®

2010
Steel
November
STRUCTURE
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI
With the changes to The Building Codes in 48 states, you need someone
in your corner you can count on to support and validate your specifying
decisions. Powers Fasteners has committed the necessary resources
to offer a comprehensive lineup of the most ICC-ES Code Listed
Products available. Call today (888) 745-CODE (2633) for an
appointment to learn more about
code compliance solutions,
or visit our website at
www.powers.com for
INVESTMENT IN TESTING
more information. WITH STATE-OF-THE-ART
ON SITE FACILITY

OUR COMMITMENT TO
QUALITY WITH ISO 9001
CERTIFICATION

PDA ANCHOR DESIGN INTERFACE DELIVERS

REAL TIME ANCHOR DESIGN SOLUTIONS

THE MOST ICC-ES

CODE LISTED
PRODUCTS
CONTINUING AVAILABLE
EDUCATION PROGRAM
FOR CREDITS WITH
LUNCH AND LEARN

ASK OUR
EXPERTS ABOUT
CODE COMPLIANT
ANCHORS

INSTALLATION TRAINING VIDEOS

AVAILABLE ONLINE

Congratulation
JOBSITE
PULL POWERS TRAINING to the 2010
TESTS VEHICLES PROVIDE ON
SITE DEMONSTRATIONS
Best Firm
AND TRAINING Winners!

Powers Fasteners, Inc. www.powers.com

2 Powers Lane P: (914) 235-6300
Brewster, NY 10509 F: (914) 576-6483
 Metal Wood Framer for Revit
Metal-Wood-Framing Software Now Available for
Autodesk Revit Architecture and Structure 2011

StrucSoft Solutions’ light gauge metal and wood framing

solution automates stud design and manufacturing in
Revit BIM environment

This program is suitable for

architects, engineers, estimators and builders

Highlights:
• Template/rules driven
• Auto-detect Revit walls, doors,
windows and openings
• Stud arrangement and panelizing
• Bearing beams and bracing
• Panel joints and kickers
• Curtain wall supports
• Sheathing and panel numbering
• Shop drawings and cut lists
• MEP clash detection and opening framing
• Simpson Strong-Tie connectors
• Link to Sizer WoodWorks interface
 BUILDING INTELLIGENT CONNECTIONS.

Why settle for this?

When your software can do this?

SDS/2 is the only BIM software that designs connections intelligently. This means it recognizes — and resolves — erectability
issues and framing conditions while automatically designing connections.

SDS/2 takes the work out of completing your BIM model. With SDS/2’s power to engineer joints and superior connections to
project partners, viewing the as-built model enables you to get the job done better, faster and smarter.

Visit sds2.com or call 800.443.0782 to learn how you can start building intelligent connections in your projects today.

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

Copyright © 2009 Design Data, Inc. All rights reserved.

InBox
letters to the editor
A misrepresentation of structural steel’s re-
CONTENTS
cycled content appears in the article Structural
Contributions to LEED, published in the
Features
September issue of STRUCTURE magazine. 22 Investigation of Distress in the South Tower of the Milwaukee City Hall
The article states: By Steven DelloRusso, P.E., Brent Gabby, P.E. and Donald Dusenberry, P.E.
“Credit MR 4.1 and MR 4.2 – Most Over many years, the City of Milwaukee has embarked on several major repair
structural steel shapes are made from 97% campaigns to address distress in the Milwaukee City Hall building, a National
recycled material. Recycled content in steel plate Historic Landmark. This article, which describes the investigation, is the first in a
is about 65%. HSS sections are typically not three-part series about the eight-year effort to assess and analyze the South Tower,
made with recycled steel and should be avoided design repairs above the eleventh floor, and monitor construction.
on LEED projects.”
In actuality, the current industry average
for hot-rolled structural shapes is 93.3%; all
Columns
U.S.-made hot-rolled structural shapes are 7 Editorial 16 InSights
produced in electric-arc furnaces (EAFs) using “Ask What You Want and Anchorage Requirements for
steel scrap as the primary feedstock. Want What You Ask” Wood Frame Shear Walls
Plate is produced in either EAFs or basic By C. Ben Nelson, P.E., SECB By John R. Henry, P.E.
oxygen furnaces (BOFs). The average recycled
content for plate made via the EAF process 9 InFocus 18 Structural Practices
is 93.3% and 32.7% for plate from the BOF Rethinking Engineering Ethics Comparison of Geometric Axis
process. No plate has an average recycled By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB and Principal Axis Bending in
content of 65%. 10 Structural Performance Single Angles
HSS is a manufactured product made from By Whitney McNulty, P.E., SECB
Steel Special Moment Frames
coil steel. If the coil steel originated in an EAF By Scott M. Adan, Ph.D., S.E., SECB 42 Structural Forum
process, the average recycled content of the and Ronald O. Hamburger, S.E., SECB Endangered Species:
HSS is, again, 93.3%; if the coil originated in Structural Engineer
a BOF process, the average recycled content 14 Outside the Box
By Ann Marie Garko-Hill, P.E.
of the HSS is 32.7%. As such, the statement More Wind Power Requires
that HSS is not typically made with recycled Taller Towers – Taller Towers
steel is incorrect. All HSS has significant Require Innovation…
recycled content.
In both the case of plate and HSS, the
By Peder Hansen
Departments
steel supplier can track the product back to
the producer and determine the production
In every Issue 5 InBox

8 Advertiser Index 26 Great Achievements

process. If the material cannot be traced but
James Buchanan Eads
is known to be of domestic origin, the BOF 29 Software Updates By Richard G. Weingardt, P.E.
value can be used as a default. For non-
domestic material, USGBC allows a default 36 NCSEA News 33 Quality Assurance Corner
recycled content value of 25% to be used. 38 SEI Structural Columns Tips for Designing Constructible
The statement that HSS is not made with Steel-Framed Structures – Part 2
recycled steel and that HSS should be avoided 40 CASE in Point By Clifford W. Schwinger, P.E., SECB
on LEED projects is damaging to HSS pro- and Todd R. Campbell, P.E.
ducers, and may result in decisions made by
structural engineers that could increase, rather
®

STRUCTURE

than reduce, the environmental impact of a

building project. on the Cover
Geoff Weisenberger Pittsburgh is famous for its bridges and its robots. “Arch”, a sculpture
Director of Industry Sustainability created by Glenn Kaino, is a robot comprised of replicas of many of
American Institute of Steel Construction Pittsburgh’s famous bridges. The Transformer-like sculpture is made
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

of steel and fiberglass and stands 20 feet tall, looking out over the
river at PNC Park. Courtesy of Creative Beyond Control (owners,
STRUCTURE encourages readers to
Lois J. Yeager and Felicia A. Richards).
provide feedback on articles. Due to space November
2010
Steel

constraints, most of the letters received

are posted on the STRUCTURE website.
Publication of any article, image, or advertisement in STRUCTURE® magazine does not constitute endorsement
Please visit www.structuremag.org often by NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C 3 Ink, or the Editorial Board. Authors, contributors, and advertisers retain sole
to see newly posted reader correspondence. responsibility for the content of their submissions.

STRUCTURE magazine 5 November 2010

 Structures

THANK YOU!
Dr. Charles h. ThornTon chairman of Thornton Tomasetti
for giving an exceptional keynote at the 2010 North American User Meeting.

Watch the keynote

www.tekla.us/keynote2010.

CHECK OUT THE 2010 BIM ENTRIES

visit www.tekla.us/bimawards2010
 Editorial
“Ask What You Want and Want What You Ask”
By C. Ben Nelson, P.E., SECB
There are a lot of very smart people in the world,
although being smart doesn’t always equate to
being wise. The late structural engineering icon
Milo S. Ketchum was a wise man who was one
of my first engineering mentors. He told me to
“ask what you want and want what you ask”. He
applied this gem throughout his engineering
career, and it has been carried out in his successor
firms over fifty years. We often cite this advice to
our project managers as we assemble construction
drawings involving “deferred submittals”.
In simple terms, IBC section 106.3.4.2 defines
a deferred submittal as “those portions of the
design that are not submitted at the time of
application, and have received prior approval from
the building official to be deferred.” Although
simple in definition, many structural engineers
misunderstand the process, resulting in a wide
variety of design errors. Problems with deferred
submittals are also among the most commonly
cited complaints building officials have with
structural engineering permit documents.
To address this gap in structural engineering teachings, NCSEA is
assembling practitioners and authorities from around the United States
to present their advice regarding deferred submittals in the upcoming
Winter Institute on February 25-26, 2011 at the Amelia Island Plantation
near Jacksonville, Florida. Structural engineering experts, specialty
structural engineers, and building officials will discuss deferred submittals
and describe how they can be successfully implemented on projects.
Perhaps the most enlightening presentation will feature a joint discussion
led by two nationally recognized building officials, who will “have
their say” regarding deferred submittals. Ron Lynn and Jim Schock
will discuss how engineers can smooth over common problems and
delays with permit applications involving deferred submittals. Later in
the program, specialty engineers will talk about common and avoidable
mistakes regarding their designs. Finally, structural engineering experts
will share strategies for success and ways to avoid having your next
deferred submittal become a horror story.
An easy-to-remember strategy is to “ask what you want and want
what you ask”. The Engineer-of-Record needs to know what to require
from specialty engineers designing segments of their projects; and this
needs to be followed by a thorough review of the deferred submittal.
Errors resulting from misunderstanding the deferred submittal process
are known to have caused project delays, overly conservative designs,
underperforming structural systems, and the engineer’s worst nightmare
– structural failure. How could such a simple concept result in so much
confusion and so many errors?
Perhaps the simplest error can be avoided simply by checking to see if
any deferred submittals are likely to be required for your project in the
first place. As simple as this sounds, some engineers overlook this type of
STRUCTURE magazine
review, which can
delay permit ap-
proval in jurisdictions that have strict deferred
submittal requirements. Ask yourself: Do our
construction documents define all structural
framing, components, connections, and systems?
If the drawings don’t define everything that re-
sists gravity and lateral loads in a complete load
path, deferred submittals are likely to be needed
in some form.
Another easily-avoidable, common error is to
request, in advance, the building official’s approval
to defer portions of the project design. Most
building departments routinely allow commonly
deferred submittals (steel joists, precast concrete,
metal buildings, etc) but, nevertheless, request
advance notification and pre-approval of the
anticipated deferred submittals.
Common and preventable errors occur on
projects involving deferred submittals because
the design intent and criteria are inadequately,
or incorrectly, summarized on the construction
drawings; and, often, they are in locations that are so hard to find in the
documents that even a conscientious specialty engineer can miss them.
I think of Milo’s advice and chuckle whenever I come across the famous
“tire swing” comic, revered by engineers, that shows a simple tire swing
hanging from a tree branch and how it would be constructed if left to
the interpretation of various people. While all versions meet the proj-
ect intent in general definition, only one meets all of the technical
requirements. The humor of the comic lies in the implied instruc-
tions and how their (mis)interpretation leads to the flawed end result.
Think about this comic as you prepare your documents that involve
deferred submittals.
The NCSEA Winter Institute has evolved into a not-to-be-missed
event, and we hope to see you
there in February! Until then, in
light of the upcoming gift-giving
season, I’ll sign off by reminding
us all to “ask what we want and
want what we ask”.▪
C. Ben Nelson, P.E., SECB is
Treasurer for NCSEA and will
be speaking at the upcoming
NCSEA Winter Institute on
Feb 25-26 in Florida. He is a
Principal at Martin/Martin,
Inc. and can be reached at STRUCTURAL
bnelson@martinmartin.com. ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE
7 November 2010
 SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
National Council of Structural
Engineers Associations
Jeanne M. Vogelzang, JD, CAE
Executive Director
312-649-4600
ADVERTISEMENT – For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

execdir@ncsea.com

Council of American Structural Engineers

Heather Talbert
Coalitions Director
202-682-4377
htalbert@acec.org

Structural Engineering Institute

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

ADVERTISING ACCOUNT MANAGER

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

EDITORIAL STAFF
Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE
Faculty Positions in Structural Engineering execdir@ncsea.com

The Department of Civil Engineering and Geological Sciences at the Editor Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
University of Notre Dame (www.nd.edu/~cegeos/) invites applications publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
for faculty positions to complement the existing Structural Engineering Associate Editor Nikki Alger
group. Qualified candidates at all levels will be considered with hiring publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
rank and tenure status commensurate with academic accomplishments. Graphic Designer Rob Fullmer
Successful candidates must hold a doctoral degree in an appropriate field graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org
and must demonstrate potential for high quality research and teaching. The department is seeking
Web Developer William Radig
outstanding faculty members with a research focus on, but not limited to: bridge engineering and webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org
infrastructure systems, high-performance and sustainable civil structures, reliability and performance
of structures under extreme loading, and foundation-structure interaction. Candidates for the STRUCTURE® (Volume 17, Number 11). ISSN 1536-
positions should be qualified to teach civil engineering courses, with a strong commitment to teaching 4283. Publications Agreement No. 40675118. Owned by
excellence at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Each successful faculty candidate is expected the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations and
to develop and sustain an externally funded research program and publish in leading scholarly published in cooperation with CASE and SEI monthly by C3
Ink. The publication is distributed free of charge to members
journals. Applications should be submitted online at www.nd.edu/~struct as a single PDF with cover of NCSEA, CASE and SEI; the non-member subscription rate is
letter, detailed CV, statements of research and teaching, and names and contact information for three $65/yr domestic; $35/yr student; $125/yr foreign (including
references. Review of applications will start immediately and continue until the positions are filled. Canada). For change of address or duplicate copies, contact
The University of Notre Dame is committed to diversity in education and employment, and women your member organization(s). Any opinions expressed in
STRUCTURE magazine are those of the author(s) and do not
and members of underrepresented minority groups are strongly encouraged to apply.
necessarily reflect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C3 Ink, or the
Inquiries related to this search can be directed to struct@nd.edu. STRUCTURE Editorial Board.
STRUCTURE® is a registered trademark of National Council of
Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA). Articles may not be
Advertiser Index Please support these advertisers reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission
of the publisher.

AZZ ............................................................................... 19 KPFF Consulting Engineers ............................................. 8

Bentley Systems, Inc. ...................................................... 25 Powers Fasteners, Inc. ....................................................... 2
Published By:
Computers & Structures, Inc. ........................................ 44 RISA Technologies ......................................................... 43 C3 Ink
CTP, Inc......................................................................... 35 Structural Engineers Assoc. of Illinois ............................. 34 C3 Ink A Division of Copper Creek Companies, Inc.
CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp................................. 28 SidePlate Systems, Inc. ................................................... 11 148 Vine St., Reedsburg WI 53959
Design Data ..................................................................... 4 Simpson Strong-Tie........................................................ 13 P-608-524-1397 F-608-524-4432
Devco............................................................................. 21 Steel Deck Institute ........................................................ 15 publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
ESAB Welding and Cutting Products ............................. 17 StrucSoft Solutions, Ltd. .................................................. 3
Fyfe Co. LLC ................................................................. 27 StructurePoint ................................................................ 32 Visit STRUCTURE magazine on-line at
GT STRUDL................................................................. 31 Tekla. ............................................................................... 6 Visit
Visit
STRUCTURE
STRUCTURE
magazine
magazine
on-line
online
www.structuremag.org at at
Integrated Engineering Software, Inc.............................. 30 University of Notre Dame ................................................ 8 www.structuremag.org
www.STRUCTUREmag.org

STRUCTURE magazine 8 November 2010

 InFocus thoughts from a member of the Editorial Board

Rethinking Engineering Ethics cooperative human activity through which goods

By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
The one branch of philosophy that most engineers encounter during
the course of their careers is ethics, typically manifested in codes of ethics
with which we are expected to comply. These formulations tend to
focus on what engineers should and (especially) should not do when
carrying out their professional responsibilities. This is probably because
the two major types of modern ethical theories are largely concerned
with a person’s outward behavior:
• Deontology prescribes adherence to particular rules or fulfillment of
particular duties or obligations. A paradigm case is the categorical
imperative of Immanuel Kant – “Act only according to that maxim
whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law.”
• Consequentialism, as its name implies, evaluates a morally
significant action on the basis of its consequences. Perhaps the
most familiar version is the utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill,
which advocates doing whatever will produce the greatest amount
of happiness for the greatest number of people.
An engineering code of ethics usually represents a clear application of
deontology, since it explicitly spells out the relevant rules, duties, and
obligations. First and foremost is holding paramount the safety, health,
and welfare of the public. Other common provisions include performing
services only in areas of competence, being objective and truthful in pub-
lic statements, avoiding conflicts of interest, competing fairly, pursuing
YOUR
professional development, and (more recently) embracing sustainability.
However, consequentialism also seems to play a role in engineering
ethics. Engineers are frequently judged by society on the basis of the
results of their work, whether intended or unintended; and technical
codes and standards are often geared toward risk assessment and man-
agement, whether explicitly or implicitly. Uncertainty is unavoidable in
engineering design, requiring the use of fallible heuristics; yet engineers
are still subject to criticism when their judgment calls occasionally (and
unfortunately) lead to failures.
Is there an alternative approach that might be better suited to the
unique nature of engineering? A third school of thought has ancient
roots but is now returning to prominence: virtue ethics. It differs
from deontology and consequentialism by focusing on the person
who acts, rather than the action itself; the emphasis is on being good,
rather than doing good. Where deontologists argue about which set of
commandments to follow and consequentialists debate how various
outcomes should be weighted, virtue ethicists have diverse lists of the
character traits that they consider to be desirable; i.e., virtuous.
In his 1981 book, After Virtue, Alasdair MacIntyre suggested that vir-
tues can only be properly identified within the context of a practice. He
defined this as “any coherent and complex form of socially established
internal to that form of activity are realized in
the course of trying to achieve those standards of
excellence which are appropriate to, and partially
derivative of, that form of activity.”
Internal goods are specific to a practice, can only be fully understood
by those who participate in that practice, and generally benefit the entire
practicing community. MacIntyre characterizes a virtue as “an acquired
human quality the possession and exercise of which tends to enable us
to achieve those goods which are internal to practices and the lack of
which effectively prevents us from achieving such goods.” By contrast,
external goods can be attained in a variety of ways, including different
practices, often involving competition that leaves both winners and
losers. Familiar examples include money, power, and status.
Although any practice requires a set of technical skills and the existence
of institutions to sustain it over time, it is identical to neither of these.
Every practice has its own history that goes beyond merely improving
technical skills and serves as a tradition from which anyone who enters
it must learn. Institutions are generally concerned with acquiring and
distributing external goods, which is why virtues are so important –
without them, the institutions’ pursuit of external goods will supplant
the practice’s pursuit of internal goods, corrupting and ultimately
destroying the practice.
This relationship between practices and institutions is especially
relevant to engineers. As I have noted previously (“The Social Captivity
of Engineering,” May 2010), engineering is intrinsically instrumental
and can be utilized for a wide variety of purposes that are largely dictated
by the institutions that employ and retain us. It is therefore critical
that we recognize the goods that are internal to engineering practice,
identify the virtues that will enable us to achieve them consistently, and
actively strive to live accordingly. The results of this exercise should
supplement, and perhaps supplant, the largely deontological codes of
ethics that we now have. I plan to write more about this in the future;
in the meantime, please tell me what you think.▪
Your What is the fundamental objective behind having a code
Turn theories best aligns with this goal? How should existing
of ethics for engineers? Which of the three major ethical
codes of ethics be modified or replaced accordingly? Please submit your
responses and see what others have had to say by clicking on the “Your
Turn” button at www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB (chair@STRUCTUREmag.org), is an
associate structural engineer at Burns & McDonnell in Kansas City,
Missouri. He chairs the STRUCTURE magazine Editorial Board and
the SEI Engineering Philosophy Committee.

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

STRUCTURE magazine 9 November 2010

 Steel Special Moment Frames
Connection Seismic Requirements
By Scott M. Adan, Ph.D., S.E., SECB and Ronald O. Hamburger, S.E., SECB
In regions of high seismic risk, severe
earthquakes are rare events, affecting
typical building sites at intervals of hun-
dreds of years. Given the infrequent return
period, it is economically impractical to
design structures to resist such rare but se-
vere earthquakes without damage. Instead,
building codes have developed a design
philosophy intended to protect life safety
by avoiding earthquake-induced collapse
in severe events, while permitting extensive
structural and nonstructural damage.
In a steel special moment frame, it is
intended that inelastic behavior be accom-
modated through the formation of plastic
hinges at beam-column joints and column
bases. Plastic hinges form through flexural
yielding of beams and columns and shear
yielding of panel zones. Large cyclic plas-
tic deformations of steel shapes inevitably
Structural Performance
results in local buckling of the section.
Severe local buckling, such as that shown
in Figure 1, results in strength loss and,
for this reason, it is desirable to avoid plas-
tic hinging in columns. The connections
must be capable of transferring moment
and shear forces that can be developed in
the beam to the column. As a result of
material and system overstrength, these
moment and shear forces can be substan-
tially larger than the design forces specified
by the building code.
As part of its support for the National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
(NEHRP), the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) is
developing a series of technical briefs to
assist in improving seismic design and
construction productivity. Technical Brief
No. 2, entitled, Seismic Design of Steel
Special Moment Frames: A Guide for Prac-
performance issues relative to extreme events
ticing Engineers, addresses the design,
specification, and construction of steel
special moment frames. This article, the
second of two, contains excerpts from
several sections of the brief including
provisions associated with the seismic
design of moment frame connections.
The first article, appearing in the June
2010 issue of STRUCTURE magazine,
presented an introduction to the steel
special moment frame with a perspective
on its historic development.
Connection Selection
Since the 1994 Northridge Earthquake,
the building code has required that steel
STRUCTURE magazine
special moment connections be
demonstrated capable of developing
at least 0.04 radians of interstory
drift without excessive strength
loss, when subjected to a prescribed
cyclic loading protocol. This quali-
fication testing must be conducted
on full-size specimens using sec-
tions, materials, and fabrication
procedures comparable to those to
be incorporated in the actual con-
struction. Relatively few laboratories Figure 1: Connection local buckling of beam flanges
have the capability to perform such and web at high levels of inelastic rotation. Courtesy of
tests, and the tests are expensive, Michael D. Engelhardt.
even if successful. If initial connection
performed the post-Northridge earthquake
designs fail the testing, it may be neces-
research into steel moment frame behav-
sary to perform multiple iterations of
ior published FEMA 350 – Recommended
the design and testing, adding months of
Design Criteria for Moment Resisting Steel
delay and hundreds of thousands of dol-
Frames, which contains a number of con-
lars of expense to projects. To avoid these
nection prequalifications. Many of the
difficulties, the code permits the use of
FEMA 350 prequalifications have since
prequalified connections. Prequalified
been updated and adopted into AISC 358.
connections have been demonstrated by
Some have not, either because the CPRP
extensive testing and analysis, acceptable
has deemed that there was not sufficient
to an expert review panel, to be capable
research to support the prequalification or
of reliable service when used within spec-
it has not had time to review the connec-
ified limits. There are several sources of
tion and include it in AISC 358. FEMA
connection prequalifications.
350, like AISC 358, includes design, ma-
terials, fabrication, and inspection criteria
AISC Prequalified Connections
for prequalified connections. When both
The American Institute of Steel Con- AISC 358 and FEMA 350 have criteria for
struction (AISC) maintains a Connection a particular connection type, the informa-
Prequalification Review Panel (CPRP) tion in AISC 358 should be considered
that develops an American National Stan- to supersede that in FEMA 350. Some,
dards Institute (ANSI)-approved standard, but not all, building officials will accept
AISC-358 Prequalified Connections for FEMA 350 prequalifications.
Special and Intermediate Moment Resisting In addition, there are several code agencies
Frames for Seismic Applications. AISC 358 that operate evaluation services to qualify
presents materials, design, detailing, fabri- the use of proprietary products and proce-
cation and inspection requirements for a dures as meeting the criteria contained in
series of prequalified moment-connection the building code. These evaluation ser-
details. This standard is referenced by the vices publish connection prequalifications
code, and connection prequalifications for proprietary connection technologies in
contained in the standard are acceptable to the form of evaluation reports, and building
most building officials. AISC updates and officials typically accept these reports as
reissues this standard from time to time, evidence of code conformance. However,
as additional research becomes available. engineers relying on these evaluation re-
The connections in AISC 358 are not inter- ports should be aware that the rigor of
changeable; there are limits of applicability review does not always match that per-
for each. Figure 2 through Figure 6, page 12 formed by AISC’s CPRP. Therefore, the
show the configuration of connection tech- performance capability of connections
nologies currently included in AISC 358. that have been included in these reports
may not match that of connections con-
Other Prequalified Connections tained in AISC 358.
In addition to AISC 358, several other Some individual patent holders for
sources of prequalification exist. The proprietary connections maintain their
federally-funded SAC Joint Venture that own library of test data and analysis to
continued on page 12
10 November 2010
 a)
Figure 2: Reduced beam section Figure 3: Bolted (a) unstiffened (BUEEP) and (b) stiffened (BSEEP)
(RBS) connection. extended end plate connections.
a)
Figure 5: Welded unreinforced Figure 6: Kaiser bolted bracket (KBB) connection (a) welded and (b)
flange – welded web bolted to the beam.
(WUF-W) connection.
substantiate the performance capability of their
connections. Strictly speaking, these connections
are not prequalified. However, some build-
ing officials will accept their use, sometimes
requiring independent review as a condition
of such use.
Project Specific Qualification
In some cases, the prequalifications available
in AISC 358, FEMA 350 and evaluation
service reports may not be adequate to cover
the design conditions for a particular project.
One reason this may occur is that the sizes
of selected moment frame elements may
fall outside the limits contained within the
prequalifications. Another reason this may occur
is that presently there are no prequalifications
associated with connections to the minor axis
of wide-flange columns. If no prequalified con-
nections meet the requirements of a particular
design condition, the code requires perfor-
mance of project-specific testing. At least two
specimens must be tested and must pass the
prescribed criteria. Since the required size of
the connection specimens can be quite large,
often only universities have the capability to
perform such testing. Scheduling of these
facilities can be difficult. Therefore, if project-
specific testing will be required, early planning
for this effort is recommended. In consideration
of the specimen fabrication, shipping, and
STRUCTURE magazine
b)
Figure 4: Bolted flange plate
(BFP) connection.
b)
set-up costs, testing can be expensive. There-
fore, consideration should be given to using
framing configurations that will enable the use
of prequalified connections.
All of the existing prequalification tests have
been conducted using specimens in which
the beams and columns were within a single
plane, and in which the beams intersected the
columns orthogonally. Prequalifications do
not presently exist for connections in which
the beams are skewed relative to the axis
of the column, are connected at other than
orthogonal conditions, or are part of a column
subjected to bi-axial frame behavior. For these
conditions, the code requires connection-
specific qualification. Therefore, it is probably
best to avoid these conditions when laying out
the structure’s seismic force-resisting system.
Summary
Historically, steel moment frames have ex-
hibited superior performance when subjected
to earthquake ground shaking. The system is
designated as special when the frame incorpo-
rates design provisions capable of withstanding
significant inelastic deformations during large
seismic events. Since the 1994 Northridge
Earthquake, building codes have required that
special moment connection performance be
demonstrated through qualification testing, but
this testing can be avoided through the use of
12 November 2010
prequalified connections. Project specific qualifi-
cation is occasionally required when connection
configurations fall outside the limits contained
in published connection prequalification reports.
Further information on the design of steel
special moment frame connections is con-
tained in the NEHRP Technical Brief No.
2. The brief also provides information on the
expected earthquake performance of moment
frame systems in general, and outlines appli-
cable building code design criteria. The intent
of the document is to emphasize code require-
ments and accepted approaches to their
implementation. It provides background
information and illustrations to help understand
the requirements. The brief was developed by
the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture (a
partnership of the Applied Technology Council
and Consortium of Universities for Research in
Earthquake Engineering), under Contract
SB134107CQ0019, Earthquake Structural and
Engineering Research, issued by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology. It is
available as a free download at:
www.nehrp.gov/pdf/nistgcr9-917-3.pdf
The contributions of the brief ’s coauthors,
Helmut Krawinkler and James O. Malley, are
gratefully acknowledged.▪
Scott M. Adan, Ph.D., S.E., SECB is a
Consulting Structural Engineer in the
San Francisco Bay area. Dr. Adan is
the SEAONC Steel Subcommittee chair
and is a member of both the Connection
Prequalification Review Panel and the
Committee on Manuals for AISC. He can
be reached at scott.adan@gmail.com.
Ronald O. Hamburger, S.E., SECB is Head
of Structural Engineering, Western Region
for Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. in San
Francisco. Mr. Hamburger is Chair of the
AISC Connection Prequalification Review
Panel and received the Institute’s Higgins
award in 2006. He can be reached at
ROHamburger@sgh.com.
 E X P A N D your frame
of reference.

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

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

 More Wind Power Requires Taller Towers –
Taller Towers Require Innovation…
By Peder Hansen
Maximizing tower height is very impor-
tant for the wind power industry. One
major reason is a phenomenon called
wind shear, sometimes referred to as wind
gradient, which is a difference in wind
speed over a relatively short distance in
the atmosphere. As the wind blows across
the landscape, it is slowed down by trees
and buildings. As altitude increases, wind
speed increases and turbulence decreases
above the boundary layer close to the
ground. This effect is especially pronounced
in the Midwestern part of the US.
By installing turbines on taller towers,
potential power output from a wind
turbine increases. The difference in wind
speed from 80 to 100 meters is roughly
8%, resulting in a typical 15% energy
increase; this is without any additional
turbine grid interconnection cost. The typ-
ical extra cost by going from an 80-meter
conventional tower to a 100-meter tower
is roughly $300,000 (depending on wind
turbine size), including delivery (500
miles) and pre-assembly. Using typical
power purchase agreement (PPA) num-
bers, this extra cost is paid back in about
four years of operation.
Can Wind Turbines
Get Any Bigger?
highlighting the out-of-the-ordinary within the realm of structural engineering
enabling a continuous or increasing taper
towards the foundation. Option one is
used almost exclusively at the moment
because transportation restrictions dictate
the maximum diameter allowed.
As the requirement for larger turbines
increases and the market demands more
of them, there is an urgent need for an
up-scaling of innovation, manufacturing
capacity, trucking capability, and han-
dling methods. With bottom diameters
reaching 14.5 feet and weights exceeding
100,000 pounds, towers have reached the
limits of all transportation restrictions
and a multitude of permits are needed to
move them over the road.
The Challenge
What is the best way to develop a structure
similar to a conventional, round, painted
tower while at the same time reducing the
weight and allowing for taller hub heights
and increased bottom diameters?
Northstar Wind Towers’ (NWT) engi- 100 meter tower.
neering team was tasked with developing a
tower system that can efficiently handle the
This also eliminates the need for costly
ever-increasing loads induced by expanding
embedment rings often used within the
rotor sizes and multi-megawatt turbines.
foundation to distribute the load from
Another key development requirement was
the turbine.
to increase safety margins by incorporating
Another common area of concern is the
an added level of redundancy into the tower

dimensioning and manufacturing of the

Outside the BOx

connection design. Other objectives includ-

Yes! But it requires innovation. What is
obvious is that wind turbines continue
their evolutionary path. These larger
and more efficient turbines increase the
demands on materials. Starting a few
years ago, towers with hub heights of
80 meters and turbines with capacities
greater than 2 MW were becoming the
rule, not the exception. There has been an
influx of market demand for larger units,
and that trend seems likely to continue
for the foreseeable future.
The hub height of the turbines is a signifi-
cant factor in terms of power production.
Lower wind speed sites are currently being
reconsidered, as many prime wind loca-
tions have already been developed. As
typical turbine capacities inch closer to the
3 MW mark, rotor diameters get close to
and above 100 meters; turbines will con-
tinue to increase demands on towers as well.
There are two options for managing
loads from these massive turbines. The
first is to increase the wall thickness of the
structure, and the second is to increase
the bottom diameter of the tower, thus
ed lowering installed tower costs by 10 to
15%, and enabling automated manufac-
turing and painting processes.
The Solution
Towers with a continuous taper or an
increasing taper are, by design, the most
efficient way to handle wind turbine
loads. A modular, field-assembled panel
eliminates the transportation restrictions
and therefore allows for a much more ef-
ficient tower design. Panels can be added
to increase the tower diameter and height.
The increase in diameter allows for thinner
walls – the result is a more efficient use
of steel.
Segmented flanges at the tower top and
base allow for a conventional interface
with the turbine and foundation. The
bottom flange is modeled using the same
mounting criteria as on conventional
towers. The bottom diameter, however,
creates new options for the foundation
design. It is now possible to make foun-
dations wider, which results in less depth.
door area. In relatively narrow towers, the
door takes up a larger percentage of the
overall diameter, thus requiring substan-
tial and costly reinforcement of the door
frame. The larger diameter tower has a
larger area at the base, and therefore the
door makes up a smaller portion, keeping
more steel in the critical load path.
Modular towers must be reassembled
before erection. Rather than trying to
design a new fastening system or con-
nection method for these segments,
Northstar Wind Towers’ engineers went
searching for connection styles used in
other cyclically loaded structures. They
also studied various methods used in
the previous generation of wind turbine
towers. It became apparent that a con-
nection method that excluded the load
passing through the bolt is the most
optimal. These types of connections are
collectively called slip-critical or “friction”
connections. As STRUCTURE readers
probably know, friction connections are
tried-and-true and are in use in bridg-
es as well as high-rise buildings where

STRUCTURE magazine 14 November 2010

post-inspection is limited. This method has
also been used in multiple wind turbine towers
over the years.
Panel construction, combined with bolted
slip-critical connections, reduces the amount
of welding needed by an average of 85 to 90%,
as compared to an equivalent conventional
tubular tower. This in turn reduces manufac-
turing time and cost further. An added benefit
of using a turn-of-the-nut fastening system is
that calibration of tension tools is no longer
required, as this method is not based on torque.
This reduces risk related to installation error
and enables a relatively short turnaround on
section pre-assembly.
The modular tower is still roll-formed and
painted like tubular towers, only on a modular
scale. Once installed, the tower is similar from
a visual point of view to a conventional tubular
tower. The modularity of the design, and the
relatively smaller size of individual components,
enables a paint system that utilizes state-of-the-
art, in-line, automated material preparation
and paint application.
Transportation
The increasing demands on shipping com-
panies that are able to haul traditional towers
have placed a growth constraint on the industry.
By contrast, tower modules can be transported
on standard trailers. The lower tower sections
Download our standards for
We are pleased to announce that our American National Standards Institute (ANSI) / Steel Deck Institute
(SDI) standards* for Steel Roof Deck (RD1.0), Composite Steel Floor Deck (C1.0) and Non-Composite Steel
Floor Deck (NC1.0) are available for FREE download on our website. Visit www.sdi.org.
steel deck insitute • P.O. BOx 25 • FOx RiveR GROve , il 60021 • (P) 847.458.4647
* These standards are also highlighted in our Steel Deck Institute Steel Deck Design Manual #31 which can also be ordered from our website.
STRUCTURE magazine
are bolted together in the field. Top sec-
tions are shipped pre-assembled and do
not require additional field attention. The
average to-site cost of the modular tower
is just 25 to 35% that of a comparable
tubular tower shipped the same distance.
Market Acceptance NWT standard trailer loaded.
It is obviously not advantageous to have the
tallest and least expensive tower if no one wants
of their design. They are in the process of
to buy and use it in their wind developments.
securing agreements to install a fully operational
It has therefore been important to ensure the
100 meter demonstration tower planned for
complete cooperation of the major turbine man-
the summer of 2011 and the company antici-
ufacturers. First, the concept was introduced to
pates full scale tower production beginning
manufacturers through several Q&A meetings
in 2012.
to understand their concerns, wants, and needs
for tower design. Detailed load information for
specific turbine designs were procured. After Future
matching their frequency, fatigue, and buckling Today, modular 80-meter towers are com-
criteria, as well as obtaining a third party design petitive with current welded towers. However,
certification, the next step was to introduce the it is the promise of going even higher that is
findings to their respective commercial teams. really exciting. Partnering with key wind turbine
In Q4 2010, Northstar plans to erect a 23 manufacturers, work is continuing to bring the
meter prototype tower near their headquarters standard hub height above 110 meters cost-
in Blair, Nebraska, showcasing the manufactur- effectively, while keeping all modules within
ing, transportation and construction features standard transportation dimensions.▪
Peder Hansen is a Senior Vice President at Northstar Wind Towers in Blair, Nebraska. Northstar
provides tower systems for large-scale wind turbines from major manufacturers worldwide. He can
be reached at Peder.Hansen@NorthstarWindTowers.com
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
F R E E.
STEEL DECK
s
INSTITUTE
®
15 November 2010
 Anchorage Requirements for Wood Frame Shear Walls
By John R. Henry, P.E.
As the 2009 International Building
Code® (IBC) is adopted in various ju-
risdictions across the country, engineers
who design wood structures have begun
to use the 2008 edition of ANSI/AF&PA
Special Design Provisions for Wind and
Seismic (SDPWS – 08). Unlike the 2006
IBC, which referenced the 2005 SDPWS
as an acceptable alternate to the lateral
design provisions of Section 2305, the 2009
IBC requires the use of SDPWS – 08.
2009 IBC Section 2305 states, “Structures
using wood shear walls and diaphragms to
resist wind, seismic and other lateral loads
shall be designed and constructed in ac-
cordance with AF&PA SDPWS and the
provisions of Sections 2305, 2306 and 2307.”
Because the SDPWS is a dual format
standard, Section 2307 also references
the 2008 SDPWS for lateral design of
wood structures using load and resistance
factor design (LRFD). Although many
requirements in Section 2305 of previous
editions of the IBC are very similar to
the corresponding requirements in the
2008 SDPWS, they are not all the same.
One notable difference is the anchorage
requirements for shear walls, which is the
subject of this article.
For buildings in Seismic Design Categories
D, E and F, 2006 IBC Section 2305.3.11
requires a single 3-inch nominal (3x) foun-
dation wood sill plate where the allowable
stress design (ASD) wall shear exceeds 350
plf. An exception permits a 2-inch nomi-
nal (2x) plate to be used in lieu of the 3x
if the number of required anchor bolts are
doubled and the wall shear is less than 600
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
plf. Based on test results, the requirement
for the 3x sill plate is not in the 2005 or
2008 SDPWS. Rather, SDPWS specifies
square plate washers at anchor bolt loca-
tions to accomplish the same intent, which
InSIghtS
is to minimize cross-grain bending of the
sill plate.
Some historical perspective is worth not-
ing. Considerable sill plate damage and
splitting was observed in the aftermath
of the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Sill
splitting was also observed during labo-
ratory shear wall testing. In response to
observed damage and splitting, a footnote
was added to the shear wall table in the
1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) that
requires single 3x foundation sills at shear
walls in Seismic Zones 3 and 4 where
STRUCTURE magazine
the wall shear exceeds 350 plf. The 3x
foundation plate was intended to pro-
vide additional resistance (by having the
extra 1 inch of thickness) to cross-grain
bending that can occur during a design
earthquake when uplift results from panel
rotation. The UBC requirements for 3x
sill plates were subsequently carried over
into the 2000, 2003 and 2006 IBC. Foot-
note 3 in the 1997 UBC shear wall table
is essentially the same as footnote “i” in
the 2006 IBC shear wall table. (Note that
UBC requirements applied to Seismic
Zones 3 and 4, whereas the IBC require-
ments apply to Seismic Design Categories
D, E and F). For a detailed discussion of
the requirements for 3x foundation sills
in the UBC, refer to Section C804.5 of
the 1999 edition of Recommended Lateral
Force Requirements and Commentary of the
Seismology Committee of the Structural
Engineers Association of California,
known as the “SEAOC Blue Book.” The
SEAOC Blue Book is available from ICC
at www.iccsafe.org.
Footnote i of IBC Table 2306.3 (ASD)
and Section 2307.1.1 (LRFD) are essen-
tially identical. The last sentence of the
footnote and section states, “See Sections
4.3.6.1 and 4.3.6.4.3 of AF&PA SDPWS
for sill plate size and anchorage require-
ments.” The requirements in the SDPWS
have the same intent as the UBC and
IBC, which is to minimize foundation
sill plate splitting. Based on cyclic tests of
engineered shear walls considering different
plate washer sizes at Oregon State Uni-
versity (available at www.awc.org), the
requirement for a 3x sill plate is not in the
2005 or 2008 SDPWS. Rather, the 2005
SDPWS specifies a minimum 2½-inch
square by ¼-inch thick plate washer and
the 2008 SDPWS specifies a minimum
3-inch square by 0.229 inch thick plate
washer for anchor bolts in all seismic
design categories.
To account for different bottom plate
widths and mitigate the potential for
cross-grain bending, the SDPWS requires
the edge of the square plate washer to
extend to within ½ inch of the sheathed
edge of the sill plate. The ½-inch distance
from the washer edge to the sheathed
edge (2008 SDPWS Figure C4.3.6.4.3)
in effect limits the potential for cross
grain bending by limiting the moment
16 November 2010
arm. This ½-inch distance is not required
for low strength sheathing materials be-
cause failure of the bottom plate is not
the failure limit state. For lower strength
materials, the failure mechanisms include
tear-out and slotting of the sheathing,
and fastener head pull-through.
The exception in the SDPWS that allows
standard cut washers to be used without
plate washers is based on the OSU tests
and applies to individual full-height wall
segment shear walls with an aspect ratio
(h/b) less than or equal to 2:1, and with a
nominal seismic shear not exceeding 980
plf or wind shear not exceeding 1370 plf
(which is comparable to 7/16-inch OSB
with 8d nails spaced at 3 inches o.c. at
panel edges), and the hold down devices
are designed to resist overturning without
any dead load stabilizing moment.
The key differences between the require-
ments in Section 2305 of the 2006 IBC
and the 2005 SDPWS, including an
extensive comparison table, can be found
in code change proposal S82-06/07. A
complete compilation of all the successful
code changes to the 2006 IBC that were
incorporated into the 2009 IBC can be
found in the Code Changes Resource Col-
lection – 2009 IBC ® available from ICC
at www.iccsafe.org.
An excellent article that describes some
of the more significant changes to the
2008 SDPWS is available from the American
Wood Council website, www.awc.org.
A free online webinar on the 2005/2008
Special Design Provisions for Wind and
Seismic was presented by the American
Wood Council on October 14, 2010. To
view a recorded version of the webinar, go
to www.woodworks.org.▪
John Henry, P.E. is a Principal Staff
Engineer with the International Code
Council (ICC) Business and Product
Development Department, where
he is responsible for the research and
development of technical resources
related to the structural engineering
provisions of the UBC, IBC and IRC.
Mr. Henry is a member of the Structural
Engineers Association of California
(SEAOC), and is an ICC Certified
Plans Examiner. He may be reached
at jhenry@iccsafe.org.
For demand critical
welds,the right
product is crucial.

ESAB Seismic Certified filler metals deliver the strength you need for structural fabrication.
With products such as Atom Arc, Dual Shield, Coreshield, and Spoolarc, ESAB Seismic Certified filler
® ® ® ®

metals meet AWS ‘D’ designator requirements, and are excellent options for when FEMA 353, D1.1,
or D1.8 is utilized. Plus, our experts will help you determine the best solution for your application.

Get started today. Visit esabna.com/seismic for a brochure, and we’ll even send you a free do-rag.

ESAB Welding & Cutting Products / esabna.com / 1.800.ESAB.123

 Comparison of Geometric Axis and
Principal Axis Bending in Single Angles
By Whitney McNulty, P.E., SECB
The provisions of Section F10 of the
American Institute of Steel Construction
(AISC) Specification 360-05 permit some
single angles to be designed for flexure
using either geometric axis or principal
axis bending. This leads to the question
of whether one method produces flexural
capacities greater than the other, and if
so, whether the difference is significant
enough to worry about. This article will
answer that question, and the results may
surprise you.
Uniqueness
Single angles in flexure are unlike any
of the other standard rolled shapes used
by engineers because the geometric axes
of the cross section are not aligned with
the principal axes. This has a significant
effect on the flexural behavior of the
angle since loads that are parallel to the
geometric axes produce biaxial bending
about the principal axes. Despite this,
AISC Specification 360-05 permits two
categories of single angles to be designed
Structural PracticeS
for flexure using geometric axis bending.
The first is any angle with continuous
lateral-torsional restraint, and the second
includes only equal leg angles without
lateral-torsional restraint or lateral-
torsional restraint only at the point of
maximum moment.
Principal axis bending can also be used
to design these two categories of angles,
and this creates a unique condition in the
Specification – namely, that there are two
alternative methods to calculate the same
design strength.
Geometric vs. Principal Axes
Before we jump into the comparison
practical knowledge beyond the textbook
of the two analysis methods, let’s review
some basic principles that are important
to this discussion. Recall from elemen-
tary mechanics that the principal axes
of a cross section are that pair of mutu-
ally perpendicular axes about which are
found the largest and smallest moments
of inertia. They are important because an
unrestrained compression member has its
greatest buckling resistance about the major
principal axis and its greatest tendency
to buckle about the minor principal axis.
Knowing the location of these axes is crucial
to safe and economical design.
STRUCTURE magazine
An axis of symmetry will always be a Y
principal axis, so all of the standard shapes
in the AISC Steel Manual, except single W
Z
angles, have their principal axes aligned
with the major elements of the cross
section. Equal leg angles have an axis of
symmetry located 45º between the legs, 45º
so this becomes one of the principal axes. X
In this case it is the major axis. Referring
to Figure 1, the major principal axis is
labeled the W axis and the minor prin-
cipal axis is labeled the Z axis. Unequal
leg angles have no axis of symmetry, so
Figure 1: Equal Leg Angles – X and Y are the
the major principal axis is located at angle
geometric axes, W and Z are the principal axes.
α between the legs (Figure 2). The AISC The principal axes are located 45° from the
manual provides the tangent of angle α geometric axes for all equal leg angles.
with the single angle section properties.
The geometric axes are simply that pair
of mutually perpendicular axes parallel
to the flanges and webs of a cross sec- Assumptions
The requirements for the flexural design
tion. These are the familiar X and Y axes.
of single angles using either geometric
When the principal axes and geometric
axis or principal axis bending are found
axes are the same, or are at least parallel
in Section F10 of the AISC Specification.
to each other, working with those cross
There are three limit states that apply to
sections becomes much easier. Loads tend
to be applied about the geometric axes, so both methods:
• Yielding
it is not necessary to transform them into
• Lateral-Torsional Buckling
components about some other set of axes
• Leg Local Buckling
to perform an analysis. This also means
The first category of single angle that
that it is not necessary to consider biaxial
can be designed using geometric axis
stresses, so designs can be completed in
bending is any angle with continuous
fewer steps. Important section properties
lateral-torsional restraint. This applies to
are significantly easier to calculate about
both equal leg and unequal leg angles.
the geometric axes since determining
Since this continuous lateral restraint
them becomes simply a matter of working
eliminates the flexural limit state where
with rectangles. Engineers have become
the difference between the two methods
accustomed to working with shapes that
has its greatest effect, it is not worth com-
have their geometric and principal axes
paring the capacities predicted between
aligned, so when working with single
angles they may not even realize that sig- geometric axis and principal axis bending
nificant differences exist. for these angles. Since geometric axis bend-
ing is easier to analyze, use it whenever
Y these angles are encountered.
Z
The second category is the one that in-
terests us. It includes only equal leg
angles without lateral-torsional restraint
W
or lateral-torsional restraint only at the
point of maximum moment. The AISC
Specification permits these angles to be
α X designed for flexure using either geometric
axis or principal axis bending. Unequal
leg angles without continuous lateral tor-
sional restraint must be designed using
principal axis bending. Geometric axis
bending is not permitted to be used when
Figure 2: Location of the principal axes for an analyzing these angles.
unequal leg angle.
18 November 2010
 It might be tempting to predict that the Table 1: Mn for a Compact Cross Section
principal axis bending provisions will pro-
duce higher strengths than the geometric 4x4x5/16 Mn, Geometric Axis Mn, Principal Axis, inch-kips
axis provisions. After all, the geometric axis Compact Vertical Leg: Vertical Leg Up Vertical Leg Down
provisions are approximations and should Length, ft. Up Down Major Axis Minor Axis Major Axis Minor Axis
be conservative, while the principal axis
provisions are based on more realistic be- 4 51.8 54.9 107.3 50.4 107.3 50.4
havior and thus should be more accurate. To 6 50.7 54.9 99.1 50.4 99.1 50.4
test this conclusion we need to look at the
capacities determined by each method and 8 49.5 54.9 92.2 50.4 92.2 50.4
compare the results. We will make the fol- 10 48.2 54.9 86.2 50.4 86.2 50.4
lowing assumptions:
• The angle is simply supported 12 47.0 54.5 80.7 50.4 80.7 50.4
• The loads are uniformly distributed and 14 45.8 52.8 75.7 50.4 75.7 50.4
applied parallel to the vertical leg
• There is no lateral-torsional restraint 16 44.6 51.2 71.0 50.4 71.0 50.4
along the length of the angle
ability to compare geometric axis and principal in compression regardless of the orientation of
The calculations will also recognize wheth-
axis bending directly, it does let us make some the vertical leg, and it does not matter which
er the vertical leg is pointing up or down
observations. We can see that the orientation one it is. On the other hand, it is reasonable to
and whether the angle is compact or noncom-
of the vertical leg has no effect on the prin- expect some difference in capacity about the
pact, since these conditions have an effect on
cipal axis capacity. This can be explained by minor axis, since the orientation of the legs
the capacity.
recognizing that the flexural capacity about with respect to the load will produce tension
the major axis will always be limited by the and compression in different parts of the cross
Compact Equal Leg Angles capacity of the compression leg under lateral- section (Figure 3 ).
To begin, we first need to calculate the nomi- torsional buckling. Leg local buckling does So why are the values in Table 1 the same for
nal moment capacity, Mn, using both geometric not apply to compact cross sections, and the both orientations of the vertical leg for minor
axis and principal axis bending. Table 1 pres- lateral-torsional buckling capacity will never axis bending? When the vertical leg is down,
ents the values for a typical compact cross exceed the yield capacity because of the limit the leg tips are in tension about the minor axis
section, L4x4x5/16. A range of lengths is used found in AISC Equation F10-3. Since equal and yielding is the only limit state. When the
to illustrate how the capacity is affected by the leg angles are symmetrical about the major vertical leg is up, the leg tips are in compres-
span. Although this table does not provide the axis, (Figure 3, page 20), one leg will always be sion for minor axis bending, so the limit states
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

There’s only one way to guarantee it.

Galvanize.
There’s much more than steel at risk when you consider anything
but galvanizing to protect the life of your structure. Put time
back on your side while going green. Learn more at azzgalvanizing.com.
AZZ provides a free GalvanizeIt seminar for continuing education credit.
The seminar highlights the benefits of using sustainable products in design and engineering.
We Protect More Than Steel.
For more information, please contact Dale Williams at (817) 810-0095 or dalewilliams@azzgalv.com.

AZZ-36291 Structure Ad_Protection_V1.indd 1 10/4/10 2:41 PM

STRUCTURE magazine 19 November 2010
COLORS JOB# FILE NAME
are leg local buckling and yielding. But for a The answer is obvious by looking at Table 1. But since the cross section is compact, leg local
compact section, leg local buckling does not For geometric axis bending, the vertical leg buckling does not apply. So if both orienta-
apply and yielding again becomes the only down orientation has a higher capacity. Why? In tions are subject to lateral-torsional buckling,
limit state. This produces the same capacity both vertical leg orientations, lateral-torsional why are the capacities different?
for flexure about the minor axis regardless of buckling is the controlling limit state. In the The explanation has to do with the issue of
vertical leg orientation. vertical leg down orientation, the other possible maximum tension or compression at the toe.
Using the results in Table 1 (page 19), we can limit state is yielding. However, the lateral- AISC Equations (F10 4a) and (F10-4b) for
conclude that the principal axis bending ca- torsional buckling capacity will never exceed lateral-torsional buckling are nearly identical
pacity is independent of the orientation of the the yield capacity because the provisions in to each other, they only differ at the very end
vertical leg for all compact cross sections. On Section F10.2 of the AISC specification limit by the term of “-1” or “+1”. The choice of
the other hand, the results show that the same the lateral-torsional buckling capacity to 80 which equation applies is based on whether
is not true for geometric axis bending. This percent of the yield moment for geometric axis the maximum stress in the angle is tension
gives us another question: Which orientation bending. In the vertical leg up orientation, the or compression. Since the neutral axis in an
is better for geometric axis bending? other possible limit state is leg local buckling. equal leg angle subjected to geometric axis
bending is closer to the horizontal leg, this is
Z
the X axis in Figure 1 (page 18), the maximum
W stress in the cross section will always occur at
the tip of the vertical leg. The lateral-torsional
buckling equations recognize whether this
stress is tension or compression and the capac-
W Z ity changes accordingly. The greater capacity
obviously results when the leg tip is in tension.
So now the orientation of the vertical leg is
important for achieving maximum flexural
capacity. For compact equal leg angles, the
vertical leg down orientation puts the leg tip in
Major Minor tension, so it has the higher capacity.
Axis Axis Notice something else from Table 1 about
geometric axis bending – the capacity for the
Figure 3: Compression zones are shown shaded for bending about the major W axis and minor Z axis of an vertical leg down orientation does not change
equal leg angle when subject to positive moments. until the unbraced length hits a threshold
limit, 12 feet in this case. What’s happening
here is that for lengths less than this limit,
Table 2: Maximum Vertical Uniform Load (kips/ft.) the result of AISC lateral-torsional buckling
4x4x5/16 Geometric Axis Principal Axis equation (F10-3) is exceeding 1.5My, so the
Compact Vertical Leg Orientation Vertical Leg Orientation 1.5My limit is controlling. At the threshold
length, we reach the point where the result
Length, ft. Up Down Up Down of AISC Equation (F10-3) no longer exceeds
4 2.16 2.29 2.02 2.02 1.5My and the capacity changes accordingly.
6 0.94 1.02 0.87 0.87 The original question comparing geometric
axis and principal axis bending strength re-
8 0.52 0.57 0.48 0.48 quires another table. We need to convert the
10 0.32 0.37 0.30 0.30 nominal moments from Table 1 into equiva-
12 0.22 0.25 0.20 0.20 lent uniformly distributed loads in the vertical
direction. Remember, we are assuming in both
14 0.16 0.18 0.15 0.15 cases that the angle is simply supported and
16 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.11 that the loads are applied parallel to the vertical
leg. Those results are given in Table 2.
So what does this show us? We already knew
Table 3: Mn for a Noncompact Cross Section
that the principal axis loads were going to
L 4x4x¼ Mn, Geometric Axis Mn, Principal Axis, inch – kips be the same regardless of the orientation of
Noncompact Vertical Leg: Vertical Leg Up Vertical Leg Down the vertical leg because of symmetry and
classification of this section as compact. We
Length, ft. Up Down Major Axis Minor Axis Major Axis Minor Axis also knew that the geometric axis vertical leg
4 38.6 43.3 84.0 41.8 84.0 41.8 down orientation was going to be better than
6 37.7 43.3 76.4 41.8 76.4 41.8 the geometric axis vertical leg up orientation.
What we did not know was how geometric axis
8 36.8 43.3 70.1 41.8 70.1 41.8 bending was going to compare to principal
10 35.8 43.3 64.4 41.8 64.4 41.8 axis bending.
12 34.7 43.3 59.4 41.8 59.4 41.8 Table 2 shows that the geometric axis provi-
sions give capacities greater than the principal
14 33.7 41.7 54.7 41.8 54.7 41.8 axis provisions. Even the weaker geometric
16 32.7 40.2 50.3 41.8 50.3 41.8

STRUCTURE magazine 20 November 2010

axis orientation, vertical leg up, is better than Table 4: Equivalent Uniform Loads (kips/ft.)
the flexural capacity based on the principal
L 4x4x¼ Equivalent Uniform Equivalent Uniform
axis provisions. Thus, it can be concluded that
Noncompact Load Geometric Axis Load Principal Axis
the geometric axis provisions give capacities
greater than the principal axis provisions for Length, ft. Up Down Up Down
compact equal leg angles. It is easier to per- 4 1.61 1.80 1.64 1.64
form a geometric axis analysis since no new
6 0.70 0.80 0.71 0.71
section properties are required and the load
does not have to be resolved into principal axis 8 0.38 0.45 0.39 0.39
components. This is good news to practicing 10 0.24 0.29 0.24 0.24
engineers looking for easy and accurate ways
12 0.16 0.20 0.16 0.16
to do things.
14 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.11
Noncompact Equal Leg Angles 16 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.08
What about the noncompact equal leg angles?
There are only seven such angles in the AISC Conclusion greater capacities for equal leg angles when
manual. The major difference when compared compared to the geometric axis provisions, so
to the compact angles is that the leg local To summarize, the geometric axis provisions
they should only be used to design unequal leg
buckling provisions will apply, and these may should be used for the flexural design of all
angles without continuous lateral torsional re-
change the results. For a typical noncompact equal leg angles. The designer must pay at-
straint. The geometric axis provisions cannot
cross section, L4x4x¼, Table 3 shows that, as tention to AISC Specification Section F10.2,
be used to design unequal leg angles that do not
with compact equal leg angles, the principal which covers lateral-torsional buckling, since
have continuous lateral-torsional restraint. ▪
axis bending capacities are the same for either the particular conditions of the angle being
orientation of the vertical leg. The vertical leg analyzed will dictate which equation applies.
Whitney McNulty, P.E., SECB is a Senior
down orientation produces larger geometric When given the choice, use an equal leg angle
Associate and Senior Project Structural
axis bending capacities than the vertical leg up in the vertical leg down orientation. This
Engineer at Fletcher-Thompson, Inc., in
orientation, and the geometric axis bending results in flexural tension at the tip of the ver-
Shelton, Connecticut. He can be reached at
capacity of the vertical leg down orientation tical leg and maximizes the bending capacity.
wmcnulty@ftae.com.
does not change until we reach the threshold The principal axis provisions do not produce
length where the lateral-torsional buckling
To learn how to perform geometric and principal axis flexural analyses of single angles,
capacity drops below 1.5My.
tune in to Whitney McNulty’s webinar on November 9. Register at www.ncsea.com.
In Table 4, we see that the capacity based on
the principal axis provisions is nearly identical
to the geometric axis provisions for the vertical
leg up orientation. However, the geometric
axis bending vertical leg down configuration
still provides the largest capacity. The conclusion
here is that for equal leg angles the geometric axis
provisions should be used whenever possible.

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

online
All past issues
2010 Trade Show in Print
News, Events, Book Reviews,
Letters to the Editor and more!

www.STRUCTUREmag.org

STRUCTURE magazine 21 November 2010

 The Milwaukee CiTy hall, a National historic landmark,

Investigation of Distress in the was built between 1893 and 1896. Designed in the German Renaissance
Revival style by henry C. koch & Co., the building is situated east of
the Milwaukee River and has three distinctive features: the 390-foot
South Tower of the South Tower with a copper spire and lantern, a 235-foot copper clad
North Tower, and the mansard and hipped slate roofs on the nine-story

Milwaukee City Hall

main building connecting the two towers. The building, a perimeter-
load-bearing masonry structure supported on wood piles, is trapezoidal
in plan and approximately 300-feet long. The largely brick masonry
exterior walls contain decorative terra cotta, sandstone, and granite
elements with repetitive massing and detailing throughout (Figure 1).
By Steven DelloRusso, P.E.,
Starting as early as 1909 and continuing through the 1970s, the City
Brent Gabby, P.E. and
of Milwaukee has embarked on several major repair campaigns to
Donald Dusenberry, P.E.
address distress in the building. in 2001, the City once again decided
to investigate the continuing distress, and retained Simpson Gumpertz
& heger inc. to inspect the building and recommend repairs and cost
estimates for a durable long-term solution.
This article, which describes the investigation, is the first in a three-part
series about the eight-year effort to assess and analyze the South Tower,
design repairs above the eleventh floor, and monitor construction.
Subsequent articles will describe the solutions to the structural and
building envelope deficiencies of the South Tower.

The South Tower Structure

The upper portion of the South Tower is a hybrid steel and masonry
structure, approximately 56 feet square in plan, consisting of masonry
perimeter walls up to 54-inch thick and a central four-sided steel truss
(the core truss) that extends vertically from the ninth floor to the top of
the roof spire (Figure 2). at the ninth floor, the core truss is supported
on two built-up steel trusses that span diagonally between opposite
tower corners.
The thirteenth floor has 18-foot diameter clock faces on gables on all
four elevations. Ornamental masonry turrets are located in the corners
at the base of the roof. above the thirteenth floor, the core truss, which is
roughly 12 feet square in plan, is stiffened by additional triangular steel
roof trusses that extend from the core truss to plate girders embedded
in the masonry walls supporting the thirteenth floor. The trusses are
restrained by tension rods that extend downward to the tenth-floor
Figure 1: level. The roof trusses form the slope of the roof.
Milwaukee City The spire roof is supported by the roof trusses and the masonry
Hall – South perimeter walls. Structural tee purlins span between the roof trusses
Elevation. Courtesy and support terra cotta tile, which form the roof deck below the copper
of Eric Oxendorf. roof. a spiral steel staircase located within the core truss provides access
to the upper levels and lantern.
all floors above floor nine are unheated and the masonry arches on
floors ten and twelve are open, leaving the interior of the tower exposed
to ambient conditions.

Field Observations
Staging the structure for the investigation was impractical. Therefore,
we used industrial rope access techniques to inspect the main façade,
sloped roofs, and exterior ornamental features, including large turrets,
finials, and arches (Figure 2). This inspection revealed extensive masonry
cracking and deterioration that was not easily detected by ground or
interior observation.

Masonry Cracking
The masonry walls and ornamental terra cotta elements had numerous
cracks. although some distress was local in nature and did not relate
to overall structural behavior of the tower, many of the cracks were

STRUCTURE magazine 22 November 2010

very large and suggested overall deficiencies in the structural
performance of the South Tower. in addition, many of the
largest cracks had been repaired previously and subsequently
reformed or propagated. This continuing damage indicated
that the cracking was active and that the previous repairs had
not addressed the underlying causes.
Some of the significant cracking extended from the masonry
arches on floor ten upward into the brick walls of floor eleven
(Figure 3). in addition, significant gaps were between the
exterior masonry walls and the flooring systems on floors
eleven and twelve. These gaps suggested that the tower was
spreading in response to loads and environmental conditions.
Circular columns at floor twelve had large vertical cracks,
indicating that the columns were splitting.

Corrosion, Deterioration of the Roof

Elements – Effects of Water Intrusion
The copper spire, installed in 1923 to replace the original
slate roof, was worn thin and open in many locations.
The terra cotta tile forming the roof deck contained heavy
efflorescence. Tile was so deteriorated in some locations that
both small and large pieces of the tiles were falling onto the
thirteenth floor, prompting the City to declare floor thirteen Figure 2: South Tower Structure.
a hard hat zone.
in general, the structural steel framing not embedded in masonry was strain gages on the steel framing, one at a steel tie on floor eleven and the
coated to protect it from corrosion. however, some of the connections other on a vertical member on floor thirteen. all sensors were connected
in the central steel core truss at floors eleven, twelve, and thirteen had to a datalogger mounted inside floor eleven. The datalogger was outfitted
serious corrosion, including substantial build-up of corrosion product with a cellular telephone connection for remote access and data retrieval.
that bent connecting plates. Similarly, corrosion product build-up at we recorded data over a 14-month period.
the steel perimeter floor beams likely contributed to the observed gaps Crackmeter measurements recorded daily cyclic movements as well as
at floor eleven and floor twelve. annual excursions, indicating that cracks were active and responded to
above the thirteenth floor, we noted corrosion at framing-to-masonry temperature changes and thermal gradients through the wall thickness.
interfaces, at some connections in the frame around the core truss, at Crackmeters on the exterior façade recorded greater movements than
the base of the lantern, and above windows in the lantern. we observed those on interior surfaces. Thermocouple data indicated thermal gradients
cracked and spalled masonry above the clock faces and on the clock within the thickness of the masonry, with temperature changes in the
gables where steel elements that support the main roof terminate central portion of the wall lagging those near the faces. These transient
by extending into masonry pilasters near the floor at floor thirteen. gradients induce bending stresses in the stone (Figure 4, page 24).
at the north gable the distress was particularly severe, resulting in a we ran a theoretical 2D heat flow analysis of the masonry using weather
large crack, sliding of the masonry above the crack, and tilting of the data from the National Climatic Data Center, including the effects of
adjacent turret. working with a contractor, we stabilized the turret historical solar radiation and temperature, for a two-week period. The
in place during our investigation to mitigate the potential hazard. a theoretical trace of internal temperature of the masonry at 6 inches
likely contributor to some of the observed cracks and spalls was severe below the surface showed very good correlation to our thermocouple
corrosion of the embedded steel framing. measurements at that depth on the east elevation.
continued on next page
Structural Monitoring
in order to investigate the stability of the observed cracks, we instru-
mented some of them with vibrating wire crackmeters to monitor the
crack width for changes over time. These crackmeters also had integral
temperature sensors to facilitate correlation between crack width and
ambient temperature. we installed crackmeters spanning selected exist-
ing cracks above masonry arches on floor ten (Figure 3), in the interior
wythe of floor eleven, and above flat–topped openings on floor twelve.
Crackmeter locations included different elevations, and both interior and
exterior faces to monitor different exposure conditions. additionally, we
installed three sets of four thermocouple temperature sensors positioned
at various depths through the thickness of the solid masonry wall to mea-
sure the thermal gradient through the wall. Two sets were located on floor
ten, where the total thickness of the masonry wall is approximately 54
inches, one on the east elevation and one on the south elevation. The
third set was installed on the north elevation of floor twelve where the
thickness of the wall is approximately 24 inches. lastly, we installed two Figure 3: Crackmeter and Thermocouple Wiring Above Floor 10 Arch.

STRUCTURE magazine 23 November 2010

 The strain gages on the steel members indicated that
thermally induced stresses caused the greatest variation,
with minimal changes in stress levels from externally
applied forces.

Structural Analysis
Concurrent with our field investigation, we performed
finite element (Fe) analyses of the tower structure and
masonry components. These analyses included: a model of
the steel structure, a Fe model of a section of the masonry
wall, and a detailed Fe model of a masonry column.
Field samples extracted from the structural steel
confirmed material properties for our analytical models.
Brick and masonry properties used for analysis were based
on test data from a previous investigation of the structure
and a literature search for accepted values for materials of
this building’s vintage.
Our analysis showed that stress in the steel structure
was within allowable levels for typical operating loads,
including gravity and wind.
we modeled the masonry wall from floor nine through Figure 5: FEM results for Gravity Loads. Note Area of High Stress Corresponds to Location of
floor thirteen under gravity and thermal loading condi- Observed Crack on Structure.
tions. Results for gravity loads alone showed stresses in some locations we investigated thermal effects on the floor twelve masonry columns
greater than the accepted values of tensile strength of the masonry, in- by modeling a horizontal section of one 20-inch-diameter column.
dicating that the cracks probably formed originally under gravity loads. The column was made with seven face bricks with a rounded surface
The locations of high stress were at the tops of the floor ten and floor forming an interior septagon filled with common brick. historical
twelve arches, where we observed the most significant cracking in the test data indicated the inner brick has significantly higher moisture
field (Figure 5). we repeated our analysis, incorporating some disconti- expansiveness than the outer brick. we assumed a slightly higher
nuities in the model to represent cracks at the locations of high stress. coefficient of thermal expansion for the inner brick than for the face
This analysis showed that the cracks were likely to propagate under brick, and analyzed the effects of a uniform temperature increase of 40
gravity loads. unrestrained uniform temperature changes produced degrees F. Results from this model indicated that the circumferential
little changes in resulting stresses for both models. stresses from the expansion were sufficient to initiate vertical cracks in
we also modeled a horizontal section through the masonry walls at the joints of the exterior face brick. These cracks would allow increased
floor ten (54-inch thickness) and applied a thermal gradient consistent moisture in the inner bricks contributing to further expansion of the
with the field measured gradient. The results produced stresses in the inner core and opening of wider cracks in the face brick.
exterior face greater than the typical tensile stress. in addition, we
modeled the cracks in the exterior face and reran the analysis. Results
indicated that the cracks would likely continue to propagate through
Conclusion
the thickness. Our field inspection, structural monitoring, and theoretical analysis
revealed that the effects of self weight, moisture, and temperature
had significantly distressed the structural system of the South Tower.
in.
70.0
6 exposure, corrosion of embedded steel elements, and stresses from
16
fundamental loads, like gravity, had caused extensive cracking of the
6 16 32 51 Interior
Exterior
unreinforced masonry which was the basic fabric of the Tower’s structural
32 system. Structural monitoring for more than a year demonstrated that
60.0 existing cracks were active, causing further deterioration with continued
51 Wall Section
exposure, creating loose masonry and increased risk of hazards from
falling debris. Global and sweeping repairs would be needed to arrest
50.0 the mechanisms causing distress, make the structure safe, and restore
Temperature, ˚F

the tower to its former glory.▪

40.0 Steven DelloRusso, P.E., is a Senior Staff II – Structures at Simpson

Gumpertz & Heger Inc. He can be reached at sjdellorusso@sgh.com.
Brent Gabby, P.E., is a Senior Principal at Simpson Gumpertz &
30.0 Heger Inc. He can be reached at bagabby@sgh.com.
10-Apr-04
3-Apr-04

4-Apr-04

5-Apr-04

6-Apr-04

7-Apr-04

8-Apr-04

9-Apr-04

Donald Dusenberry, P.E., is a Senior Principal at Simpson Gumpertz

& Heger Inc. He can be reached at dodusenberry@sgh.com.
Date
Photos courtesy of Simpson Gumpertz & heger inc.
Figure 4: Daily Thermocouple Data Showing the Lag of the Central Temperatures.
(East elevation – Floor 10)

STRUCTURE magazine 24 November 2010

Intelligent
Structural Design

With RAM™, STAAD® and

Model, Analyze, Design, Document Documentation Center, Bentley
offers proven applications for:
and Deliver…in an Integrated Workflow l Steel/Steel Composite
l Reinforced Concrete
Having all the applications you need for the tasks at hand, along with the ability
l Wood and Wood Products
to easily synchronize your work with the rest of the project information, helps
you get your job done right, fast and profitably. And when the structural project l Foundation Design
workflow can be integrated, the whole team benefits. l Post-Tensioned Design
l Steel Connections
Bentley’s new Passport Subscriptions for structural engineers provide access to l Structural Drawings and Details
the full range of structural software (including upgrades) and training documents
and information that most projects require. These options are available as an … all easily coordinated with the
affordable alternative to traditional licensing. Architect and other team members and
their design applications – such as
Contact us to learn more. AutoCAD, Revit, MicroStation® and more.

www.Bentley.com/Structural
© 2010 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.
 Great achievements
notable structural engineers
James Buchanan Eads
Engineer, Innovator and Inventor Extraordinaire
By Richard G. Weingardt, P.E.
Although most widely known as the builder
of the great triple-arch steel Mississippi River
bridge that bears his name, James B. Eads’s
range of influence reaches well beyond this
accomplishment. As a true Renaissance man
of his day, this self-educated engineering
genius amassed a fortune of $500,000 (in
1857 dollars) before he was 40 and became
one of most outstanding civil engineers of the
19th century.
James was born May 23, 1820, in Lawrence-
burg, Indiana, the third child of Thomas and
Ann (Buchanan) Eads. Thomas moved his
family from town to town following different
ventures that regularly failed, so James and his
older sisters Eliza Ann and Genevieve received
sporadic educations and did not develop last-
ing childhood friendships.
On September 6, 1833, the Eads family
steamed into St. Louis, Missouri, aboard the
Carrolton, bringing all their possessions to
settle there. As the Carrolton approached
the docks, its chimney flue collapsed, engulfing
the ship in flames and destroying all cargo on-
board. Eight people died. The Eads, uninjured,
landed with only the clothes on their backs.
To help support his suddenly destitute family,
13-year-old James sold apples on the street
and then ran errands for a store. The owner let
James read books on technology and machines
in his library. Intrigued with inventors and the
latest inventions, the boy tinkered with some
of his own, among them a six-foot-long scale-
model steamship.
When James was 17, his family moved to
Le Claire, Iowa, but he refused to go, instead
getting a position as clerk on the steamboat
Knickerbocker. Nineteenth-century Mississippi
riverboat travel was a perilous proposition.
The river was full of debris (called snags) that
caused serious boating accidents and wrecks.
When steamships sank, their cargos littered
the Mississippi riverbed. Young James realized
that a fortune could be made by retrieving
sunken steamships and their treasures. But how
could he do it? By inventing a salvaging tool.
Eads’s efforts to build salvaging equipment
intensified on December 11, 1839, when the
Knickerbocker itself hit a massive snag and
quickly sank with a valuable shipment of lead.
Still, he needed another two years of experi-
mentation to work out the kinks of his first
salvaging invention. Finally, in 1842, Eads re-
STRUCTURE magazine
ceived a U.S. patent for a special boat equipped
with a diving bell that allowed workers to walk
on the dangerous river bottom. Relying on this
invention, he convinced two established St.
Louis boat builders, Calvin Case and William
Nelson, to partner in a river salvaging business
– which achieved immediate success.
Within two years, a prospering Eads sought a
woman to marry. Martha Nash Dillon – an in-
telligent, sultry, attractive debutante – turned
James’s head. Martha came from a prominent
St. Louis family. Her mother had died when
she was young; her father, Colonel Patrick
Dillon – a highly successful St. Louis business-
man – had married Eliza Eads, James’s first
cousin, who made the introductions. From
the start, the Colonel violently disapproved
of his daughter dating this poorly educated
salvage boat captain, so James and Martha
met in secret. After months of courtship, Eads
proposed and Martha accepted – if her father
would consent. He refused.
The pair cooled their heels for a time. Eads
traveled east to research a glass-making ven-
ture. In his many descriptive letters home,
James showed his fascination with the U.S.
Patent Office and its models of patented in-
ventions. After Eads returned to St. Louis, their
frustration over the Colonel’s objections reached
a breaking point and they married anyway on
October 21, 1845. Not surprisingly, this did not
endear Eads to his new in-laws.
Once married, Eads rethought his life’s work
and its treacherous nature. He started a
glass-manufacturing factory in St. Louis, again
traveling east to purchase equipment and ma-
terials. Martha, still at odds with her father,
stayed with Eads’s parents in their small cottage
in Iowa. Eads discovered that establishing a
new business required constant attention, so
the newlyweds decided that he would live in
St. Louis and she in Le Claire – a living arrange-
ment that became permanent. The separated
couple exchanged hundreds of tender letters,
hers imploring Eads to come “home” more of-
ten. He explained how the pressures of business
prevented him from doing so, though he was
home in Iowa when Martha gave birth to their
first child, Eliza Ann, in August 1846.
Ead’s glass factory never got off the ground,
and its doors closed in 1848. Overwhelmed
with debt, James went back into the lucrative
but hazardous salvage business, plunging full-
26 November 2010
James B. Eads. Courtesy of Library of
Congress Prints and Photographs Division.
bore into it even though Martha was pregnant
again. When she gave birth to their only son,
James, Jr., Eads was away at a salvage site.
Focused on keeping up with his escalating
empire, Eads built more salvage boats, each
one more sophisticated than the last. By 1849,
his fleet could raise an entire steamship.
On May 17, 1849, disaster struck when the
steamer White Cloud caught fire at the St.
Louis city wharf. Its flames engulfed 15 blocks
and destroyed 23 steamers – a boon for Eads’s
business that made him wealthy and allowed
him finally to receive his father-in-law’s ac-
ceptance. But tragedy tinged his newfound
prominence when his infant son died on June
15, and again in 1852, when Eads’s mother
passed away. A year earlier, Martha had given
birth to their third child, another daughter.
Exhausted from caring for her ailing mother-
in-law and running the household, she went
to Brattleboro, Vermont, for a much-needed
rest – but too late. The former debutante, only
31 years old, succumbed to cholera.
After mourning for two years, on May 2,
1854, Eads married Eunice Hagerman Eads,
the widow of his cousin Elijah Clark Eads. He
adopted her three young children, Genevieve,
Josephine and Adelaide, expanding his family
of daughters to five.
In 1855, when the U.S. government stopped
removing snags from the Mississippi, Eads
purchased five of its snag boats and converted
them into salvage boats, further expanding
his fleet. In 1856, a Congressional proposal
to clear snags from western rivers and keep
them open year-round passed the House
of Representatives but failed in the Senate.
Undeterred, Eads formed the Western River
Improvement Company, a syndicate of 50
insurance companies that let him finance the
operation privately.
After profiting in the river salvaging busi-
ness for ten years straight, a prospering
39-year-old Eads retired – but not for long.
The Civil War threatened. Eads anticipated
the strategic importance of the Mississippi
to both sides and advanced a radical idea –
that the U.S. Army develop steam-powered,
ironclad warships.
It was coolly received at first. But shortly af-
ter the Confederate forces attacked Fort Sumter
in April, 1861, Eads got a telegram from Eads Bridge from the top of the St. Louis Jefferson Memorial Arch. Courtesy of Richard Weingardt Consultants, Inc.
President Lincoln’s Attorney General, Edward
Bates. It read, “Be not surprised if you are forts. On July 4, 1863, Eads’s gunboats also massive bridge across the Mississippi, the city
called here suddenly.” That August, Eads was played a role in seizing Vicksburg, Mississippi, petitioned the federal government for approval.
awarded a contract to build seven iron-plated which gave Union forces a decisive victory One year after Congress authorized con-
gunboats from which Union forces could and control of the Mississippi. Eads’s Civil struction of the proposed bridge, the St. Louis
conduct their Western campaign and control War contributions won him powerful friends and Illinois Bridge Company was formed.
the Mississippi. Eads rapidly built the Union’s in Washington, DC, among them General Although he had never built a bridge, Eads
first ironclad armada, employing up to 4,000 Ulysses S. Grant, the future president. became its chief engineer. He revolutionized
men and turning out his first ironclad in After the war, the powers-that-be in St. Louis U.S. bridge-building circles by engineering a
only 45 days. By November 1861, four gun- fretted about the city’s status as the gateway multi-arched structure with three spans, each
boats equipped with Eads-designed gun turrets to the west. Transferring goods, animals and exceeding 500 feet. His specifications called
roamed the Mississippi. people via river ferries between the railway for structural steel rather than wrought iron.
The following February, these gunboats were stations in St. Louis and East St. Louis was The three arches – then the largest in the
tested at the bombardments of Fort Henry an ordeal. When water was low or the river world – were supported on four piers (cais-
and Fort Donelson. Backed by firepower from frozen, crossing it proved impossible, delaying sons) extending deep into bedrock below the
Eads’s ironclads, Union troops captured both commerce for weeks at a time. To build a riverbed. The 18-inch-diameter hollow tubes
ADVERTISEMENT – For Advertiser Information, visit www.structuremag.org

STRUCTURE magazine 27 November 2010

 for the arches used 60,000-psi steel from
Andrew Carnegie’s steel works. To meet his
high standards, Eads frequently returned the
steel to Carnegie to be re-rolled or replaced.
On October 25, 1868, Eads’ 74-year-old
father passed away. The elder Eads had basked
in the respect his son commanded, even
from St. Louis elites like the Dillons. When
his granddaughter Eliza Ann – James’s oldest
– married Major James F. How, the son of
a former St. Louis mayor, 800 well-heeled
people attended the wedding.
Amid this uplifting activity, a federal board
headed by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Chief
Andrew Humphreys convened in September
1872 to hear complaints from steamboat inter-
ests about Eads’s bridge. Humphreys ordered a
canal to be built around the bridge to appease
ship-owners. Eads rushed to Washington to con-
vince President Grant that the proposed canal
was unnecessary. Grant overruled Humphreys’s
order, setting up a long-standing adversarial
relationship between Humphreys and Eads.
When Eads’ Bridge opened on July 4, 1874,
more than 300,000 people joined the cel-
ADVERTISEMENT – For Advertiser Information, visit www.structuremag.org
ebration, treating its namesake like a hero.
The structure – a magnificent triumph for St.
Louis – became the harbinger of its prominent
role in transporting cargo between the east and
west coasts. One reporter wrote, “No work of
man on the globe so thoroughly combines
the useful and the beautiful as the grand steel
bridge that stretches its graceful line across the
Mississippi at St. Louis.”
Those days, people believed that elephants
had uncanny instincts and would never cross
an unsafe structure. So, to gain publicity
before the bridge opened, an elephant was led
across its deck. To prove its safety even further,
14 locomotives were driven continuously over
its rail deck two weeks later.
Little time passed before Eads embarked on
his next project – a year-round navigation
channel at the mouth of the Mississippi.
Near New Orleans, the river spreads out
and gradually slows at the Gulf of Mexico,
depositing enormous amounts of sediment
that create sandbars perilous to ship travel.
In the 1860s, sandbars blockaded the port of
New Orleans for weeks and caused massive
amounts of food to rot on the docks. The
exasperated U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
could not maintain a clear channel through
the sandbar area.
In 1874, under tremendous pressure, the head
of the Corps (and Eads’s nemesis) Andrew
Humphreys proposed building a deep canal
from below New Orleans to the Gulf. Eads
thought the scheme ludicrous, instead sug-
gesting jetties or underwater walls parallel to
the river’s current. This less costly plan would
create a narrow channel, speeding up the
water running between the walls. The faster
STRUCTURE magazine 28 November 2010
the water flowed, the more troublesome sedi-
ment it would carry into the Gulf.
Eads made his offer irresistible by proposing to
build the jetties without an advance; the gov-
ernment would pay only if the jetties worked.
In January 1875, by a 6 to 1 vote, a board
of Army and civilian engineers handed Eads
a second victory over Humphreys. Congress
agreed to pay him as the canal reached certain
depths. When it reached the final 30-foot depth,
Eads received $4.25 million.
Ultimately, Eads had proven his point over
Humphreys. His jetties ensured that ships
could travel into and out of the mouth of the
Mississippi. Because of them, New Orleans
quickly advanced from being America’s ninth
largest port to its second largest (after New
York). The news of Eads’s New Orleans success
sealed his reputation as a river engineering
master and placed him in the foremost ranks
of engineers internationally. He was invited
to consult on river control and navigation
problems around the U.S. and in South
America, Canada and Europe.
A decade later, in February 1887, an exhaust-
ed 67-year-old Eads followed doctors’ orders
and sailed to the Bahamas to rest. Aware that
he was dying, his wife Eunice and her daugh-
ter Adelaide accompanied him. On March 8,
the self-made American civil engineer passed
away. American reporters called him a giant
of inventiveness and reasoning to whom the
nation owed a debt of gratitude. Eads’s passing
was mourned around the world.
The recipient of countless honors, Eads had
earned his most prestigious one in 1884, be-
coming the first American to receive the
Albert Medal from the British Royal Society
of the Arts “for services rendered to the art
of engineering.” In 1920, Eads was inducted
into the Hall of Fame for Great Americans in
New York City, where Americans whose vital-
ity, ingenuity, and intellect contributed to the
country’s growth and prosperity are honored.
A bronze bust of Eads was placed in its 630-
foot open-air colonnade beside 98 notables
including Alexander Graham Bell, Eli Whitney
and George Westinghouse. In 1932, the Deans
of American Colleges of Engineering named
Eads one of the five greatest engineering minds
of all time, along with Leonardo da Vinci and
Thomas Edison. To this day, Eads remains a
notable legend in engineering history.▪
Richard G. Weingardt, P.E., is Chairman
of the Board for Richard Weingardt
Consultants, Inc. in Denver, Colorado.
Mr. Weingardt is the author of nine books.
His latest, Circles in the Sky: The Life and
Times of George Ferris, is the one-and-only
biography of Ferris and how he built his
1893 Ferris Wheel. Mr.Weingardt can be
reached at rweingardt@aol.com.
 All Resource Guides and Updates for the 2011 Editorial Calendar, including the 2011
Trade Show in Print, are now available on the website, www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
Your information is posted for an entire year on our website! Listings are provided as a
SOFTWARE UPDATES
courtesy. STRUCTURE® magazine is not responsible for errors. news and information from software vendors

Company Product Description

ADAPT Corporation ADAPT-Floor Pro 2010 now includes integrated vibration analysis for any conventionally reinforced or post-
Phone: 650-306-2400 ADAPT-Floor Pro 2010 tensioned concrete floor system, with or without beams. The software automatically calculates the natural
Email: info@adaptsoft.com with Vibration Analysis frequency of the entire modeled floor system or any user designated sub region. Effects of prestressing and
Web: www.adaptsoft.com cracking are taken into account.

Applied Science International, LLC A non-linear structural analysis software that allows structural engineers to study the 3D behavior of structures
Phone: 919-645-4090 Extreme Loading for through both the continuum and discrete stages of loading. Simulate static and dynamic loads such as blast,
Email: chamm@appliedscienceint.com Structures 3.0 seismic, impact, progressive collapse, and wind. ELS automatically calculates plastic hinges, buckling, cracks,
Web: www.extremeloading.com and separation.

Autodesk Autodesk Revit Structure software offers building information modeling (BIM) to structural engineers, delivering
Phone: 603-206-3525 a better coordinated and more reliable model for efficient and more accurate design and documentation. Improve
Autodesk® Revit® Structure
Email: brian.haines@autodesk.com multidiscipline coordination, and incorporate analysis through bidirectional linking to popular structural analysis
Web: www.autodesk.com software, including Autodesk Robot™ Structural Analysis Professional software.

Bentley Systems, Inc. Structural Modeler is an advanced, yet intuitive and easy-to-use building information modeling (BIM)
Phone: 800-236-8539 Structural Modeler V8i application that empowers structural engineers and designers to create structural systems for buildings and
Email: structural@bentley.com industrial plants in steel, concrete, and timber with unlimited freedom.
Web: www.bentley.com

BimSoft Inc.
CMS is a CADCAM software application dedicated to the production and manipulation of DSTV-CNC (nc1)
Phone: 514-731-0008
CMS file output format. CMS is available standalone or as an extension to Autodesk inventor. The application allows
Email: ddeschamps@bimsoftinc.com the user to create, manipulate and read DSTV-CNC (nc1) output files.
Web: www.bimsoftinc.com

CADRE Analytic Finite element application for Windows with easy-to-use modeling tools. Designed as a practical and affordable
Phone: 425-392-4309 tool for architectural, civil, mechanical and structural engineers. CADRE Pro solves beam and plate type
CADRE Pro
Email: cadresales@cadreanalytic.com structures for internal loads, stress, displacements, vibration modes, and natural frequencies. Advanced features
Web: www.cadreanalytic.com for stability, shock and seismic loads.

Computers & Structures Inc. Computers & Structures, Inc. develops leading structural and earthquake engineering software that is used
Phone: 510-649-2248 SAP2000, ETABS, SAFE, in more than 160 countries worldwide. From simple building structures to complex long-span bridges, CSI
Email: info@csiberkeley.com Perform-3D products do it all with an unmatched balance of practicality and sophistication, setting the industry standard for
Web: www.csiberkeley.com innovation, productivity and integration.

CSC Inc. Join thousands of engineers worldwide and choose TEDDS to automate your daily structural engineering
Phone: 877-710-2053 calculations. Using our extensive library of calculations, you can create a single project document in Microsoft
TEDDS
Email: sales@cscworld.com Word. Plus you can even write your own calculations. CSC’s large development team releases new calculations
Web: www.cscworld.com and updates every month.

Design Data Design Data’s SDS/2 software provides automatic detailing, engineering information, and other data for the steel
Phone: 800-443-0782 SDS/2 Steel Detailing Software industry’s fabrication, detailing and engineering sectors. As BIM software, SDS/2 allows for the sharing of data
Email: Info@sds2.com between all partners on a project, reducing the time required to design, detail, fabricate and erect steel.
Web: www.sds2.com

Devco Software, Inc. New Release! LGBEAMER v8 designs cold-formed steel cee, channel and zee shapes, including 2007 NASPEC
Phone: 541-426-5713 Provisions. HSS Sections per AISC 13th edition. Single and multi-span, uniform, concentrated, partial span and
LGBEAMER v8
Email: rob@devcosoftware.com axial loads. SSMA standard databases and custom sections. Integrated design modules for Shearwalls, X-Braces,
Web: www.devcosoftware.com Framed Openings, Joists and Rafters.

Digital Canal
Steel Design V4 supports AISC 13th Edition for both the Beam and Beam-Column modules. Incredibly detailed
Phone: 800-449-5033
Steel Design V4 “hand calculation” reports are a “must have” to learn the new AISC code! Steel Design V4 is perfect for anyone
Email: clint@digitalcanal.com who needs to size/check steel members but does not need an expensive frame program.
Web: www.digitalcanal.com

FabTrol Systems, Inc. A better way to manage. FabTrol MRP, an integrated steel fabrication management solution, is designed
Phone: 541-485-4719 specifically to support the fabrication process in a job-shop environment, from the estimating stage through to
FabTrol MRP Version 3.5
Email: info@fabtrol.com job-site delivery. The fully integrated software includes estimating, drawing management, material management,
Web: www.fabtrol.com production and shipping modules.

GT STRUDL Version 31 – Comprehensive linear and nonlinear static and dynamic analysis features for frame and finite element
Phone: 404-894-2260 structures. Models plastic hinges, geometric nonlinearities, discrete dampers, tension/compression only members and
GT STRUDL
Email: casec@ce.gatech.edu nonlinear connections. Steel Design including NEW Nuclear Codes and Reinforced Concrete Design. Base Plate
Web: www.gtstrudl.gatech.edu Analysis and Multi-Processor Solvers are available.

Hilti, Inc. Hilti offers two design programs for structural engineers. PROFIS Anchor performs anchor design for cast-in-
Phone: 800-879-8000 PROFIS Anchor place and Hilti post-installed anchors using ACI 318, Appendix D provisions. PROFIS DF Diaphragm performs
Email: us-sales@hilti.com and PROFIS DF design calculations for steel deck roof and floor diaphragms using the SDI Diaphragm Design Manual, 3rd
Web: www.us.hilti.com Edition provisions.

IES, Inc. VisualAnalysis 8.0 has over 20 new features and improvements including; Aluminum Design Checks per ADM
Phone: 800-707-0816 IES VisualAnalysis 8.0 2010, simplified wall and slab modeling with Meshed Area “edge supports” and “edge results”, a vastly improved
Email: info@iesweb.com reporting system including Single-Member Reports, Significant Performance Improvements, and more!
Web: www.iesweb.com

STRUCTURE magazine 29 November 2010

 Company Product Description
iLevel by Weyerhaeuser iLevel’s free, single-member sizing program designs joists, beams, columns and studs. Forte software performs
Phone: 888-453-8358 gravity, wind and seismic load calculations, identifying code-compliant solutions for engineered wood products
iLevel Forte 2.0
Email: ilevel@weyerhaeuser.com and dimension lumber. Size a floor for spacing, depth or most economical fit. Predict floor performance, too, with
Web: www.iLevel.com the TJ-Pro Rating System.

MIDASoft Inc.
midas Civil (Integrated Solution System for Bridges & Civil Structures): 3-D analysis and design software for all
Phone: 212-835-1666
midas Civil 2010 bridge structures – curved girder, composite, segmental post-tensioning, Suspension, Cable-Stayed, skewed Slab,
Email: midasoft@midasuser.com Frame and Culvert bridges. Live Load optimizers for AASHTO LRFD, CSA-S6, BD37, BS, Eurocode, etc.
Web: www.midasuser.com

National Concrete Masonry Association Segmental Retaining Walls

SRWall Version 4 for design of both conventional and gravity and soil reinforced walls. Design System Ver 5,
Phone: 703-713-1900 SRWall and Structural
concrete and clay masonry software for allowable stress and strength design now updated to include 2008 TMS
Email: dgraber@ncma.org Masonry Design System
402/ACI 530/ASCE 5 and 2009 IBC procedures. Free trials available at the website.
Web: www.ncma.org Ver. 5

Nemetschek Scia Scia Engineer integrates modeling, multi-material design, analysis, reporting, and automatic drawing creation in
Phone: 877-808-7242 ONE program. Since everything is linked, a change anywhere is automatically reflected everywhere, saving time
Scia Engineer
Email: usa@scia-online.com and virtually eliminating coordination errors. Easily exchange models with others involved in the design and
Web: www.scia-online.com constructions process. FREE Tryout CD available.

Nuconsteel
NUJOIST, a simple and time efficient method of determining the placement of each pre-punched hole for floor
Phone: 940-891-3050 NUJOIST and NUPANEL
joists. NUPANEL Design, state-of-the-art Panel Design Software operating on the Auto Cad platform enables
Email: lrattan@nuconsteel.com Design Software
users to acclimate right away and become power users quickly.
Web: www.nuconsteel.com

Opti-Mate, Inc.
Phone: 610-530-9031 Software titles include: Merlin Dash for steel and prestressed concrete bridges, Descus I and II for horizontally
Bridge Engineering Software
Email: optimate@enter.net curved steel I and box girder bridges, TRAP for trusses and SABRE for sign bridges.
Web: www.opti-mate.com

POSTEN Engineering Systems Expand your client list with the most efficient & comprehensive post-tensioned concrete software, that’s also
Phone: 510-275-4750 the only software specifically designed to produce efficient, cost saving, sustainable designs with automatic
POSTEN Multistory
Email: sales@postensoft.com documentation of material savings for leed certification, while enabling your architect’s creativity and reducing
Web: www.postensoft.com construction & design costs.

Powers Fasteners Concrete Anchoring –

Phone: 985-807-6666 Post Installed Powers Design Assist Software: FREE downloadable post installed...cast-in-place & custom anchoring software –
Email: jzenor@powers.com Cast-in-Place to assist in designing to the IBC 2003/06/09 – ACI 318 Appendix D.
Web: www.powers.com and Custom
IES-November-Half-Pg-4C.pdf 1 10/1/2010 2:07:11 PM

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

CM

MY

CY

CMY

STRUCTURE magazine 30 November 2010

 Company Product Description
RISA Technologies RISA-3D designs and optimizes steel, concrete, masonry, wood and cold-formed steel with a fast, intuitive
Phone: 949-951-5815 interface. State of the art solution algorithms, customizable reporting options and robust integration with
RISA-3D
Email: info@risatech.com other products such as RISAFloor, RISAFoundation and Revit Structure make RISA-3D the premier choice
Web: www.risa.com for general purpose structural analysis and design.

Strand7 pty ltd.

Strand7 is a sensibly priced FEA system. It comprises preprocessing (with CAD import, automeshing), solvers
Phone: 252-504-2282
Strand7 (linear, non linear, dynamic and thermal) and postprocessing. Release 2.4 has many new features include staged
Email: anne@beaufort-analysis.com construction, a moving load module, new solvers including quasi-static for shrinkage and creep/relaxation problems.
Web: www.strand7.com

StruCalc Inc.
A premier software solution for the design and analysis of beams, columns, joists, rafters and footings using
Phone: 800-279-1353
StruCalc 8.0 solid sawn lumber, steel, structural composite, glulams, flitch beams, I-joists, and tube steel. Includes the new
Email: strucalc@strucalc.com 2009 IBC and 2005 NDS code values.
Web: www.strucalc.com

StrucSoft Solutions Inc. Wall framing extension running on Autodesk Revit Platform for wood and Light Gauge metal construction.
Phone: 514-731-0008 MWF MWF is a template driven application that recognizes Revit walls, doors, windows and openings. Automatically
Email: d.deschamps@strucsoftsolutions.com generates Stud arrangements, shop drawings, Cut List and CNC output. Integrated engineering option available.
Web: www.strucsoftsolutions.com

StructurePoint StructurePoint, formerly the PCA Engineering Software Group, offers concrete design software programs updated
Phone: 847-966-4357 to ACI 318-08 for concrete buildings, concrete structures and concrete tanks. Reinforced concrete structural
Concrete Design Software
Email: marketing@structurepoint.org software includes programs for column design (spColumn), beam design (spBeam), slab design (spSlab), wall
Web: www.StructurePoint.org design (spWall), and foundation design (spMats).

Struware, Inc.
Struware announces a new version of its Code Search program. The software has been simplified, expanded and
Phone: 904-302-6724
Struware Code Search updated to the 2009 IBC. The program will provide you with all pertinent wind, seismic, snow, live and dead
Email: email@struware.com loads in just minutes. Struware also offers other structural software. Demos at the website.
Web: www.struware.com

Tekla, Inc. Structural engineers use Tekla Structures to widen their role in building projects, increase the value of structural
Phone: 877-835-5265 Tekla Structures
engineering and ensure the highest-quality results by moving from design-oriented to construction-oriented
Email: info.us@tekla.com for Engineering
engineering. Tekla interfaces with several architectural, analysis and design software.
Web: www.tekla.com/us

WoodWorks Software WoodWorks Wood Engineering software: Conforms to IBC 2009, ASCE7-05, NDS 2005, SDPWS 2008;
Phone: 800-844-1275 WoodWorks® SHEARWALLS: designs perforated and segmented shearwalls; generates loads; rigid and flexible diaphragm
Email: sales@woodworks-software.com Design Office 9 distribution methods. SIZER: designs beams, columns, studs, joists up to 6 spans; automatic load patterning.
Web: www.woodworks-software.com CONNECTIONS: Wood to: wood, steel or concrete. Canadian version available.

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

GT STRUDL
Structural Analysis & Design Software

Multi-Processor
Solvers
New R • Standalone static analysis solvers take
ele
Versio ase
advantage of multi-core processors and
the large address space available on
n 31 Windows7 64 Bit operating systems.

Performance Examples
• Linear Static Analysis:
55,000 Joints; 330,000 DOF’s
Base Plate Module 54 Loading Conditions
Solution Time (32 bit) 286 Seconds
Solution Time
w/2 Processors (64 bit) 36 Seconds

• Nonlinear Static Analysis:

(13th Edition AISC “Direct Analysis Method”)
2,500 Joints; 15,000 DOF’s
88 Loading Conditions
Solution Time (32 bit) 123 Seconds

The Best Choice

for Georgia Tech - CASE Center

Infrastructure & Nuclear Phone: 404-894-2260

Email: casec@ce.gatech.edu
www.gtstrudl.gatech.edu

STRUCTURE magazine 31 November 2010

 Work quickly.
Work simply.
Work accurately.

StructurePoint’s Productivity Suite of powerful software tools

for reinforced concrete analysis & design

Finite element analysis & de- Analysis, design

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

Design & investigation Analysis, design

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

Finite element analysis & design of reinforced concrete

foundations, combined footings or slabs on grade

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

STR 6-09

Tips for Designing Constructible Steel-Framed Structures
Part 2
By Clifford W. Schwinger, P.E., SECB and Todd R. Campbell, P.E.
This article is a continuation of a discussion of tips and suggestions for improving the
constructability of steel-framed structures, the first part of which was in the August 2010 issue
of STRUCTURE® magazine.
As readers may have observed in Part 1,
seemingly small and innocuous changes in
framing configurations can have a big impact
on the ease and economy with which steel-
structures can be erected.
As noted in the Part 1 article, these tips and
suggestions may vary around the country
and are dependent on local fabrication and
erection practices. The best way for engineers
to know for sure how to best enhance the
constructability of the projects they design
is to pick up the phone and call local steel
fabricators. This is a topic that most fabricators
have strong opinions about – and most are
more than willing to share their opinions
with you.
17) The fewer the pieces the better. In
general, the fewer the pieces of steel
there are to detail, fabricate, ship, erect
and connect, the lower the cost of steel
per ton. The easiest way to minimize
the number of beams on a floor is to
maximize the span of floor slabs and
roof decks.
18) Repetition = economy
19) Avoid framing more than one
member to each side of a column.
Framing multiple members to one
side of a column can complicate
connections and lead to problems
installing bolts and welds. (Figure 5)
Figure 6: Adjust workpoint locations on braced frames to simplify connections.
STRUCTURE magazine
Quality assurance corner
meeting and exceeding requirements and expectations
20) Modify workpoints on braced frames
to simplify connections. Orienting
diagonal brace workpoints at the
intersection of the faces of columns and
beams may require upsizing members
due to secondary moments, but doing so
can simplify the connection design and
reduce the number of bolts. (Figure 6)
21) When using W Shape columns, do
not use columns smaller than W10’s.
W8 columns are too small to enable
installation of single or double angle
connections to the column web. W10
columns are the minimum size for which
such connections can be used. Where
space permits W12 columns are even
better than W10’s. (Figure 7, page 34)
22) Check that braced frame connections
will fit on the foundations, and that
loads can be transferred from the
braced frames to the foundations.
This may sound so obvious as to
not warrant mention; however, a
lack of attention to connection
details between braced frames and
foundations is not uncommon.
23) Do not rely on anchor rods to
transfer braced frame shear forces.
Anchor rods are usually installed
through oversized holes in column
base plates. Anchor bolts cannot resist
33 November 2010
Figure 5: Avoid framing more than one member to
any one side of a column.
shear until the base plate moves enough
so that the anchor rods bear against
the edges of the holes. Shear lugs
welded to the underside of the base
plate or embedded plates cast into the
foundation (to which braced frame
gusset plates are welded) are best for
transferring lateral loads from braced
frames into the foundation.
24) Do not specify slip-critical (SC) bolted
connections where slip-critical bolts
are not required. AISC 360-05 specifies
where slip-critical bolts are required.
The shear capacity of “SC” bolts is
significantly less than bearing bolts.
Requiring “SC” bolts where they are not
truly required will add unnecessary cost
and complexity to connections.
25) Use R=3 for seismic design where
possible. Using R=3 avoids expensive
“seismic” connection detailing
requirements. In areas of low to
moderate seismicity where seismic base
shear is the same or less than base shear
due to wind, there is usually no benefit
to be gained by using a seismic response
coefficient greater than R=3.
26) Do not use beams with flanges less
than 0.30-inch thick as composite
beams. ¾-inch diameter headed studs
are most often used for composite beam
design. The AISC specification requires
that beam flanges have a thickness not
less than the stud diameter divided by 2.5
unless the studs are aligned over the beam
web. Headed studs are normally installed
on beam flanges by welding through the
metal deck. This usually makes precise
alignment of studs over the beam web
difficult to achieve. Accordingly, the use
of very light beams (W8x10, W10x12,
W12x14) as composite beams should

Figure 7: Columns should be at least W10’s to permit
bolted connections to the web.
be avoided. There is nothing wrong,
however, in using these beams as non-
composite members.
27) Do not specify 105 ksi anchor rods
unless absolutely required. Grade 105
material is difficult to bend and weld if
anchor rod repairs are required.
28) Check that column baseplate anchor
rods can be installed in piers,
columns and footings. Failure to
coordinate if anchor rods will fit can
STRUCTURE magazine
lead to RFI’s and potentially costly
field modifications.
29) Do not use flange plate moment
connections on beams with flanges
less than 5 inches for ¾-inch bolts or
6.5 inches for 7/8-inch diameter bolts.
Bolts are difficult to install on beams
with narrow flanges.
30) Avoid using W shapes to resist torsion.
Use rectangular or square HSS sections
when torsion cannot be avoided.
31) Increase beam depth to avoid web
reinforcing. Beams with large copes
at connections should be increased in
depth when required, to eliminate the
need for web reinforcement or special
connections. (Figure 8)
32) Understand local fabricator
preferences with regards to preferred
connection details. Designers should
know the preferred practices of the
steel fabricators in their area. Do local
fabricators prefer to use ¾-inch or
7/8-inch diameter bolts for standard
connections? Do local erectors have any
issues with regards to field-welded versus
field-bolted moment connections?
33) Permit (and anticipate) that
fabricators will want to use to use
Short Slotted (SSL) or Oversized
(OVS) holes to facilitate steel erection.
ADVERTISEMENT – For Advertiser Information, visit www.structuremag.org
34 November 2010
34) Use “tension only” bracing in lightly
loaded braced frames. Cross bracing
using single angle braces designed for
tension are easy to design, detail and erect.
35) Favor double angle diagonal bracing
over HSS and W shape bracing where
feasible in braced frames. The sizes
of double angle bracing may be heavier
than similar strength HSS or W shape
bracing; however, the bolts at the ends
of double angle bracing members are in
double shear and the connections are
easy to detail, fabricate and erect.
36) Do not use camber beams in braced
frames. Cambering beams in braced
frames can cause fit-up problems with
the connections.
37) Do not use camber beams that have
moment connections. Cambering beams
with moment connections can cause fit-
up problems with the connections.
38) Consider gravity moments induced
by fixity created by drag strut
connections. Drag struts are often
required to transfer axial loads through
floor framing members. Drag strut
connections often provide rotational
restraint at the ends of members
similar to the restraint from moment
connections. If drag strut connections
provide such rotational restraint, then

Figure 8: Increase beam depth to avoid reinforcing webs at connections.
the gravity moment occurring due to
connection fixity must be considered
in the drag strut connection and
element design.
39) Consider implications of structural
steel erection sequence for projects
with unusual geometry or framing
configurations. Whereas the contractor
is responsible for temporary framing or
shoring to support the steel while it’s
being erected, designers should consider
the implication of temporary loads
on the framing during construction
in order to minimize the likelihood
that the steel erector will encounter
difficulty in configuring an erection
sequence using the framing members
required for the final structure.
Strengthen and stabilize masonry façades while adding veneer stiffness for added decades of protection and comfort.
CTP has engineered anchor performance solutions for claddings of brick and stone. A selection of corrosion resistant
CTP Stitch-Tie
Helical Wall Tie System for Stabilizing
Veneers and Crack Repair
Proudly Made In the USA!
40) Avoid beam web penetrations where
possible. Where unavoidable, try to
keep web openings in beams within
the middle third of the beam span,
centered at mid-depth and no deeper
than half the beam depth.
41) Use pipe columns to avoid
complexities of skewed connections.
Most connections to pipe columns are
square connections. Pipe columns are
ideal for short columns (no splices)
with reasonably small loads.
Please note: the numbering of graphics
in this article begins with Figure 5, and is
a continuation of the graphics numbering
in the Part 1 article, August 2010 issue of
STRUCTURE magazine.
ADVERTISEMENT – For Advertiser Information, visit www.structuremag.org
Masonry Façade Re-Anchoring Solutions
SAVE THE WALL! Don’t Tear it Down or Cover it with Insulation and Stucco
products are available to re-anchor brick to wood, concrete, steel, block, brick, metal stud, or tile back-ups.
CTP Grip-Max
Mechanical Anchors for Stabilizing Stone Panel Veneers
ANOTHER
CTP
ORIGINAL!
NEW!
CTP GRIP-MAX*
* Patent Pending
CTP Grip-Tie
Mechanical Repair Anchors for Stabilizing Veneers
STRUCTURE magazine 35 November 2010
42) Avoid using W shape columns
oriented in the weak axis in moment
frames. When more frame stiffness
is required, it is better to increase the
sizes of those columns in the moment
frame that are oriented in the strong
axis rather than spending money on
costly moment connections to columns
bending about their weak axis. Most
W14 columns are about three times
stiffer in their strong axis than about
their weak axis.
This list is but a sampling of the ways that
engineers can improve the constructability of
steel-framed structures. There are many other
ways to enhance constructability. One of the
enjoyable aspects of structural engineering is
that we are always learning. Do you have any
constructability tips that were not mentioned
or do you take issue with anything mentioned
in this article? If so, email the authors.▪
Clifford Schwinger, P.E., SECB is a Vice
President and Quality Assurance Manager at
The Harman Group. He may be reached at
cschwinger@harmangroup.com.
Todd R. Campbell, P.E. is an Associate
and Project Manager at The Harman
Group. He may be reached at
tcampbell@harmangroup.com.
Restoration Team Experience Since 1978
CTP CT-16 Construction Tie Products, Inc.
For Brick Additions or Replacement; and for is committed to supplying the highest quality
Brick Veneer Stud Cavity Wall Construction. masonry tie and construction systems
Veneer Anchoring System That Keeps the in North America and satisfying
Air Barrier Intact and the Veneer in Place. all stringent national codes and standards
for today's building structures.
CTP, Inc. promises to be a reliable product
source along with on-time business integrity
for all demanding builders.
Shown
Here With:
CTP Wall Tie
a Multifunctional Triangle Wall Tie That
Can be Used in Standard or Seismic 7974 W. Orchard Drive
Veneer Anchoring Applications
Michigan City, Indiana
Contact our 46360-9390 • USA
Technical Services Team with Phone: (219) 878-1427
your repair application needs Contact: Steve Getz, BSCE
for a cost effective and www.ctpanchors.com
performance targeted
Engineered Anchoring Solutions Provider
veneer stabilizing solution.
 NCSEA’s 18th Annual Conference
Committee meetings, two days of high-quality presentations,
workshops gathering input toward finalization of NCSEA’s
Strategic Plan for 2011-2015, and an amazing number of
News form the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

outstanding projects presented with awards at the closing

reception and banquet, kept everyone busy in Jersey City this
year - learning, interacting, and generally sharing good times
and good information. The Conference headquarters at the
Hyatt on the Hudson in Jersey City, NJ, located on a pier on the
Hudson River, offered breathtaking views of the NYC skyline
just across the river, including a view of the Statue of Liberty
to the south and the George Washington Bridge to the north.
Many attendees made use of the PATH station to come up on
the other side of the Hudson at the World Trade Center site in
NYC, in only 10 minutes time. NCSEA Board

NCSEA Past Presidents

NCSEA News

SEAoNY Host Committee: Rodrigo Suarez, Kristin Darga, Chris Cerino, Zak Kostura and Erik Madsen.
Kevin Poulin, Scott Hughes, Jennifer Pazdon, Erik Madsen, Deborah
McGuinness.

Thank you to SEAoNY

On behalf of the NCSEA Board of Directors, Staff, and Committee Chairs, NCSEA extends our sincere thanks and appreciation
for all of the hard work and behind-the-scenes efforts that SEAoNY undertook to help make NCSEA’s 18th Annual Conference in
Jersey City a most successful one, and one that will be remembered for quite some time! Bill Bast, NCSEA President 2009-2010.

STRUCTURE magazine 36 November 2010

 NCSEA News
NCSEA Winter Institute
February 25 – 26, 2010
Deferred Submittals: What the Engineer of Record
Needs to Know and Show from Design to Construction The Amelia Island Plantation
Read more about the topic in Ben Nelson’s editorial, page 7, and at www.ncsea.com. Amelia Island, Florida
Reservations: 1-888-261-6165 Group number: 022011NCSEAWINT or National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
Mention NCSEA Winter Institute for a special $149 room rate until February 9

NCSEA Webinar November 9

Geometric Axis and Principal Axis Bending of Single Angles – Presented by Whitney McNulty
The AISC Steel Specification includes provisions for both
geometric axis and principal axis bending design of single angles.
However, not every angle can be designed using geometric axis
bending, and the section properties for principal axis bending are
not included in the steel manual. Even geometric axis bending
requires the use of some nonstandard section properties. These
difficulties and a lack of understanding of the unique aspects of
single angle flexure often lead to these members being designed
incorrectly. This webinar, based on our moderator’s newly
written Single Angle Design Manual, will explain step by step
when and how to perform both geometric axis and principal
Whitney McNulty, P.E., SECB is a Se-
nior Associate and Senior Project Structural
Engineer at Fletcher-Thompson, Inc., in
Shelton, Connecticut. He has over 24 years
of experience as a structural engineer with
experience in the design of new buildings as
well as renovations and additions to existing
buildings. Mr. McNulty received his B.S.
Degree in Civil Engineering from Louisiana
State University and his Masters Degree in Structural Engineer-
ing from the University of Connecticut. He wrote the Single

News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

axis bending analyses of single angles. The Single Angle Design Angle Design Manual to consolidate into one reference all of
Manual and its companion spreadsheets are available separately the material necessary to properly design these frequently used
at www.lulu.com/singleangle. structural members.

NCSEA Webinar Series November 4 & 11, December 2 & 9

Practical Design of Structures for Blast Effects – Presented by Jon Schmidt
Various terrorist attacks over the last 20 years have considerably This four-part webinar series will address
increased the perceived risk of similar incidents at other facilities, the following topics:
and a vehicle bomb has often been the weapon of choice. In November 4, 2010 – Design Criteria
the past, mitigation of this threat has been the exclusive domain
of a handful of expert firms and individuals utilizing highly • SEI’s forthcoming Standard for Blast
specialized techniques and tools. Today it is important that Protection of Buildings
“ordinary” structural engineers have at least some awareness and • Other applicable publications from
capability in this area – something that is now possible, thanks to DoD, FEMA, GSA, and others
simplified analysis and design methodologies and user-friendly
November 11, 2010 – Design Methods 1
computer programs.
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB, BSCP is an associate structural • Inherent uncertainties and common assumptions
engineer and the Director of Antiterrorism Services at Burns & • Glazing hazard evaluation using equivalent wind pressures
McDonnell in Kansas City, Missouri. Mr. Schmidt is a nationally
December 2, 2010 – Design Methods 2
recognized expert on the design of buildings to mitigate terrorist
attacks and other threats, and a frequent author and speaker on • Vulnerability assessment using pressure-impulse diagrams
this topic. He is a leader in the development of standards and • Dynamic and equivalent static analysis using SDOF models
guidelines for facility security and blast resistance, serving as
a member of the Board of Directors of the Building Security December 9, 2010 – Progressive Collapse
Council (BSC) and vice-chair of the SEI Codes & Standards • Historical background and current guidance
Committee on Blast Protection of Buildings. • Tie force and alternate path methodologies

Cost: Each webinar awards 1.5 hours of continuing education.

$250 per internet connection per session or $750 for all four The times will be 10:00 am Pacific, 11:00 am Mountain,
sessions on the Practical Design of Structures for Blast Effects. 12:00 pm Central, and 1:00 pm Eastern
Several people may attend for one connection fee. There will
be a $5 fee for each continuing education certificate requested. Approved in All 50 States

Upcoming January 25, 2011: “Heavy Timber Connections: Mistakes and Lessons Learned” – Ben Brungraber
NCSEA February 10, 2011: “Detailing of Unbonded Post-Tensioned Structures to Minimize the Effects of
Webinars Restraint to Shortening” – Bryan Allred

STRUCTURE magazine 37 November 2010

 ASCE’s Bridges 2011 Calendar
Is Now Available to Order!
ASCE’s Bridges 2011 Calendar has been published and is
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
available to order! This year the calendar features twelve
scenic bridges located around the world. Displaying stun-
ning bridge photos and complete with historical notes, the
14”x12” Bridges Calendar is an ideal gift that truly con-
nects with those you work and do business with. For more
information on BULK ORDER DISCOUNTS or to order
your copies, please visit www.asce.org/calendar or call
1-800-548-2723 (U.S.)/703-295-6300 (Int’l).
To imprint your company name and logo on Bridges 2011 Cal-
endar, please download the order form at www.asce.org/calendar
or contact Chi Wang at cwang@asce.org or 703-295-6203.
2011 Structures Congress
Technical Program Now Available
Green Valley Ranch, Resort and Spa
Las Vegas, Nevada
Structural Columns
April 14-16
Don’t Gamble on your Future - is the theme for the 2011
Structures Congress in Las Vegas, NV, April 14-16, 2011
The Congress offers 10 concurrent tracks on a variety of topics
including, Bridges, Buildings, Research, Business, Forensics
and more; 101 Technical Sessions to choose from. Look at the
technical program online today: http://submissions.miracd.
com/ASCE/Structures2011/Itinerary/ConferenceMatrix.asp
The Congress will demonstrate what is redefining structural
engineering in the areas of bridge and transportation structures,
buildings, and advances in research. You will exchange ideas
with your peers and find out how their company has adapted
to changes in today’s global economy. Take this opportunity to
earn PDHs and apply your new knowledge so that you and your
business will thrive.
This year’s Congress schedule has an exciting new change!
The Congress opens on the morning of Thursday, April 14,
and concludes with an afternoon closing technical session on
Saturday, April 16, 2011.
Visit the Conference website for more information:
http://content.asce.org/conferences/structures2011/
STRUCTURE magazine 38
Firth of Forth Bridge, Scotland.
Photograph Brian Lawrence/
Photographer’s Choice/Getty Images
News from the Fiberglass
Reinforced Plastics Stacks
Standards Committee
ASCE has published Design of Fiberglass-Reinforced Plastic
(FRP) Stacks as ASCE Standard (ASCE/SEI 52-10). This
work was prepared by the Fiberglass Reinforced Plastics Stacks
Standards Committee. In addition, the committee is encouraging
applications to join the work of the committee and to give it
assistance. The purpose of the committee is to create a consensus
standard for the design, fabrication, erection and maintenance
of free-standing, self-supporting, wind-exposed FRP Stacks.
Visit the SEI Codes and Standards Committees Webpage
for more information, or to fill out our on-line application:
www.seinstitute.org/committees/codeform.cfm.
New Trial Design Problem
Call for Participation in SEI 2010
Trial Design Problem Solutions
Concrete Masonry Unit Wall Out of Plane
Anchorage Design Problem
Deadline for submission – November 30, 2010
Trial Design problems are an investigation into how structural
engineers interpret code provisions. The exercise is designed to
take about an hour, and all solutions will be anonymous in the
publication of results. Your participation will help ensure that
ASCE/SEI standards continue to provide information clearly.
Please participate and encourage your colleagues to do so.
Visit www.SEInstitute.org to access the problem and instruc-
tions. Submit your solution by November 30, 2010 to:
Suzanne Fisher
SEI of ASCE
1801 Alexander Bell Dr.
Reston, VA 20191
sfisher@asce.org
Fax 703-295-6361
November 2010

New Books Available from ASCE
Tensile Membrane Structures
ASCE/SEI 55-10
This standard provides minimum cri-
teria for the design and performance
of membrane-covered cable and rigid
member structures, including frame
structures, collectively known as tensile
membrane structures. It includes per-
manent and temporary structures. The
requirements of this standard apply
whether the tensile membrane structure
is independent of or attached to an-
other structure.
This standard will be valuable to engineers and practitioners
involved in the construction and/or design of tensile mem-
brane structures.
Errata
SEI posts up-to-date errata information for our
publications at www.SEInstitute.org. 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.
Structural Columns
Snow Loads: Guide to the Snow Load Provisions
of ASCE 7-10
Snow Loads: Guide to the Snow Load
Provisions of ASCE 7-10 provides a
detailed and authoritative interpreta-
tion of the snow load provisions of
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
and Other Structures, Standard ASCE/
SEI 7-10. With clear, concise language,
Snow Loads illustrates the key concepts
and guides for applying the provisions
to the design of new and existing struc-
tures that could collect falling or drifting snow. Like its predeces-
sors that accompanied earlier editions of the Standard, this new
book includes examples of flat roof loads, sloped roof loads,
partial loads, and all types of conventional drift loading. New
material includes design examples for leeward drift and sliding
loads on adjacent structures and an improved discussion of bays
susceptible to ponding loads. The Frequently Asked Questions
chapter contains six new discussions.
Snow Loads is an essential supplement to ASCE/SEI Standard 7
for all engineers, architects, and construction professionals who
work on projects in regions subject to snow.
Visit the ASCE Publications Website to order:

The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE

www.asce.org/bookstore

Spring 2011 Fazlur R. Khan Lecture Series at Lehigh University

The Fazlur Rahman Khan Distinguished Lecture Series honors Dr. Fazlur Rahman Khan’s legacy of excellence
in structural engineering and architecture. Initiated and Organized by: Dan M. Frangopol, Fazlur Rahman Khan
Endowed Chair of Structural Engineering and Architecture, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
ATLSS Center, Lehigh University.

1st Lecture: David Scott 3rd Lecture: Chris D. Poland

Arup, Americas Building Practice Chairman & CEO, Degenkolb
Leader, Past Chairman, CTBUH, Engineers, San Francisco, CA
New York, NY
Building Disaster
Extreme Engineering Resilient Communities
Friday, February 18, 2011 Friday, April 8, 2011
4:10 pm 4:10 pm

2nd Lecture: Masayoshi Nakashima

Kyoto University, Disaster Prevention Research
Institute, Kyoto, and E-Defense, National
Research Institute for Earth Science and For more information about the lecture
Disaster Prevention, Kyoto, Japan series, see the Lehigh University website at:
www.lehigh.edu/frkseries
Safeguarding Quality of Life:
the Role of Large-Scale Testing
Friday, March 25, 2011
4:10 pm

STRUCTURE magazine 39 November 2010

 Looking for a few good people!
CASE is looking for a few good engineers who would like to
devote their time to improving the business practice experience
of engineering firms. A brief description of each committee is
provided below; if you are interested in learning more, contact
Heather Talbert, htalbert@acec.org or 202-682-4377.
Programs and Communications Committee
Responsible for the planning and organizing all CASE education
The Newsletter of the Council of American Structural Engineers

sessions at the SEI Structures Congress, ACEC Fall Conference,

plus CASE planning meeting locations. This committee also keeps Guidelines Committee
the editorial calendar of CASE articles for both STRUCTURE Responsible for developing and maintaining national guidelines
magazine and Structural Design magazine. of practice for structural engineers.
Contracts Committee Toolkit Committee
Responsible for developing and maintaining all CASE contracts Responsible for developing and maintaining all risk
to assist practicing engineers with risk management. management tools.

Follow ACEC on Facebook

The just-launched ACEC National Facebook page offers members and prospective members a new way to
stay abreast of important Council initiatives and events.
Go to: www.facebook.com/pages/ACEC-National/150339271657089?ref=ts to view ACEC’s new Facebook page; or search
“ACEC National” in your Facebook account. You must be registered with Facebook to view the ACEC National page.

CASE Roundtable Presentation CASE ExCom Meeting

On Wednesday, September 16 , CASE members presented a Outcomes
th

roundtable program to the joint SeaMASS/BASE meeting at the

MIT Faculty Club. Topics for the tables were as follows:
• What Structural Engineers’ Risk Working with the State of
Massachusetts, David Corkum Esq.
• How to Collect Your Fees Without Getting Sued, David
Collings Esq.
• The Risk Associated with BIM, David Odeh P.E., SECB
• The Engineers Role in Government Advocacy, Katharine
Mottley, ACEC Government Affairs
Look for discussion items from the roundtables in the next
CASE newsletter!
On Friday, September 17th, the CASE ExCom met in Boston
for their meeting. The following are the outcomes:
• Is convening a committee to update the CASE Strategic
Plan, first meeting to be held in conjunction with the
Structures Congress in April, 2011;
• Voted to hold winter planning session along with the
NCSEA Winter Institute in February 2011;
• Looking at instituting up to two new CASE committees to
handle the areas of publicity and membership/marketing.

CASE Summer Meeting Nominate Vendors for

CASE in Point

Outcomes Engineering Inc.’s New

On Thursday, September 17th, CASE Committees met in
Boston for a day-long planning session. The following are the
results of the committee planning meetings:
• The Toolkit Committee is creating additional tools for the
project manager;
• The Contracts Committee is working on commentary for
the AIA Integrated Project Delivery agreement, as well as
updates to CASE Documents 11 and 15;
• The CASE commentary on AISC Code of Standard
Practice is in the final approval process;
• The Project Specific Peer Review Guideline is near
completion;
• Planning continues for the upcoming Structures Congress
and ACEC Fall Conference.
Peer-to-Peer Resource Guide
If you have a vendor that provides exceptional service in the
accounting/financial; marketing/communications; or IT service
areas, recommend them to other ACEC members by submitting
their name to the new Peer-to-Peer Resource Guide, which will
be published in special 2011 issues of Engineering, Inc. magazine.
Go to http://listserv.acec.org/peers/ to access the Peer-to-
Peer Resource Guide Nomination Form. Fill out your contact
information, select a corresponding vendor category, and then
complete the vendor contact information.
You may recommend more than one vendor in any of the three
categories. For more information, contact Andrea Keeney at
akeeney@acec.org.

STRUCTURE magazine 40 November 2010



CASE in Point
ACEC Education Information
Expert Witness Training
Can Earn Big Returns
• Have you been an expert witness?
• Is there a possibility you might serve as an expert witness –
for your own firm or a client?
• Are people in your firm qualified as expert witnesses?
If your answers to these questions point to a need for increasing
your courtroom know-how and confidence level, ACEC’s
Applying Expertise as an Engineering Expert Witness course,
Nov. 11-12, Orlando, brings you the inside knowledge you
need. You’ll gain recognition as an expert and take the first step
in earning the EXW(SM) designation offered by ACEC.
Being an expert is more than having superior subject knowl-
edge... it means knowing how to answer questions under oath,
and when to stop talking. In a court proceeding, the smallest de- whenever it is offered. Whether it’s the unexpected call to serve
tail – your demeanor, the way you dress the inflection of your as an expert for your own firm’s benefit, or using the knowledge
voice or poor eye contact – can make or break your case. as another service in your firm’s business portfolio.
This totally unique program offers a view from an engineer’s Get agenda highlights, browse the course brochure, and register

CASE is a part of the American Council of Engineering Companies

perspective, a judge’s and an attorney’s, and earns rave reviews at advance best-price; www.acec.org/education/.

ACEC Online Seminars – November and December

November December
16 – Systematic Client Feedback: How to Get It, Use It,
th
7th – What is the Right Value for Your Firm? By David Cohen,
and Benefit From It, By Mike Phillips, DesignFacilitator Matheson Financial Advisors
Ten usable criteria for monitoring your firm’s Firm internal/external sale in your future? Start building
ongoing performance. more shareholder value now.
17th – Short-Term Economic Outlook—Will Financial
Reform Help Your Business? By Greg Ip, editor, For more information about
The Economist
An examination of the current state of the economy, and these seminars, please go to:
the outlook for growth and implications of the recent www.acec.org/education.
financial reform bill.

House Passes ACEC-Backed

ACEC Government Affairs Update
ACEC/CA Gains Victory on Duty to
Defend as Governor Signs Bill into Law
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law
the ACEC-backed legislation that protects design professionals
from two recent state court rulings that imposed a duty to
defend when a client was sued by a third party, even if the design
professional was neither negligent nor in breach of contract.
“ACEC/California’s leadership with this legislation has shielded
our members from potentially disastrous economic liability,”
said ACEC President Dave Raymond.
9/11 Liability Relief Legislation
The House of Representatives passed ACEC-endorsed legis-
lation that provides liability relief for engineering firms involved
in the response and cleanup of the Ground Zero site following
the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center.
Under the legislation, individuals who lived or worked near
Ground Zero and accept compensation for related health
problems must relinquish their right to sue. In paying any
remaining claims, engineering firms’ liability will be capped
by the limit of their professional liability insurance policy as of
September 11, 2001.
ACEC is urging the Senate to act on the legislation later in
the Fall.

STRUCTURE magazine 41 November 2010

 Endangered Species: Structural Engineer
By Ann Marie Garko-Hill, P.E.
Do you agree or disagree with the title?
Like it or not, if we do not take the time
to show our youth what a Structural Engi-
neer does, this title will be fact. If you ask
a middle or high school student, “Who
designs the structure of a building?” they
will most likely respond, “The Architect.”
Now I know this stings, but it is the harsh
reality. For the most part, and as I am sure
you are well aware, Structural Engineers
stay behind the scenes and are rarely fea-
tured in the limelight.
Career selection is happening earlier and
earlier. It has become the middle and high
schools obligation to expose our youth to
a variety of different careers so they can
at least choose a general area they would
be interested in. There are a wealth of
programs available to our youth to help
in “trying out” different professions –
space camp, robotics competitions, and
Future Cities to name a few. I have been
mentoring for 18 years, and the only
program I know of that gives exposure to
Structural Engineering is the West Point
Bridge Design competition. This lack of
programming is something structural en-
gineers should work to change.
Most of the programs mentioned above
are national, if not global, programs. This
Structural Forum
may seem intimidating, but most of them
started out as small local programs. All of
these programs have one thing in com-
mon: enthusiastic volunteers. Realistically,
we are not going to create a nationally
recognized structural engineering mentoring
opinions on topics of current importance to structural engineers
program overnight. But with engineers
becoming involved locally, we can engage
and generate interest about structural
engineering among our youth.
Getting involved can start at your child’s
school or scout troop. If you do not
have children but would still like to get
involved, find out what schools are closest
to your work or home. (Student chapters
of ASCE occasionally look for structural
engineering presenters as well.) Then email
the principal, science teacher, or scout
Tip: Increase volunteerism by asking a colleague to assist you
with the youth mentoring opportunity. Once they see how fun
and rewarding it can be, they may be tempted to do it again.
Structural Forum is intended to stimulate thoughtful dialogue and debate among structural engineers and other participants in the design and construction
process. Any opinions expressed in Structural Forum are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C 3 Ink, or
®
the STRUCTURE magazine Editorial Board.
STRUCTURE magazine
Hint: Job shadowing is a relatively easy way to volunteer. Many
high schools now require students to spend time job shadowing as
part of course work. Check in with the career/counseling department
of the local high school and add your name to the list.
Middle School and High School students
participating in a hands-on Structural
Engineering workshop. The students were tasked
to build a structure from a box of office supplies.
The structures were later load tested, allowing the
students to see if their theories worked.
leader. If you are feeling really ambitious,
many school districts have science and
technology centers that offer longer-term
opportunities. It has been my experience
that these individuals or groups are typically
thrilled to have a volunteer and can always
find some way to get you involved. Word
travels fast; just one inquiry could lead to
many different opportunities.
Now that you have found a group that
wants to learn more about structural
engineering, what should you present?
Pulling together a stunning powerpoint
with pictures of our projects is definitely
appropriate for youth presentations, but
it should not be the whole presentation.
Depending on the age group, spend time
giving the basic science behind our profes-
sion – gravity loads, lateral loads, tension
and compression. Always ask the group for
input through open-ended questions. You
will be surprised how much even young
children know about loads and forces.
42 November 2010
The best way to really drive home these
concepts is through a hands-on activity.
Kids learn and retain more from doing.
Plus it is a great way to get them excited
about a topic. It is the hands-on activities
that may seem most difficult to develop
and plan. Frankly, it may be keeping many
of us from pursuing youth mentoring op-
portunities. Luckily, there are many tested
activities that are easy to pull together.
Gum drop geodesic domes, balsa wood
bridges, and gum drop bridges are all quick
and easy activities that kids enjoy. For older
kids, outlining the design process using
analysis software is always a big hit.
If I have inspired you to get out there and
show our youth how exciting it is to be
a structural engineer, and I hope I have,
contact your local SEA and let them know
what you are doing. Perhaps they will be
able to assist you with supplies or ideas.
Ask if they have a resource bank for pre-
sentation ideas or materials. If they do not,
then suggest they start one. Through net-
working on a local, regional and national
scale, we can help each other make youth
mentoring fun and easy and increase the
awareness of structural engineering.▪
Ann Marie Garko-Hill, P.E currently
works for Bentley Systems Inc. Ann
Marie is a past president of the Structural
Engineering Association of Michigan.
She has been active in various committees
over the years and continues to head the
Youth Mentoring Committee. Ann Marie
would be happy to share any of her
presentation material or ideas. Email
her at amgh3@comcast.net.
For some ideas on props to use when
speaking to students, see Bob Johnson’s
ABC interview under Hot Topics on the
NCSEA website: “How to Talk to Kids
About Structural Engineering”.
 In
tr
od
uc
in
g
Take your design right down to the nuts and bolts with the all-new
RISAConnection. In addition to its interactive and intuitive
interface, RISAConnection features:

Quick & Easy Modeling

3600 Connection 3D Views

Shop Drawing-style Views
Comphrensive Engineering Calculations
Both ASD and LRFD Codes (13th Edition)

The Most Common Moment & Shear Connections

www.risa.com 800.332.RISA
© 2010 RISA Technologies, LLC