaier, Heliphoto.
The 31,400 square-foot two-story new office building will also serve the City of Pasadena as an Emergency Operations Center. As the building is located in a very high seismic zone, a state of the art Buckling Restrained Braced Frame (BRBF) system was utilized as the lateral system. The BRBF system was exposed along these faces, and provided a clean and more aesthetically pleasing finished system. The entire design team utilized Revit. This allowed the team to determine any clashes between the structural system and the mechanical/ electrical/plumbing systems early on. The building is LEED certified Gold. STRUCTURE magazine
in celebration of the 100th anniversary of flight, AECOM drew architectural and structural inspiration for the design of this new Federal Aviation Administration tower from the Wright brothers legacy of ambition, discipline and vision. The design goal was to provide an icon for the city of Dayton that exhibited both function and beauty. A diamond patterned, tapered steel structure veiled in glass encloses the central core of the tower as it reaches 225 feet above the surrounding site. The $12 million tower now stands as a landmark for tourists, as well as a tribute to the Wright brothers.
24
December 2011
New BuildiNgs $30 MillioN to $100 MillioN

Outstanding Project
Shriners Hospitals for Children Portland, OR Catena Consulting Engineers The shriners Hospitals for ChildrentM is a network of 22 hospitals specializing in the care of children with orthopedic conditions, burns, spinal cord injuries, and cleft lip and palate. with an aging facility in Portland, the shriners expanded the existing hospital on a constrained site that demanded a creative structural solution. The result: a five-story, 73,000 square-foot hospital addition that spans 90 feet over an existing four-story parking structure. The concept saved the owner $20 million in project costs by using Buckling Restrained Braced Frames for seismic resistance, an innovative system that saved in construction over 10% in structural costs.
Award Winner
Gateway Center Westchester Community College Valhalla, NY Leslie E. Robertson Associates, RLLP
Award Winner
Irving Convention Center at Las Colinas Irving, TX Datum Engineers, Inc.
Courtesy of Jeff Goldberg/Esto.
This 70,000 square-foot project consists of three new buildings. The gateway, a large and open volume serving as a lobby, is flanked by two buildings which house classrooms, offices, an auditorium, student lounge and a cafeteria. The gateways unique structural design consists of architecturally exposed, stackable steel boxes, which are prefabricated and bolted together on site. A steel bridge crosses the gateway and links the three campus buildings. The site is further distinguished by a 65-foot tall steel tower, which is lit at night to serve as a beacon for the campus. This facility received a leed gold rating. STRUCTURE magazine
The irving Convention Center is the first of several phases of a new entertainment district. in order to minimize the building footprint to conserve land for other development, the architect and owner wanted to utilize a stacked design. The lighter convention functions ballrooms, meeting rooms, and food service were located on multiple elevated floors above the main convention space. This arrangement presents unique engineering challenges due to the long spans and vibration transmission through the floors. other architectural elements, such as the long cantilevered roof elements, and elevated terraces above column-free glass entries, created additional considerations that required carefully coordinated solutions. December 2011
25
NEW BUiLDiNGS OVER $100 MiLLiON

Outstanding Project
Ray and Dagmar Dolby Regeneration Medicine Building University of California, San Francisco San Francisco, CA Forell/Elsesser Engineers, Inc. and Nabih Youssef & Associates This new 70,000 square-foot facility, located on a steep hillside, houses several teams studying tissue development and cell based approaches to treating disease. The design-build team was challenged to design and construct this serpentine building supported on a triangular space frame, perched on a steep unstable hill. The structure, which is supported on Triple Friction Pendulum isolation bearings capable of translating up to 26 inches, was analyzed using non-linear response history analyses to verify that the superstructure would remain essentially elastic during an MCE event, and to assess the tendency of the structure to uplift at the uphill edge. integrated Project Delivery techniques allowed the building to be completed in just two and one-half years.
Photos courtesy of Robert Canfield and Bruce Damonte.
Award Winner
Bank of Oklahoma Center (BOK) Tulsa, OK Thornton Tomasetti, Inc.
Award Winner
Arena Stage at the Mead Center for American Theater Washington, DC Fast + Epp
Courtesy of Nic Lehoux.
The anchor of Tulsas Vision 2025, the citys comprehensive downtown revitalization effort, is the new $178 million, 18,500-seat Bank of Oklahoma (BOK) Center. The elliptically shaped, 600,000 squarefoot, multi-purpose event facility features lower and upper bowl seating, a premium level composed of 32 suites and club seating, and accommodates concerts, hockey, arena football, basketball, and community events. Since its completion in 2008, the BOK Center has become an icon for the City of Tulsa and has helped shaped the downtown area. The building is dynamic and exciting, a physical interpretation of the spirit of the people of Tulsa. STRUCTURE magazine
Arena Stage involved the upgrade of two heritage theatres and the addition of a new experimental theatre, and support spaces under a new roof and timber faade a catalyst for redevelopment of a derelict Washington, DC neighborhood one mile south of the National Mall. Significant acoustic issues in the heritage components were a challenge to resolve while providing aesthetically and functionally excellent new facilities on a tight budget. The 500-foot long roof is supported on the new concrete Cradle theater and the 650-foot long glazed timber faade, forming an acoustic barrier around the freestanding heritage theatres. December 2011
26
NEW BRiDGE AND TRANSPORTATiON STRUCTURES

Outstanding Project
Mike OCallaghan-Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge Des Moines, IA T.Y. Lin International Soaring 890 feet above the Colorado River, the Mike OCallaghan-Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge is the first concrete-steel hybrid arch bridge in the United States. The innovative hybrid structure is designed to complement the historic Hoover Dam with the high-performance concrete arch, while limiting the load demands with a modern steel superstructure. The 1,900-foot long Colorado River crossing is the highest and longest concrete arch bridge in the Western Hemisphere, featuring the worlds tallest precast concrete columns of their type. With a 1,060foot main span, Americas newest wonder exemplifies creative achievement and innovation of modern day structural engineering.
Award Winner
Washington Bypass Washington, NC Flatiron and AECOM
Award Winner
Mexicantown Bagley Street Pedestrian Bridge Detroit, MI HNTB Michigan Inc.
The Washington Bypass was a design-build project consisting of a 6.8-mile greenfield bypass route around the city of Washington, NC on U.S. 17, including a 2.8-mile bridge over the Tar River and surrounding wetlands. To minimize the construction footprint, the team developed an innovative top-down construction approach using a now patented overhead Tilting Lead Gantry (TLG). The project resulted in minimal impact to the wetlands and an accelerated construction schedule, and has since been recognized with the Federal Highway Administrations Environmental Excellence Award, the Construction innovation Forums NOVA Award, the American ARTBAs Globe Award (honorable mention), and the AGC of Americas Aon Build America Award. STRUCTURE magazine
Detroits new Mexicantown Pedestrian Bridge is the first cablestayed bridge in the world designed with a single plane of stays and an eccentrically supported deck system. it is also the first cable-stayed bridge in the U.S. designed with a curved alignment, a single pylon inclined in both directions supporting a single plane of stays, a single, variable width steel box girder composite deck system, and tuned mass dampers for both vertical and lateral responses to pedestrian dynamics. it re-integrates a community, and operationally and aesthetically enhances the busiest international trade crossing in North America. December 2011
27
iNTERNATiONAL STRUCTURES OVER $100 MiLLiON

Outstanding Project
Bitexco Financial Tower Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Leslie E. Robertson Associates, RLLP An iconic landmark, the 263 meter Bitexco Financial Tower provides a model for Vietnams global emergence through a sophisticated and sustainable structure built with 21st century construction standards. innovative structural engineering decisions which influenced basement excavation, helipad assemblage, and the outrigger truss design, along with high safety practices onsite, ensured that the project finished before the targeted national celebration. Constructed with locally produced concrete and numerous sustainable features such as LED lighting, the office tower appears as a symbolic beacon towards the future of Vietnam, at all hours, with an energy and material saving design considerate of the world of tomorrow.
Award Winner
Altra Sede Regione Lombardia Milan, Italy Thornton Tomasetti Inc.
Award Winner
U.S. Embassy Beijing, China Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP
Courtesy of Simon Hsu.
Courtesy of Tim Hursley.
The Altra Sede Regione Lombardia is the Lombardy Regional Governments new headquarters complex. A competition to design the new government seat and civic square required entrants to consider a visible symbolic and functional presence in their designs. The final architectural design, by Pei Cobb Freed and Partners, was inspired by the regions interweaving mountain peaks, rivers and valleys and includes general assembly spaces, offices and areas for social interaction. The project includes five nine-story wave-like buildings totaling an area of 98,000 square meters, a 43-story tower, three parking levels and a plaza. STRUCTURE magazine
The new U.S. Embassy in Beijing has redefined the possibilities of embassy design by responding to the strictest of security requirements with elegant, integrated solutions. The structural team creatively reorganized conventional materials and assemblies of architecturallyexposed reinforced concrete, structural steel, and blast-resistant glass to create a secure compound that presents an open and welcoming face to the City of Beijing. An expressive response to difficult design conditions was accomplished through this innovative application of conventional embassy design materials. At 500,000 square feet, the new U.S. Embassy is the second largest non-military compound ever undertaken by the United States government. December 2011
28
FORENSiC/RENOVATiON/RETROFiT/REHABiLiTATiON STRUCTURES
Outstanding Project
Warner Drive Culver City, CA Structural Focus The Warner Drive project involved renovating an existing one-story warehouse to create an upscale venue for parties or production space. A new 110-foot steel truss supports the roof, allowing for the removal of interior columns, and special construction sequencing allowed for truss installation without shoring the roof. in addition, a new one-story parking garage was built below the existing building and a two-story office space was added to the front of the warehouse. The exposed truss and exposed wood framing create a functional and architecturally inspiring spacing, giving new life to a once forgotten building.
Photos courtesy of Michael Schmidt.
Award Winner
Pier Stabilization and Partial Demolition Chester, PA William J. Castle, P.E. & Associates, P.C.
Award Winner
The Carquinez Senior Apartments Richmond, CA Tipping Mar
in 2009, a pier structure on the Delaware River was evaluated to determine the best procedure to remove a partially collapsed section of dock measuring approximately 150 by 80 feet, without damage to the existing structure. Due to shifting of the structure and severe deterioration of the piles, the pier had to be stabilized prior to demolition to prevent further damage or possible injury. To accommodate the confined location and limited capacity of the area to be removed, a precision method of removal was utilized for the demolition of the deteriorated concrete and steel section. Demolition was completed by January 2010. STRUCTURE magazine
With an extremely low budget, a ground-floor retrofit for the 36,000 square-foot Carquinez, achieving life-safety at the DBE hazard (475year return period) and collapse prevention at the MCE (2,475-year return period) was achieved with structural ingenuity. A weak-story building with strong-but-brittle upper stories, it also possessed an inherent torsional imbalance. The solution required designers to strengthen the ground floor while protecting the upper floors, harnessing the strength of the upper floors without taxing them. The final design: four new eight-foot-long concrete walls founded on new grade beams with micropiles. The toughened ground story created base absorption, acting as a filter to absorb most of the seismic energy and protect the upper floors. December 2011
29
OTHER STRUCTURES
Outstanding Project
Left Coast Lifter San Francisco Bay, CA Liftech Consultants The Left Coast Lifter is a barge-mounted crane designed to erect the major components of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge self-anchored suspension span. Owned by American Bridge/Fluor Daniel Joint Venture, and fabricated by Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy industries Co., Ltd., it is the largest barge crane on the West Coast. The boom, or arm, is 25 stories tall and can lift 1700 metric tons, equivalent to approximately one thousand automobiles. The barge is towed by tugboat and adjusted using the barges computer-controlled positioning system. The structure can be folded down onto the barge for transport overseas or within United States waterways.
Award Winner
Cai Guo-Qiang I Want to Believe Exhibit, Inopportune: Stage One New York, NY Gilsanz Murray Steficek
Award Winner
Staring Lake Observatory Eden Prairie, MN Larson Engineering, Inc.
Courtesy of Roger Poctar.
The Cai Guo-Qiang: i Want to Believe exhibition in New Yorks landmark Guggenheim Museum was a site-specific installation, designed by the artist. inopportune: Stage One, Cais largest installation to date, presented cars suspended in the void of the central atrium of the Frank Lloyd Wright rotunda. Structural engineering creativity was necessary for all facets of the installation: determining cable tensions, checking skylight ribs, analyzing the rotunda floor, assessing the system for hanging each car the cables, winches, shackles, etc., and providing reinforcing as needed within each car. STRUCTURE magazine
Staring Lake Observatory is a truly unique public building. Unassuming by design, this 16- by 16-foot cabin in the woods structure is an atypical public observatory and blends beautifully into its wooded lakeshore setting. Most telescope observatories have a track supported sliding roof, or dome with sliding window, through which a telescope is aimed at the sky. Staring Lake Observatory has two rustic, wood-sided walls that swing open and a green, metal rotating roof that allows an unobstructed view of the sky, and showcases one of the largest reflecting telescopes in Minnesota. December 2011
30
Struggling with what kind of foundation pile to use?
MDRS does the thinking for you.
MacLean Design Recommendation System (MDRS) allows you to design custom helical piles for all your foundation projects and tension anchors
Online design tool which creates helical foundation piles based on input factors including: Soil data Loading conditions Automatically generates appropriate helical foundation pile per project guidelines in minutes Allows helical foundation pile to be fine tuned for value engineering Side by side comparison of different helical foundation piles User-friendly for all experience levels Meets ICC-ES AC358 ESR-3032 for: RCS: 1-1/2 and 1-3/4 Pipe Piles: 2-7/8 and 3-1/2 Generates complete set of submittal documents for each helical pile project including: Product drawings Specifications Construction QA/QC forms Creates helical foundation piles for a variety of applications including: New construction Tieback Walkways Solar power
TM
INTRODUCING!
AC358 Approved
ESR-3032
ISO 9001:2008 QSR-938
www.MacLeanDixie.com
Member
Member
InSIghtS
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
n the last two decades, the number of discrete structural software products we use has increased dramatically, along with their capabilities, complexity and power. But the ability of these products to interoperate has not always kept pace. In spite of the great progress of the last decade, many obstacles must still be overcome. We now have to zero in on the key issue, the Achilles heel of (structural) computer programsCompatibility! Hard to believe, but this quote was made over twenty years ago by Charles Thornton and Emmanuel Valivaskis in the ASCE Computing Journal. This article looks at some of what has been done to address interoperability in the Structural Software (SSW) Industry, asks why we are not quite there yet, and postulates on some of the directions the industry is taking to address interoperability.
of these your software product supports, as they are not necessarily always interoperable. CIS/2s weakness is primarily its lack of robust support for non-steel materials, lack of an organization or process to continue its development, and its flexibility in implementation (more on this later).
Industry Foundation Classes IFC

Industry Foundation Classes are data models that are developed under the auspices of the building SMART Organization. IFCs have the ambitious goal of providing a data model for interoperability for the entire building industry. IFCs greatest success has been in adoption by BIM physical modeling products, particularly the IFC2x3 Coordination View (for review and coordination) with over 100 certified implementers. There are multiple ongoing IFC Extension efforts by special interest groups to fill in the gaps in IFCs data models. These projects and the mechanism to initiate such a project are well defined (see buildingSMART website noted in the online version of this article). While IFCs are continuing to be developed, there is work ongoing in identifying subsets of the IFC data that is required to facilitate specific workflows between products. These subsets of the data are commonly referred to as Model View Definitions (MVDs). Several MVDs have already been defined, including the previously mentioned Coordination View and also a Structural Analysis View for interoperability mainly between analysis products. IFCs weaknesses include some gaps in the data model that already exist in competing standards (see Robert Lipmans NIST article on the CIS/2 IFC Gap Analysis), relatively few certified MVDs, the slow pace of consensus building to evolve standards and create MVDs and, similar to CIS, the flexibility for vendor implementation that can cause interoperability issues.
The Road Travelled
Structural Software Interoperability

By Raoul Karp, S.E.
Structural software typically communicates information in one of two ways. Products either interoperate indirectly, passing information through an intermediate common format most often an Open Standard format; or directly with product-to-product communication, most often with vendor (proprietary) solutions.
Open Standards
To efficiently move information from multiple SSW products to each other, a lingua franca is needed, a common data format that each product can read from and write to. AutoCAD DXF could be considered the first such format in our industry. The richness of information contained in software today has outgrown the DXF standard, and many different organizations have been urgently trying to fill the gaps through development of more robust Open Standards. Within our industry, two standards namely CIMSteel (CIS/2) and Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) have achieved the widest market adoption. Both these standards are typically exposed as a file import/export option in popular structural software.
Raoul Karp, S.E. is Director of Product Management in the Integrated Engineering Group at Bentley Systems. Raoul has published several articles on the evolution of design and software interoperation and participated in industry initiatives such as ATC-75 for Structural IFC definition. He can be contacted at raoul.karp@bentley.com.
Direct Interoperability
It is often the case, for strategic or technical reasons, that a direct product-to-product link provides the best or only interoperability option. These direct links often have the advantage that they can share additional data and intelligence that may not be available through an open standard. While direct links are common in the industry and offer competitive advantage in some cases, this solution is not scalable and is difficult to maintain by software vendors as the number of products increases.
CIMsteel (CIS/2)
Computer Integrated Manufacturing of Constructional Steelwork Standard is possibly the most commercially successful of all current standards in the SSW industry. CIS/2 is a robust standard covering all things steel, from gross geometry to, literally, the nuts and bolts. The CIS standard has three different models: Analysis, Design, and Manufacturing. It is important to understand which
Are We There Yet?

Despite significant work in development of standards for interoperability, it remains the single largest impediment to increased productivity in our industry (McGraw Hill SmartMarket). Unlike traditional 2D CAD, when dealing with
The online version of this article includes source references and links to product websites. Visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
32 December 2011
objects, attributes and their relationships in a 3D Model, the differences between how products manage data becomes significantly more divergent and complex. Physical vs Analytical Models Depending on the domain problem being addressed, some structural software may require the absolute true life physical location and extents of a structure (for drawings, clash, or detailing), while others are looking for an acceptable simplification of the structure (analysis for example). The interoperation between two products with this fundamental difference in data format is a challenge. Some vendors have decided to create products where both physical and analytical models are produced together (Autodesk Revit, Tekla Structures, Nemetsheck SCIA, and Bentley AECOsim for example). The end-user is then required to be skilled in both disciplines to effectively create models with these tools, and facilitate appropriate interoperability and keep these two models in sync. Where both physical and analytical models are not available in a single product, the burden falls on the software vendor to appropriately infer one from the other during interoperation; in many cases this requires hands-on decision making by the end-user, effectively slowing down and making the interoperability less efficient. In general, there has been greater market success interoperating between products that utilize the same fundamental data type model, be it physical or analytical. Data Intelligence Lowest Common Denominator With Open Standards, we must understand that the modeling intelligence that a product may associate with its data will be lost in translation. For example, an elevator shaft object that pierces a slab creating an opening, or framing member layout relationships, are typically not part of the information shared between products. The user should consider this when deciding where they want to model their data such that it is most efficient for them. Choose Your Flavor Open Standards allow vendor interpretation and flexibility in how some data is specified. Some vendors choose to implement multiple versions of the Open Standard, each one targeted as a specific product and its particular implementation (flavor) of the standard. Similar issues can arise with different implementation levels
in CIS/2 and IFC. You need to understand which version that each of your products can produce and consume. Saying a product is CIS or IFC compatible is sometimes only half the story. Roundtrip Interoperability The real power of interoperability is evident when a product can continue to synchronize updates of models over time. This technique requires vendors to manage change between subsequent updates. Some vendors like Graphisoft, Tekla, and Autodesk have provided technology to allow the user to manage change at the individual object level from within their products. Others like Bentley Systems Integrated Structural Modeling manage the change in a standalone synchronization product. It is important to confirm if full round-tripping is possible with the product and standard in use, and not just assume it is.
Next Stop?
The need for improved interoperability is not going away, but vendors consistently have to make investment decisions that pit Open Standard development priorities against Direct API links. On the Open Standards front, IFC is likely to garner more and more of the attention. Companies like Tekla, Nemetsheck, Solibri, and Data Design System also provide free tools like BIMsight, IFC Viewer, Model Viewer, and DDS Viewer to allow visualization and coordination between IFC models. Similar tools with capabilities of clash
detection, scheduling, and more are provided by others including Autodesks Navisworks and Bentley Systems Navigator products. However, as long as there are software companies that hold dominant positions in the market or that produce multiple products in one or more market segments, the incentive to provide tight, direct links will exist and continue to be developed. There is also precedence in other industries, such as with JT Open in the mechanical industry, for a collaborative approach amongst software vendors to create a platform for interoperability. This system pulls together the best parts of the direct approach (an API) and indirect approach (common intermediate model). Bentleys Integrated Structural Modeling Platform (ISM) provides similar advantages of visualization, change management, revision history, and interoperability through a strict API or Open Standards. ISM is addressing Bentleys own internal interoperability needs, as well as providing a platform for other vendors to integrate and realize all the aforementioned benefits. Only when the barriers of integration and compatibility are removed will we be ready to cross the final hurdle, to deliver our analysis and designs to the constructors directly from our computers to theirs. Thornton/Valivaskis While much has been done, there is much still to do to realize Thortons and Valivaskis vision of interoperability. This challenge is as significant and pertinent today as it was twenty years ago.
PIT, LITE and PDA

Part of your toolkit for reusing existing foundations
PIT tests for concrete quality and unknown length LITE evaluates depth of steel piles PDA assesses bearing capacity PDA
Cleveland, OH USA +1 216-831-6131
LITE
PIT
www.pile.com
sales@pile.com
STRUCTURE magazine
33
December 2011
CASE BuSinESS PrACtiCES

By Brent White, P.E., S.E., SECB
business issues The Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE) is a national association of structural engineering firms. CASE provides a forum for action to improve the business of structural engineering through implementation of best practices, reduced professional liability exposure and increased profitability. Our mission is to improve the practice of structural engineering by providing business practice resources, improving quality, and enhancing management practices to reduce the frequency and severity of claims. Our vision is to be the leading provider of risk management and business practice education and information for use in the structural engineering practice. assignments, contacts, and other key information for managing a project. The tool has two versions, a long and short form that allow adaption to specific projects and individual firms. Managing the use of Computers and Software in the Structural Engineering Office is a white paper and template that helps a firm assess its computing and software usage and needs. The whitepaper provides suggestions for company discussion and evaluation of how computers and software are being used, how they should be used, and development of a computer and software use policy. Sowhat about Risk Management development? Do we need to do more? I suggest we can all do more to avoid risk in our firms and engineering practice. The CASE tools mentioned here, as well as others previously released, help provide a basis for developing our own risk management programs. A listing and description of all the CASE tools can be found on the CASE website, www.acec.org/case. For more information regarding specifics of CASE tools contact Stacy Bartoletti, Toolkit Committee Chair, sbartoletti@degenkolb.com. All tools are free of charge for CASE member firms. Tools are available to non-member firms for nominal fees. If you are interested in joining CASE, refer to the website or contact Heather Talbert, htalbert@acec.org. Brent White, P.E., S.E., SECB (brentw@arwengineers.com), is president of ARW Engineers in Ogden, Utah. He serves on the CASE Toolkit Committee and is a past-president of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah.
Why not Risk Management Development?
tructural Engineering is a highly technical profession that requires years of effort from the engineer to become competent and proficient. The process to become technically proficient to practice structural engineering includes years of education, more time and effort (years) to gain enough experience to become a licensed engineer, and additional time and effort (years) to become a licensed structural engineer. Additionally, we all invest large amounts of time to keep current through continuing education. In many states, continuing education is a requirement. Regardless of whether the state requires it or not, it is a necessity for anyone practicing structural engineering to continue to develop and enhance their technical knowledge and skills. Professional competence in structural engineering practice is essential to secure the health, safety and welfare of the public. Securing the health and welfare of our structural engineering practices and firms is also essential. Risk Management is an issue that we should all be concerned with, not just company principals and project managers. As structural engineers, do we expend the appropriate amount of time and effort to be proficient in Risk Management? Only we, as individual engineers and collectively as firms, can answer that question. Many firms and engineers do an admirable job in understanding risk and developing plans to mitigate it. Risk Management is a cultural issue that can and should permeate the entire firm practicing structural engineering.
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
What does it take to develop Risk Management skills? When prospective engineers are gaining an education, the technical aspects of the profession command the most attention. Most of us did not even think of things like effective verbal and written communication, contracts, company practice procedures manuals, managing project schedules, or consistency in firm deliverables, among the many other issues that face us as we interact with co-workers, clients, the public, etc. These issues are real, and are critical in managing the risk we face daily in the practice of structural engineering. If we are serious about managing our risks, what should we do? Larger engineering firms may have policies, procedures, education programs, etc., to help employees manage risk. Many others may not even be thinking about these issues. CASE has developed tools that will help engineers develop risk management skills. These tools can help practicing structural engineers and firms enhance risk management development. CASE currently has more than 20 tools in its Risk Management Toolkit that are available for anyone and any firm interested in developing risk management skills. Recently released tools include: Developing a Culture of Quality, Staffing and Revenue Projection, Project Work Plan Template, and Managing the use of Computers and Software in the Structural Engineering Office. CASE and SEI have jointly released a whitepaper titled, Building Information Modeling for the Engineer of Record. Developing a Culture of Quality is a whitepaper and PowerPoint presentation that is intended to help firms have a meaningful discussion about the firms culture. Company culture is hard to define, but it defines the firm and is a basis on which decisions are made, including practice decisions regarding risk management. The Staffing and Revenue Projection tool is a spreadsheet that will facilitate managing a firms staffing requirements. It utilizes company revenue projections and history to project immediate and near term staffing needs. Adequately staffing projects is crucial in properly accomplishing required engineering tasks and avoiding claims. The Project Work Plan Template is an outline document that can be customized by individual firms to outline tasks,
STRUCTURE magazine
34
December 2011
EARTH RETENTION GUIDE

Software Bentley Systems
Phone: 800-236-8539 Web: www.bentley.com Product: RAM Elements V8i and STAAD.Pro V8i
Structural Software Designed for Your Success

CSC
Phone: 877-710-2053 Web: www.cscworld.com Product: Tedds
IES, Inc.
Phone: 800-707-0816 Web: www.iesweb.com Product: QuickRWall
MIDASoft Inc.
Phone: 212-835-1666 Web: www.MidasUser.com Product: midasGTS
RISA Technologies
Phone: 949-951-5815 Web: www.risa.com Product: RISAFoundation
Easy to Learn and Use Analyze Just about Anything! Design: Steel, Wood, Concrete, Aluminum, and Cold-Formed
Sketch, Generate, Import or Copy & Paste Models and Loads Professional, Customizable Reports Building Code Support: IBC, ASCE 7, etc.
IES, Inc
Suppliers Chance/Hubbell Power Systems

PINE STREET TUNNEL, SEATTLE, WA
519 E Babcock St. Bozeman, MT 59715 800-707-0816 info@iesweb.com
Visit www.iesweb.com
Download Your Free 30-day Trial Today
Phone: 573-682-8414 Web: www.hubbellpowersystems.com/abchance Product: Helical Tieback Anchors and Soil Screw Retention Wall System
Foresight Products LLC

Phone: 303-286-8955 Web: www.earthanchor.com Product: MANTA RAY and STINGRAY Earth Anchors
VERSA-LOK Retaining Wall Systems

Phone: 800-770-4525 Web: www.versa-lok.com Product: VERSA-LOK Retaining Wall Systems
Williams Form Engineering Corp.

Phone: 616-866-0815 Web: www.williamsform.com Product: Anchor Systems
Speciality Contractors Hayward Baker Inc.

Phone: 800-456-6548 Web: www.HaywardBaker.com Product: Earth Retention Systems
Subsurface Constructors
Phone: 866-421-2460 Web: www.subsurfaceconstructors.com Product: Deep Foundation, Earth Retention and Ground Improvement
STRUCTURE magazine
35
November 2011
NCSEAs 19 th Annual Conference

News form the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
Ethics, licensing, building codes, how to speak to the media, software decisions so much to talk about and so little time. And that was only ursday! Friday provided additional lectures and panel discussions on everything from being part of an international structural engineering practice to running your own structural engineering business. And, of course, there were some interesting discussions of the Oklahoma City and World Trade Center disasters, forensic investigations, and the code changes that followed. e pictures below, however, provide you with a birds eye view of who came and what they did when they were not in the lecture hall.
NCSEA Past Presidents
Service Award winner Marc Barter
Delahay Award winner Jim Harris
Jim Malley, Outgoing President, and Tom DiBlasi, Incoming President
First MO Executive Director meeting
NCSEA News
Thank you to OSEA and to the MO Executive Directors

On behalf of the NCSEA Board of Directors, Sta , and Committee Chairs, NCSEA extends our sincere thanks and appreciation for all of the hard work and behind-the-scenes e orts that OSEA undertook to help make NCSEAs 19th Annual Conference in Oklahoma City extremely successful! NCSEA also thanks the 8 Member Organization Executive Directors who started up their own group at this meeting, shared ideas, and discussed how to do the best possible job for NCSEAs Member Organizations. James Malley, NCSEA President 2010-2011 December 2011
John Joyce, Aaron Landrum, Alan Kirkpatrick, O.J. Johnston, Sarah Woodard, Carisa Ramming, John Kelley, Carrie Johnson, Dustin Cole and Shannon Koeninger.
STRUCTURE magazine
36
NCSEA News
NCSEA Winter Institute

February 10 -11, 2012, New Orleans, Louisiana Soft Soil Water and Wind
e centerpiece of the New Orleans Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System (HSDRRS), the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) Lake Borgne Surge Barrier, is designed to reduce risk for some of southeast Louisianas most vulnerable areas (New Orleans East, metro New Orleans, Gentilly, Ninth Ward and St. Bernard Parish) from storm surge generated in Lake Borgne and the Gulf of Mexico during a 100-year event. Nearly two miles long and 26 feet high, it is the largest design-build civil works project in the history of the Corps and will be the focal point of the 2012 Winter Institute Friday afternoon visit-and-learn eld trip. Friday morning, Angela DeSoto Duncan, P.E., a 24-year veteran with the Corps of Engineers and the Corps Design Lead for the IHNC-Lake Borgne Barrier, will provide an overview of the IHNC and Lake Borgne Surge Barrier project. Additional lectures, prior to the eld trip, will include: Geotechnical Engineering and Test Pile Program, Lake Borgne Hurricane Surge Barrier, by William Gwyn, P.E., the Geotechnical Engineer of Record; Structural Design of Gates, by Dale Miller, P.E., S.E., the Project Engineer of Record; and IHNC Overcoming Construction Challenges, by Charles M. Hess, Vice President of Operations for Shaw Environment and Infrastructure, Inc. and Shaws FEMA Account Manager. e Friday evening networking reception will be followed by your own opportunity to enjoy New Orleans. 7.25 PDH lectures on Saturday will include:
ASCE 7-10 Wind Loading and Design, by Bill Coulbourne, P.E., national expert in wind and ood mitigation, certi ed in structural engineering and building inspection engineering, who has been involved in FEMA Mitigation Assessment Teams for over 15 years. Design Aspects of Fluid-Containing Walls, Soil-Retaining Walls and Flood Walls on Soft Soils, by Mike Sheridan, P.E., Lead Structural Engineer for the Memphis District of the US Army Corps of Engineers. Building Design for Coastal Flooding and Hurricane and Tornado Shelter Design, by Bill Coulbourne, P.E. (see above). Foundations in Soft and Challenging Soils and Design of Piles and Piers for Lateral Loads, by Mike Wysockey, P.E., Ph.D., president of atcher Engineering, a specialty subcontractor working in design-build earth retention, pile driving, drilled foundations, and marine construction. Register at www.ncsea.com. Reserve your room at the Hotel Monteleone by January 17, 2012, and pay the reduced rate of $165 per night.
News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
NCSEA Webinar
December
is presentation explains how & why the F-Number system should be implemented on construction projects when concrete oor slabs are utilized. Use of a nonstandard test method and failure to specify oor pro les often lead to con ict and litigation. erefore, in order to ensure a quality slab, the following should be speci ed: Overall Ff / Fl values, minimum local values, timeliness of testing, penalty for not achieving the overall values, and remedy for violating the minimum local values. Several American Concrete Institute (ACI) documents that are guides for specifying oor quality will be discussed. Also discussed will be ASTM E1155 (determining Ff oor atness and Fl oor levelness numbers) and its proper implementation. Mark A. Cheek, P.E., FACI is Vice-President of Beta Testing & Inspection, LLC, New Orleans, Louisiana. He has more than 20 years of experience in construction materials testing and inspection. He is a past president of the Louisiana ACI Chapter and is a member of several American Concrete Institute International Committees. He is an examiner for ACI and NRMCA. Mark received his BS in Civil Engineering from the University of New Orleans and is a registered professional engineer in Louisiana and Mississippi.
Flatness & Levelness of Floors, Old Specications/New Methods
AL
EN
G UIN
NCSEA
ED U
Diamond Reviewed
e cost is $250 per internet connection. Several people may attend for one connection fee. is course will award 1.5 hours of continuing education. e times will be 10:00 am Paci c, 11:00 am Mountain, 12:00 pm Central, and 1:00 pm Eastern. Approved in All 50 States STRUCTURE magazine
UR
GIN
CT
EE
RU
RS
ST
IN NT
CO
CA
TIO
37
December 2011
2012 Structures Congress

March 29-31, 2012 The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE Chicago, Illinois Registration Now Open Forge Connections in the Windy City
Register early to take advantage of reduced rates www.asce.org/SEI. Structural engineers from across the nation and around the world will gather in Chicago to attend technical sessions, network with peers, and learn more about the latest products and services from exhibitors. This is an opportunity to collaborate with, and learn from, structural engineering leaders from practice, academia, government, and industry. Eleven tracks of technical sessions will educate attendees about buildings, bridges, and non-building structures. Individual and mini-tracks are organized to explore seismic issues, research, education, and analysis and computation methods. One track of invited sessions will celebrate the rich structural engineering history of Chicago. In addition, the conference will host the Council of American Structural Engineers Spring Risk Management Convocation.
Networking opportunities include Thursday evenings Grand Opening Reception, sponsored by the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute. Panoramic views of Chicago from the 80th floor of the landmark Aon Building will be one of the highlights of Fridays evening reception at The Mid-America Club, sponsored by Alfred Benesch and Company and Thornton Thomasetti, Inc. Other events include Student and Young Professional focused programs, pre-conference workshops, post-conference seminars, and much more. For complete information see the SEI website: www.asce.org/SEI.
August 23, 2011 Virginia Earthquake

Call for Photos and Observations
The Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) seeks photos and observations of damage from the August 23 Virginia earthquake. Because of the wide geographical impact of the event, the Institute is eager to find members and other interested professionals up and down the East Coast who can contribute to EERIs Virtual Clearinghouse on the earthquake. Of interest are impacts on structures, geotechnical elements, transportation, bridges, monuments, non-structural members, and more. Participation in earthquake reconnaissance is critical to improving the understanding of how natural hazards affect our environment. To access the clearinghouse, visit www.eqclearinghouse.org/2011-08-23-virginia/. Use the Interactive Map to post observations and photos to a particular location. To add a post of observations, send an email to eq_clearinghouse@eeri.org. If you have photos and/or observations that you are willing to share with EERI but that cannot be displayed publicly on the map, please contact Justin Marshall of Auburn University directly at jdm0022@auburn.edu. He is compiling such sensitive information on a map that will be shared only within the earthquake engineering research community.
Structural Columns
2012 Khan Distinguished Lecture Series

Dates and Speakers Announced
The dates and speakers have now been set for the Spring 2012 Khan Distinguished Lecture Series to be held at Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA. 1st Lecture Friday, February 17, 4:10 pm Ross B. Corotis, Denver Business Challenge Professor of Engineering, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO Natural Hazard Risk: Public Perceptions & Political Perversities 2nd Lecture Friday, March 23, 4:10 pm Sharon L. Wood, Robert L. Parker Sr. Professor in Engineering and Chair, Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX Opportunities and Challenges for Infrastructure Monitoring STRUCTURE magazine 3rd Lecture Friday, April 20, 4:10 pm Ted V. Galambos, Professor Emeritus, Structural Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN The Safety of Bridges For more information about the Fazlur R. Khan Distinguished Lecture series, see the Lehigh University website: www.lehigh.edu/~infrk/.
38
December 2011
Structural Columns
Bridges 2012 Calendar

Save When You Buy 2 or More
To mark 75 years of service in 2012, the Golden Gate Bridge, one of its iconic towers tethered by sweeping cables, is featured on the cover of the Bridges 2012 calendar. A must-have for bridge lovers, the ASCE Bridges calendar continues to delight and inform. A new, elegant design showcases 12 extraordinary bridges from the United States and around the world. Each featured bridge is accompanied by an explanation of its technical or historical significance and an inset highlighting a unique characteristic. Order your copy and view bridge photos online at www.asce.org/calendar, or call ASCE at 800-548-2723 or 703-295-6300 to place your order. $12.95 (plus S&H) single copy $10.00 (plus S&H) per calendar for orders of 2 or more copies Imprint Your Company Name Advertise your company name and logo all year long with ASCEs Bridges 2012 Calendar,
an ideal holiday gift that leaves a lasting impression and truly connects with your clients and colleagues. To order or for more details on the imprint calendar pricing, please download the order form online at www.asce.org/calendar or contact Chi Wang at cwang@asce.org.
Save on ASCE Structural On-Demand Online Courses

The New Online Course Aluminum Structural Design with the 2010 Aluminum Design Manual is on sale. Save 25% off (*) this and other On-Demand Online Courses through December 31, 2011. Use Promotional code ASCE25 at check out. Visit the ASCE Continuing Education Website www.asce.org/onlinecourses for details and a list of courses on sale. *Other discounts do not apply. Offer not valid on Live webinars, Archived Webinars,P.E. or F.E. Exam Review Courses, Bulk Purchase Discounts or Online Course Sets.
New Civil Engineering Magazine Website

Be sure to visit the new Civil Engineering magazine website www.asce.org/cemagazine which brings you all new news and feature content weekly, going live each Tuesday. Articles have commentingcapabilities, enabling you to offer feedback. From this site, you can also link to the magazines new digital edition, which provides enhanced content in the form of video and slide shows. Just click on the thumbnail in the upper left hand corner of the website. Let us know what you think at cemag@asce.org.
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
Hurricane Program Strengthens

Joint ATC & SEI Conference
As hurricane season is officially underway, several events have already impacted the East Coast of the United States and the Gulf region. Hurricane Irene affected inland and northern areas in unexpected ways. Engineers, researchers, builders, manufacturers, and building officials strive to keep ahead of threatening storms with new and updated design approaches, construction methods, and building and infrastructure products. The ATC & SEI Advances in Hurricane Engineering Conference: Learning from Our Past, to be held October 24-26, 2012, in Miami will bring wind, flood, and meteorological experts together to discuss and learn about how hurricane engineering has evolved since Hurricane Andrew wreaked havoc on South Florida and Louisiana nearly 20 years ago. In preparation for the conference next year, the steering committee including co-chairs Larry Griffis, P.E., M. ASCE, and Chris Jones, P.E., M. ASCE met recently in Miami to finalize the technical program and organize conference events.
ATC and SEI are pleased to announce confirmed and invited plenary speakers.
Julie Rochman, the President of Institute of Business and Home Safety (IBHS), will share the organizations vision and role in reducing the effects of the hurricane hazard to the domestic built environment. Additionally, Tim Reinhold, Ph.D., IBHS vice president for engineering and research, will present the work of the organizations new full-scale wind tunnel testing facility. Reinhold will discuss how this facility can be utilized by hurricane practitioners and researchers to gather important information about the effect the hurricane hazard has on specific building systems and components. Stephanie Abrams of the Weather Channel has been invited to speak at the opening plenary. She graduated from Florida State University and got interested in weather by experiencing the effects of Hurricane Andrew. Visit www.atc-sei.org to learn more about the program as well as exhibitor and sponsorship opportunities.
Errata
SEI posts up-to-date errata information for our publications at www.asce.org/SEI. Click on Publications on our menu, and select Errata. If you have any errata that you would like to submit, please email it to Paul Sgambati at psgambati@asce.org. STRUCTURE magazine
39
December 2011
Case Risk Management Convocation a Great Success in Vegas!

CASE put on a great Risk Management Convocation in tandem with ACECs Fall Conference in Las Vegas an apt location for talking about risk. CASE kicked off its Convocation with a session entitled ConsensusDOCS: Friend or Foe? Presented by Hobie Andrews of Vandevender and Black, this session addressed the ConsensusDOCS, a new family of form contracts that was first introduced in 2007. There are several provisions in these documents that are quite different from the more traditional families of form contracts (AIA, EJCDC, DBIA, etc.), many of which add to the design professionals risk. The purpose of the session was to introduce the ConsensusDOCS contracts, to identify some of the critical provisions, and to suggest alternate language that might balance the playing field and better assure that professional liability coverage remains in place. A major topic of the Convocation was BIM. In his session BIM and the Bottom Line, David Odeh of Odeh Engineers, Inc. used the recent CASE white paper on BIM to guide the discussion. Many session attendees were just starting to use BIM in their practices, but all noted that it is quickly becoming an industry standard. Coordination between engineering disciplines on an
The Newsletter of the Council of American Structural Engineers
approach to BIM would benefit the industry and help firms better serve their clients. Gregg Bundschuh of Greyling Insurance Brokerage and Risk Consulting, Inc. lead the session Risks Associated with Technology. He noted that design firms are exposed to various risks on each project. Most of the risk management items that garner the most attention are design processes such as software, quality assurance, etc. However, there are risks associated with the use of technology. This session focused on these issues which include data integrity, hardware security, business continuity/disaster recovery, as well as the increasing use of BIM. To read the CASE White Paper on BIM, go to www.acec.org/case/publications.cfm.
Thanks to all of our speakers and attendees!
Case Documents Highlight

The CASE Toolkit Committee met at the ACEC Fall Conference in Las Vegas and worked on advancing the development of several Tools. Those tools discussed including the anticipated release dates are identified below: FOUNDATION 2. Prevention and Proactivity 2. Prevention and Proactivity 5. Education 9. Contract Documents TOOL NAME 2-3 2-4 5-4 9-2 Guideline to Performance Evaluations Risk Management Plan Template Talking Points Around Selling Value Versus Commodity Quality Assurance Plan Template RELEASE DATE ON SALE NOW January 2012 TBA 2012 December 2011
These documents will be available for purchase at the ACEC Bookstore: www.booksforengineers.com. Remember, if you are an existing CASE member, you get 24/7 access to these and all CASE documents for free!
CASE in Point
Case Salutes a Founding Member

CASE lost one of its founding members this fall. Richard Linwood Williams, 78, formerly of Roanoke, Va., died on Thursday, October 6, 2011, in Columbia, MD. Mr. Williams was a Registered Professional Engineer, active in the CEC/VA (now ACEC/Virginia) and served as Chairman of Government Affairs, Membership, Political Action, Long Range Planning and Joint Active Committees. He also served as CEC/VA Western Regional Vice President for three terms, President-Elect (1978 to 1979), President (1979 to 1980), and Director (1980 to 1981). Mr. Williams then served as ACEC National Director from Virginia and ACEC Vice President. Mr. Williams was also a charter member of the Construction Specifications Institute and a member of the VA Water Pollution Control Association. STRUCTURE magazine In 1973, Mr. Williams organized his own firm of Richard L. Williams Consulting Engineers, Inc., in Roanoke which specialized in Civil, Structural and Sanitary Services. He devoted extraordinary amounts of time and energy to CEC/VA, ACEC, and ASCE and also served on the Architectural Lay Advisory Committee of Virginia Western Community College since 1970, as well as an instructor in steel and concrete structures. In 1987, he was the first chairman of the Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE). CASE would like to take this opportunity to salute a man who dedicated his professional career to promoting, improving, and teaching the practice of structural engineering.
40
December 2011
CASE in Point
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 Bachelors degree, at minimum, in an ABET-accredited engineering program. 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 in educational support. In addition, the CASE scholarship offers an excellent opportunity for your firm to recommend eligible candidates for our scholarship. If your firm already has a scholarship program, remember that potential candidates can also apply for the CASE Scholarship or any other ACEC scholarship currently available. 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 dont have to be an ACEC member to donate! Contact Heather Talbert at htalbert@acec.org to donate.
JOIN CASE!
The Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE) is a national association of structural engineering firms. CASE provides a forum for action to improve the business of structural engineering through implementation of best practices, reduced professional liability exposure and increased profitability. Our mission is to improve the practice of structural engineering by providing business practice resources, improving quality, and enhancing management practices to reduce the frequency and severity of claims. Our vision is to be the leading provider of risk management and business practice education, and information for use in the structural engineering practice. Your membership gets you free access to contracts covering various situations, as well as access to guidance on AIA documents, free national guidelines for the structural engineer of record, designed to help corporate and municipal clients understand the scope of services structural engineers do and do not provide, free access to tools which are designed to keep you up to date on how much risk your firm is taking on and how to reduce that risk, biannual CASE convocations dedicated to Best Practice structural engineering, bi-monthly Business Practice and Risk Management Newsletter, AND free downloads of all CASE documents 24/7. For more information go to www.acec.org/case or contact Heather Talbert at htalbert@acec.org. You must be an ACEC member to join CASE. You can follow ACEC Coalitions on Twitter@ACECCoalitions.
CASE is a part of the American Council of Engineering Companies
Case Business Practice Corner

If you would like more information on the items below, please contact Ed Bajer, ebajer@acec.org.
Company Files on Home Computers?

Most firms strongly discourage, if not outright prohibit, this practice. It is very difficult to share these files and, should legal action befall those files, a home computer and everything on it would be subject to the discovery process. Additionally, there are client confidentiality concerns. Firms have client confidentiality agreements with many clients. Having files on a home computer could violate them. Virtual Private Networking (VPN) systems are used to create a secure connection between one computer and another computer or network. When you have a VPN connection established, its like you have a personal network cable running from your computer to a firm location, regardless of where you are or whether youre using physical cables at all. Documents can be worked on and saved through the company central servers.
a negotiated point in a contract it stands a much better chance of holding up in court. EJCDC E-500 Owner/Engineer agreement contains (in an exhibit to the agreement) three alternative LOL provisions. It is available at www.contractscentral.net.
Marketing to Major Engineering Prime Contractors

All major primes receive a large number of company marketing offers. It is important to stand out and communicate the exclusivity of your firm. One way to do this is by focusing on a service you provide that is not widely available. Big primes usually have a small business development office that can help direct you to the proper business unit that can use your specific capabilities. Register in the primes database even if a working relationship already exists. Be sure the information is meaningful, rather than cutting and pasting a statement of work. If contacted, show up with your key people including leadership and technical.
Getting Limitation of Liability (LOL) into a Contract

$50,000 or the amount of the engineers fee is a common LOL. The experience of engineering firms getting this into a contract, however, is all over the map. Some jurisdictions do not allow it as a matter of public policy. Some owners and clients flatly reject them. Some jurisdictions do allow LOL through precedential court decisions, and some firms will rarely work without them. It should be a negotiated point and may be better described as risk allocation, which to many is more acceptable. Also, if it is STRUCTURE magazine
In Competition with Big Name Firms

Big name firms are going after every project. Pay close attention to the relevant experience section of the proposal. Possibly get an independent review of your proposals. Take the extra step to explain to the client why size does not matter on the project. You can always try teaming with a large firm to develop a track record. No one is against big firms, but clients need to be reminded it is the small firms that keep expenses down and eliminating them from consideration will result in fewer proposals and higher costs.
41
December 2011
Structural Forum
By Ashvin A. Shah, P.E., F. ASCE
opinions on topics of current importance to structural engineers
The Role of Structural Engineers in Clean Energy Supply
he ASCE Code of Ethics includes enhancement of the environment in its first fundamental principle and sustainable development in its first fundamental canon. The SEI Sustainability Committee has issued Sustainability Guidelines for the Structural Engineer. Structural engineers are active in green building design and in working with material producers to reduce the energy embodied in structures. Much of this activity is in support of the pioneering work by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) to promote energy conservation in buildings, beginning in 1994 with its LEED Green Building Rating System. ASCE has recently announced its own program for establishing a similar rating system for green infrastructure. An energy efficiency drive exists in all sectors of the U.S. economy, often supported by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). In contrast to these well-developed efficiency initiatives that began over thirty years ago, the issue of clean energy supply lags far behind but deserves the attention of engineers in general, and structural engineers in particular, as energy systems integrators. In 2002, the Architecture 2030 Challenge was initiated by architect Edward Mazria with a goal for buildings to become carbon-neutral by 2030 by implementing innovative sustainable design strategies, generating on-site renewable power and/or purchasing (20% maximum) renewable energy. There are some who believe that this is possible by a combination of energy efficiency and clean energy supply. There are others who aim for a lesser goal of eliminating coal-fired power globally by 2030 and reducing gas- and oil-based power more gradually to become carbon-neutral by 2050. While debates on greenhouse gas reduction scenarios may go on among science-based independent organizations, President Barack Obamas State of the Union address on January 25, 2011 issued a specific challenge: Were telling Americas scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the
hardest problems in clean energy, well fund the Apollo projects of our time. In light of this, along with specific policy direction from leaders of Americas scientists and engineers for accelerating the development of renewable energy resources, it is worthwhile for structural engineers to define their role in the clean energy supply effort. Wind energy serves as one example. Today, wind energy has become competitive with fossil fuel energy primarily because of domestic commercial development, even though other countries such as Denmark, Germany, China, and India started at least a decade sooner. In four years (2005-2009), the installed wind energy capacity in the U.S. has grown from less than 5,000 MW to 35,000 MW. By contrast, the total installed capacity of photovoltaic (PV) energy in the U.S. is only 11,000 MW after more than thirty years of heavily subsidized efforts in product development and commercialization. A DOE report states: U.S. is on a trajectory that may lead to 20% of electricity coming from wind but ramping up further to ~16 GW/ year and maintaining that pace for a decade is an enormous challenge, and is far from pre-determined. The involvement of structural engineers in wind energy development is evident from three recent articles: on wind tower foundations (Malhotra, 2010), on wind tower structures (Hansen, 2010), and on wind turbine blade testing (Hines et al, 2011). Structural engineers have a major role in meeting this enormous challenge of maintaining wind energy growth, primarily due to: an increasing number of wind turbine suppliers in global and U.S. markets; the increasing size of turbines, towers, and wind blades; increasingly contentious debates on social and environmental impacts of utility-scale wind turbines (on- and off-shore); and, increasing awareness of distributed-scale wind energy. The potential of wind energy for the fabricated steel market is substantial. The structural steel required for wind turbine support is about 113 tons/MW, so the total steel required for 16,000 MW/year is about 1.8 million tons/year, which is comparable with the mature fabricated steel markets for bridge
construction (0.36 million tons/year), building construction (1.89 million tons/year), and industrial construction (1.46 million tons/year). Unlike the wind energy market, these mature fabricated steel markets are supported by well-established teams of design professionals (architects and engineers), steel suppliers, fabricators, and erectors operating with well-developed standards and regulations adopted by various trade associations and permitting authorities. Consequently, the DOE statement that maintaining a pace of 16,000 MW/year of wind energy development for a decade is an enormous challenge is entirely valid, and structural engineers have an opportunity to work with other stakeholders to support this ambitious pace. Wind energy is distributed-scale clean energy and serves as an example for scientists and engineers to emulate for developing other technologies such as combined heat and power (CHP) plants, solar PV, concentrated solar PV (with CHP), concentrated solar thermal (with CHP and hybrid with biomass or natural gas), biomass/bioenergy, thermal energy storage and heat pumps, electrical energy storage, and smart grid. These technologies have unresolved technical, commercial, social, and environmental issues that require multidisciplinary engineering effort which may be led by structural engineers in their natural role as system integrators. The push for clean energy supply is taking shape globally, but not in as organized a fashion as the energy efficiency effort in the U.S. The opportunity exists for structural engineers to reach out to other design professionals and collectively respond to President Obamas clean energy challenge by implementing the policy direction from Americas leaders in science and engineering for accelerating the development of renewable energy resources. Ashvin A. Shah, P .E. (ashvinshah@aol.com), is a structural engineer in Scarsdale, New York. He is active in voluntary work in clean energy technologies with engineers in India and the U.S. The online version of this article contains detailed references. Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
STRUCTURE magazine
42
December 2011
Are You Connected?
12 20 re tu le uc tib tr pa tS vi Com Re
Visit www.risa.com/revitstructure to download your free link today!
www.risa.com
800.332.RISA
2011 RISA Technologies, LLC

SEI Magazine

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SEI Magazine

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STRUCTURE

14 th Annual NCSEA Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards

December 2011 Soils & Foundations

A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

SEISMIC ACTIVITY IS NOT JUST A WEST COAST PHENOMENON

Dont Take A Risk With Mother Nature

Powers has the most code listed anchors in the industry!

Powers Fasteners, Inc. 2 Powers Lane Brewster, NY10509

www.powers.com P: (914) 235-6300 F: (914) 576-6483

Intelligent Structural Design

RAM Elements V8i (SELECTseries 3) RAM Connection V8i (SELECTseries 3)

RAM Structural System V8i (SELECTseries 4)

Software Created Specifically for the Analysis and Design of Buildings

By Vitaly B. Feygin, P.E.

Structural Software Interoperability

22 NCSEA Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards

December 2011 Soils & Foundations

A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

PLEASE SUPPORT THESE ADVERTISERS

IRVINE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Jon A. Schmidt, SECB 5/10/2011 P.E., 2:33:39 PM

ADVERTISING ACCOUNT MANAGER

Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECB

Hess Engineering Inc., Los Alamitos, CA

Richard Hess, S.E., SECB

Mike C. Mota, Ph.D., P.E.

Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc., Marietta, GA

Mark W. Holmberg, P.E.

The DiSalvo Ericson Group, Ridgeeld, CT

Evans Mountzouris, P.E.

Roger A. LaBoube, Ph.D., P .E.

KPFF Consulting Engineers, Seattle, WA

Greg Schindler, P.E., S.E.

HDR Engineering, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA

Brian J. Leshko, P.E.

Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.

Mercer Engineering, PC, Minot, ND

John A. Mercer, P.E.

John Buddy Showalter, P.E.

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

reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher.

National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

GEOPIER Ground Improvement

Grouted Displacement IMPACT PIERS

Work quickly. Work simply. Work accurately.

The Japan Tohuku Tsunami

The Project Begins

Figure 1: A string of wind turbines along the ridge.

Exploring the Deep

The Foundation Solution

Figure 2: 24 micropiles installed and ready for the pile cap.

NCSEA Winter INSTITUTE

Earn 15.25 Diamond Reviewed continuing education hours.

For more information, see page 37.

Controlled Modulus Columns

Philadelphia Produce Market

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

Rational Approach to Design and Analysis of Piers and Marginal Wharves

Table 2: Theoretical impact value based on ramped impulse formula.

/T 1.00 0.50 0.25 0.125 0.00

max=st (1+T/*sin(/T)) 1.00st 1.63st 1.90st 1.97st 2.00st

Tie Downs, Stowage Pins, Crane Rail Stops

Natural Frequency, Seismic Loads and Load Combinations

Reference Griggs Whiting Crane Handbook Russian Standard, SNIP 2.01.7-85