STRUCTURE

NCSEA | CASE | SEI DECEMBER 2023

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Excellence
AWA RDS

INSIDE: SOILS & FOUNDATIONS

Nγ Factor in Soil Bearing Design 16

Delegated Steel Design 44
Solar Arrays & Wind Uplift Loads 46
See how high-strength steel is
enabling sustainable design.
nucor.com/madeforgood
 ADVERTISER index Please support these advertisers
STRUCTURE ®

ASDIP Structural Software..........................3 Nucor .................................................C2 CIRCULATION

CSI - Computers & Structures, Inc. .................C4 PCA - Portland Cement Association ...........C3 [email protected]
CTS Cement ......................................... 15 Quick Tie ...............................................4
DEWALT .............................................. 24 SEI ASCE ............................................. 55 EDITORIAL BOARD
Chair John A. Dal Pino, S.E.
ENERCALC ............................................6 Simpson Strong-Tie ...................................9
Claremont Engineers Inc., Oakland, CA
Lynch Mykins ........................................ 33 Subsurface Constructors, Inc. ................... 35 [email protected]
MAX USA CORP ................................... 47 Taylor Devices ...................................... 19 Jeremy L. Achter, S.E., LEED AP
New Millennium......................................8 Williams Form Engineering Corp. ............. 37 ARW Engineers, Ogden, UT

Erin Conaway, P.E.

December
AISC, Littleton, CO

Linda M. Kaplan, P.E.

2023
Pennoni, Pittsburgh, PA

Charles “Chuck” F. King, P.E.

STRUCTURE
Digital Issue Urban Engineers of New York, New York, NY
NCSEA | CASE | SEI DECEMBER 2023

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Excellence
AWA RDS

Nicholas Lang, P.E.

Vice President Engineering & Advocacy, Masonry
Available Only at
Concrete Masonry and Hardscapes Association (CMHA)
INSIDE: SOILS & FOUNDATIONS

Nγ Factor in Soil Bearing Design

Delegated Steel Design
Solar Arrays & Wind Uplift Loads
16
44
46
STRUCTUREmag.org
Jessica Mandrick, P.E., S.E., LEED AP
Gilsanz Murray Steficek, LLP, New York, NY

Jason McCool, P.E.

Robbins Engineering Consultants, Little Rock, AR

Brian W. Miller
Cast Connex Corporation, Davis, CA

Evans Mountzouris, P.E.

Retired, Milford, CT

Kenneth Ogorzalek, P.E., S.E.

KPFF Consulting Engineers, San Francisco, CA (WI)

John “Buddy” Showalter, P.E.

International Code Council, Washington, DC

On the Cover: 2023 Structure Eytan Solomon, P.E., LEED AP

Silman, New York, NY
of the Year Winner, Children’s
Museum of Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Jeannette M. Torrents, P.E., S.E., LEED AP
JVA, Inc., Boulder, CO

Photo courtesy of KPFF Consulting

Engineers & ERA Structural EDITORIAL STAFF
Engineering Executive Editor Alfred Spada
[email protected]

Production
[email protected]

MARKETING & ADVERTISING SALES

Director for Sales, Marketing
& Business Development
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

Monica Shripka
Tel: 773-974-6561
[email protected]

STRUCTURE magazine (ISSN 1536 4283) is published monthly

®

by The National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (a nonprofit

Association), 20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 750, Chicago, IL 60606
312.649.4600. Periodical postage paid at Chicago, Il, and at additional
mailing offices. STRUCTURE magazine, Volume 30, Number 12, © 2023
by The National Council of Structural Engineers Associations, all rights
reserved. Subscription services, back issues and subscription information
tel: 312-649-4600, or write to STRUCTURE magazine Circulation, 20 N.
Wacker Drive, Suite 750, Chicago, IL 60606.The publication is distributed
to members of The National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
through a resolution to its bylaws, and to members of CASE and SEI paid
by each organization as nominal price subscription for its members as a
benefit of their membership. Yearly Subscription in USA $75; $40 For
Students; Canada $90; $60 for Canadian Students; Foreign $135, $90
for foreign students. Editorial Office: Send editorial mail to: STRUCTURE
magazine, Attn: Editorial, 20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 750, Chicago, IL
60606. POSTMASTER: Send Address changes to STRUCTURE magazine,
20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 750, Chicago, IL 60606.

STRUCTURE is a registered trademark of the National Council of Structural

Engineers Associations (NCSEA). Articles may not be reproduced in whole
or in part without the written permission of the publisher.

D ECE M B ER 2023 3
SECURE YOUR
STRUCTURE WITH
WOOD FRAME
QUICKTIES TM

FOR RELIABLE
FOUNDATION
ANCHORING
U.S. Patent No. 6,014,843

QuickTieTM cables fill the critical need for a structural tie-down system that:
4 Resists uplift, shear, and overturning loads,
4 Is cost-efective,
4 Is installed after framing is complete, and critically,
4 Proof-tests itself at installation.
And, QuickTieTM cables do all of this better than traditional and competing methods.
13300 Vantage Way
Jacksonville, FL 32218
Phone: (904) 281-0525
quicktie.com Wood Frame [email protected]
Installation Video
 Contents

D ECEM BER 2023

NCSEA SEE Awards
26 2023 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING EXCELLENCE AWARDS
Congratulations to the 2023 SEE Award Winners! Structure of the Year goes to Children’s Museum of Eau Claire by KPFF Consulting
Engineers & ERA Structural Engineering.

Columns and Departments

7 Editorial 20 Structural Design 46 Codes and Standards
Celebrating the 10th Anniversary Determination of Blast Loads on Buildings Solar Arrays Designed Incorrectly
of the SEI Futures Fund! By Abdulqader Mohammed and Abdulrahman Salah for Wind Uplift Loads
By Joseph Burns, P. E., S. E., FAIA, F. SEI, F. ASCE, By Joe Maffei, S. E., Ph.D., Gwenyth Searer, S. E.,
F. IStructE, F. IABSE Rob Ward, S. E., and Rafael Sabelli, S. E.

25 Structural Forum
8 Letter to Editor Structural Pilgrimage to East
Addressing Retention Is Good Coldenham Elementary School 48 Code Updates
for Profession By Jim D’Aloisio P. E., LEED AP 2024 IBC Significant Structural Changes
By John “Buddy” Showalter, P. E., M. ASCE, M. NCSEA,
and Sandra Hyde P. E., M. ASCE, M. NCSEA

10 Structural Influencers 38 Structural Forces

Emily Guglielmo, S. E., P. E., F. SEI Building Settlement
By Dilip Khatri, Ph. D., S. E.
58 Structural Verse
What’s an Engineer Doing
By Neil Wexler
12 Structural Observations
The Sky’s The Limit, But At What Cost ? 42 Historical Structures
By Roumen V. Mladjov, S. E., P. E. 19th Century Mississippi River Bridges #10 In Every Issue
By Dr. Frank Griggs, Jr.
3 Advertiser Index

16 Structural Design 45 Earth Retention Guide

The Nγ factor in Soil Bearing 44 Business Practices 52 NCSEA News
Capacity Calculations The Art of Delegated Steel Design
54 SEI Update
By Dr. N. Subramanian, Ph. D., F. ASCE By Michael A. Stubbs P. E., S. E. and Adam Sanchez P. E.
56 CASE in Point

Publication of any article, image, or advertisement in STRUCTURE® magazine does not constitute endorsement by NCSEA, CASE, SEI, the Publisher, or the Editorial Board. Authors, contributors, and advertisers retain sole responsibility for the content of their submissions.
STRUCTURE magazine is not a peer-reviewed publication. Readers are encouraged to do their due diligence through personal research on topics.

D ECE M B ER 2023 5
 EDITORIAL
Celebrating the 10th Anniversary
of the SEI Futures Fund!
What? Yes, the SEI Futures Fund is a decade old this month!
By Joseph Burns, P. E., S. E., FAIA, F. SEI, F. ASCE, F. IStructE, F. IABSE

T he Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE

created the SEI Futures Fund (SEIFF) in
December 2013 to support the SEI Vision, and so
to advance the art,
science, and practice
of structural engi-
It is very exciting to work on the ASCE 7 Flood
Loads Committee. We are working on the first
this month is an excellent time to celebrate what neering for a brighter major upgrades to this Chapter in many cycles.
we all have accomplished. It is also a time to look future for our profes- As the Young Professional representative on the
forward to what we will be supporting in 2024. sion. It does this by committee, I am helping to shepherd the group’s
I will end with a request to consider the SEIFF funding four strategic thoughts and concepts into ballots for voting.
in your year-end giving, especially since your gift initiatives outside the - Jessica Mandrick P.E., S.E., LEED AP;
now will have quadruple the impact on our ability normal bounds of the Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP ASCE 7-22 Flood
to fund our future strategic initiatives through the SEI operating budget. Loads Subcommittee Secretary-Historian-Balloteer
CSI 3 to 1 gift match. It does not support
scientific research. The
four strategic priori-
What Is the SEI Vision? ties for funding are to:
• Invest in the future of the profession, What Can You Do
In 2013, SEI published A Vision for the Future of • Promote student interest in structural to Support the SEIFF?
Structural Engineering and Structural Engineers: A engineering,
case for change. The SEI Vision lays out an inspiring • Support younger members involvement in An Incredible Match Gift Opportunity!
view of what the structural engineering profession SEI, and
could be by the year 2033, and it makes recom- • Provide opportunities for professional In 2023, Computer and Structures, Inc.
mendations for SEI Board of Governors’ action to development. is matching donations to the SEI Futures
lead us to that vision. The SEI Vision is that the Donors may be individuals, companies, or orga- Fund three-to-one up to $250,000! This
Structural Engineering Profession will be: nizations. The Board’s strategy for individuals has very generous challenge grant expires on
• A unique, fully engaged profession with a been top-down, ensuring we have the support January 1, so please consider a year-end
strong identity; and commitment of the SEI Board, the SEIFF contribution to the SEI Futures Fund, as it
• Recognized for the contribution the profes- Board, and the many SEI committees, chapters, will quadruple your donation’s impact on
sion makes to and members. Total grants from the SEIFF to our ability to fund our strategic priorities
º the creation of inspiring structures, SEI initiatives over the past five years have been and future grants. We have one month left
º public safety and risk management, and $1,027,000! to meet this challenge, and we need your
º economic and sustainable use of support in fully achieving the remark-
resources,the use of innovative What Will the SEIFF able matching gift. Many thanks to Ashraf
technologies; Habibullah and CSI for this challenge!
• Stewards of the built environment; and Support in 2024? This year’s SEI Futures Fund Board
• Attractive career path to the best and brightest. members are Joe Burns, Linda Kaplan, Jim
For 2024 the SEI Futures Fund Board has Harris, Dan Linzell, and Otto Lynch. Please
committed more than $200,000 for these reach out to any of us if you have questions.
What Is the SEI Futures Fund? strategic programs: We also want to thank Jon Magnusson for
• Student and Young Professional Scholarship his excellent stewardship of the SEI Futures
Recognizing the pressing need for professional to engage at in-person SEI conferences. Fund as its Chair for 2022-2023, and par-
volunteerism and financial resources necessary Apply by January 3 for scholarship to ticularly for his role in securing the very
to bring about the SEI Vision, SEI established SEICon24 March 19-22 at NASCC in San generous challenge grant from Computers
the SEI Futures Fund (SEIFF). Every dollar Antonio – www.SEICon24.org/scholarships! and Structures, Inc.
contributed goes directly to profession-build- • Young Professional Travel Support for SEI Learn more and give at www.asce.org/
ing initiatives identified and approved by the Standards committees. SEIFuturesFund. Thank you!■
SEIFF Board. The SEI Futures Fund operates • SEI Carbon Impacts Workshop
in collaboration with the ASCE Foundation • Publish SEI Prestandard for Calculation Joseph Burns P. E., S. E., FAIA, F. SEI, F. ASCE,
for administrative and professional fundraising Methodology for Structural Systems in F. IStructE, F. IABSE, is a Managing Principal at
expertise, so that 100% of your gifts are utilized Whole-Building Life Cycle Assessment Thornton Tomasetti in Chicago, and Chair of the
to support our grants. • Advocacy for the Flood Loads Supplement SEI Futures Fund Board.
The goals of the SEI Futures Fund are unique: #2 to ASCE 7-22

STRUCTURE magazine D ECE M B ER 2023 7

 LETTER to EDITOR
Addressing Retention Is Good for Profession
T he article “Improving Engagement and Career Longevity in Structural
Engineering” struck a chord with me. The author's candidness was
perfect. The points were relevant and will help bring to light actual barriers
to retainment in structural engineering. As a 20 something, female structural
engineer, this article made my day. About a month ago, I almost left the
industry to pursue a stress analyst role in aerospace. I ended up deciding to
stick it out in the building industry a little longer. I have worked so hard to
get where I am, and it is hard to let all of that effort go. To save money, I
completed my master's degree in structural engineering in a year. To keep
up with increasing levels of responsibility, I took the SE exams a year after
I started my first job. For me, structural engineering sounded like a great
career, as it combined lifelong technical learning and architecture. We play
a vital role in the built environment, especially with regard to public safety.
However, lingering hardships can make this profession frustrating for female
structural engineers. Sometimes it is just hard to deal with the "boys club" a lot of turnover among structural engineers in the building industry, and
mentality of our profession, especially when it comes to CA work, and the it has made me question my own reasons for going into the profession.
poor maternity and paternity leave benefits in many small A|E firms make Addressing retention is good for the profession as a whole because when
it feel like I am penalized as a female engineer for starting a family. I have young structural engineers like me start questioning if we made a mistake
seen female engineers get overlooked for promotions after they have a child, in getting into this industry, we jeopardize losing the next generation.
and this is really discouraging. There is a lot of lingering 1950s mentality
left among firm leaders, unfortunately, but it is encouraging to see people
advocate for good improvements in our profession. I have also witnessed Name withheld upon request

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

Flush frame

Vibration performance equal to wide-flange beams at up to a 35% weight savings

Reduce material costs and simplify construction. New Millennium flush-frame connections
feature a more efficient design that eliminates beam torsion concerns. Our published set
of standard flush-frame connections simplify design and specification. Now, structural
engineers can quickly and accurately specify flush-frame connections, streamlining
fabrication and erection. Together, let’s build it better.

LEARN
MORE

newmill.com

8 STRUCTURE magazine
 Specify more
applications with
one connector.

© 2023 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. LTTP22-S

Now you can specify a single connector as a tension tie or holdown.

New from Simpson Strong-Tie, the code-listed LTTP2 light tension tie securely attaches wood joists,
studs, or posts to concrete or masonry walls and foundations. With allowable loads 25% higher than
previous models, it enables greater design flexibility. This versatile connector has two distinct nailing
patterns for horizontal installation as a tension tie with I-joist purlins or 2x solid sawn purlins, plus an
extruded anchor bolt hole that accommodates multiple bolt diameters. The LTTP2 also is suitable for
®
vertical installation as a holdown, and can be fastened with nails or Strong-Drive SD Connector screws.
®
Select the LTTP2 and Simpson Strong-Tie fasteners for your next project. To learn more, visit
go.strongtie.com/lttp2 or call (800) 999-5099.

Residential Solutions | Products, Software and Service for Smarter Building

 structural INFLUENCERS
Emily Guglielmo, S. E., P. E., F. SEI
Emily Guglielmo, is a Principal at Martin/Martin, Inc. and
leader of the San Francisco Bay Area office. She is Chair of the
ASCE 7-28 Seismic Committee and is a voting member of the Wind
and Main Committees. Emily is the chair of the National Council
of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA) Code Advisory
Committee. She has presented lectures on structural building code
provisions nationally and internationally and was recognized with
the Susan M. Frey NCSEA Educator Award. Emily currently serves
on the boards of the Charles Pankow Foundation, the NCSEA
Foundation, and the AISC Education Foundation. She is the
President of the Structural Engineers Association of California
(SEAOC) and served as the President of NCSEA in 2020-2021.

How did you become so involved in the development of codes

and standards?
My journey into the world of code development can be traced
back to a pivotal moment in my childhood. At the age of 8, I
was a competitive gymnast, training for hours each day. One
October evening, I was running down the vault runway when
I was knocked off my feet. Sitting on the mat, I watched the
lights sway, ultimately learning the San Andreas Fault had
ruptured near the Loma Prieta peak. Witnessing the aftermath
of collapsed roadways, bridges, and buildings, along with the
realization of the significant loss of life, left a profound impact Another prevalent misconception is that "the people who
on my career choices. write codes just like to change things for the sake of change."
As I pursued this career, I developed a deep passion for earth- I know today this belief couldn't be further from the truth.
quake engineering, recognizing the critical role of robust seismic Those professionals who volunteer their time to update codes
codes. However, as with many colleagues, the complexity of the are genuinely committed to improving our profession.
codes frustrated me. When should an engineer apply the Ωo While we are cautious about unnecessary change, we do carry
provisions, and why is Chapter 12 of ASCE 7 so convoluted? I the responsibility to advance our profession by consistently
do not believe in complaints without constructive participation. improving our codes. When compared to other industries,
However, a path to contribution was elusive for me. like technology and medicine, their embrace of innovation
Several years later, my journey took a significant turn at a and change is integral to success. If our aim is to attain higher
Structures Congress, for which I was a Young Professional compensation or command greater respect, we must similarly
scholarship recipient. During an early, chilly morning run embrace change, even if it entails mastering new aspects of our
around Lake Michigan, I had the privilege of meeting John codes every six years.
Hooper, who held the position of Chair of ASCE 7 Seismic. I personally invite anyone who holds strong reservations about
From that day forward, John served as my mentor and advocate, our codes to consider participating in a code committee meet-
facilitating my engagement in national code committee work. ing. You will find countless hard-working engineers giving their
While such work can be an exercise in patience, my participa- time and energy to improving our profession. Join us.
tion has provided me with a deep understanding of technical
topics, a mechanism to contribute to the improvement of our What advice would you give to young engineers?
profession and communities and numerous lifelong friendships. My advice to young engineers is simple: Say Yes! In today's
world, where many advocate to "say no," I believe that young
What do you think is the biggest misconception engineers engineers should seize every chance. There are countless opportu-
have about the development of codes and standards? nities specifically reserved for young engineers, from scholarships
One of the most common misconceptions among engineers is to designated committee positions. Take advantage of these
the belief that "codes are written by a bunch of academics who prospects; step through each door and make connections.
are just looking to get their research published." In reality, the Throughout my career, I've found that saying yes, especially
process of developing codes and standards requires numerous when faced with challenging or intimidating situations, has
technical experts from diverse backgrounds, including practicing resulted in new opportunities, meaningful relationships, and
engineers, producers, academics, government representatives, increased career satisfaction. Embrace the unknown, and don't
and building officials. be afraid to stretch beyond your comfort zone.

10 STRUCTURE magazine
How do you balance your volunteer
engagement with your professional
responsibilities and personal life?
Balancing volunteer engagement, pro-
fessional responsibilities, and personal
life is a continuous journey, and my
approach has evolved. In the early days,
I sought a strict work-life balance, often
leaving me overwhelmed and perpetually
unsuccessful. Instead, I’ve shifted this
mindset. Rather than seeking balance, I
focus on being content and present with
my choices. I may choose to leave work
early to coach a soccer game, but rec-
ognizing such a choice might result in
an evening work session. I might miss
a school concert, opting to attend an
out-of-town committee meeting. At the
end of the day, if I am satisfied with my
choices and present in my activities, then
I’ve found my balance.

What do you think is the biggest chal-

lenge facing our profession in the next
ten years?
I believe that one of the most significant
challenges (and opportunities) facing our
profession in the next decade is the rapid Emily accepting the 2023 NCSEA Service Award.
advancement of Artificial Intelligence
(AI). We stand at an inflection point and must make a choice avenues for value creation. If we harness AI's capabilities to
to resist or strategically embrace AI's disruptive potential. handle monotonous tasks, it will liberate engineers to focus
In the next five years, AI is likely to replace many of the tasks on innovation and creative problem-solving.
we currently perform. Engineers who are unprepared to answer
the question "what's next" run the risk of being left behind. Who inspires you?
To ensure a meaningful future, we must actively explore new My three incredible kids. They are a constant source of inspi-
ration, reminding me to be brave, to ask
thought-provoking questions, and to
approach each day with boundless energy.
Their curiosity, resilience, and unwavering
enthusiasm inspire me to be a better person.

What do you think you will be remem-

bered for in terms of your personal legacy,
and/or what are you most proud of?
I’m not preoccupied with a personal
legacy, but I do hold a deep aspiration for
the structural engineering profession that
I will leave behind. I hope my contribu-
tions will contribute to a profession that
is markedly more diverse and adaptable
and seizes new opportunities.
Throughout my career, I've had the privi-
lege of learning from others benefiting
from the wisdom, energy, and innova-
tions of those who came before me. I hope
my efforts serve as a launching pad for
future generations of engineers, propelling
them to take structural engineering to
new heights. My pride is in the enduring
impact of my work on the future evolution
Family Vacation in Banff, Canada. of our profession.■

D ECE M B ER 2023 11
 structural OBSERVATIONS
The Sky’s the Limit, But at What Cost?
Extreme structure development and the future.
By Roumen V. Mladjov, S. E., P. E.

S ince ancient times, building greater, stronger, and faster has

been part of humanity’s aspiration for greater achievement.
The desire to surpass prior achievement is strongly embedded in
(100m) tall. Damaged by earthquakes, the structure collapsed com-
pletely in the 14th century.
Medieval European cities likewise competed with the size and height
the human mind and essential for development and progress. Since of their cathedrals. The Lincoln in England exceeded the height of
their projects can be easily compared, measured, and assessed for Khufu’s pyramid with its spire completion in 1311, reaching 525
efficiency, engineers and builders have historically been on the feet (161.5 m). In modern times, the Eiffel Tower, erected in Paris
frontline of this effort. in 1889, became the tallest man-made structure (until 1930) at 986
Exceptionally tall buildings and long-span bridges have a powerful feet (300.5m), later increased to 1,083 feet (330m) with an antenna.
impact and often become landmarks and symbols of a society’s finan- This was the first monument built not for a higher power but to dem-
cial, technological, and sociopolitical prowess. Earliest in this respect onstrate technical advancement and ability. It also became a symbol
was the ziggurat temples of ancient Mesopotamia, most famously of its city, country, and humankind’s everlasting strive toward new
that at Babylon (the historical prototype of the Tower of Babel in the heights and achievements.
Bible), of which Nebuchadnezzar II (605–562 BC) boasted to have Modern skyscrapers originated in Chicago and New York City in
“raised its top to heaven” while just 107 ft (60m) tall. Not surprising the 1880s, with the Home Insurance Building in Chicago (1885),
as the first modern “skyscrapers” in 1884–1888 were not taller than ten stories rising 138 feet (42.1m), later amplified to twelve stories
131–164 ft (40–50m). Similarly, Egyptian pharaohs strove to dazzle (1891) and 180 feet (54.9m). The total height and number of stories
with the height and size of their pyramid tombs, most famously those became the subject of fierce competition in erecting these buildings.
at Giza. However, Khufu’s tomb (shortly after 2600 BC), whose An example would be the Chrysler Building in New York City (1930),
original height was 481 feet (146.6m), remained the tallest building 1046 feet (318.8m), designed to exceed the height of both a skyscraper
until the fourteenth century. completed just before it and of the Eiffel Tower. Walter Chrysler spe-
The Lighthouse of Alexandria, a building with multiple floors with cifically directed his architect, William Van Allen, to “build it taller
fire on top, was built by Sostratos of Knidos (282–246 BC) at the than the Eiffel Tower!” However, as soon as the next year, the record
entrance of Alexandria’s harbor. It stood probably some 328 feet for the tallest building passed to the Empire State Building (1931),

Figure 1 The Tower of Babel by P. Bruegel the Elder (left), 19 th century Eiffel Tower (center), 21st century One World Trade Center, NY (right).

12 STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 2 (left to right) Chrysler Building, Empire State Building, John Hancock, Chicago 1969, World Trade Center 1972 – 1973, NY, and Sears (Willis) Tower, 1973 Chicago.

with 1250 feet (381m), which was also the fastest-built skyscraper. Unfortunately, plenty of extreme structures had to be abandoned or
The United States continued to lead in tallest buildings with the even demolished soon after completion, becoming superfluous or
famous Chrysler Building, Empire State Building, New York City; unsustainable, including large sports arenas built for unique events.
World Trade Center, New York City, 1973, and Sears (now Willis) Remarkable examples of this are the NY State World Fair Pavilion;
Tower, Chicago, 1973, until the completion of Petronas Towers in Houston Astrodome, Texas; Olympic Stadium, Athens; the 105-story
Kuala Lumpur in 1998. hotel in Pyongyang, North Korea, etc.
The construction industry keeps track of and ranks accomplishments Despite such considerations, the urge to build taller and greater to
in the tallest buildings and structures, largest covered arenas, and lon- demonstrate prosperity and superiority remains. Enterprising engineers
gest bridge spans. Each new structural record has outcompeted prior and builders, commissioned and encouraged by powerful, wealthy,
top achievements in some respect, calling for exceptional designers and ambitious states, corporations, or individuals, continue trying
and builders, innovative ideas and technology, efficient structural to surpass previous achievements. Since overcoming the challenges
systems, stronger materials, excellent organization, and persistent posed by such projects have contributed to the further development
efforts. This renders the competition for improvement essential for of structural and technological knowledge, instead of suppressing the
structural progress. natural desire for greater achievement, it might be better to redirect
The inspiration to build greater, stronger, and faster is admirable, but such competitiveness toward more efficient and economic structures.
is there a limit, or should there be one? Engineers can build a 9,800 What is more beneficial for society – to build a single record-breaking
feet (3,000m)-span bridge, but would the same be advisable for a tall building or multiple tall structures at 80-85% of the cost and
6,600 feet (2,000m)-tall tower or a 3,300 (1,000m)-wide building? No materials?
doubt they can achieve such extreme tasks, but are they really needed It may be necessary to consider most new projects as a balance
and functionally justified? Will they be useful and efficient once built? between meeting the justified requirements and achieving a higher
Engineers and builders continue building taller and larger as such level of efficiency to achieve this shift in values. Such undertakings
demands arise; however, in many cases, these needs have already been would require the persistent and combined effort of professional,
satisfied, if not surpassed. There is no genuine or pressing need for more structural, and architectural associations, universities, and journals.
skyscrapers taller than 2,500 feet (800m). A 3,300 feet (1,000m)-tall In this time of heightened ecological consciousness, changing energy
building cannot be more efficient to build and maintain than two and climate conditions, and aim for sustainability in all aspects of
1,600 feet (500m) ones with equal floor area. Perhaps, by the 2020s, life, it makes sense to put the needs of the community and the Earth
the era of super skyscrapers may be over. Satellites circling the earth above self-purpose and pride. Therefore, build as tall, long, and
provide better service than excessively tall TV and radio towers. strong as necessary but efficiently, combining science and reason:
This leaves long-span bridges in specific rare cases where such are build more with less!
needed due to natural, socioeconomic, or geopolitical factors. Extreme There are already buildings taller than 800m, stadiums larger than
structures have driven builders to use their best knowledge and expe- 300m, and bridge spans longer than 2,000m, with current record
rience and inspired further development in structural engineering. achievements as follows:

D ECE M B ER 2023 13
 Figure 3 Sydney Harbor bridge, Australia, 1932, L=1,650 ft (503 m) (left); Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco, USA, 1937, L = 4,200 ft (1,280 m) (center); Akashi
Kaikyo Bridge, Japan, 1998, L = 6,532 ft (1,991 m) (right).

The tallest building is Burj Khalifa, Dubai, UAE, 2010; the tallest Structural Efficiency and How to Measure It
building in the US is One World Trade Center, New York, 2014, 94
stories, 1,777 feet (541 m) tall, replacing the two World Trade Center The simplest way to determine the most efficient structural system for
towers, destroyed by terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Among different types of structures is to compare their highest achievements. But
the tallest buildings, the most efficient are: this does not help estimate a specific project’s efficiency in terms of cost or
• Sears Tower (now Willis Tower), Chicago, 1973: 1,451 feet construction materials. The main goal of efficient and economic design
(442m), 108 stories is to build a specific structure for the lowest possible cost, with fewer
• John Hancock Center, Chicago, 1969: 1,128 feet (344m), construction materials, while providing a high level of functionality and
100 stories safety based on the design criteria and code requirements. The amount
• Burj Khalifa, Dubai, UAE, 2010: 2,717 feet (828m), 163 stories of construction cost measures the efficiency and economy of a structure,
the quantity of materials used, and the total structural weight, all of them
The tallest free-standing tower is Skytree Tower, Tokyo, Japan, 2012, per unit area (ft2 or m2) – for example, $/ft2, concrete in ft3/ft2 or steel in
a steel structure with a roof at 1,624 feet (495m) and an antenna at pounds/ft2. For example, among the tallest buildings, the most efficient are:
2,080 feet (634m). The tallest guyed mast is the KVLY-TV mast, • Sears Tower (now Willis Tower): 0.36 kg/m3
Blanchard, North Dakota, 2,064 ft (629 m). The world’s tallest non- • John Hancock Center: 0.43 kg/m3
building structure ever built was the Warsaw Radio Mast, 2,121 feet • Burj Khalifa: 0.50 kg/m3
(646m), built in 1974 and collapsed in 1991.
By that time, the height of skyscrapers had been surpassed by the While the Burj Khalifa, currently the tallest skyscraper in the world, is
Ostankino TV Tower in Moscow (1967) at 1,762 feet (540m) and among the most efficient, it is worth noting that it (and others built recently)
the CN Tower in Toronto (1976) at 1815 feet (553m). is significantly less efficient than skyscrapers built in the 1960s and 1970s.
The development of the longest bridge spans is no less fascinating than Comparing cost, materials, or weight per unit area works for comparable
the development of tall structures, starting from the ancient still-in-use spans L or heights H. Still, it does not work for significantly different
bridges (spanning a few meters) to the George Washington Bridge, dimensions, as larger structures have more demand than smaller structures.
1931, New York, the first bridge surpassing 3,500 feet (1067 m), up Structures with different dimensions can be compared using efficiency/
to todays’ bridges with about 6,600 feet (2,000 m) spans. Moreover, economy (E/E) coefficients, which are structural cost, materials, or weight
a newer system – hybrid suspension, a combination between classic divided by the product of the area times the structural span L (or the height
suspension and cable-stayed was recently introduced with promising H for tall buildings), where L is the single-bay span or the average span for
more efficient structure for long spans (still in theoretic concept). structures of two or more spans. The E/E cost coefficient is $/ (m2 × L); for
All these are great achievements, enlarging the boundaries of struc- structural steel, it is kg/ (m2 × L); for concrete, it is m3/ (m2 × L). The smaller
tural possibilities. But, of course, the longest span is not the only the E/E coefficient, the higher the structure’s efficiency in cost or materials.
element that counts. There are multiple ratings for the ten Greatest For example, engineers can probably use bridge efficiency as the best
bridges; some are always part of these lists: Sydney Harbor, Golden option for estimating structural system efficiency because the “bridge”
Gate, and Akashi. constitutes 95% or more of the total project. Steel is the material used
for most extreme structures. Lately, composite steel-concrete is gaining a
place, mostly for structural elements resisting high compression forces (as
Needs of a Growing World Population concrete-filled steel sections or tubes (CFST/S).
The most efficient bridge systems are:
The world population was 8 billion in September 2022 and is esti-
Table 1 Bridge Efficiency by System
mated to reach 9 billion in 2042. The world population continues to
grow, and people satisfy their needs by building more houses, factories, Average Span E/E steel E/E cost
larger cities, and infrastructure. How can we, as engineers, help make System Length ft (m) (kg/m3) ($/m3)
this growth less damaging to the planet? The simple response is to
Suspension 3,967 (1,209) 0.98 16.79
design and build more efficiently with fewer materials – concrete,
steel, masonry, and wood. Saving even 10 or 15% in materials will Cable-stayed 1,683 (513) 2.46 35.27
reduce the carbon footprint by the same percentage. It would be most Steel continuous girders 673 (205) 3.00 14.20
beneficial to redirect the “competition” in construction from build-
Steel arch 722 (220) 4.50 39.83
ing extreme or record-setting structures to building more efficiently.

14 STRUCTURE magazine
 Currently, the most efficient bridge system is the suspension, as Similarly, just as extreme structures inspire further develop-
shown in Table 1. The longest spans utilizing this system at pres- ment, more efficient structures would stimulate excelling in the
ent are Çanakkale Bridge, Dardanelles, Turkey (2022): 6,637 feet structural economy. Engineers should be encouraged to design
(2,023m) and Akashi-Kaikyo, Japan (1998): 6,532 feet (1,991m). and build more with less. It is time for competitions like “best
There were projects for even longer suspension steel bridge spans like projects of the year” to recognize the importance of efficiency
at Messina Strait with a span of 10,827 feet (3,300m) and T.Y. Lin’s and economy in their considerations. Building more with less
at Gibraltar Strait with a span of 16,400 feet (5,000m), but these is essential for efficiency in construction and a necessity for
were never completed. our future.■
Considering the E/E coefficients above, one can compare systems
with close average lengths. For larger differences in span length, the
significant increase in demand for longer spans should be considered. Roumen Mladjov, S. E., P. E., Roumen’s main interests are structural and
It is important to avoid extreme minimalism, as the main require- bridge development, structural performance, seismic resistance, efficiency,
ment for any structure is to be strong, resilient, and safe, based on and economy. ([email protected]).
structural code requirements and the judgment of the responsible
structural engineer.
Assembling a database for different types
of structures with information for project
parameters, efficiency and economy data
will help engineers and their clients select
the most appropriate and efficient system
from the early design stages. Such a data-
base could be developed with help from
academia, professional organizations and
publications, and engineering, architectural,
and building companies. Academia should
teach students efficiency and economy from
the earliest stages of their professional train-
ing. Reducing structural materials quantity
in construction is the most efficient way to
limit its carbon footprint and preserve the
environment. Moreover, competing for more
efficient structures would involve a larger base

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

of engineers than the very few who have had
the chance to participate in the design of
extreme projects. Involving more engineers
in such efforts would increase the chances of
innovative solutions and greater efficiency.

Conclusion
The competition for more extreme structures
is far from over. The continuing development
of design, technology, and construction mate-
rials allows for building even more extreme
and efficient structures: “The Sky is the
limit.” This urge for greater achievement has
contributed to today’s high accomplishments
and is a powerful tool for further structural
progress. Unfortunately, when an elite team is
working on a new record-setting structure, the
question of efficiency and economy recedes
to second place. Therefore, when developers,
engineers, and builders are “reaching for the
Sky,” they should remember that achieving
more efficient and economical projects is
equally important to save resources and the
environment. While competing for record
achievements advances structural progress,
we should remember that efficiency and
economy are at least equally important.

D ECE M B ER 2023 15
 structural DESIGN
The Nγ factor in Soil Bearing
Capacity Calculations
Learn about different philosophies used in the determination of soil bearing capacity.
By Dr. N. Subramanian, Ph. D., F. ASCE

O ne of the first steps

required in any
structural design is deter-
mining the safe bearing
capacity of the soil, qa, at
the site. Terzaghi (1943)
was the first to present a
comprehensive theory for
evaluating the ultimate
soil-bearing capacity of
shallow foundations.
Terzaghi suggested that
for a continuous or strip
foundation (i.e., one
whose width-to-length
ratio approaches zero),
the failure surface in the Figure 1 General shear failure surface as assumed by Terzaghi for a strip footing (after Terzaghi, 1943).
soil at ultimate load may
be assumed as a logarithmic spiral surface (see Figure 1). (Note Terzaghi’s bearing capacity equations have now been modified to
that this is the case of general shear failure.) consider the effects of the foundation shape, depth of embedment, and
The ultimate soil-bearing capacity equations contain three factors: load inclination. The details of these equations may be found in any
Nc, Nq, and Nγ as shown in Eqn.1. Although there is not much dis- standard textbooks on Soil Mechanics [e.g., Bowles (1996), Coduto
pute in the calculation of Nc and Nq, there is disagreement regarding (2015)]. It must be noted that many design engineers still use the
using the proper value of Nγ. The differences in the reported Nγ Terzaghi equation, which is considered to provide fairly good results.
values are substantial compared with those proposed initially by
Terzaghi. Hence, one must be careful while selecting the Nγ value
in their calculations. Bearing Capacity Factors
Using an equilibrium analysis, Terzaghi expressed the ultimate bear-
ing capacity of continuous or strip foundation as: Although there is no dispute in the calculation of Nc and Nq, there
is more disagreement regarding the proper value of Nγ . Some of
Q
qu = = cNc + γ0 Df Nq + 0.5γ1BNγ (1) the proposed equations for these factors by different researchers are
A
discussed below.
Where A = area of footing in ft2, B = width of footing in ft, c
= cohesion in psf, Df = depth of surcharge in ft (See Figure 2), Equations Suggested by Terzaghi (1943)
Q = ultimate bearing capacity, lb, qu = ultimate bearing capacity
in psf, γ0, γ1 = unit weight of soil in lbs/ft3, Nc, Nq, Nγ = bearing The bearing capacity factors were defined by Terzaghi (1943) as
capacity factors that are non-dimensional and are functions only below:
of the soil friction angle ϕ. This equation (1) is known as Buisman-
Terzaghi equation. Nc = ^Nq - 1h cotz (4)
The net ultimate bearing capacity and safe bearing capacities will be
as follows: (Deducting γ0Df from qu to get qnet) 3r z
e 2c 4 - 2 mtanz
Nq = (5)
z
qnet = cNc + γ0Df (Nq − 1) + 0.5γ1BNγ (2) 2cos 2 c 45 + 2 m

qsafe = qnet /FS + γ0Df (3)

K pc
Nγ = 0.5 c - 1 m tanz (6)
cos 2 z
It must be noted that no safety factor is applied to the surcharge.

16 STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 2 Depth of Surcharge: (a) ordinary footing; (b) footing in the basement; (c) raft foundation

Nc = 2 + π = 5.14 for ϕ = 0 (9a)

1 + sinz
Where Kp γ is the passive earth pressure coefficient =
1 - sinz Nγ = 2(Nq + 1)tanϕ (10a)
For foundations that exhibit the local shear failure mode in soils,
Terzaghi suggested the following modifications to Equation (1): Vesic (1975) considered the possibility of local shear failure in
his bearing capacity equations. Terzaghi (1943), on the other
Q 2
qu = A = 3 cNc´ + γ0Df Nq´ + 0.5γ1BNγ´ (Strip foundation) (7) hand, only considered general shear failure. Local shear failure
is a type of bearing capacity failure that occurs when the soil
Nc´, Nq´, and Nγ´ are the modified bearing capacity factors and beneath the footing is not strong enough to support the load.
The soil shears and yields, but the footing does not tilt. This
2
calculated by replacing ϕ by ϕ´= tan−1 a 3 tanz k The variation of type of failure is common in loose sands and soft clays. General
shear failure is a type of bearing capacity failure that occurs
Nc´, Nq´, and Nγ´ with the soil friction angle ϕ is given in Table 2. when a large portion of the soil beneath the footing shears. This
Guidance for selecting general and local shear failure is given in type of failure is common in dense sands and stiff clays. Vesic’s
Table 3. bearing capacity equations are more complex than Terzaghi’s
equations because they account for the possibility of local shear
Equations Suggested by Vesic (1975)
ϕ Nc’ Nq’ Nγ’
Vesic (1975) used the following formulas to compute the bearing
capacity factors: 0 5.7 1.0 0
5 6.74 1.39 0.074
z
Nq = e rtanz tan 2 c 45 + 2 m (8) 10 8.02 1.94 0.24

Nc = (Nq − 1)cotϕ for ϕ > 0 (9a) 15 9.67 2.73 0.57

20 11.85 3.88 1.12
ϕ Nc Nq Nγ 25 14.80 5.60 2.25

0 5.70 1.00 0.0 30 18.99 8.31 4.39

5 7.34 1.64 0.5 35 25.18 12.75 8.35

10 9.61 2.69 1.2 40 34.87 20.50 17.22

15 12.86 4.45 2.5 45 51.17 35.11 36.00

20 17.69 7.44 5.0 50 81.31 65.60 85.75

25 25.13 12.72 9.7 Table 2 Terzaghi’s modified bearing capacity factors Nc’, Nq’, and Nγ’
30 37.16 22.46 19.7
35 57.75 41.44 42.4 Void ratio, e Soil condition Recommended method

40 95.66 81.27 100.4 >0.75 Loose Local shear

45 172.28 173.28 297.5 <0.55 Dense General Shear

50 347.50 415.14 1153.2 Interpolate between 1 & 2

0.55 to 0.75 Medium
(mixed shear)
Table 1 Terzaghi’s modified bearing capacity factors Nc, Nq, and Nγ (Source:
Bowles,1996) Table 3 Guidance for the selection of general and local shear failure (IS 6403:1981)

D ECE M B ER 2023 17
 ϕ Nc Nq Nγ (Vesic) Nγ (Kumbhojkar) Nγ (Hansen) Nγ (Mayerhof) Equation (13) Nγ (German code)
0 5.14 1.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.00
5 6.49 1.57 0.45 0.14 0.08 0.07 0.466 0.05
10 8.35 2.47 1.22 0.56 0.39 0.37 1.31 0.26
15 10.98 3.94 2.65 1.52 1.18 1.13 2.94 0.79
20 14.83 6.40 5.39 3.64 2.95 2.87 6.20 1.97
25 20.72 10.66 10.88 8.34 6.76 6.76 12.96 4.51
30 30.14 18.40 22.40 19.13 15.07 15.66 27.66 10.05
35 46.13 33.30 48.03 45.41 33.93 37.16 61.48 22.62
40 75.31 64.20 109.41 115.31 79.55 93.70 145.20 53.04
45 133.88 134.88 271.76 325.34 200.82 262.75 374.04 133.90
50 266.89 319.97 762.89 1072.80 570.20 876.36 1092.58 380.21

Table 4 Bearing capacity factors Nc, Nq, and Nγ by Vesic and other researchers

failure. Vesic’s equations also include shape factors and depth Brinch Hansen (1970) provided a lower bound expression to experi-
factors that account for the effects of footing shape and depth on mentally determined values. His expression is of the form:
bearing capacity (shape and depth factors are not discussed here).
The German code DIN 4017 uses different values of Nc and Nγ = 1.5(Nq − 1)tanϕ (11)
Nq than the Terzaghi bearing capacity formula. These values are
based on more recent research and were found to be more accurate Mayerhof (1963) proposed the following equation:
for German soil conditions. The German code DIN 4017 uses the
following expression for Nγ . Note that in this equation (Nq − 1) is Nγ = (Nq − 1)tan (1.4ϕ) (12)
used instead of (Nq + 1):
Following Terzaghi’s assumptions, Kumbhojkar (1993) developed
Nγ = (Nq − 1)tanϕ (10b) a numerical solution procedure to determine Nγ and found that
the results agreed with Terzaghi’s calculations. The Nγ expressions
It has to be noted that Reissner (1924) was the first to formulate the suggested by different researchers are compared in Table 4. Note
soil bearing capacity problem, and using some simplifying assump- that the values of Nc and Nq remain the same for all the researchers.
tions, solved it by the methods of theory of plasticity (Vesic, 1975). Chen and McCarron (1991) suggested the following equation for Nγ:
For weightless soil (γ = 0), he derived the equations for Nq and Nc as z
given in Equations (8) and 9(a) (Vesic, 1975). It is important to note Nγ = 2(Nq + 1)tanϕ tan c 45 + 5 m (13)
that both Reissner’s and Terzaghi’s equations for Nq are approximations
of the actual bearing capacity of a footing. The most accurate way to The above equation results in a value that is 1.036 times the value
determine the bearing capacity of a footing is to perform a load test. of Vesic for ϕ = 5°, 1.235 times the value of Vesic for ϕ = 30°, and
1.376 times the value of Vesic for ϕ = 45°.
Values of Nγ Suggested by Other Researchers

Han et al., 2016 Bolton and Lau Smith Kumar

λ (as per Han et al., 2016, Smooth footing)
ϕ Rough footing (1993) (2005) (2009)
0 1 10 100 104 104 Smooth footing
5 0.085 0.210 0.242 0.246 0.248 0.495 0.09 – 0.087
10 0.281 0.619 0.707 0.721 0.723 1.446 0.29 – 0.282
15 0.699 1.411 1.605 1.637 1.641 3.282 0.71 0.70 0.699
20 1.579 2.968 3.375 3.445 3.452 6.904 1.60 1.58 1.577
25 3.461 6.137 6.995 7.145 7.163 14.32 3.51 3.46 3.457
30 7.653 12.92 14.80 15.16 15.19 30.38 7.74 7.65 7.644
35 17.58 28.47 32.88 33.76 33.86 67.73 17.8 17.6 17.55
40 43.19 67.50 78.96 81.44 81.74 163.4 44 43.2 43.08
45 117.6 178.1 212.1 220.4 221.3 442.7 120 118 117.1
50 372.0 547.6 667.8 701.7 706.2 1412.6 389 372 370.0

Table 5 The factor Nγ of strip footings using the method of characteristics (Han et al., 2016)

18 STRUCTURE magazine
Discussions on the Computed Values of Bearing ratio λ = 0, the computed values by them matched the values of
Capacity and the Factor Nγ other researchers. However, when λ = 104, the computed values
were almost double that of λ = 0. The comparisons in Table 5
The cohesion term (cNc) predominates in cohesive soils, whereas show that the value of Nγ increases with the increase in λ for a
the depth term (γ0 Df Nq) predominates in cohesionless soils; only certain friction angle. For smooth and rough footings, when λ =
a small increase in Df will increase qu substantially. The base width 104, the value of Nγ approaches Chen’s theoretical upper bound
term (0.5γ1BNγ) increases bearing capacity for both cohesive and value (1975).
cohesionless soils. According to Coduto (2015), there is much
more disagreement regarding using the proper value of Nγ. This
is because relatively small changes in the geometry of the failure Summary and Conclusions
surface below the footing can create significant differences in Nγ,
especially in soils with high friction angles. The safe bearing capacity (SBC) of the soil, qa, at the site is
It is seen from Table 4, that for angles larger than 35°, the bear- required to design any structure founded on shallow founda-
ing capacity factors change rapidly and by significant amounts. tions. Although the settlement analysis has to be performed to
As the estimated bearing capacity qu is further reduced to the determine SBC, equations proposed by Terzaghi and later by
allowable safe bearing capacity, qsafe, by using a safety factor, the others to calculate the ultimate bearing capacity have been used
probability of qsafe being safe is very high. Vesic (1975) recom- and adopted in codes with a safety factor. The equations involve
mends that the depth factors (not discussed here) should not be three bearing capacity factors: Nc , Nq, and Nγ . Although the values
used for shallow foundations (D/B ≤ 1) due to the uncertainties of Nc and Nq have been accepted by researchers, the value of Nγ
in the quality of overburden. Vesic (1975) commented that the alone is not accepted and alternate equations have been proposed
widely used Terzaghi factors shown in Table 1, though not sub- by many researchers. A few of these alternate equations have been
stantially different numerically, are being gradually abandoned, presented and compared. It is seen from Table 4, that for angles
as they are based on obviously incorrect failure patterns. He also larger than 35°, the bearing capacity factors change rapidly and by
mentioned that an increasing trend among practicing engineers significant amounts. Hence, one has to be careful while selecting
and researchers is to use the Nγ values given by Vesic (1975), the Nγ value in their calculations. It is seen that the Nγ equation
which are based on the theory by Reissner and later researched suggested by the German code, DIN 4017, is not only simple in
by Caquot-Kerisel, and given in Table 4. format but also seems to give reasonable values.■
Some researchers have found that the value of Nγ is related to
the soil friction angle ϕ and other parameters, such as q, c, γ,
and B. For example, Xiao et al. (1998) calculated the bearing Full references are included in the online version of the article
capacity using the method of characteristics (MOC) and found at STRUCTUREmag.org.
that Nγ is affected by all q, c, γ, and B and that Nγ is affected by
ϕ and γB/(c + qtanϕ) only when the load is vertical. Michalowski Dr. N. Subramanian, Ph. D., F. ASCE, FNAE is a consulting engineer living
(1997) and Silvestri (2003) studied the influence of c/γB and q/γB in Gaithersburg, MD. He has a doctorate from IITM, India, and he also
on Nγ using the limit analysis method and the limit equilibrium worked in Germany for 2 years as an Alexander von Humboldt Fellow. He
method and have shown that for a given value of ϕ, the value has over 45 years of professional experience in consultancy, research, and
of Nγ significantly changes with c/γB or q/γB. Zhu et al. (2003) teaching. He can be reached at ([email protected]).
showed that Nγ is related to the friction angle ϕ and also to the
surcharge ratio λ [λ = (q + ccotϕ)/γB].
Han et al. (2016) used a finite differ-
ence analysis program. They found that the
value of Nγ is influenced not only by the taylor devices inc.

Photo credit: John Doogan/WSP

friction angle ϕ but also by the surcharge
ratio λ (they note that this conclusion is
TAYLOR DAMPED
D
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org
only valid for Mohr–Coulomb soil). They
also studied the relationship of Nγ between
smooth and rough foundations (footing-
soil interface friction) and found that the
MOMENT FRAMEE™
value of Nγ for a smooth footing is only
about half that for a rough footing. Thus,
DAMPER R DESIGN
implying that the roughness of the foot-
ing base has a large impact on Nγ. Instead, SIMPLIFIED
small values of the interface friction δ (10°
to 15°) are required to obtain rough foot- No
N o Peer Review wR Required
equ uired
ing effects [Chen and McCarron (1991)]. No Tim
Time-History
me History A Analysis
na
Table 5 shows the results from their studies Quick Design Times
for various values of λ for smooth footing,
a particular value of λ for rough footing,
and also the results obtained by Bolton
and Lau (1993), Smith (2005), and Kumar
(2009). It is seen that when the surcharge (716) 694-0800 | www.taylordevices.com ESR-4769

D ECE M B ER 2023 19
 structural DESIGN
Determination of Blast Loads on Buildings
Designing for blast loading.
By Abdulqader Mohammed and Abdulrahman Salah

T his article focuses on

the structural aspects of
designing for blast resistance.
This involves quantifying blast
overpressures from accidental
explosions and establishing
design blast loads from these
overpressures. This article
provides a guide for design
engineers and others to design
new blast-resistant buildings
and evaluate existing build-
ings for blast resistance. It
provides the basic consider-
ations and principles involved
in determining blast loads on
buildings.
Figure 1 Characteristic shapes of blast waves & impulse. Courtesy of Buildings and Infrastructure Protection Series/Federal
Emergency Management Agency’s BIPS 06/FEMA 426: Reference Manual to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks against
Blast Wave Buildings, 2nd Edition.
Parameters
- Pso Peak side-on positive overpressure
For blast-resistant design, the most significant feature of an - td Positive phase duration
explosion is the sudden release of energy to the atmosphere, - Io Corresponding positive impulse
which results in a pressure transient, or blast wave. This has a - Pso− Peak side-on negative pressure (suction)
sudden, almost instantaneous rise in pressure above ambient - td− Negative phase duration
atmospheric conditions to a peak free field (side-on or incident) - Io− The associated negative impulse
overpressure. The peak side-on overpressure gradually returns - Pr Peak reflected pressure
to ambient with some highly damped pressure oscillations. This - qo Peak dynamic (blast wind) pressure
results in a negative pressure wave following the positive phase - U Shock front velocity
of the blast wave. Side-on pressure refers to the rise in pressure - Lw Blast wavelength
above ambient produced by a shock wave sweeping unimpeded
across any surface (walls or roof ) not facing the blast source. Peak Reflected Pressure, Pr
The integrated area under the pressure verse time function is known
as the impulse: Upon encountering a surface, the free field blast wave generated by an
I = ∫P(t)dt explosion undergoes reflection. This phenomenon causes the surface
I = impulse (pounds per square inch-milliseconds (psi-ms) or mega- to experience significantly greater pressure than the incident side-on
pascals-milliseconds (MPa-ms) value. Typically, the reflected pressure magnitude is determined by
P = Pressure (psi or MPa) an amplifying ratio of the incident pressure:
T = time (ms)
Pr = Cr Pso , Cr = Reflection coefficient
Impulse is a measure of the energy from an explosion imparted to a
building. Both the negative and positive phases of the pressure-time For peak overpressures up to 20 psi (138 kPa), the expected range for
waveform contribute to impulse. Figure 1 shows how impulse and most accidental vapor cloud explosions, Newmark provides a simple
pressure vary over time from a typical explosive detonation. formula for the blast wave reflection coefficient at normal direction
to the surface as follows:
Blast Wave Parameters for Blast Loading
Cr = Pr / Pso ≈ (2 + 0.05 Pso) (Pso in psi)
The principal parameters of the blast wave required to define the blast Cr = Pr / Pso ≈ (2 + 0.0073 Pso) (Pso in kPa)
loading for the building’s components are:

20 STRUCTURE magazine
Dynamic (Blast Wind) Pressure, qo

This blast effect is due to air movement as the blast wave propagates
through the atmosphere. In the low overpressure range with normal
atmospheric conditions, the peak dynamic pressure, qo, can be cal-
culated using the following empirical formula from Newmark:

qo = 2.5 Pso / (7 Po + Pso) ≈ 0.022 Pso2 (psi)

qo = 2.5 Pso / (7 Po + Pso) ≈ 0.0032 Pso2 (kPa)
Figure 2 Idealized shock and pressure loads. Courtesy of Design of Blast-Resistant
where, Po = ambient atmospheric pressure. The net dynamic pressure Buildings in Petrochemical Facilities, Second Edition.
on a structure is the product of the peak dynamic pressure, qo, and a drag
coefficient, Cd. The drag coefficient depends on the shape and orientation The actual design overpressures may be stated to the design engineer
of the obstructing surface. For a rectangular building, the drag coefficient in two ways:
may be taken as +1.0 for the front wall and −0.4 for the side and rear walls - The simplest is a set blanket statement such as; “All buildings shall
and roof. Please note, the net dynamic pressure, in turn, will be added be designed for a peak reflected overpressure of X psi (kPa), a peak
to the blast pressure to get the total pressure on walls; please refer to the side-on overpressure of Y psi (kPa), and duration of Z milliseconds.”
sections later in this article for front, side and rear walls. - Specifying overpressures and durations based on the distance between
the structure and a potential source. The building engineer would
Shock Front Velocity, U then determine design loads based on the appropriate distance.
Commonly used criteria include SG-22 (withdrawn) and CIA (being
In the free field, the blast wave from an explosion travels at or above revised). Both documents specify at least two blast overpressures for
the acoustic speed of the propagating medium. In the low-pressure buildings spaced 100 feet (30 meters) from a vapor cloud explosion
range and for normal atmospheric conditions, the shock/pressure hazard as follows:
front velocity in the air can be approximated using the following - High pressure, short duration, triangular shock loading: Side-on
relationship from Newmark: overpressure of 10 psi (69 kPa) with a duration of 20 milliseconds.
- Low pressure, long duration, triangular loading: Side-on overpres-
U ≈ 1130 (1 + 0. 058 Pso)0.5 (ft/s) sure of 3 psi (21 Pa) with a duration of 100 milliseconds.
U ≈ 345 (1 + 0.0083 Pso)0.5 (m/s)
Building Blast Loading
Blast Wave Length, Lw
To design a blast-resistant building, the design engineer first needs
The propagating blast wave at any instant in time extends over a lim- to determine the loads on the building as a whole and on each struc-
ited radial distance from the explosion source. The pressure is largest tural component such as a wall, roof, frame, etc. Depending on its
at the front and trails off to ambient over a distance, Lw, the blast distance and orientation relative to the blast source, the building, and
wavelength. Values of Lw for high-energy explosives can be obtained its components, will experience various combinations of blast effects
from UFC 3-340-02. In the low-pressure range, the length of the (reflected overpressure, side-on overpressure, dynamic pressure, and
blast wave can be approximated by: negative pressure). The design engineer can determine the blast loads

Lw ≈ U td

Idealized Blast Wave Parameters

To simplify the blast-resistant design pro-

cedure, the generalized blast wave profiles
shown in Figure 1 normally are idealized
or linearized, as illustrated in Figure 2 for
a shock wave and pressure wave.

Determination of Vapor Cloud

Design Overpressures

Because there are no codes or industry

standards for determining what blast over-
pressures should be used, the design blast
loads normally are supplied by the facility
owner. The facility owner can perform a
blast risk assessment of the targeted build-
ings to determine the blast pressure. Blast
risk assessment of buildings can be done Figure 3 Blast loading general arrangement for a rectangular building. Adapted from Forbes 1998, courtesy of
by a specialized consultant. American Concrete Institute.

D ECE M B ER 2023 21
 Figure 4 Front wall loading. Courtesy of Design of Blast-Resistant Buildings in Figure 5 Roof and side wall loading. Courtesy of Design of Blast-Resistant Buildings
Petrochemical Facilities, Second Edition. in Petrochemical Facilities, Second Edition.

for the various building components, as illustrated below. computed by equating the impulse for each load shape and using
As Figure 3 indicates, triangular blast loading on the roof starts the same peak pressure, Pr. The impulse, Iw, under the bilinear
with a high pressure (P) and short duration (t) at the edge of pressure-time curve, is:
roof facing the explosion source and gradually changes to lower
pressures and longer durations from the middle to the far end Iw = 0.5 (Pr − Ps) tc + 0.5 Ps td
of the roof.
An example of blast loads calculation is provided at the end of the article The duration, te, of the equivalent triangle is determined from the
for a better understanding and demonstration of blast loads computations. following equation:

Front Wall Loading te = 2 Iw / Pr = (td − tc) Ps / Pr + tc

The walls facing the explosion source will experience a reflected over- Side Wall and Roof Loading
pressure. The magnitude of the reflected pressure, Pr, is determined
as an amplifying ratio of the incident pressure: The side walls are defined relative to the explosion source, as shown in
Figure 3. These walls will experience less blast loading than the front wall
Pr = Cr Pso where, Cr = reflection coefficient due to a lack of overpressure reflection and attenuation of the blast wave
The reflected overpressure decays to the stagnation pressure, Ps, in the with distance from the explosion source. The general form of roof and
clearing time, tc, as defined below and illustrated in Figure 4. side wall blast loading is shown in Figure 5.
tr: Rise Time Duration
Ps = Pso + Cd qo td: Positive Phase Duration
tc = 3 S / U < td to: Total Positive Phase Duration
Where,
S = clearing distance, the smaller of BH, or BW/2 As a blast wave travels along the length of a structural element, the peak
BH = building height side-on overpressure will not be applied uniformly. It varies with both time
BW = building width and distance. A reduction factor, Ce, accounts for this effect in the design.
Values for Ce (refer to Figure 6) depend on the length of the structural ele-
As indicated in the tc equation, the duration of the reflected over- ment, L, in the direction of the traveling blast wave, Lw. If the blast wave
pressure effect, tc, should not exceed that of the free field positive is traveling perpendicular to the span, then L should equal a nominal unit
overpressure, td. width of the element. The equation for side walls is as follows:
In order to use the dynamic response charts based on a triangular-
shaped load, the bilinear pressure-time curve shown in Figure 4 Pa = Ce Pso + Cd qo where Pa = effective side-on overpressure
can be simplified to an equivalent triangle. This equivalent load is

Figure 7 Rear wall loading. Courtesy of Design of Blast-Resistant Buildings in

Figure 6 Effective overpressure values. Courtesy of UFC 3-340-02. Petrochemical Facilities, Second Edition.

22 STRUCTURE magazine
Rear Wall Loading Reflected Overpressure

Rear wall loading normally is used only to determine the net overall frame Pr = [2 + 0.05 (Pso)] Pso
loading. Because the rear wall load is opposite to the front wall load, its = [2 + 0.05 (6 psi)] (6 psi)
inclusion tends to reduce the overall lateral blast force. For buildings where a = 13.8 psi (95 kPa)
blast load occurs from any direction, rear wall effects normally are neglected
conservatively. The shape of the rear wall loading is similar to that of side Clearing distance
and roof loads.
The effective peak overpressure is similar to that for side walls and is calculated S = minimum of BH or BW/2
using the equation shown below (Pb normally is used to designate the rear = 15 ft (4.5 m)
wall peak overpressure instead of Pa). The equation for rear walls is as follows:
Reflected Overpressure Clearing Time
Pb = Ce Pso + Cd qo where Pb = Rear Wall Peak Overpressure
tc = [3 (S / U) < td
Blast loading Calculations Example = 3 (15 ft) / (1,312 ft/s) < 0.05 s
= 0.034 s
This example illustrates the calculation of blast loading on the com- Drag coefficient, Cd = 1.0
ponents of a building subjected to a shock wave traveling horizontally.
The building dimensions are as follows: Stagnation Pressure
Width, BW = 93 feet (ft) (28.4 meters (m))
Length, BL = 67 ft (20.4 m) Ps = Pso + Cd (qo)
Height, BH = 15 ft (4.5 m) = (6 psi) + (1.0) (0.8 psi)
= 6.8 psi (47 kPa)

Front Wall Impulse

Iw = 0.5 (Pr − Ps)tc + 0.5 Ps td

= 0.5 [(13.8 psi) - (6.8 psi)] (0.034 s) + 0.5 (6.8 psi) (0.05 s)
= 0.289 psi-s (2 kPa-s)

Effective Duration
Blast Loading Parameters
te = 2 Iw / Pr
Peak side-on overpressure, Pso = 6 psi (41 kPa) = 2 (0.289 psi-s) / (13.8 psi)
duration, td = 0.05 s = 0.042 s

Shock Front Velocity Side Wall Loading

U = 1130 (1 + 0.058 Pso)0.5 This calculation will be for a wall segment, L1, 1 foot wide (0.3 m).
= 1130 [1 + 0.058 (6 psi)]0.5 Drag coefficient, Cd = −0.4
= 1,312 ft/s (400 m/s)
Equivalent Load Coefficient
Length of Pressure Wave
Lw/L1 = (66 ft) / (1 ft)
Lw = U (td) = 66
= (1,312 ft/s) (0.05 s) Ce = essentially 1.0
= 66 ft (20.1 m)
Equivalent Peak Overpressure
Peak Dynamic Wind Pressure
Pa = Ce Pso + Cd qo
qo = 0.022 (Pso)2 = (1.0) (6 psi) + (−0.4) (0.8 psi)
= 0.022 (6 psi)2 = 5.7 psi (39 kPa)
= 0.8 psi (6 kilo pascals (kPa))
Rise Time

Front Wall Loading tr = L1 / U

= (1 ft) / (1,312 ft/s)
The front wall is assumed to span vertically from the foundation to the roof. = essentially 0.0 s
The design will be for a typical wall segment one foot wide. duration, td = 0.05 s

D ECE M B ER 2023 23
 Roof Loading Total Positive Phase Duration

The roof is a slab spanning between roof beams of 8 feet length. to = tr + td

For the design of the roof, a section 1 foot wide by 8 feet long = (0.006 s) + (0.05 s)
will be used. = 0.056 s
L1 = 8.0 ft (2.4 m)
Drag coefficient, Cd = −0.4
Conclusion
Equivalent Peak Overpressure
Obtaining a basic knowledge of blast loading and their respective forces
Lw/ L1 = (66 ft) / (8 ft) is an essential step in the design of blast-resistant buildings. Blast pres-
= 8.25 sures are computed as uniform pressures on building front walls, side
therefore Ce = 0.9 walls, roof, and rear walls. These blast pressures can be resisted by the
building’s lateral resistance systems, i.e., by shear walls, framing systems
Equivalent Peak Overpressure or both. The pressure on walls and roofs can be transferred to the lateral
resistance system by either the tributary or dynamic reaction methods.■
Pa = Ce Pso + Cd qo
= (0.9) (6 psi) + (−0.4) (0.8 psi) Full references are included in the online version of the article
= 5.1 psi (35 kPa) at STRUCTUREmag.org.

Rise Time
Abdulqader Mohammed, Master of Engineering from KFUPM. A senior
tr = L1 / U Civil/Structural Engineer at Alkhorayef Water and Power Technologies
= (8 ft) / (1,312 ft/s) (AWPT). He is also a Member of Saudi Council of Engineers (SCE)
= 0.006 s ([email protected]).

Abdulrahman Salah, a structural engineer, currently working as a

research assistant at the University of Houston while pursuing his Ph. D.
([email protected])

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

THE COMPLETE SOFTWARE

FOR ANCHORING TO CONCRETE ANCHORS
CHO & FASTENERS

ANCHOR
H R TYPES

DESIGN
G
Cast-in-Place
ast in Place
NOW
W INCLUDES
Baseplate
B p Thickness Calculator
(F
(Finite Element Analysis Tool)
COMPARE
M R Mechanical
This tool discretizes the baseplate into elements to
calculate and check the thickness to determine when
the plate is sufficiently rigid. A heat map is generated to
highlight the distribution of the stresses on the plate.

Adhesives
dhesives
DOCUMENT
M
DESIGN AND DOCUMENT CONCRETE ANCHORS QUICKLY AND EASILY DESIGN
G CODES
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODE REQUIREMENTS.
DEWALT DESIGN ASSIST™ (DDA) is a no cost/no fee state-of-the-art structural design software that streamlines, automates, and
optimizes your concrete anchoring design process. With multiple design standards to choose from, a comprehensive library of
ANCHOR
H R
anchors, numerous reporting options, and a wide range of design tools, simplify your design process with DEWALT Design Assist.

Copyright © 2023 DEWALT

DOWNLO D THE FULL U TE FREE T DEWALT.COM/DDA The following are examples of trademarks for one or more DEWALT power tools and accessories: the yellow
and black color scheme; the “D”-shaped air intake grill; the array of pyramids on the handgrip; the kit box
configuration; and the array of lozenge-shaped humps on the surface of the tool.

24 STRUCTURE magazine
structural FORUM
Structural Pilgrimage to
East Coldenham Elementary School
Recommitting to safety of the public.
By Jim D’Aloisio P. E., LEED AP

E arlier this summer, while traveling in New York’s Hudson

Valley, I stopped at East Coldenham Elementary School.
It was a quiet summer day. People came and went while I
spent a few moments sitting on a bench in a small memorial
garden near the front entry of the building. I consider my
visit to be a structural pilgrimage. On November 16, 1989,
a strong straight-line wind, sometimes called a microburst
or derecho, hit the building’s south face during lunchtime.
The central portion of the cafetorium wall collapsed, or
blew in, on top of dozens of children. In the catastrophe
and its aftermath, a total of 10 children lost their lives, and
18 others were injured.
The events of that horrible day are probably incompre-
hensible to many people. Some might consider it to have
been an “act of God.” Some may think of it as a testament
to the unbridled and unpredictable power of severe weather
events. But to structural engineers, it represents much
more. We should not turn away from the lessons of the
East Coldenham disaster. dangerous secret for 30 years. Let’s try to identify these flaws before
The collapsed wall was the non-load-bearing gable end of a long section of another catastrophe hits.
building with a shallow double-pitched roof. At the center of the wall was • The public’s implicit trust in the safety of buildings and other structures
a rectangle of masonry roughly 20 feet wide and 13 feet high, bearing on a that they live, work, and learn in every day lies in the hands of the
foundation wall and surrounded on both sides and across the top by window structural engineering community. Let’s do everything we can to honor
glazing and aluminum mullions. There were no wind columns, wind girts, or that trust.
lateral braces. Apparently, when the building was constructed in 1959, neither • Such important, tragic, and instructive stories are not shared within the
the structural engineer nor the architect designed any specific mechanism to engineering community nearly enough.
resist strong wind loading on the wall. Lest East Coldenham be dismissed as an anachronistic anomaly, in 2009,
Structural engineering practice and building codes have greatly evolved I came upon another flawed cafetorium wall in an elementary school. Built
over the past 60-plus years. Certainly, today, such a design omission would in 1993, it measured 80 feet long and 25 feet high and was constructed of
be considered an act of malpractice. Still, out of respect for the children, eight-inch hollow, unreinforced CMU and an independent exterior brick
families, and community of East Coldenham, engineers might consider the wythe. Competence check: Does that make you raise your eyebrows? The
following takeaways: wind resistance of this wall was well below code requirements, yet there it
• Engineers should design holistically, collaborating with the rest of the was – built and occupied – with children. Fortunately, we were able to call
design team, rather than defaulting to “siloing” or designing only the attention to this problem and reinforce this deficient wall before a too-strong
parts and pieces for which we are 100% responsible. This leads to more wind occurred. It seems like we, as a profession, still haven’t learned the
coordinated projects and reduces the possibility of gaps in the design. lesson well enough.
While wind loading is certainly the purview of the structural engineer, I returned from my pilgrimage to East Coldenham and recommitted to
other design aspects such as conditions of structural thermal bridging our profession’s fundamental canon as engineers: to hold paramount the
should be assessed, to prevent not only energy loss but to reduce the safety, health, and welfare of the public. There are precious lives at stake.
potential for condensation, which could lead (and has led) to corrosion We have to do better.■
and compromise of structural elements.
• When performing structural condition reviews of existing buildings, Jim D’Aloisio P. E., LEED AP, is a Principal with Klepper, Hahn & Hyatt of
engineers must realize that there are buildings that may contain still- East Syracuse, NY. He has been a practicing structural engineer for over
undetected structural flaws. As buildings continue to age and, in some 30 years, specializing in building condition reviews, structural forensic
cases, deteriorate, and the likelihood of experiencing large-magnitude engineering, and implementation of strategies to reduce embodied and
sporadic snow, wind, or seismic loads increases, structural deficiencies operational carbon in buildings. ([email protected])
will make themselves apparent. The East Coldenham building held its

D ECE M B ER 2023 25
 2023 STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING
EXCELLENCE AWARDS
T he National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA) is pleased to publish the 2023 Excellence in Structural
Engineering (SEE) Awards winners. The awards were announced during NCSEA’s Structural Engineering Summit, held
November 7-10, 2023, at the Disneyland Hotel in Anaheim, California. A video of the awards presentation can be found on
the NCSEA website. The winning entries recognize the most innovative and groundbreaking work of our profession’s top talents.
The 2023 Awards Committee was chaired by Carrie Johnson (Wallace Design Collective, PC, Tulsa, OK). Ms. Johnson
noted: “The judging was conducted in two rounds. The first round was performed by a group of NCSEA Past Presidents and
Learn More
About This
the second round was completed in Portland by members of the Structural Engineers Association of Oregon (SEAO). The
Year’s Winners
judges were truly impressed by the quality, innovation, and creativity of the award submissions.”

The judges selected the winning projects based on the following criteria:
• Complexity of criteria or unique problems
• Creativity of structural design
• Innovative application of new or existing materials or techniques
• Commitment to sustainability through efficient use of materials, resilience, circular economy principles, or embodied carbon reduction
• Ingenuity of design for constructability challenges and efficient use of labor

Awards were given in eight categories, with an Outstanding Project awarded in each of the following categories:
• New Buildings under $30 Million • Forensic | Renovation | Retrofit | Rehabilitation
• New Buildings $30 Million to $80 Million Structures under $20 Million
• New Buildings $80 Million to $200 Million • Forensic | Renovation | Retrofit | Rehabilitation
• New Buildings over $200 Million Structures over $20 Million
• New Bridges and Transportation Structures • Other Structures

After the judging was complete in each category, an overall 2023 Structure of the Year award was selected from the eight Outstanding
Projects. This resulted in a lively discussion among the judges who compared each project based on the complexities and ingenuity required.
Congratulations to the 2023 SEE Award winners! Keep an eye out for in-depth articles on several of the 2023 winners in
future issues of STRUCTURE.

THE JUDGING WAS 2023 PANEL OF JUDGES

CONDUCTED IN TWO ROUND 1: PAST PRESIDENTS

ROUNDS. THE JUDGES WERE Vicki Arbitrio, P. E., Gilsanz Murray Steficek
Barry Arnold, ARW (retired)
Tom Grogan, Haskell/Retired
Emily Guglielmo, Martin/Martin
TRULY IMPRESSED BY THE Craig Barnes, Socotec
Marc Barter, Barter & Associates
Carrie Johnson, P. E., Wallace Design Collective
Jim Malley, Degenkolb
QUALITY, INNOVATION, AND Bill Bast, S. E., Socotec
Jim Cagley, Cagley & Associates
Ben Nelson, P. E., Martin/Martin
Ed Quesenberry, Equilibrium
Tom DiBlasi, DiBlasi & Associates Sanjeev Shah, SSI Consulting
CREATIVITY OF THE
ROUND 2: STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATION OF OREGON
AWARD SUBMISSIONS. Damian Andreani, Catena Carrie Johnson, Wallace Design Collective
Mike Astrella, Catena Amit Kumar, City of Portland
Carrie Johnson, P. E., S. E., Peder Golberg, James G. Pierson, Inc. Nisarg Mehta, DCI
Chair, 2023 Awards Committee Tom Grogan, Haskell (retired)
Kylean Gunhus, Miller
Ben Nelson, Martin/Martin
Ed Quesenberry, Equilibrium

26 STRUCTURE magazine
 CATEGORY 1: NEW BUILDINGS UNDER $30 MILLION AND STRUCTURE OF THE YEAR

Structure of the Year

CHILDREN’S MUSEUM OF EAU CLAIRE

EAU CLAIRE, WI
Structural Design Firm: KPFF Consulting Engineers & ERA
Structural Engineering
Architect: Steinberg Hart | Holzman Moss Bottino
General Contractor: Market & Johnson

Outstanding Project

SRT Design Offers Resilient and Cost-Effective Solution

Creating a 26,000-square-foot biophilic structure using structural round
timber (SRT) required creativity. Using non-milled whole ash and sugar
maple trees, the childrens’ museum design featured two stories: the bottom
story of SRT supported a 5.5-inch thick concrete slab, topped by the second
story of SRT, using the trees’ branches to hold up the building’s roof trusses.
The design, by KPFF Consulting Engineers & ERA Structural Engineering,
is organic and created a few challenges—namely, shrinkage of the SRT.
The wood materials, from certified forests, reduce embodied carbon,
support circular economy principles, and promote resilient forest practices
by helping to slow the propagation of infestations. “While many projects
begin with a clear understanding of what a cost-effective, constructable
solution will look like, this project’s unique architectural vision called on
us to develop a solution from scratch,” according to the project submis-
sion. “We achieved this through a highly iterative design process that
included the entire design and construction teams. We studied column
bay spacing to optimize truss layout, we studied more than a dozen truss Ben Nelson of Martin/Martin representing the 2023 Panel of Judges
configurations and geometries, and we iterated on connection details to presents the 2023 SEE Structure of the Year Award to Erik Lofthus of KPFF
develop the most cost-effective solutions.” Overall, this project proved to Consulting Engineers at the Awards Celebration event on November 9th
be an architectural, cost-effective, collaborative feat. during the NCSEA Structural Engineering Summit in Anaheim, CA.

NORTH HOUSTON SPORTS COMPLEX

WARNER ROBINS, GA | PES STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, INC.

Finalist Approximately 100 miles south of Atlanta, Ga., the new North
Houston Sports Complex in Warner Robins is home to the city’s
recreation department. It fills a gap in recreational facilities for
the 10th largest municipality in the Atlanta metro region. The
77,000-square-foot Claude Lewis Recreation Center features an
exposed structural steel frame, used to create large, open spaces. The
design included long-span special joists to clear span the recreation
courts, intentional truss design to maximize openness for the trans-
lucent Kalwall panel cladding, and a carefully coordinated lateral
system that balances the desired architecture with construction cost.

D ECE M B ER 2023 27
 CATEGORY 2: NEW BUILDINGS $30 MILLION TO $80 MILLION

University of California, San Diego,

Epstein Family Amphitheater
SAN DIEGO, CA
Structural Design Firm: Thornton Tomasetti
Architect: Safdie Rabines Architects
General Contractor: BN Builders
Photos courtesy of Thornton Tomasetti, and Philipp Scholtz Ritterman

Outstanding Project

Warm and Accommodating Welcome to Campus

As the first stage of creating a “front door” to the UC San Diego campus, the Epstein Family Amphitheater was designed to fit within the
landscape and offer the backdrop for events large and small—from as small as 50 to as many as nearly 2,500 people. Using an in-house
software system, the design by Thornton Tomasetti included various geometric components and materials, including a concrete back
wall, 40-foot tall ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE)-clad diagrid steel shell, and rounded roof slab with a vegetative roof.
The amphitheater includes a 3,000-square-foot subterranean concrete restroom facility, 400-square-foot ticketing and vending building,
and the ability to support complex rigging for local theater to larger traveling performances. It features two bowl sections and a sloping
lawn—all of which contributes to a design that is meant to be versatile and flexible for various types of daily and special events. From
informal study sessions to exhibits and performances, this theater was designed to accommodate myriad experiences.

Orange County Museum of Art West Hollywood Recreation and

COSTA MESA, CA | JOHN A. MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Aquatics Center
WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA | LPA DESIGN STUDIOS
Photo courtesy of Jasmine Park

Finalist Finalist
OCMA’s structure enables a uniquely complex architecture while meeting criti- The West Hollywood Aquatics and Recreation Center is made of three
cal safety and cost thresholds. Creative engineering and a collaborative process separate structures, each with its own set of unique structural engineering
facilitated highly visible elements, such as large, column-free spaces, that sup- challenges. Two rooftop pools are supported by a two-way trussed space frame
port heavy plaza loads, non-orthogonal architectural elements that cantilever above 100-feet wide by 160-feet long column-free multi-court gym. Adding
in places more than 30 feet off the primary structure, and a cantilever-trussed to the design challenge, the structure also cantilevers 30 feet over a public
classroom wing that frames a public space. Less visible but no less important roadway, providing connectivity to the new Community Center, which is
are the structure’s flexibility to withstand California’s significant seismic forces, a itself supported by an existing parking structure below. Finally, a two-level
high bearing strength that sustainably and economically accommodates reduced 70-foot long grand stair structure relies on a horizontally cantilevered steel
column sections for thinner profiles and less material usage. truss to link the new buildings to West Hollywood Park.

28 STRUCTURE magazine
 CATEGORY 3: NEW BUILDINGS $80 MILLION TO $200 MILLION

Ascent
MILWAUKEE, WI
Structural Design Firm: Thornton Tomasetti
Architect: Korb + Associates Architects
General Contractor: C.D. Smith

Outstanding Project

Photos courtesy of KAA Design Group/Nairn Olker

Timber! World Record-Breaking Glulam Building
The 25-story, 493,000-square-foot Ascent building is the tallest timber building in the world—and it’s helping to expand this
market in the United States. The building is mixed-use, hosting 259 apartments, a 6th-floor pool, and top-floor amenities room.
The first six stories, made of concrete, create a base for the 19 stories of European-sourced glulam timber. And, in total, it has
optimized both financial and aesthetic considerations.
“At 284 feet tall, such a building would have been unthinkable just a few decades ago. Thanks to groundbreaking research and
dedication, mass timber construction has begun to gain traction, and Ascent is the embodiment of that reality,” according to
the submission. New test data, a state-of-the-art cross-laminated timber (CLT) diaphragm design, prefabrication of structural
components, and timber material reduction all contributed to achieving this world record-breaking feat.

Limberlost Place at (W)rapper

George Brown College LOS ANGELES, CA | ARUP

TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA | FAST + EPP

Photo courtesy of Salina Kassam

Finalist Finalist
The 10-story Limberlost Place is located on George Brown College’s Toronto (W)rapper, located near the Newport-Inglewood fault in Los Angeles,
waterfront campus and holds the distinction of being Ontario’s first tall timber is a 17-story office building in Los Angeles that features a striking steel
institutional building. It showcases a harmonious blend of sustainable design, exoskeleton made of 5,000 feet of curvilinear, built-up plate boxes. In
structural innovation, and an advanced prefabricated envelope system. Fast + collaboration with EOMArchitects, Arup structural and civil engineers
Epp developed a groundbreaking large span beamless CLT timber-concrete leveraged digital tools to design a base isolated, unclassified framing
composite “slab band” system, accompanied by perpendicular CLT infill panels, system in a highly seismic region resulting in one of the safest and most
supported on glulam columns. The unique “slab-banded” system enables resilient office buildings in the world. At 180,500 square feet and 17
architectural flexibility and unobstructed mechanical distribution. Limberlost stories tall, this office building is the first of its kind in the city, adding
Place has become a beacon for the mass timber movement. aesthetic appeal and a column-free interior.

D ECE M B ER 2023 29
 CATEGORY 4: NEW BUILDINGS OVER $200 MILLION

Google Bay View

MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA
Structural Design Firm: Thornton Tomasetti
Architect: BIG, Heatherwick Studio, Adamson Associates
General Contractor: Whiting-Turner

Outstanding Project
Photos courtesy of Iwan Baan

Human-Centric, Sustainable Solution Fast-Tracked for Google

Strategy and sequencing kept this fast-tracked new corporate campus for Google on schedule. The campus, called Google Bay View, is made
of three separate buildings, each with roofs made of canopies that look similar to inverted shells. They’re beautiful—and they were challenging.
The 400,000- to 600,000-square-foot buildings cover only two floors to help keep the buildings on the same plane.
To create the “sweeping” canopies, 160 feet above grade at the peak, the team used compressive structural typologies with tensile net structures. They
achieved longer spans, 500 by 500 feet at the widest part. The results? An eggshell-thick sustainable solution that used fewer materials and offered less
weight than comparable structures. Those qualities also required planning for the roof and facade. The team spent two years designing and planning
to ensure the sequencing would meet this fast-tracked schedule and meet seismic standards.
“For decades, Google has been committed to providing the healthiest human-centric environments possible,” according to the submission. “Google
Bay View has the largest geothermal installation in North America and a water-positive campus that shows what’s possible. These are some of the
largest buildings in the world to pursue LEED Platinum v4 certification and Living Building Challenge certification.”

Long Beach Civic Center New York University—John A.

LONG BEACH, CA | NABIH YOUSSEF ASSOC. AND SKIDMORE, OWNINGS & MERRILL Paulson Center
Finalist NEW YORK, NY | SEVERUD ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC

Finalist

The Long Beach Civic Center is a state-of-the-art facility that provides the NYU’s John A. Paulson Center combines performing arts spaces, housing, and
City and Port of Long Beach, Calif., with performance-based infrastructure athletic facilities within one building. The five-story, steel-framed podium fea-
commensurate with its size and status as a world-class shipping and logistics tures a 350-seat proscenium theater and other venues acoustically isolated from
hub. The center consists of an eleven-story City Hall tower, an eleven-story noise and vibration. Steel trusses span over two below-grade levels and provide
Port Headquarters tower, and a single-story elliptical-shaped City Hall Council space for basketball courts and a swimming pool. The cellars were designed as
Chambers constructed over a two-story subterranean parking garage. The City a waterproofed “bathtub” and are supported by drilled caissons. An 18-story
Hall and Port Headquarters towers are LEED Gold. The center is a pioneer faculty housing tower and 13-story dormitory block are framed with steel and
in the use of resilience-based earthquake design and meets the Resilience-based the GIRDER-SLAB system, which reduced erection time, dead load, and
Earthquake Design Initiative (REDiTM) Gold performance objective. structural depth. The building is expected to achieve LEED Gold certification.

30 STRUCTURE magazine
 CATEGORY 5: NEW BRIDGE AND TRANSPORTATION STRUCTURES

Sixth Street Viaduct

Replacement Project
LOS ANGELES, CA
Structural Design Firm: HNTB Corporation
Architect: HNTB Corporation
General Contractor: Skanska-Stacy and Witbeck

Outstanding Project

LED Lights, Camera, Action! New Viaduct Showcases Several Firsts

The new Sixth Street Viaduct opened in July 2022 and features 10 pairs of unbraced, canted arch ribs between 30 and 60 feet
high in homage to the original steel double arched viaduct. The 3,060-foot-long structure crosses 18 active railroad tracks, U.S.
Highway 101, and the Los Angeles River. It features programmable LED lights, five sets of stairways at the intersection of the
double archways, pedestrian/bicycle ramps, and a 9-degree outward cant to offer views of downtown LA or the San Gabriel
Mountains.
Behind the scenes, the team used a new seismic isolation design methodology setting a worldwide precedent using 32 isolators
placed mid-height on the 18 Y-bents. According to the submission, this is the first time this method has been used in the United
States and it is the longest use on a concrete network tied arch bridge in the world.
This structure showcases several other firsts, too, such as being the first California Bridge to use Grade 80 concrete reinforce-
ment and the first U.S. bridge to use DYWIDAG multistrand post-tensioned couplers.

Port Lands Bridges Nancy Pauw Bridge

TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA | SCHLAICH BERGERMANN PARTNER BANFF, ALBERTA, CANADA | STRUCTURECRAFT
WITH ENTUITIVE

Finalist Finalist
This family of three bridge types (each paired for six total) are key infrastructure The glacial Bow River traces its way through Canada’s Rocky
components of Toronto’s waterfront revitalization. The aesthetically unified Mountains and the town of Banff in one of the world’s first national
bridges provide the new Port Lands neighborhood with light-rail, vehicular, parks. Spanning the Bow, in the heart of the community, is the new
cycle, and pedestrian connections, creating a critical link. Designed as hybrid Nancy Pauw footbridge, fulfilling a 108-year-long dream. Responding
shell-arch bridge structures, they are essentially curved tied arches with a planar to the wish for natural materials, StructureCraft designed and built
deck connected by hangers. Innovative fabrication techniques combined with an unusually slender 80-meter clear span out of sustainable timber,
state-of-the-art engineering allowed for maximized material efficiency and a shallow high-thrust arch that appears effortless in this beautiful
reduction of costs. With four of the six now in place, the bridges have become setting. Its rise to span is 1:20, its span to depth ratio is more than
emblematic of Toronto’s evolution, with unique and compelling structural forms. 65, and the two bridge sections were erected in a day.

D ECE M B ER 2023 31
 CATEGORY 6: FORENSIC | RENOVATION | RETROFIT | REHABILITATION STRUCTURES UP TO $20 MILLION

Sandi Simon Center for Dance at

Chapman University
ORANGE, CA
Structural Design Firm: Structural Focus
Architect: Lorcan O’Herlihy Architects (LOHA)
General Contractor: R.D. Olson Construction

Outstanding Project

Second Chance at Showtime for Historic Building

Now home to Chapman University’s Sandi Simon Center for Dance, the 1920s industrial building originally housed a citrus packing house.
To get it ready for showtime, it required historic preservation and expansions, including seismic strengthening of perimeter walls, restoration
of the original sawtooth roof and clerestory windows, and aesthetic upgrades. An unconventional solution of strengthening of hollow-clay tile
block wall included helical anchors, which required in situ tensile capacity testing. The roof required strengthening, too: seismic and gravity,
the latter due to new acoustic ceilings and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) distribution systems.
Despite having the same footprint as the original structure, the center now also includes a two-story mezzanine, creating light using floor opening
curvatures. The original wood flooring was repurposed as wall finish. One unexpected reuse of the original structure was the canopy sag. According
to the submission, “The canopy was re-supported with new steel strongbacks tied to the new steel tension-rod diaphragm and the second-floor fram-
ing. The restoration intentionally maintained the canopy sag, resulting from years of deferred maintenance, as a sign of the building’s various lifetime
stages.” The center’s overall result is a balance of historic features and modern upgrades.

Downers Grove North High

Photo courtesy of Connor Steinkamp Photography

School Learning Commons Roof

DOWNERS GROVE, IL | WIGHT & COMPANY

A previously unused courtyard at the Downers Grove High School

in Downers Grove, Illinois, became a center for collaboration with
the introduction of a new roof enclosure. Eight custom-framed king
post trusses form an X shape and are framed by a steel perimeter,
filling the 65-foot wide area and creating the look of a floating roof.
Tubular steel purlins top the trusses to form a support for skylights
and acoustical steel roof decking. Reinforcement of existing columns
and the use of the courtyard as opposed to a new structure create
Finalist a sustainable angle to this geometric project.

Interested in learning more about the NCSEA SEE

Awards program? Visit www.ncsea.com/awards/
Consider submitting a project in 2024; the call for submissions occurs in the spring.

32 STRUCTURE magazine
 Advertiser Content
LYNCH MYKINS
Humanity Isn’t Optional: Successful SE Companies are People-First

Y ou can have state-of-the-

art software, the latest
tools and gadgets, top-notch
How Lynch Mykins employees experience a people-first culture:

“Just because we’re engineers doesn’t

resources and suppliers, and mean we need to perpetuate the ste-
the excitement of big and com- reotype of engineers. It’s refreshing to
plex projects. But, if you don’t work with a CEO who’s in it for the
have happy engineers who are right reasons, encourages us to be
excited about relating to them, ourselves, and provides us with the
creating with them, communi- support and personal development
cating with them, and capable to do it with confidence. I moved
of presenting the value of their across the country for this and I
ideas to clients with confi- love laughing, playing music, danc-
dence, does state-of-the-art even ing, high-fiving coworkers in a place Chris Cobb, Senior Project
matter? It’s a means to an end. where work is fun.” Manager, Raleigh, NC
You already know the struc-
tural engineering industry is Anna Lynch, P. E., CEO “In a people-first company, diverse
challenged with bringing fresh Lynch Mykins Structural Engineers thinking leads naturally to accept-
talent into it and keeping them. ing diversity in every way - people,
Over the past 7 years, under the leadership of CEO, Anna Lynch, ideas, dress, projects, conversation. I’m
Lynch Mykins Structural Engineers has been focused on creating no longer held back by who I am. I’m
and nurturing a people-first culture that attracts fresh talent respected, appreciated and I’m growing
and has reduced attrition rates lower than the industry average. without limits now. When people are
Today, engineers in the U.S. have incredible opportunities to leave allowed to be real, clients get real ideas,
their mark with heart, fun memories, joy, and pride in the places real conversation, real connection, and
they’re building. We’re not talking about the future of structural creativity. Not some distant, overly pro-
engineering. We’re talking about today. Now. We’re talking about cessed, uncomfortable attempt at trying Nicole Zechman, Design
proven facts like humans are wired for connection, laughing to be something they’re not.” Director, Charlotte, NC
reduces stress, and social interaction is a basic human need -
like food and water. “This industry can be stressful, so
Knowing this and believing that a traditionally stressful industry Lynch Mykins has figured out a ton of
can be flipped on its side, Anna deconstructed the journey of a ways to reduce the stress and make
structural engineer’s role, growth, and development. Then, she it fun. We have Happy Hours, a nap
redesigned it and reinvented her 49-year-old firm, with a keen room, ping-pong and pool tables. No
eye on the goal of thriving people and thriving business for one dreads Mondays because in our
decades to come. Monday morning meetings, we lift
It didn’t happen overnight, but it did happen quickly and inten- each other up, shout-out each others’
tionally. With care, research, communication, and heart-led victories, share upcoming events and
leadership, the company has created one of the most unique lessons learned. It really does feel like
external brands, with an internal people-first culture that fully a family that truly wants the best Victor Torres, Project Engineer,
supports it! for everyone!” Richmond, VA

Email us at [email protected] to get our FREE Lynch Mykins’ “people-before-profit” commitment is demonstrated
CULTURE IDEAS for SE firms to get you started! by their investment in the individual employees to help them become
the best person, and engineer they can be. When people feel supported,
happy, and connected, profits always result - now, and ten years from now.
If you’re not interested in building a culture In our hard skills world, the left brain is no longer enough. Successful
from scratch, hello! Consider joining ours! engineers are learning strategies to practice using the whole mind to be
Scan this QR code and see if we have the their best with clients and each other. At Lynch Mykins, human con-
perfect job for you. nection and creativity upstage perfection every day of the week!

lynchmykins.com
 CATEGORY 7: FORENSIC | RENOVATION | RETROFIT | REHABILITATION STRUCTURES OVER $20 MILLION

TSX Broadway and Palace Theater

Redevelopment
NEW YORK, NY
Structural Design Firm: Severud Associates Consulting Engineers, PC
Architect: Mancini Duffy
General Contractor: Pavarini McGovern (Construction Manager)

Outstanding Project

To New Heights: Historic Theater Raised 31 Feet in Times Square

Befitting the Times Square location, the TSX Broadway and Palace Theater Redevelopment included both historic components and modern
advancements. That meant lifting up the 100+-year-old 8-story steel framed theater (with the 36-story concrete hotel tower that was built on top in
the 1990s) 31 feet into the air to make room for storefronts below. According to the submission, “TSX Broadway expands the limits of how existing
structures can be effectively repositioned and augmented to create revitalized buildings with improved functionality.”
The work that was done in the ’90s wouldn’t suffice for the new lift of the building, 25 million pounds per column, so the updated design included
post-tensioning girders, encasing steel columns with concrete reinforced with rebar, demolishing old columns, bonding or doweling new concrete to
existing slabs, and drilling caissons below the cellar into the bedrock.
“TSX Broadway makes a significant contribution to sustainability as a large-scale reuse of an existing facility,” the submission continues. “Complete
demolition would have been wasteful while retaining 25 percent of the floor construction reduced the demand for new materials. All concrete sub-
stituted slag for up to 40% of standard cement; reinforcement and structural steel framing contain over 90% recycled material.”

Colorado Convention Center Expansion UCSD York Hall Historic Seismic Retrofit
DENVER, CO | MARTIN/MARTIN, INC. SAN DIEGO, CA | LPA DESIGN STUDIOS

Finalist Finalist

The Colorado Convention Center embarked on one of the largest overbuild University of California, San Diego’s York Hall, built in 1966, is a
expansion projects in the United States, adding 200,000 square feet of usable 122,000-square-foot historic mid-century building. Immediately recognizable
space above its existing facility. To overcome the challenges of this massive, perched atop its 300-foot long fluted column arcade, the lift-slab buildings
overbuild expansion, the design-build team employed creative design and are ringed with more than 800 quarter-ton, precast concrete fins. A seismic
construction methods. The team collaborated closely to work within the retrofit meeting the University of California’s seismic performance standard
limitations of the existing structure with minimal disruptions to the conven- preserved the historically significant architecture and kept the building fully
tion center’s operations. The expansion’s unique features include cantilevered operational during construction. The seismic retrofit included the complete
floor spaces, innovative use of existing columns, and multi-function floor replacement of multiple historic fluted concrete columns, new shear walls,
trusses engineered to support a 500-ton crawler crane during construction. and strengthening of three-quarters of the precast concrete fins.

34 STRUCTURE magazine
314-568-3827
 CATEGORY 8: OTHER STRUCTURES

KF Aerospace Spiral Stair

KELOWNA, BC, CANADA
Structural Design Firm: StructureCraft
Architect: Meiklejohn Architects
General Contractor: Sawchuk Developments

Outstanding Project

Free-Standing Stairway to Space: CLT Used to Ascend

Befitting the aerospace client, StructureCraft designed a free-standing cross laminated timber (CLT) 70-foot spiral staircase connecting the first
and second floors. The solution needed to be able “to both bend and warp and create forces in combination of short- and weak-axis bending
as well as torsion,” according to the submission, and without any cut-offs. This may be the first time CLT has been manufactured in this way.
Another unique aspect was the use of thin boards glued to the edge on the top and bottom layers and a cross layer of boards on the flat side.
The team used models to consider solutions to challenges, such as predicting spring back and understanding the flow of the timber/concrete composite
sections. Aesthetics were also a concern, especially at the base of the stairs where the connection was. The team came up with a solution to create a
sculptural concrete bullnose, located under the stairs. On the second story, the team tied the concrete topping into the floor slab.
Installation proved challenging as well, since the second floor wouldn’t allow for a crane to lift the lower half in place. Instead, the team used a rig-
ging system, hooked up to the existing beam structure, and lifted manually with adjustable chain hoists. Bottom, middle, and top connections lined
up perfectly on site; the concrete was poured; and the unsupported spiral stairway was complete.

Blue Owl Signature Stair Albright Knox Gallery (Common Sky)

NEW YORK, NY | CRAFT | ENGINEERING STUDIO BUFFALO, NY | THORNTON TOMASETTI

Photo courtesy of Studio Other Spaces

Finalist Finalist
CRAFT | Engineering Studio developed a structurally superior Common Sky is a work of art and functional canopy enclosing the Albright-
curved stair design alternative without requiring specialty fabrica- Knox Gallery’s Town Square. Angled facets of glass and mirrors transform
tion equipment. They used a planar mesh of triangular flat plates the square with kaleidoscopic light and shadow. The canopy reaches down
to create a curved surface, maximizing the staircase’s cross-sectional to the ground at a single point, maintaining the space’s asymmetry. The
properties. Each plate was laser cut from sheet steel and assembled canopy is composed of steel hollow sections, arranged in two layers. They
in a single shop, minimizing errors. Customized stair sections are supported at the perimeter on spherical slide bearings installed atop
were fabricated as welded assembly modules, providing flexibility existing building columns and within the courtyard by a new trunk column
in module sizes based on delivery and site access. The innovative and footing. Due to the arched geometry, the roof is of variable height with
approach improved efficiency and accuracy. a maximum overall elevation of 23 feet.

36 STRUCTURE magazine
since 1922
 structural FORCES
Building Settlement
Considering the effects of ground movement on internal structural forces.
By Dilip Khatri, Ph. D., S. E.

M any structural failures share one common theme: uneven

ground settlement. As structural engineers are trained at a
university, they assume that the "fixed base" of our buildings
efforts for the past 80
years shows that "we"
[structural engineers]
is FIXED. However the effect of settlement on the above- work from the premise
ground structure can be dramatic. As a building sinks unevenly, that the building will
moments and shears are redistributed to stiffer adjacent ele- not move. We estab-
ments (columns, beams, walls, etc.) which add to their total lish our design practice
load demand. Like a human being injured in one leg, weight is using sophisticated
redistributed to the other leg, and a person's center of gravity analysis methods such
shifts and the body can become unstable, leading to their fall. as finite element analy-
Consequently, a building will redistribute weight because of sis, dynamic analysis,
stiffness variation from the sinking columns, which adversely and nonlinear analy-
affects the other columns. Analysis of a simple moment frame sis, all founded on
confirmed that the bending moments would increase 20% to stable foundations.
35% for a 1-inch deflection, and deflections will dramatically Certainly, for many
increase to 3 to 4 inches at a single column line. buildings and bridges,
Let us start with a statement found in almost all of our col- this has proven to
lege structural analysis textbooks: "All structures are stable and be a good working
fixed/pinned at their base, with the foundation never moving." methodology. Iconic
Figure 1 illustrates a simple 3-story moment frame building structures like the Figure 2a Multi-bay moment frame with flexible
with fixed base connections. Points A, B, and C are assumed Golden Gate Bridge foundation reactions.
to be level and never displace vertically or horizontally (small (almost 90 years of
deflection theory). Our education in structural analysis, design, service), the Empire State Building (90+ years of service),
retrofit, codes, and basic theory is formulated on this critical and the Taj Mahal (over 400 years) have lasted well beyond
assumption: the ground never moves, or if it does, the move- their expected lifespan and defied collapse through numerous
ment is too small to be of any significance. natural events.
But recently, there have been structural failures that are baf-
fling investigators and give a reason for the re-examination of
Reality Check: The Ground Does Move our standard of practice stemming from ground movement. A
recent landslide in Rancho Palos Verdes, California is a prime
Over time, the support of a structure will change due to varying example of ground movement which no conventional structure
soil conditions, moisture levels, mild earthquakes, and possible could have survived. Many structural engineers would lay the
landslide conditions. These factors are not part of our conven- blame on the geotechnical engineers and geologists and claim
tional wisdom this is "not our fault." Not true. Structural engineering is not
as structural just the "structure above ground" but includes the long-term
engineers stability of the foundation. We should be looking holistically
because we are at the entire system, not just "our part" above ground. We
never taught should remember that geotechnical engineers and engineering
that this may geologists provide information and data on soil conditions with
happen. It is recommendations to structural engineers for our design. They are
completely not building design professionals; structural engineers are. Just like
outside of our architects who perform their scope of design dealing with form,
envelope of function, aesthetics, lighting, colors, shading, and the ethos of
expectation. the structure, structural engineers have to take responsibility
Examining for our expertise and provide cautionary recommendations as
our build- necessary during the design phase.
ing codes, Therefore, Figure 1 from our structural textbooks is not reality
structural but instead is more like Figure 2A. Each base support in two-
textbooks, dimensional space has three degrees of freedom (DOF) and can
Figure 1 Typical multi-bay moment frame with vertical loads. and research displace in two dimensions, plus rotate in-plane. Each DOF

38 STRUCTURE magazine
 a simple beam. As the vertical stiffness
of Point B degrades, see Figure 4B, the
load reaction at Point A will increase. The
vertical loads will shift to the remaining
support point as the stiffness degrades at
the other reaction point.
Equilibrium is the fundamental equa-
tion that keeps every structure standing.
The balance of the forces and moments
is formulated from Newton's Law. When
one support loses its capacity to accept
the vertical force demand, then that force
(mass multiplied by the acceleration due
Figure 2b Base reactions with six degrees of freedom. to gravity) has to be transferred to other
supports. It must go somewhere, and so the
redistribution of the loads (and stresses) in
the structure is automatic and follows the
basic laws of physics. If we revisit our
textbooks and recall the classical method
of Moment Distribution (developed by
Hardy Cross), this analysis method illus-
trates the re-distribution of moment to
balance at the frame joints.

Practical Analysis
Geotechnical reports will give an esti-
mated long-term settlement, often in the
range of ½-inch to 1-inch for firm soils,
over the life of the structure. This is an
estimation based on the soil conditions at
Figures 3a Single bay moment frame with one Figures 3b Single bay moment frame with one
the time of completion of the construction of
degree of freedom. degree of freedom deflection plot. the building. Therein lies the basic fallacy:
soil conditions can change over time. During
has a stiffness coefficient. Figure 2B illustrates three dimensions design, we assume that the moisture content and bearing capacity
where the structure has six DOFs: three linear elastic springs and will not change over time, but they can. For example, seepage
three rotational springs. The concept of multi-degree of freedom from a leaking water main or in-ground swimming pool will
systems is usually part of graduate school structural engineering certainly affect the soil parameters. Over-watering from irrigation
degree programs, but these principles are still usually introduced will affect the soil capacity. Dewatering on adjacent construction
only for the understanding of the superstructure in conventional sites can lower the water table. These factors are not included in
structural analysis, but not foundation movement. a soils report because the geotechnical engineer is not expected
For simplicity, we look at Figure 3A and examine the behavior to forecast them, but these factors do occur in reality.
as Ky degrades. When Ky degrades, see Figure 3B, the frame These factors suggest the need for structural monitoring and
will deflect capacity analysis over time, at least for structures where deterio-
from Point ration leading to failure would have consequences for the public.
B to B’, and We cannot
the reactions assume that
will shift to “everything”
Point A as the will remain
frame redis- static over
Figures 4a Simple beam with fixed pinned supports.
tributes the 50 to 100+
vertical loads years. For
to the stiffer example,
column. Florida has
This basic instituted a
structural timeline for
redistribu- structural
tion of loads monitoring
is observed in and recerti- Figure 5 Schematic view of a real structure with foundation
Figures 4b Simple beam with one degree of freedom base reaction. Figure 4A for fication of elements and deflection plot.

D ECE M B ER 2023 39
 soil stiffness results in shifting load and
moments in the superstructure. Let us take
this principle and apply it to a basic build-
ing frame system, as shown in Figure 5.
The dimensions were taken from the
plans of a recently collapsed building and
are for a one-story version of a garage
structure. As Point D deflects downward,
the deformed structure above shows the
elastic curve and movement of Point B,
with the assumption that Points A and C
are stable for simplicity. In reality, we do
not know if Point C is stable, but for this
analysis, we will assume it is.
If we take this concept and extend it
to a multi-story, multi-bay structure (see
Figure 6), the analysis becomes more
complex because of the variability in the
ground movement.
Figure 7 Single Bay moment frame with
Figure 6 Multi-bay tall building with varying ground fixed base and then adjusted with three
settlement reactions. degrees of freedom.
Case Study Of Single Bay
Moment Frame
Let us look at a single-bay frame taken
from a recent collapse (see Figure 7), which
has Cases A and B.
Case A:
Conventional portal frame analysis with
stable foundation support
Case B:
Portal Frame analysis with degrading
foundation stiffness at Point D
Case A provides a symmetrical moment
diagram and is in many textbooks, so it is
not presented here. Case B is shown with
actual vertical loads from the building cal-
culation but with no lateral loads.
The moment redistribution and shifting of
the reaction load is evident with a modest
1.28-inch deflection, see Figure 8. This affects
and magnifies the moment values higher at
Point A [N1] as Point D [N3] displaces fur-
ther, and the moment at Joint B [N2] is
Figure 8 Structural analysis using RISA-2D for varying stiffness at right reaction.
increased. In principle, the structural theory
building occupancy on a 10-year schedule. New York City is proven here that ground displacement will affect the moments,
recently experienced a sudden collapse of a Manhattan parking shears, and axial loads in the frame structure above. Similar conclu-
structure and has instituted a similar law. California (and all sions will apply to other building types (i.e., shear wall structures,
other states) are considering similar measures, like California’s braced steel frames, concrete frames, wood frames, etc.).
Balcony Law (Senate Bill 326), which requires structural exami-
nation every 6 to 9 years for wood balconies.
Examples Of Structural Damage
Portal Frame Analysis From the textbook to the real world, we are now faced with
physical evidence of structural cracking in columns and beams
For simplicity, this paper examines a single-bay portal frame. A that may threaten the superstructure.
portal frame is a snapshot of a larger multi-story moment frame Figure 9 is such a case for a three-story complex with subter-
system and illustrates these concepts with a basic analysis where ranean parking that has extensive cracking in column locations
one support sinks. Modeling this with a portal frame allows and is currently under citation.
an engineer to analytically determine reaction results when Figure 10 is a 22-story steel high-rise that has areas of
ground movement occurs at one side of the frame. Degrading water damage in the subterranean parking area, as shown in

40 STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 9 Subterranean parking structure with Figure 10 High rise building resting on 4 levels of Figure 11 Corrosion effects on steel frame moment
structural cracking indicates potential ground subterranean parking. connection in parking structure.
settlement and/or lateral movement.

Figure 12 Corrosion damage to steel moment bolted connection. Deflection Figure 13 Subterranean parking column cracking with no seismic lateral
checks are important to determine if amplified moments could cause cracking. connection on the beams.

Figure 11. Examination of the structural connections is one part Our profession should take a proactive stance on this issue and call
of the investigation. Structural engineers are also investigating for research focused on this topic to upgrade and address our codes
whether ground displacement has led to asymmetric moment and standards. Our industry has an unfortunate "slow response" time
distributions and amplified stresses in the moment frame joints. to institute code changes. Still, we, as practicing structural engineers,
Figure 12 shows a beam connection with deterioration that should be examining our design practice based on practical analysis,
passed testing, but this is not sufficient to conclude if the not standards formulated by researchers and theoreticians.■
structure has displaced vertically. A physical survey should be
part of the investigation process. DISCLAIMER: The author, Dr. Khatri, is not part of any investigation team
Figure 13 illustrates a potential column overstress that may or research group funded by any entity. The examples cited here are for discus-
be due to settlement and/or water damage. sion only and do not suggest that these are established/proven conclusions for
open cases. Dr. Khatri is a structural engineer with over 40 years of academic
and professional experience and is not purporting to represent any structural
Conclusions opinions on open failure investigations, their designers, or causes of failure.

The structural theory of stable foundations ought to be questioned based Dr. Khatri, Ph. D., S. E., is a consulting engineer and owner of Khatri
on recent and historical examples of settlement that have affected the International Inc., based in Las Vegas, NV and Arcadia, California. He has
structural distribution of loads. Structural engineers need to recognize been a structural engineer for 41 years and is licensed across the USA,
these phenomena as potentially damaging, assess root causation, and Canada, and Australia. He may be reached at ([email protected]).
address these concepts in standards, guidelines, and code provisions.

D ECE M B ER 2023 41
 historical STRUCTURES
19th Century Mississippi River Bridges #10
Government (arsenal) bridge 1872
By Dr. Frank Griggs, Jr.

B y 1870, the wooden Rock

Island Bridge (Structure
October 2022) needed replace-
ment. The Federal Government
decided to replace it with an iron
structure crossing the land just
south of the earlier bridge on the
island's west end. In May 1870,
Major W. H. Benyaurd, the Army
engineer placed in charge of the
bridge, prepared a plan of the
bridge site and located the posi-
tion of the swing span close to
Rock Island with an extensive set
of specifications to be sent to pro-
spective bidders. He wrote, “These
specifications were general in their
nature, and drawn up so that the
bidders would have equal oppor-
View from the Island looking westerly towards Davenport with the 100’ span in the foreground.
tunities to compete for the bridge,
no particular form of truss, nor
any particular patent being specified, that would debar some firms as the low bidder and Kellogg, Clarke & Company as the highest
from proposing, while at the same time, the Government would have bidder, with the contract going to Smith’s company. Benyaurd wrote,
the benefit of a greater number of plans to choose from, and be better
enabled to secure a proper structure.” The specification was for an The plans, &c., having been carefully considered, the award
all-wrought iron structure and included the following: was made to the Baltimore Bridge Company, and a contract
entered into on the 13th of October, 1870, for the draw-span,
The superstructure will consist of two spans of 260 feet, three one span of 260 feet and one span of 220 feet, the amount of
spans of 220 feet, fixed in a permanent position, and one draw available funds on hand being only sufficient for these three
span, with two equal openings of 160 feet and a total length of spans, and current expenses, the remainder of the appropria-
366 feet. Each span will consist of two trusses, 33 feet between tion having reverted into the Treasury. The contract for the
centers of top and bottom chords, with wagon-road on bottom remaining spans over the main river, and the approach spans
chords, and single-track railroad intermediate, allowing 12 at each end, was not entered into until August 1871, after
feet headway for wagon-road. The trusses are to be placed 18 the money which had reverted into the Treasury had been
feet apart in the clear, with two sidewalks, each 5 feet wide, re-appropriated.
outside, on level with wagon-road and floor.
The bridge was not mentioned in the 1866 Federal Law governing
In other words, it would be a double-deck bridge with the road- bridges across the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, but the require-
way on the lower level and the railroad on the upper level. He sent ments of that law were followed. The layout of the bridge starting
the plans and specifications to many firms and got proposals from on the Iowa or Davenport side and running easterly was as follows,
Kellogg, Clarke & Co., Phoenixville, Pennsylvania; Baltimore Bridge
Company, Baltimore, Maryland; L. B. Boomer & Co., Chicago, a span of 196 feet, for railroad only, spans Second and Front
Illinois; Keystone Bridge Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and streets, Davenport, these streets intersecting at this point. Then
Detroit Bridge Company. Kellogg & Clarke, with the Detroit Bridge follow the double-deck spans across the river, in the following
Company, had built the Quincy Bridge and Boomer, the first Rock order: One of 260 feet; three of 220 feet each; one of 260 feet;
Island Bridge; Keystone had also built the Keokuk and Hamilton draw span, 368 feet; finally, a railroad span of 100 feet, over
Bridge. The only firm that had not built a bridge across the Mississippi the wagon road on the island, leading to the bridge, making
was the Baltimore Bridge Company under C. Shaler Smith. Bids were a total length of bridge of 1,815 feet. This got the bridge to
opened in late October 1870 with Detroit Bridge & Iron Company the Island.

42 STRUCTURE magazine
Engraving of the bridge from Rock Island, on the right, to Davenport, Iowa.

Smith adopted Pratt Trusses for his single-level spans at the main channel. They were completed and tested on May 8, 1872,
ends and Whipple double intersection trusses for his double- under a load of six flat cars loaded with sand weighing a total of
deck spans. For the double deck spans, “The trusses are 33 1/2 68,000#, and the deflections were never much over an inch.
feet high between pin-centers, and placed 19 feet apart, allowing Benyaurd finished his report with,
about 17 1/2 feet clear space. There are two floors: the upper, for
the railroad, placed a little below the center of the trusses, and the Too much credit cannot be given to the Baltimore Bridge
wagon floor on the bottom chords. On each side of the bridge, Company for the manner in which they performed their
outside of trusses, on a level with wagon road floor, are foot walks part of the contract and for the excellent workmanship
6 feet wide, protected by substantial railing. About 12 feet clear and material that they put upon the bridge. And it is to
headroom is allowed for wagons.” The verticals were built up be regretted that they were not so fortunate in a pecuniary
with Phoenix sections fabricated with 4, 6, or 8 elements, with point of view as they were in erecting the strongest and
the smaller sections near mid-span and the large sections near the most perfectly finished bridge in America.
ends of the spans. The lower chords were wrought iron links, and
the two-panel diagonals of iron bars were similar to but smaller It was the longest, heaviest, and only double-deck swing span
than the lower chord members. “The top chord is 20 inches deep in the world at the time. The total weight of iron in the main
and from 22 inches to 24 inches wide, depending upon the panel's channel spans was 6,675,000#, with a weight of iron and wood
position. Each segment is formed of four plates, 20 inches by 1 of 1,565,465# in the swing span alone. To move this great weight
inch to 1 1/4 inches thick, connected together at top and bottom required a new mechanism that Smith developed to be powered
by 6-inch channel bars, filling-strips being also introduced between by a steam engine mounted at the mid-span of the swing.
the channels and plates, in certain of the segments.” Bids for the spans over the easterly channel were asked for in
Benyaurd wrote of the swing span, “The draw-span is a double November 1872 for “a through truss bridge 721 feet long in five
Whipple, reversed-pin connections throughout. Each of the seven equal spans; to have a roadway 20 feet in the clear and with two
panels of the top chord, from the ends, is formed of two eye bars, sidewalks each five feet in the clear; the roadway to be floored with
each 9 inches by 1 1/8, to which eyes from 15 inches to 18 inches oak plank 3 inches by 6 inches, and the sidewalks with pine plank,
in diameter are welded; these eye bars form the outsides of the 3 inches by 6 inches, the latter to have a suitable hand-rail properly
chord and are connected together by horizontal plates and diagonal braced, the floor beams of wrought-iron, the floor joists to be of
strips, making each segment stiff, and from 20 inches to 24 inches white pine.” Bids were opened in November 1872. The contract
wide, depending upon the position of the panel. The next four for these spans was awarded to Clarke, Reeves & Company, the
panels are made up merely of eye bars, from 9 inches by 1 1/4 to successor firm to Kellogg and Clarke & Co., for $60,250. It was
9 inches by 1 inch, with eyes 18 1/2 inches, having respectively completed on July 1, 1873.
4, 6, 8, and 10 bars in a panel. The remaining panel is a short one This bridge would survive until 1896 when Ralph Modjeski built
and used as a connecting link between the two arms; it is formed the existing bridge on the original but reinforced piers.■
of four pieces, 18 1/2 inches by 1 inch, 5 feet long.” The swing
span was built on the swing span island and was completed in Dr. Frank Griggs, Jr. specializes in the restoration of historic bridges, having
mid-February 1872. The approach spans were then erected, and restored many 19th Century cast and wrought iron bridges. He is now an
the main channel bridge was finished on May 1, 1872. Benyaurd Independent Consulting Engineer ([email protected]).
had gotten the additional funding for the approach spans over the

D ECE M B ER 2023 43
 business PRACTICES
The Art of Delegated Steel Design
Strategies for successful delegated design in structural steel.
By Michael A. Stubbs P. E., S. E. and Adam Sanchez P. E.

F or decades, delegat-
ing the design of steel
connections and stairs to
engineers under the steel
fabricator’s contract has
become increasingly popu-
lar. Projects with delegated
design have had mixed
results. Very often, the out-
come of delegated design is
significantly impacted by
the way delegated design
is specifi ed in the con-
struction documents. This
article provides Engineers
of Record (EoR) strategies
to improve efficiency and
economic benefi t to the
project owner when they
specify the delegated design
of steel components.
It is important to under-
stand that delegated design
was originally developed to
allow steel fabricators and
steel erectors the flexibility
to complete the design in
a manner that saves both Typical connection that will require accurate reactions.
time and money in the
construction of the projects. Under the ideal delegated design of Standards typically run smoother and more efficiently. AISC
model, fabricators can design connections and stair configura- has also created the use of Substantiating Documents, which
tions that maximize their fabrication equipment and procedures’ makes the communication between the EoR and Specialty
best and fastest methods. Delegated design allows erectors to Engineer much simpler. It is highly recommended that EoRs
influence the design to minimize construction obstacles and familiarize themselves with Section 3 of the Code of Standard
leverage their experience to provide more efficient construc- Practice and specify delegated design accordingly.
tion sequences. EoRs should ensure that the specifications they The Coalition of American Structural Engineers (CASE) have
are writing maximize the ability of fabricators and erectors to three documents that can assist EoRs with making their con-
influence the project. struction documents efficient. These are:
When an EoR specifies delegated design, they invite the fab- • 962 National Practice Guidelines for Structural Engineers
ricator, erector, detailer, and specialty engineer (the engineer • 962-B National Practice Guidelines for Specialty Structural
responsible for designing the connections and the stairs) to Engineers
the design process. The design process, by its very nature, is • 962-D A Guideline Addressing Coordination and
collaborative. The EoR should ensure the project is set up to Completeness of Structural Construction Documents
make the relationship as collaborative as possible.
AISC has made considerable progress in defining the methods EoRs should also concentrate on some straightforward strat-
that EoRs should specify delegated design. Section 3.2.3 (3) egies to help make their projects with delegated design run
of ANSI/AISC 303-22 “Code of Standard Practice for Steel more smoothly.
Building and Bridges” has been updated to facilitate delegated 1. Make sure the use of ASD vs. LRFD is clearly defined.
connection design. Projects that follow this section of the Code 2. The construction documents should provide accurate

44 STRUCTURE magazine
 reactions where possible. When universal methods of must clearly define where the stairs are expected to attach to
calculating reactions are provided, such as 55% of the the primary structure. “AISC Design Guide 34 – Steel-Framed
Uniform Load Tables, the project can be designed for Stairway Design” provides an excellent resource for assisting
overly conservative reaction forces. This can cause inef- with the design of stairs and how to specify the delegated design
ficient conditions. Short small beams used can often of stairs correctly.
have specified reactions that will exceed the actual reac- How documents that are prepared under the contract of the
tion by as much as 300% steel fabricator are signed and sealed can also be a point of
3. When connections are designed to resist wind and contention on projects with delegated design. Signing and seal-
seismic forces, the reactions should be broken up into ing shop drawings can be problematic for Specialty Engineers.
dead, live, wind, and seismic forces. This allows the This can present the Specialty Engineer with excessive liability
Specialty Engineer to take advantage of reductions in and uninsurable conditions. Therefore, specifying that the
forces allowed by ASCE 7 load cases. Specialty Engineer stamp shop drawing is not recommended.
4. Clearly define connection types that are not acceptable. Substantiating Documents allows Specialty Engineers to sign
5. Provide sufficient information for the fabricator and and seal their work while not creating liability conflicts. As
erector to bid on the project without the need to design mentioned above, the EoR should be explicit regarding the
connections during the bidding process. expectations for the substantiating documents in the construc-
6. Provide specific instructions on what is expected tion documents.
regarding the Substantiating Documents. The instruc- Mr. Stubbs will present strategies EoRs can employ to make
tion can include drawing and details required, delegated design projects more efficient at the 2024 North
calculation format and requirements for correlation to American Steel Construction Conference. This presentation
the shop drawings. This will avoid the need for resub- will provide a more detailed discussion on improving the del-
mittals and project delays. egated design.■

EoRs should also consider the methods used to specify a del-

Michael A. Stubbs P. E., S. E., President, Stubbs Engineering, Inc.
egated design for stairs. First, the EoR should take an active
([email protected])
part in assisting the architect in properly defining the stairs.
This is especially true with monumental stairs. The architect Adam Sanchez P. E., Senior Structural Engineer, Stubbs Engineering, Inc.
often needs help determining the size and configuration of ([email protected])
stair members along with the location of supports. The EoR

EARTH RETENTION guide

Altair RISA Technologies
Phone:949-951-5815
Williams Form
Phone: 604-273-7737
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Engineering Corp.
Web: https://www.altair.com/s-concrete/ Web: risa.com Phone: 616-866-0815
Product: Altair S-CONCRETE Product: RISAFoundation Email: [email protected]
Description: S-CONCRETE quickly and Description: RISAFoundation designs retaining Web: www.williamsform.com
accurately designs reinforced concrete column, walls, two-way mat slabs, spread footings, Product: Anchor Systems
beam, wall sections, and continuous beams to grade beams and pile caps all within an open Description: Williams Form Engineering
regional code requirements. Versatile and easy- modeling environment. With synchronized Corporation has been providing threaded
to-use for any project workflow, users save time load transfer from RISA-3D and RISAFloor steel bars and accessories for rock anchors,
by automatically checking thousands of concrete models, foundation design has never been soil anchors, high capacity concrete anchors,
designs at once to produce comprehensive design easier. Punching shear checks, rebar design, micropiles, tie rods, tiebacks, strand anchors,
reports. and international codes make it the smart hollow bar anchors, post tensioning systems,
choice for engineers. and concrete forming hardware systems in the
construction industry for over 100 years.
ENERCALC, LLC
Phone: 800-424-2252
Email: [email protected]
Web: https://enercalc.com
Product: ENERCALC SEL / ENERCALC 3D
Description: For 30+ years, ENERCALC has
Not listed?
provided time saving tools for analyzing and designing
the most frequently used types of earth retention Monthly 2023 Resource Guide forms are now available
structures. Concrete and/or masonry, cantilevered or on our website.
restrained, gravity walls, segmental walls (SRWs) with/
without geogrids (MSE), soldier pile, gabion and more. STRUCTUREmag.org
Handles multiple loading conditions and stem designs.
Free demos.

D ECE M B ER 2023 45
 CODES and STANDARDS
Solar Arrays Designed Incorrectly
for Wind Uplift Loads
Statement on required load combinations for wind uplift.
By Joe Maffei, S. E., Ph.D., Gwenyth Searer, S. E., Rob Ward, S. E., Rafael Sabelli, S. E.

L ate last year, the Structural Engineers Association of California

(SEAOC) learned that some engineers designing ballasted roof-
top solar arrays using Allowable Stress Design (ASD) have not been
applying the appropriate load combination for wind uplift (i.e.,
Load Combination No. 7a from ASCE 7 Section 2.4.1), either
ignoring it or modifying it based on an incorrect understanding of
its basis. In response, the organization issued the statement shown
in the inset on the next page.
The statement was authored by the SEAOC Wind Committee and
approved by the SEAOC Board of Directors in November 2022. (The
statement is also posted at https://tinyurl.com/SEAOC-Statement )
In the cases that prompted SEAOC’s statement, the engineers
ignored ASD Load Combination No. 7a (i.e., 0.6D + 0.6W) from
Section 2.4.1 of ASCE 7 and instead considered only ASD Load
Combination No. 5a (i.e., 1.0D + 0.6W). For Risk Category II,
ignoring the load combination intended to govern uplift (i.e., Solar array on the roof of a reservoir. Photo courtesy of Noelle Yuen, Maffei
Structural Engineering.
Load Combination No. 7a) essentially means that the ballast is
designed for wind speeds with a return period of approximately 40
years instead of the intended and required 700-year return period. Getting the Word Out
Thus, a ballasted solar array designed this way would have an annual
probability of uplifting from the roof approximately 17 times higher The authors have recently found cases in which this erroneous design
than a code-compliant design. (Over a 30-year service life, the prob- practice is still taking place; thus, we are working to get the word out
ability of uplift of a solar array would be about 50% rather than to engineers and agencies that work with solar energy structures and
the intended 4%.) This is a substantial reduction in the stability of building officials. Please help by forwarding this article or the link to
the solar array, and, as emphasized in the SEAOC statement, it is the SEAOC statement to anyone you know who might be interested.
not appropriate to use the full dead load (even if it is known with Because of the high probability of uplift for such designs, any solar arrays
complete certainty) to counteract the ASD-level wind load. that may have been designed with incorrect load combinations should
be reviewed and, if necessary to meet code requirements, be redesigned
and retrofitted. Retrofitting would typically require additional ballast
Basis of ASD Load Combinations weight to hold down the array, with further modification or measures
needed if the array configuration, the racking system, or the capacity of
ASD is intended to achieve reliability by providing a factor of the roof structure cannot accommodate the additional ballast.■
safety between ASD-level load effects (informally called “service
level”) and nominal resistance. In Load Combination 7a, 0.6W Joe Maffei is the Founding Principal at Maffei Structural Engineering in San
is the ASD-level load effect, and the dead load D provides the Francisco, CA. He is a member of the SEAOC Wind Committee. (joe@
nominal resistance. The 0.6 factor applied to D represents the maffei-structure.com)
factor of safety against uplift, equal to 1/0.6=1.67. Using 1.0D Gwenyth Searer is a Principal at Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. She
instead of 0.6D would eliminate the factor of safety, which is the current Chair of the SEAOC Wind Committee and a member of the
is an integral part of ASD. Just because the dead load is well ASCE Minimum Design Loads on Buildings and Other Structures Standards
known does not mean that a coefficient higher than 0.6 can Committee. ([email protected])
be used for dead load.
Rob Ward is a Senior Structural Engineer at Maffei Structural Engineering
Although the basis for the 0.6 factor on dead load may be
in San Francisco, CA. He is a member of the SEAOC Wind Committee.
unclear to some, the requirement to use it in Load Combination
([email protected])
7a is unambiguous. Section 2.4.1 clearly states that whichever
load combination “produces the most unfavorable effect … shall Rafael Sabelli is a Senior Principal at Walter P Moore and a member of the
be considered.” Thus, all potentially governing load combina- ASCE Minimum Design Loads on Buildings and Other Structures Standards
tions must be considered; none can be ignored. Committee. ([email protected])

46 STRUCTURE magazine
 Statement by the SEAOC Wind Committee The degree of certainty that one may have in the dead load is not a
on Wind Uplift and Allowable-Strength justification to change this factor.
It is SEAOC’s opinion that a design that ignores or modifies the
Design Load Combinations for Ballasted 0.6D + 0.6W allowable stress load combination does not comply
Solar Array Designs, November 11, 2022 with ASCE 7, the IBC, or the CBC, and is in direct conflict with
code provisions. Further, such an approach cannot be justified by
(Authored by the SEAOC Wind Committee, and any code provisions that allow alternate design approaches. Failing
reproduced here with permission from SEAOC) to use the required 0.6D + 0.6W load combination in the allowable
stress design procedure is unconservative and will lead to designs
The Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) Wind with a substantially higher probability of wind uplift failure than a
Committee has recently learned that some engineers designing code-compliant design.
ballasted rooftop solar arrays for wind uplift have been using the The 2009 paper “Counteracting Structural Loads: Treatment in
Allowable Stress Design (ASD) load combinations of the ASCE 7 ASCE Standard 7-05” by Ellingwood and Li2 directly addressed
standard, the International Building Code (IBC), and the California the issue of ASD Load Combination No. 7. The paper states,
Building Code (CBC) incorrectly. “the factor applied to dead load in situations where its effect is
These engineers have proposed ignoring the required Load counteracted by the effects of other lateral or uplift forces should
Combination No. 7 in Section 2.4.1 of ASCE 7-16, (0.6D + 0.6W), not be increased above 0.6.”
which leaves Load Combination 5, (D + 0.6W), governing the In summary, ignoring or modifying the 0.6D + 0.6W allowable stress
design for uplift1. load combination violates the building code, and use of 100 percent
In the above equations, D is the dead load of the ballasted panel of the dead load to resist allowable-stress design-level wind uplift will
system, and 0.6W is the allowable-stress design-level design wind result in markedly unconservative designs and, consequently, a higher
uplift force. probability of solar array failures.
1
The justification that SEAOC has seen for this practice assumes that ASCE 7-16, the 2018 IBC, and the 2019 CBC all have identical
the 0.6 factor on dead load is intended only to represent uncertainty ASD load combinations.
2
in the dead load. This assumption is incorrect. Rather, the factor was Ellingwood, Bruce R and Li, Yue, “Counteracting Structural
derived so that ASD load combinations would give results similar Loads: Treatment in ASCE Standard 7-05”, Journal of Structural
to designs that use Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD). Engineering, January 2009, pp. 94-97.

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

D ECE M B ER 2023 47
 code UPDATES
2024 IBC Significant Structural Changes
Special inspection & soils/foundations (IBC Chapters 17 & 18)—Part 2.
By John “Buddy” Showalter, P. E., M. ASCE, M. NCSEA, and Sandra Hyde P. E., M. ASCE, M. NCSEA

T his multi-part series discusses significant structural changes to

the 2024 International Building Code (IBC) by the International
Code Council (ICC). Part 2 includes an overview of changes to
IBC Chapter 17 on special inspection and IBC Chapter 18 on soils
and foundations. Only a portion of these chapters’ total number of
code changes are discussed in this article. More information on the
code changes can be found in the 2024 Significant Changes to the
International Building Code, available from ICC (Figure 1).

Metal Building Systems

Metal building systems (Figure 2) are significantly different from other
forms of steel construction, especially regarding the shared design
responsibilities between the metal building system manufacturer

Figure 2 Metal building system.

and registered design professional for the project. Adding new metal
building system provisions, a definition, and material requirements
clarifies the design requirements for the systems (a future article in
the series will provide more details). New IBC Section 1705.2.6
provides special inspection provisions for metal building systems.

1705.2.6 Metal building systems. Special inspections of metal

building systems shall be performed in accordance with Sections
1705.2.1, 1705.2.3, 1705.2.4 and 1705.2.5 and Table 1705.2.6.
The approved agency shall perform inspections of the erected
metal building system to verify compliance with the approved
construction documents.

Periodic Special
Type
Inspection
1. Installation of rafter/beam
flange braces and column X
flange braces.
2. Installation of purlins and
girts, including specified X
lapping.
3. Purlin and girt restraint/
X
bridging/bracing.
4. Installation of X-bracing,
X
tightened to remove any sag.

Figure 1 2024 Significant changes to the IBC. Table 1705.2.6 Special Inspections of Metal Building Systems.

48 STRUCTURE magazine
 Change Significance: With clarification of the design require- Type Continuous Periodic Referenced
ments for different metal building system components, special Special Special Standarda
inspection requirements become clearer. Today, many construc- Inspection Inspection
tion documents list nonexistent Metal Building Manufacturer
Association standards as the governing design requirements. By 2. Reinforcing bar welding:
placing material and special inspection requirements into the IBC, a. Verify weld-
designers can create more accurate construction documents, and ability of AWS D1.4
building departments can more easily inspect the construction. reinforcing ACI 318:
— X
New special inspection requirements complement the new provi- bars other 26.6.4
sions for metal building systems in IBC Section 2210. Metal building than ASTM 26.13.1.4
systems are typically highly optimized structures heavily dependent on A706.
bracing components to function per the design. Some bracing com-
b. Inspect
ponents consist of materials that are not considered to be "structural
welding of
steel." As these components didn’t previously have special inspections
listed in IBC Section 1705.2, an inspection of the completed instal- reinforce-
lation of these critical components was often overlooked. ment for
Metal building systems often contain assemblies made of various special moment
AWS D1.4
components, such as structural steel, cold-formed steel, and steel frames,
X — ACI 318:
cables. While the individual components are often covered by fab- boundary
26.13.3
ricator special inspections and tests found in the subsections of IBC elements of
Section 1705.2, the “systems” used in metal building systems are often special struc-
unique and have not been specifically identified in the steel section. tural walls,
The new language adds explicit requirements for special inspection of and coupling
commonly used systems not previously identified elsewhere. beams.
c. Inspect
welded
Special Inspection Of Reinforcing Bar Welding reinforcement
X — —
splices.
IBC Section 1705.3.1 references AWS D1.4 Structural Welding Code
– Reinforcing Steel which contains requirements for rebar inspection. d. Inspect weld-
The construction documents must indicate the type and location ing of primary
of welded splices and any other welding. Reinforcement must be tension X — —
of a material quality that forms a strong weld where welding is reinforcement
required. Reinforcing steel per ASTM A706 Standard Specification in corbels.
for Deformed and Plain Low-Alloy Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement e.b. Inspect single-
is typically specified. Other rebar must be tested before welding AWS D1.4
pass fillet
begins to determine whether welding is an option or if mechanical — X ACI 318:
welds, maxi-
splices are required for the reinforcement. Ideally, rebar weldability 26.13.3
mum 5/16''.
is determined before construction begins. Changes to IBC Table
1705.3 coordinate the special inspection provisions for welding of f.c. Inspect all AWS D1.4
reinforcing steel (Figure 3) with the provisions in Section 26.13.3 other welds. X— X ACI 318:
of ACI 318-19 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. 26.13.3

Table 1705.3 (excerpt) Required Special Inspections and Tests of Concrete Construction.

Change Significance: IBC Table 1705.3 Item 2(b) adds a new

requirement for continuous special inspection of reinforcement
welding in special moment frames, boundary elements of special
structural walls, and coupling beams as required by ACI 318 Section
26.13.3.2(d). Because of their critical nature, new Item 2(c) was
added to require continuous special inspection of all welded rein-
forcement splices. New item 2(d) for continuous special inspection
for welding primary tension reinforcement in corbels highlights
another difficult area to weld.
Previous Item 2(b) for periodic inspection of single pass fillet
welds is renumbered as Item 2(e). Former Item 2(c) for special
inspection of all other welds is renumbered as Item 2(f ) and revised
to permit these welds to be performed as a periodic special inspec-
tion since the critical welds covered by new Items 2(b), 2(c), and
2(d) have been introduced into the table as separate continuous
Figure 3 Reinforcing bar welding. special inspections.

D ECE M B ER 2023 49
 a permit.
IBC Section 1807.2.5.2 height requirement
provisions reference IBC Section 1015.3, which
mandates a 42-inch-high guard measured vertically
from the adjacent walking surface. IBC Section
1807.2.5.3 opening limitation requirements refer-
ence IBC Section 1015.4, which restricts openings
to the passage of a 4-inch-diameter sphere for the
required guard height.

Grade Beams
Figure 4 Guards on retaining walls. In high seismic regions, grade beams (Figure 5) must
be designed as ductile per ACI 318 unless the beam
Guards On Retaining Walls is strong enough to resist the anticipated maximum
earthquake force as determined by the seismic load combination with
Guards are systems comprising posts, handrails (where required), and an overstrength factor from ASCE 7-22 Minimum Design Loads and
balusters or panels. Guards are required to prevent a person from falling to Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, Section 2.3.6 or
a lower elevation that might cause injury. The code was silent on require- 2.4.5. In other words, grade beams must be designed for overstrength
ments for guards on top of retaining walls. These conditions commonly or ductility. Accordingly, the exception in IBC Section 1810.3.12 for
occur in public places such as parks and schools. New IBC Section 1807.2.5 grade beams in deep foundation systems was modified so that only
includes provisions for guards on retaining walls (Figure 4) consistent with the ductile detailing provisions in ACI 318 Section 18.13.3.1 are
guard requirements elsewhere in the code. The exception exempts condi- exempt when grade beams are designed for the overstrength factor.
tions where a retaining wall is not accessible to the public.
Section 1809 Shallow Foundations
1807.2.5 Guards. Guards shall be provided at retaining walls in accor-
dance with Sections 1807.2.5.1 through 1807.2.5.3. 1809.14 Grade beams. Grade beams shall comply with the
provisions of ACI 318.
Exception: Guards are not required at retaining walls not acces-
sible to the public. Exception: Grade Beams not subject to differential settlement
exceeding one-fourth of the thresholds specified in ASCE 7 Table
1807.2.5.1 Where required. At retaining walls located within 36 inches 12.13-3 and designed to resist the seismic load effects including
(914 mm) of walking surfaces, a guard shall be required between the overstrength factor in accordance with Section 2.3.6 or 2.4.5
walking surface and the open side of the retaining wall where the walking of ASCE 7 need not comply with ACI 318 Section 18.13.3.1.
surface is located more than 30 inches (762 mm) measured vertically
to the surface or grade below at any point within 36 inches (914 mm) Section 1810 Deep Foundations
horizontally to the edge of the open side. Guards shall comply with
Section 1607.9. 1810.3.12 Grade beams. Grade beams shall comply with the
provisions of ACI 318.
1807.2.5.2 Height. Required guards at retaining walls shall comply with
the height requirements of Section 1015.3. Exception: Grade beams not subject to differential settlement
exceeding one-fourth of the thresholds specified in ASCE 7 Table
1807.2.5.3 Opening limitations. Required guards shall comply with 12.13-3 and designed to resist the seismic load effects including
the opening limitations of Section 1015.4. overstrength factor in accordance with Section 2.3.6 or 2.4.5
of ASCE 7 need not comply with ACI 318 Section 18.13.3.1.
Change Significance: IBC Section 1807.2.5.1 parameters for prox-
imity to a walking surface and vertical
distance to the surface or grade below
are consistent with IBC Section 1015.2
for guards in the interior of a build-
ing and IBC Section 105.2 for work
exempt from permits. IBC Section
105.2 Item 4 exempts retaining walls
less than 4 feet tall from a permit; how-
ever, that distance is measured from the
bottom of the footing making the grade
difference approximately 30 inches.
IBC Section 105.2 Item 6 indicates a
sidewalk or driveway with more than Figure 5 Single-span grade beam profile (ACI Detailing Manual MNL-66(20) Figure FND-3: Grade Beam Profile &
a 30-inch grade change would require Schedule).

50 STRUCTURE magazine
 Change Significance: This clarification for shallow and deep foundations 1810.3.2 Materials. The materials used in deep foundation
is needed since ASCE 7 Section 12.13.9.3.1 permits the downdrag of pile elements shall satisfy the requirements of Sections 1810.3.2.1
design based on the significant differential settlement during an earthquake. through 1810.3.2.8, as applicable.
Differential settlement exceeding one-fourth of the threshold may impose
moments and shears in the grade beam that exceed those computed with Sections 1810.3.2.1 through 1810.3.2.7 are unchanged and not
seismic load effects, including the overstrength factor, in which case the shown for brevity.
ductile detailing requirements for grade beams in ACI Section 18.13.3.1
would be required for structures assigned to Seismic Design Category D, 1810.3.2.8 Justification of higher allowable stresses. Use of
E, or F. According to the ACI 318 Commentary for this section, “Grade allowable stresses greater than those specified in Section in Table
beams resisting flexural stresses from column moments should have rein- 1810.3.2.6 that must be justified in accordance with this section
forcement details similar to the beams of the frame above the foundation.” shall be permitted where supporting data justifying such higher
ASCE 7 Section 12.13.9 exempts foundation elements likely to be stresses is filed with submitted to and approved by the building
affected by earthquake-induced settlement from complying with ductil- official. Such substantiating data shall include the following:
ity requirements when their deformation is less than limits which vary
based on risk category. 1. A geotechnical investigation in accordance with Section 1803.
Therefore, provisions for grade beams in foundation systems in the IBC 2. Load tests in accordance with Section 1810.3.3.1.2, regardless
were modified so that while grade beams designed with an overstrength factor of the load supported by the element.
need not meet the ductile detailing provisions in ACI 318, the exception
is only permissible when differential settlements are less than one-fourth The design and installation of the deep foundation elements
of the thresholds in ASCE 7 Table 12.13-3. All other provisions of ACI shall be under the direct supervision of a registered design
318 for strength, durability, reinforcing steel cover, etc., are still applicable. professional knowledgeable in the field of soil mechanics and
IBC Section 1809.14 is a new section that adds the grade beam provisions deep foundations who shall submit a report to the building
in the deep foundation section to the shallow foundation section. The grade official stating that the elements as installed satisfy the design
beam must either be ductile or strengthened to resist forces from a maximum criteria.
considered earthquake by including overstrength in its design.
Change Significance: As previously written, this section could have
allowed the override of the allowable stresses in IBC Table 1810.3.2.6
Deep Foundation Elements when a pile passed a load test – which is not the intent. Several founda-
tion types in IBC Table 1810.3.2.6 have multiple allowable stresses for
In those sections of IBC Chapter 18 that specifically deal with the types of the same material type. For example, IBC Table 1810.3.2.6 provides for
elements most used in the construction of deep foundations, there are limita- a higher allowable compressive yield stress of 0.5Fy for steel piles when
tions placed on the stresses that can be used in the deep foundation element justified per IBC Section 1810.3.2.8, which requires a geotechnical
design. In most cases, the allowable stresses are stated as a percentage of the investigation and a load test. Otherwise, steel piles are limited to 0.35Fy.
strength of the element’s material. For example, in the case of piles made of In other words, the pile test is to justify the higher values in IBC Table
steel, the allowable stresses are prescribed as a percentage of the yield strength 1810.3.2.6, not to allow even higher values than those already tabulated.
of the steel. The allowable design stresses designated in IBC Chapter 18 for
each deep foundation type are intended to provide a safety factor against the
dynamic forces that may cause damage, for example, from driving a deep Conclusion
foundation element, and to avoid overstress in the element under the design
loads and loads induced by subsoil conditions. Structural engineers should be aware of significant structural changes
in the 2024 IBC for special inspections and soils/foundations. New
special inspection provisions for metal building systems have been
Material Type and Maximum Allowable incorporated. Changes to IBC Table 1705.3 coordinate the special
Condition Stressa inspection provisions for welding of reinforcing steel with the provisions
3. Steel in compression in ACI 318-19. New provisions for guards on retaining walls are added
consistent with guard requirements elsewhere in the code. Provisions for
Pipes, tubes or H-piles, where
grade beams in deep foundation systems were modified so that only the
justified in accordance with 0.5 Fy ≤ 32,000 psi
ductile detailing provisions in ACI 318 are exempt when grade beams
Section 1810.3.2.8
are designed with an overstrength factor. Finally, new provisions allow
Other pipes, tubes or H-piles 0.35 Fy ≤ 24,000 psi tabulated higher allowable stresses for deep foundation elements when
evidence supporting the higher capacity is submitted and approved by
5. Steel in tension
the building official.■
Pipes, tubes or H-piles, where
justified in accordance with 0.5 Fy ≤ 32,000 psi Look for more of the series in previous and upcoming issues of STRUCTURE.
Section 1810.3.2.8
Other pipes, tubes or H-piles 0.35 Fy ≤ 24,000 psi
John “Buddy” Showalter, P. E. Senior Staff Engineer of ICC’s Consulting
Helical piles 0.6 Fy ≤ 0.5 Fu
Group. ([email protected])
Sandra Hyde, P. E. Managing Director of ICC’s Consulting Group.
Table 1810.3.2.6 (excerpt) Allowable Stresses for Materials Used in Deep ([email protected])
Foundation Elements.

D ECE M B ER 2023 51
 NCSEA News
Congratulations to This Year’s NCSEA Grant Program Recipients!
The NCSEA Grant Program awards SEAs funding for projects that advance their SEA
and the structural engineering profession in accordance with the NCSEA Mission
Statement. Supported by the NCSEA Foundation, the SEA Grant Program has deliv-
ered more than $80,000 in grants since its inception!

Here are the 2023 Winners and their projects:

Structural Engineers Association of Colorado (SEAC)

Colorado Special Wind Region Wind Study
SEAC plans to commission a state-wide Colorado wind climate study with the following objectives: (1) to establish meaningful and accurate
boundaries for the Colorado SWR for incorporation into ASCE 7, (2) to determine reliability-based design wind speeds, utilizing the most
current data and methodologies, spanning the entire Colorado SWR, and (3) to determine what winter windiness parameter(s) should be
utilized for snow drifting design within the Colorado SWR using the provisions of ASCE 7-22 and later.

Structural Engineers Association of Illinois (SEAOI)

Professional Networking and Headshots Event
SEAOI will host a gathering that aims to provide group networking opportunities and offer attendees the chance to have professional
headshots taken. The idea originated from a discussion within the SEAOI WiSE group, highlighting the difficulty many face in accessing
professional headshots. While the headshots and networking event will be free, recipients are requested to create a post or video promoting
SEAOI and/or NCSEA events on their LinkedIn or other social media, which will also be shared on SEAOI's social channels.

Structural Engineers Association of Kentucky (SEAoK)

Young Members Group (YMG)
SEAoK will launch a YMG in the state of Kentucky, with the goal of cultivating future SEAoK and NCSEA leadership, broadening membership, doing
college outreach, primary school outreach, study sessions for PE/SE exams, and for a community of other structural engineers to socialize and engage with.

Structural Engineers Association of Kansas & Missouri (SEAKM)

Young Members Group (YMG)
SEAKM is establishing a YMG under SEAKM Kansas City Chapter to attract more young engineers to join SEAKM. To do this, they plan to
host events targeted at a younger audience than the typical SEAKM monthly meetings to encourage broader engagement. Once established,
the goals of the YMG would include helping young engineers enhance their knowledge and skills, acquire licenses, advance their careers,
foster future leadership within SEAKM, and promote structural engineering in general.

Structural Engineers Association - Metropolitan Washington (SEA-MW)

SE3 GrowthGuidance Mentorship Program
The SEA-MW SE3 GrowthGuidance Mentorship program will connect entry-level engineers with experienced mid-level and seasoned pro-
fessionals. It will foster open dialogue, clarify career goals, address obstacles, and promote personal growth, all while discussing the unique
challenges of the structural engineering profession. Additionally, it will aim to provide a platform for current and future leaders to share
practical insights and enhance their leadership skills.

Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEAONC)

Definition of Special Wind Regions in California
SEAONC will attempt to delineate the boundaries of the Special Wind Regions in California, as well as the appropriate Basic Wind Speeds within these
Special Wind Regions. Once SEAONC completes the wind studies, the results will be communicated to the various jurisdictions and the engineering
community in California via webinars and white papers. SEAONC’s plan is to submit the studies, the associated white papers, and proposed changes
to ASCE 7 in time to see the changes adopted in ASCE 7-28, and in time to be adopted into the 2030 International Building Code.

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

Structural Engineers Association of New Mexico (SEANM)

Young Members Group (YMG) - Seminars
SEANM YMG will establish a series of specialized seminars tailored to the young members, held periodically throughout the year. These seminars
will explore unconventional subject matter, such as addressing burnout and mental health challenges within the industry, imparting financial
literacy skills, and enhancing time management capabilities. In addition to these contemporary topics, the aim is to provide insights into more
conventional subjects such as Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) practices and common oversights made by newer engineers.

Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY)

Diversity Committee Capacity-Building Program & Learning and Development Series
The SEAoNY Diversity Committee is collaborating with Shani Dellimore Barrax of the Aurora Change Agency to address declining par-
ticipation across committees by revitalizing the community through a needs assessment and three proposed programs. A Self-Identification
Campaign initiated with an anonymous survey, aims to collect demographic data from SEAoNY members. The obtained demographic
information will guide future programming to encourage diversity, equity, and inclusion within SEAoNY and its member firms.

Structural Engineers Association of Ohio (SEAoO)

Embodied Carbon Calculation and SE 2050 Workshops
SEAoO will host a half-day workshop in Columbus, Cincinnati, and Cleveland to outline sustainable design practices to local firms, educate
them on SE 2050, and guide them through the process of joining SE 2050.

Structural Engineers Association of Oregon (SEAO)

Structural Engineering Engagement and Equity
SEAO will host a two-part event. Part one is to provide the less experienced structural engineer the opportunity to network with their more
knowledgeable counterparts in senior leadership roles. Part two is a guided panel discussion featuring three to five individuals in senior
leadership positions. The panelists will be selected in consideration of their work credentials and background diversity to provide an eclectic
knowledge base to draw from. During the guided discussion portion, the panelists will be asked questions sourced from a community survey
presented in the local SEA newsletter.

NCSEA Webinars
Visit www.ncsea.com/education for the latest news
on upcoming webinars and other virtual events.

December 14, 2023 An Introduction to the New ASCE Solar PV Structures Manual of Practice
January 25, 2024 Boston University Data Science Center
February 6, 2024 Elevator 101

Purchase an NCSEA webinar subscription and get access to all the educational
content you’ll ever need! Subscribers receive access to a full year’s worth of live
NCSEA education webinars (25+) and a recorded library of past
webinars (170+) – all developed by leading experts
and available whenever, wherever you need them!
Courses award 1.0 -1.5 hours of Diamond Review-approved
continuing education after completing a quiz.
Recommendations for Performing Structural Engineering
Quality Assurance Reviews

Recommendations for Performing Structural Engineering Quality Assurance Reviews

D ECE M B ER 2023 53
 SEI Update
Happy Holidays – All the
best to you and yours this
holiday season!
Education
Bridge to Building a Stronger SEI
The SEI Bylaws were recently revised as an important milestone to advance the SEI vision, and to achieve the new SEI strategic board struc-
ture and the evolution of the committee structure into the Technical and Professional Communities. The SEI reorganization also includes
identification and acceleration of Focused Initiatives, and the creation of an Advisory Council. Learn more at www.asce.org/SEI

ASCE/SEI Substation Structure Design Guide-MOP 113

Program January 25
Provides structural design guidance and function as a comprehensive resource for outdoor electrical substation structures and foundations.
Join us for dialogue with industry experts, a technical presentation, and Q&A. Register at www.asce.org/SEIEvents

SEICon24 March 20-22 at

NASCC: The Steel Conference
Join us in San Antonio to learn, engage, and network with the struc-
tural engineering community while taking advantage of the broader
opportunities at The Steel Conference. SEICon24 is the SEI annual
conference in 2024.
Students & Young Professionals (35 or younger): Apply by January 3 for an SEI Futures Fund scholarship to participate. www.SEICon24.org
Plans are also underway for Structures Congress, April 9-11, 2025 in Phoenix.

Advancing the Profession

SE2050: Renew your Leverage the CSI
Committing to SEI/ASCE 3 to 1 Match and
New Zero Membership Celebrate 10 Years of
Sign up to receive the SE2050 Monthly
Newsletter and learn how you can con- Remember to renew for 2024 the SEI Futures Fund
tribute to reaching net zero embodied to continue your benefits and Make the most of year-end giving and invest
carbon structural systems by 2050. member rates on programs. in the future of Structural Engineering at
www.SE2050.org www.asce.org/SEIMembership www.asce.org/SEIFuturesFund.

Follow SEI on Social Media:

54 STRUCTURE magazine
 CASE in Point
Tools To Help Your Business Grow...
CASE has committees that work together to produce specific resources available to members, from contract
documents to whitepapers, to help your business succeed.
If you are a member of CASE, all CASE publications are free to you. NCSEA and SEI members receive a
discount on publications. Use discount code - NCSEASEI2022 when you check out.
Check out some of the brand new CASE Publications developed by the Guidelines CommitteeÉ

CASE 976-C: A Review and Commentary on the American Institute of Steel Construction 2022 Code of Standard Practice for Steel
Buildings and Bridges

The importance of the AISC Code of Standard Practice (AISC 303-22), referred to herein as the Code
or COSP) to the construction community is manifested in its almost 100 years of use and development.
This Code establishes the trade practices for the steel industry. Generally, this involves the acceptable
practices and responsibilities of the Fabricator and Erector and the responsibilities of others such as the
Owner’s Designated Representative for Design (ODRD) – (usually the Structural Engineer of Record),
the Owner and the Owner’s Designated Representative for Construction (ODRC) – (usually the General
Contractor or Construction Manager or similar authority at the jobsite) as they relate to the work of
the Fabricator and Erector. The 2022 COSP addresses many recent changes in the practice of designing,
purchasing, fabricating, and erecting structural steel and is therefore a continuation of the trend of past
improvements and developments of this standard.

CASE White Paper

Beyond the Code: Shrinkage Cracking

CASE recognizes that the International Building

Code or other governing codes do not address all
aspects of structural engineering and design. Often,
the most common issues where the owners, or the
contractor or the design team are not aligned deal
with what is not clearly addressed by the various
codes or design guidelines. This is the second in a
series of “Beyond the Code” white papers that will
attempt to collate design considerations that need
to be discussed with the owners at the beginning
of a project to establish a clear Basis-of-Design
for the project. By proactively bringing up the
design consideration in front of the owners, the
Structural Engineer can set up realistic expectations
and discuss the cost impact of alternative designs.
This white paper in the “Beyond the Code” series
discusses shrinkage cracking in concrete with an
explanation of why it occurs, common locations
they occur, and strategies to mitigate them becom-
ing a risk in your project.

You can purchase these and other Risk Management Tools at

You can also browse all of the CASE publications at https://www.acec.org/member-center/get-involved/coalitions/case/resources/
Is there something missing for your business practice? CASE is committed to publishing the right tools for you.
Have an idea? We’d love to hear from you!

Follow ACEC Coalitions on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/acec-coalitions

56 STRUCTURE magazine
 News of the Coalition of American Structural Engineers

Upcoming Events
Risk Management Industry Update
December 7, 2023 1:30–2:30 pm ET
Online

Hosted by ACEC Coalitions and presented by Chad Wilson, General Counsel, Psomas.
The discussion will include:

Review the current trends in Professional Liability Claims (PLC)

Restrictive Covenants: Non-Competes, Non-Solicits
Challenges to PLS statute(s)
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)

https://www.acec.org/event/risk-management-industry-update/

Joint Town Hall Event with CASE,

NCSEA, and SEI
February 21, 2024 2:00–3:30 pm ET
Online

Leadership from CASE, NCSEA, and SEI will host a virtual joint
town hall event to discuss how the three organizations are progressing
to fulfill the Vision for the Future of Structural Engineering (adopted
April 2019), highlighting initiatives to advance the profession and
enhance member engagement.
The town hall is an opportunity to catch up on things you might
have missed and gain insight into what the three organizations are
doing moving forward.

This complimentary event is open to all CASE, NCSEA and SEI

members.

https://program.acec.org/
joint-town-hall-event-case-ncsea-and-sei

Coalitions Winter Meeting Now more than ever we need to support the
February 26–27, 2024 upcoming generation of the workforce.
New Orleans, LA Give to the CASE Scholarship today!
Save the date! The Coalitions Winter Meeting
will be in New Orleans, LA. The interactive
roundtables, educational content, and technol-
ogy demonstrations will be all about Innovation
Forward: Advancing your Business with
Tomorrow’s Technology.

More information coming soon.

D ECE M B ER 2023 57
 structural VERSE

What’s an Engineer Doing

By Neil Wexler

To the office you keep going

For the task that keeps on growing.
What are you doing every day
At the office … you don’t play.

So an engineer’s required,
Mostly to do Design.
Buildings, bridges, client brings,
You will detail all those things.

What about Managing

To make things happening?
And the things the others do,
You’re responsible for them too.

Final task is Marketing,

Engineers do targeting.
You’ll oversee that too,
But …you will let the others do.

Engineering is hard task,

It requires lots of math.
But important very much
Is the talking to the mass.

So important understand
Public Safety is the brand,
Public Safety is Number One,
For the task that you just planned.

Otherwise, you will be thinking,

What’s this engineer bringing ?
Market, Manage and Design
This is what he is assigned.
Whatever task may be required,
At the office you’re admired,
You are so much in the know,
Others …aspire for the show.

And remember Number One!

For the job that just begun,
Never deviate from zee,
At the office… let it be!

Neil Wexler, Ph. D., P. E.

[email protected]

58 STRUCTURE magazine
A CARBON NEUTRAL FUTURE
STARTS TODAY.

PCA’S ROADMAP TO CARBON NEUTRALITY.

THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT IS CHANGING FOR GOOD.
Learn how to get involved:
cementprogress.com
© Computers and Structures, Inc. 2023