STRUCTURE

NCSEA | CASE | SEI DECEMBER 2019

SPECIAL SECTION

EXCELLENCE
IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
AWARDS

SOILS & FOUNDATIONS

Design and Construction of Tunnels 9
Cities of the Future 22
Hanging a Monumental Stair 36
“Perfect your spec to protect what you cannot inspect.”
© Stan Agee

DETAILS MATTER, DON’T PUT

YOUR DESIGN AT RISK.
Specify PIERESEARCH® for all your
rebar and rebar cage alignment
projects.

Quick - Lock
®
HD® Quick - Lock®® Quick - Lock
Pier Wheel Pier Wheel Pier Boot®®

ANNOUNCING THE ALL

NEW ADJUSTABLE
QUICK-LOCK UNIBAR ®
CENTRALIZER

PATENT PENDING

Visit pieresearch.com to see our full line of

alignment products, download spec kits, watch
how-to videos and request free samples.
pieresearch.com • stanagee@pieresearch.com
817.277.3738 • 817.275.2335 Fax
New York Office contact Herb Engler
718.786.8814 • herbengler@pieresearch.com

Manufacturer of Quality Concrete

te Accessories
Proudly Made in the USA!
EST. 1986
 LeMessurier Calls on Tekla Structural
Designer for Complex Projects
For over 55 years,
LeMessurier has
provided struc-
tural engineering
services to architects, owners, contractors, developers
and artists. Led by the example of legendary structural
engineer and founder William LeMessurier, LeMessuri-
er provides the expertise for some of the world’s most
elegant and sophisticated designs while remaining
true to the enduring laws of science and engineering.
Known for pushing the envelope of the latest tech-
nologies and even inventing new ones, LeMessurier
engineers solutions responsive to their clients’ visions
and reflective of their experience.
An early adopter of technology to improve their de-
signs and workflow, LeMessurier put its own talent to
work in the eighties to develop a software solution that
did not exist commercially at the time. Their early appli-
cation adopted the concept of Building Information
Modeling (BIM) long before it emerged decades later.
While LeMessurier’s proprietary tool had evolved over
three decades into a powerhouse of capability, the
decision to evaluate commercial structural design
tools was predicated on the looming effort required to
modernize its software to leverage emerging
platforms, support normalized data structure integra-
tion and keep up with code changes.
After a lengthy and thorough comparison of commer-
cial tools that would “fill the shoes” and stack up to the
company’s proprietary tool, LeMessurier chose Tekla
Structural Designer for its rich capabilities that ad-
dressed all of their workflow needs. According to Derek
Barnes, Associate at LeMessurier, ” Tekla Structural
Designer offered the most features and the best inte-
gration of all the products we tested. They also offered
us the ability to work closely with their development
group to ensure we were getting the most out of the
software.”
One Model for Structural Analysis & Design
From Schematic Design through Construction Docu-
ments, Tekla Structural Designer allows LeMessurier
engineers to work from one single model for structural
analysis and design, improving efficiency, workflow,
and ultimately saving time. “Our engineers are working
more efficiently because they don’t need to switch
between multiple software packages for concrete and
steel design. Tekla Structural Designer offers better
integration of multiple materials than we have seen in
any other product,” said Barnes.
LeMessurier engineers use Tekla Structural
Designer to create physical, information-rich models
that contain the intelligence they need to automate the
design of significant portions of their structures and
efficiently manage project changes.
TRANSFORMING THE WAY THE WORLD WORKS
“Tekla Structural Designer has streamlined our
design process,” said Craig Blanchet, P.E., Vice Presi-
dent of LeMessurier. “Because some of our engineers
are no longer doubling as software developers, it allows
us to focus their talents on leveraging the features of
the software to our advantage. Had we not chosen
to adopt Tekla Structural Designer, we would have
needed to bring on new staff to update and maintain
our in-house software. So Tekla Structural Designer is
not just saving us time on projects, it is also saving us
overhead.
Efficient, Accurate Loading and Analysis
Tekla Structural Designer automatically generates an
underlying and highly sophisticated analytical model
from the physical model, allowing LeMessurier engi-
neers to focus more on design than on analytical model
management. Regardless of a model’s size or com-
plexity, Tekla Structural Designer’s analytical engine
accurately computes forces and displacements for use
in design and the assessment of building performance.
“Tekla Structural Designer offers better
integration of multiple materials than
we have seen in any other product.”
“Tekla Structural Designer gives us multiple analysis
sets to pull from, which gives us lots of control. Most
programs don’t have the capability to do FE and
grillage chase-down. For the design of beam supported
concrete slabs, Tekla Structural Designer allows us to
separate the slab stiffness from the beam stiffness, so
if we choose to we can design the beams without con-
sidering the influence of the slab. In the same model
we can use a separate analysis set to review the floor
system with the beams and slab engaged,” said Barnes.
Barnes also shared similar benefits with concrete
column design. “Tekla Structural Designer does
grillage take-downs floor-by-floor, finds the reactions
and applies them to the next floor. This allows us
to view column results both for the 3-dimensional
effects of the structure as a whole and from the more
traditional floor-by-floor load take-down point of view.
Doing both has always required significant manual
intervention, but Tekla Structural Designer puts it all in
one place.” “We reduce the possibility for human error
because with Tekla Structural Designer less user input
is required,” said Barnes. “Tekla Structural Designer
automatically computes many of the design parame-
ters, such as column unbraced lengths. The assump-
tions made by the software are typically correct, but we
can easily review and override them when necessary.”
Interoperability and Time Saving Tools
Tekla Structural Designer was developed specifically
to maximize collaboration with other project parties,
including technicians, fabricators and architects. Its
unique functionality enables engineers to integrate the
physical design model seamlessly with Tekla Structures
or Autodesk Revit, and to round-trip without compro-
mising vital design data.
“We’re able to import geometry from Revit, design in
Tekla Structural Designer and export that information
for import back into Revit. If an architect makes
geometry updates or changes a slab edge, we’ll send
those changes back into Tekla Structural Designer, re-
run the analysis and design, and push updated design
information back into Revit.”
Tekla Structural Design at Work:
The Hub on Causeway
Positioning a large scale mixed-use development next
to an active arena, a below grade parking garage, and
an interstate highway, and bridging it over two active
subway tunnels makes planning, phasing and
engineering paramount. Currently under construction,
The Hub on Causeway Project will be the final piece in
the puzzle that is the site of the original Boston Garden.
Despite being new to the software, LeMessurier
decided to use Tekla Structural Designer for significant
portions of the project. “Relying on a new program for
such a big project was obviously a risk for us, but with
the potential for time savings and other efficiencies, we
jumped right in with Tekla Structural Designer. It forced
us to get familiar the software very quickly.”
“Tekla Structural Designer allowed us to design the
bulk of Phase 1 in a single model,” said Barnes. The proj-
ect incorporates both concrete flat slabs and compos-
ite concrete and steel floor framing. “Tekla Structural
Designer has the ability to calculate effective widths
based on the physical model which is a big time saver,”
said Barnes. “On this project, the integration with Revit,
along with the composite steel design features enabled
us to work more efficiently. Adding the ability to do con-
crete design in the same model was a bonus because
we had both construction types in the same building.”
“Tekla Structural Designer helped this project run more
efficiently, and in the end it was a positive experience,”
said Blanchet.
“Tekla Structural Designer provided the best fit
for our workflow compared to other commercially
available software.”
Want to Evaluate
Tekla Structural Designer?
tekla.com/TryTekla
 ADVERTISER INDEX Please support these advertisers
STRUCTURE ®

Aegis Metal Framing ..............................23 Integrated Engineering Software ...............32 MARKETING & ADVERTISING SALES
American Concrete Institute .....................51 KPFF .....................................................4 sales@STRUCTUREmag.org

Commins Mfg .......................................38 LNA Solutions .......................................39 Joe Murphy

CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp .............17
DuraFuse Frames, LLC.............................18
GeoDesign ..........................................21
Geopier Foundation Company.................19
Pieresearch ............................................2
RISA ...................................................52
Simpson Strong-tie ...........................15, 25
StructurePoint ..........................................6
jmurphy@STRUCTUREmag.org; Tel: 203-254-9595
Denis O’Malley
domalley@STRUCTUREmag.org; Tel: 203-356-9694, ext. 13
Jerry Preston
jpreston@STRUCTUREmag.org; Tel: 602-369-3037

Hayward Baker ....................................41 Subsurface Constructors, Inc. .....................8

EDITORIAL STAFF
Hohmann & Barnard ..............................40 Trimble ..................................................3
Executive Editor Alfred Spada
Hubbell Power Systems ..........................42 Williams Form Engineering......................37 aspada@ncsea.com

2020 MEDIA KIT

Publisher Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
csloat@STRUCTUREmag.org

Associate Publisher Nikki Alger

nalger@STRUCTUREmag.org
Available Online at STRUCTUREmag.org Creative Director Tara Smith
graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org

Erratum EDITORIAL BOARD

It was brought to our attention that there was an error in the July 2019 Structural Design Chair John A. Dal Pino, S.E.
article, ASCE 7-16 Provisions for Lateral Drift Determination – Part 1. The author apologizes FTF Engineering, Inc., San Francisco, CA
chair@STRUCTUREmag.org
for the error. The text (page 34) should have read:
Jeremy L. Achter, S.E., LEED AP
ARW Engineers, Ogden, UT
P-delta effects must be considered, per Section 12.8.7 of ASCE 7-16, when the stability
Erin Conaway, P.E.
coefficient per Equation 12.8-16 and 12.8-17 is more than 0.10 but less than or equal to AISC, Littleton, CO
θmax. If the design story drift is obtained from first order analysis, it should be increased by an
Linda M. Kaplan, P.E.
incremental factor Ad, or a P–∆ analysis shall be conducted to obtain the second-order drift. Pennoni, Pittsburgh, PA

Charles “Chuck” F. King, P.E.

Urban Engineers of New York, New York, NY

Emily B. Lorenz, P.E.

Chicago, IL

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
TOGETHER WE BUILD SOLUTIONS

Brian W. Miller
Davis, CA

Evans Mountzouris, P.E.

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

The DiSalvo Engineering Group, Danbury, CT

John “Buddy” Showalter, P.E.

International Code Council, Washington, DC

Eytan Solomon, P.E., LEED AP

Silman, New York, NY

Jeannette M. Torrents, P.E., S.E., LEED AP

JVA, Inc., Boulder, CO

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. Application to Mail at Periodicals Postage Prices is
Pending at Chicago, IL and additional mailing offices. STRUCTURE
magazine, Volume 26, Number 12, © 2019 by The National Council of
Excellence in Structural Engineers Associations, all rights reserved. Subscription services,
back issues and subscription information tel: 312-649-4600, or write to

Structural Engineering 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
Vinz on Fairfax • Los Angeles • CA 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
Seattle Sacramento Boise for Canadian Students; Foreign $135, $90 for foreign students. Editorial
Tacoma San Francisco Des Moines Office: Send editorial mail to: STRUCTURE magazine, Attn: Editorial, 20
Lacey Los Angeles St. Louis N. Wacker Drive, Suite 750, Chicago, IL 60606. POSTMASTER: Send
Address changes to STRUCTURE magazine, 20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite
Spokane Long Beach Chicago
750, Chicago, IL 60606.
Portland Irvine Louisville KPFF is an Equal Opportunity Employer
STRUCTURE is a registered trademark of the National Council of Structural
Eugene San Diego New York www.kpff.com
Engineers Associations (NCSEA). Articles may not be reproduced in whole
or in part without the written permission of the publisher.

4 STRUCTURE magazine
 Contents D ECEM BER 2019

SPECIAL SECTION
26 NCSEA EXCELLENCE IN STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING AWARDS
The National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA)
announced the winners of the 2019 Excellence in Structural
Engineering Awards in November. Read highlights of each of the
award-winning projects in this issue.

Features Columns and Departments

22 TURNING UNDERGROUND TO 7 Editorial 10 Ways to Spend Ten Bucks
BUILD THE CITIES OF THE FUTURE By Edward M. DePaola, P.E., SECB

By Brian Gettinger, P.E., Brad Watson, P.E., and Mike Shiflett, P.E.
9 Structural Design Design and Construction of Tunnels
In response to breakneck growth, major urban areas are building By David Ward, P.E.
different kinds of engineering marvels – instead of skyscrapers
reaching toward the sky, they are digging deep underground. 12 Structural Practices Geo-Structural Challenges for
This move underground presents its own set of structural Advancing Tunnel Design and Construction
engineering challenges. By Rouzbeh Vakili, Ph.D., P.E., P.Eng., Alexander Herzog, P.E., and Philip Lund, P.E.

33 NAPA COUNTY HISTORIC 16 Historic Structures Desjardins Bridge Disaster of 1857

By Frank Griggs, Jr., D.Eng., P.E.
COURTHOUSE – PART 1
By Luke Wilson, S.E., Brett Sheilds, P.E., and Kevin Zucco, S.E.
20 Codes and Standards ASCE 7-16 Provisions for Lateral
Assessing the damage from the 2014 South Napa Earthquake
Drift Determination – Part 2
and developing appropriate repair programs for the Napa By Abdulqader Al-sheikh
County Historic Courthouse was supported by a wholistic 3-D
BIM approach that revealed valuable insights. 43 InSights Automation of Construction Documents and Details
By Charles Portelli, AIA, and Nick Mundell

36 HANGING A MONUMENTAL STAIR 50 CASE Business Practices A Check-Up of Your Firm’s

By Dan Wray, P.E., and Bryan Starr, P.E., S.E.
Quality Assurance Plan
Instead of anchored and reinforced at the lower level, this By Jeff Morrison
30,000-pound stair hangs from a four-pronged structural
mast on the underside of the building’s 17th floor.
In Every Issue
4 Advertiser Index
On the Cover The ingenuity of structural engineers tasked with 40 Resource Guide – Earth Retention
designing the unique gridshell for the roof at Jewel Changi Airport were 44 NCSEA News
acknowledged with a 2019 NCSEA Award of Excellence. Read more
46 SEI Update
on page 29.
48 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.

D E C E M B E R 2 019 5
A Powerful Software Suite for Detailed
Analysis & Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures
 EDITORIAL
10 Ways to Spend Ten Bucks
By Edward M. DePaola, P.E., SECB, F.SEI, M.ASCE

“C hoose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in You may be asking, “What difference can a $10 donation make?”
your life,” Confucius (supposedly) once said. If this is true, I Well, to make a difference, you do not have to do something big or
have not worked in more than 40 years. Yes, I am one of those unbeliev- costly. You do not have to start by chairing a committee or mentor-

‘‘
ably lucky people who love what they do. Where I am today is because ing all of the younger engineers in your office. But if you think that

‘‘
of a thousand little things that there is nothing you can do to
happened to me along the way, Individual commitment to a group effort – make a difference, think harder.
most of them positive, some of Students who have come to the
them negative, but all of them that is what makes a team work, a company Structures Congress – often
meaningful to me. These expe- work, a society work, a civilization work. with the Futures Fund’s help –
riences have made me look at – Vince Lombardi have returned year after year,
myself and my career from a dif- and many have advanced in our
ferent perspective than I think I would have had they not occurred. professional societies; there is a whole alphabet of them. Yes, you can
Of course, it starts with the contributions of my parents, relatives, make a difference, and $10 is all it takes.
friends, professors, spouse, children, co-workers, and, well, you get To put all of this in perspective, I offer the following list of 10 ways
the idea. You probably have your own list of important people. But to spend ten bucks, and how each one of them relates to everything
the biggest thing I have learned in my life is the importance of the else in our lives:
words “thank you.” Now, I know you don’t need anyone to tell you 10) Buy a pack of cigarettes. No, wait. That’s a bad idea.
how to thank all of those people in your life. So this editorial will 9) Go to a coffee chain and buy a cup of coffee. Better yet, you
take a slightly different approach. can get a coffee and a bagel from the guy with the street cart
I want to thank my profession as well as all of the people in it. I also on the corner for $1.50.
want to share with you how I give thanks, and how you might give 8) Buy a cheap bottle of wine. Not that you would really want
thanks too. to drink it.
The easiest way is to give back to the profession. For me, that has 7) Buy a cool gadget. Still, you will be bored with it in a few
meant being very active in all professional societies, at first by volun- days, and it will end up on a shelf collecting dust.
teering for committees, then by organizing activities, and eventually by 6) Take a cab down 7th Avenue from 42nd Street to 34th Street.
serving in leadership roles. I am proud to tell you that on October 1st Nope, it is faster (and better for you) if you walk.
of this year, I became the Chair of the Structural Engineering Institute 5) Buy your spouse a box of chocolates or some flowers. Bad
Futures Fund (SEIFF) www.asce.org/SEIFuturesFund. idea – when they find out how cheap you are, you will be in
The Fund is about precisely what you think it is about: the future the doghouse.
of our profession. All gifts that we receive are used to fund four 4) Buy a lottery ticket because, “Hey, you never know.” But
strategic initiatives: you probably have a better chance of getting hit by lightning
• Invest in the future of the structural engineering profession (don’t do that, either).
• Promote student interest in structural engineering 3) Deposit it in a savings account. At an interest rate of 0.1%,
• Support younger-member involvement in SEI in 693 years you’ll have $20. But at least we are moving in
• Provide opportunities for professional development the right direction.
Every year, we provide scholarships to students and young profes- 2) Invest it. A share of Ford Motor Company is currently trad-
sionals to attend the Structures Congress. Last April, we had 20 ing at about $8.50 – and you can still get that coffee and
students, and 25 young professionals attend. For next April, we have bagel! Now we are getting somewhere.
happily funded up to 65. Also, we are funding expenses for young 1) Invest it in the future of our profession. Contribute $10 to
professionals to participate in standards committee meetings. This the SEI Futures Fund. Best idea ever!
gets them started with active involvement in SEI, and, as a bonus, Keep in mind that the SEI Futures Fund has partnered with the ASCE
we are seeing that many of them continue further, becoming more Foundation to leverage its expertise in managing philanthropic gifts. You
active and taking on more leadership roles in SEI. have our word that 100% of your gift goes directly to the SEI Futures
When I think of a “fund,” I know that big donors always come to Fund for investment in our profession, free of any administrative burden.
mind. Yes, SEIFF has corporate donors, including my firm, but we So please join me and all of my colleagues on the Futures Fund
also have private donors, including my wife and me. And for the board in contributing to our efforts to invest in the future of
fiscal year 2019, the fund has received over $60,000 from 5 firms our profession. Yes, you can make a difference – thank you!■
and 119 individuals, an average of about $390 each. But here is the
kicker: SEI has over 30,000 members, and if each one of us gave just Edward M. DePaola is President and CEO of Severud Associates
$10, we would have more than $300,000 to invest in the future of Consulting Engineers PC, in New York City. Ed is deeply involved with
our profession. That is almost three times what we have funded for many professional organizations. (edepaola@severud.com)
our 2020 initiatives.

STRUCTURE magazine D E C E M B E R 2 019 7

structural DESIGN
Design and Construction of Tunnels
By David Ward, P.E., LEG
T ransportation tunnel design and construction requires
accepting the inherent uncertainty associated with sub-
surface conditions that can be characterized but never truly
known. This article follows the geotechnical arc of a typical
tunnel project from explorations and testing, to engineering
analysis, supporting the selection of tunnel excavation meth-
ods, characterizing ground behavior, developing parameters for
liner design, and estimating surface settlements and effects
on adjacent structures. It provides examples from completed
projects to highlight the risk and mitigation methods associ-
ated with underground construction.
Explorations and Testing
The elements of the geotechnical exploration program will vary based
on the design phase, whether it is existing tunnel rehabilitation or
new tunnel construction, whether it is a soil, rock, or soil and rock
tunnel, and the anticipated complexity of the subsurface conditions.
Typical steps for both existing and new tunnels include: 1) reviewing
available data and 2) designing and implementing an exploration
and testing program. The exploration program should be developed
collaboratively with the design team and the owner to obtain both
the parameters required for the design and to address identified types
and areas of risk and uncertainty.
Specialized rock coring equipment for explorations within an existing tunnel.
Unlined rock tunnel, subsequently supported with rock bolts and shotcrete to
address rockfall risk.
Existing Tunnels
The goal of the exploration program for existing lined tunnels is
to understand the liner parameters and the anticipated loads. The
program is designed to answer questions like: Can the existing liner
accommodate new loads over or adjacent to the tunnel? Can the
existing loads be accommodated if the liner is notched to improve
tunnel clearance? How will the ground behave if portions of the
tunnel liner are removed?
For existing unlined tunnels, the exploration program focus is the
required rock mass parameters for design. The program is designed to
answer questions like: Will additional support be needed for tunnel
enlargement? Can the tunnel accommodate changes in loading?
What ground support or liner types are required to address a change
in tunnel use?
The first exploration step should include reviewing existing geotech-
nical reports, design drawings, as-built drawings, and construction
records or notes. Information on construction problems or the
tunnel performance during use could help identify areas requiring
additional analysis.
The second step is fieldwork to confirm the liner condition and
configuration and understand the ground behind the liner. Even
when design drawings and construction records are available, some
confirmation explorations may be warranted. Where data is not
available or there is a reason to suspect that the tunnel was not
constructed in accordance with project plans, the field exploration
effort will be greater.
Liner explorations could include probe holes drilled to estimate
the liner thickness, concrete core samples for strength testing and
identifying reinforcement, geophysical methods to identify the liner
thickness and steel reinforcement, and condition mapping to identify
liner distress areas.
Some of these same methods can be used to assess conditions
behind the liner. Probe holes and geophysical methods can be used to
D E C E M B E R 2 019 9
 Drilling holes in an existing liner to fill with lightweight grout, for voids identified
during the exploration program.
characterize voids and the distance to competent rock. Specialized rock
core drilling, such as used on the Cape Creek Tunnel near Florence,
Oregon, can be performed from within the tunnel to obtain samples
of the liner and soil or rock. The results of these explorations were
used to confirm the presence of voids and collect samples that were
used and tested to identify appropriate grouting methods, existing
liner stability, and new liner design parameters.
The frequency and spacing of these explorations will depend on the
anticipated liner and ground condition variability. The Owner’s risk
tolerance for differing site condition claims during construction can
also inform the frequency and spacing.
Existing stable, unlined rock tunnels provide an unparallel oppor-
tunity to map the geologic structure and characterize the rock mass.
Sampling for testing rock strength or characterizing joint infilling
may be needed for the final design.
Plotting all the data, including construction data, on the same
tunnel map can be useful for identifying patterns and correlations. For
example, there may be a correlation between identified overbreak or
collapse areas during original construction and current liner distress
areas. Alternatively, mitigation during original construction may have
addressed the area of concern sufficiently such that no additional
work will be required.
New Tunnels
Exploration program guidelines for new tunnels are available, includ-
ing the AASHTO Manual on Subsurface Investigations published in
1998. The program for new tunnels is designed to answer questions
like: What are the spatial distributions of soil and rock types and
groundwater conditions? What are the design soil, rock, and ground-
water parameters? What is the anticipated ground behavior? Are
difficult conditions like abrasive ground, obstructions, or noxious/
combustible gas present?
For transportation tunnels, the program is typically phased. For
example, on the Beacon Hill Tunnel project in Seattle, Washington,
only three explorations were performed along the approximate
one-mile-long corridor to help select a preferred route. Once the
alignment was selected, four additional explorations and related
testing were performed to fill data gaps at the portal locations
10 STRUCTURE magazine
Final cast-in-place liner being installed within an initial, gasketed, pre-cast, concrete
segmental liner.
and improve the designers’ understanding of the subsurface con-
ditions. A third exploration phase reduced the spacing between
borings to about 300 feet and focused on the critical mined
station excavation, the landslide hazard areas at the portals, and
the Interstate 5 undercrossing. An approximately 150-foot-deep
test shaft, telescoping down in diameter from 16 feet to 10 feet
at a depth of 100 feet, was constructed during the final design
phase to provide additional information on soil properties and
ground behavior, and to provide the opportunity to bidders to
observe in situ soil conditions. More expensive testing methods,
such as aquifer pumping tests and test shafts, are commonly not
completed until final design. The exploration and testing quantity
and sequencing can also vary based on whether the project will be
design-bid-build or design-build.
For soil tunnels, sonic core drilling to obtain nearly continuous
soil cores is increasing in popularity. Mud rotary or hollow stem
auger borings and penetration testing are still useful, particularly
for characterizing conditions at portal or shaft locations. Reliance
solely on penetration test samples may still be suitable in geographic
areas with a history of successful tunnel construction and relatively
homogeneous ground. Testing could include soil classification, unit
weight, soil strength, deformation parameters, modulus, hydraulic
conductivity, abrasion, x-ray diffraction, cobble or boulder strength,
corrosion parameters, and combustible or noxious gas.
For rock tunnels, the exploration program would likely include
vertical and angled rock core drilling, downhole testing to identify
discontinuity spacing and orientation, permeability tests, and rock
core tests. These tests could include unit weight, rock strength,
modulus, durability, petrographic analysis, x-ray diffraction, abra-
sivity, and drillability parameters. Rock outcrop mapping, for rock
mass parameters and to develop subsurface profiles, is also common.
Geophysical testing to characterize the depth of soil overburden
at portals and shafts may also be appropriate. For the 24-foot-
wide, 3,100-foot-long Wheeler Gulch Tunnel in Colorado, where
the geologic conditions could largely be interpreted from outcrop
mapping and helicopter access was required, only a single rock core
boring was performed.
The exploration and test results are used to characterize the ground
type distribution; characterize ground behavior; develop engineering
design parameters for structures and liners; and, develop baseline
parameters to assist potential contractors with understanding the
geotechnical risks.
Analysis for Existing Tunnels
Work on existing tunnels discussed in this article falls into one of three
major categories, 1) lining a previously unlined tunnel, 2) partial liner
removal, and 3) liner replacement. The parameters used in design and
analysis will vary depending on the work being performed.
Liner Design
For existing unlined rock tunnels, a common working assumption is
that the tunnel is statically stable, and the liner design will primarily
need to support future loads. These future loads could include seismic,
groundwater, or the development of additional rock load associated
with weathering. Shear or weathered zones and loose rock blocks
that cannot be safely removed may require additional support. The
geotechnical engineer’s role on these projects is usually focused on
estimating the potential additional groundwater and rock load and
identifying likely reinforcement and liner types. For the Fishhook
Tunnel in Idaho, the design incorporated differing permanent ground
support requirements to address the differing long-term support
requirements at the portals, where shear zones were present, and the
remaining portions of the tunnel.
For existing liner notching or modification, numerical analysis is
commonly required to accommodate the design of the irregular liner
geometry resulting from the notching. The numerical analysis will
require assumptions regarding the original methods used to excavate
and temporarily support the ground to develop an estimate of the
current load. The results may indicate that voids behind the liners
need to be filled to reestablish the ground-liner interaction.
For liner replacement, understanding the ground behavior when
the existing liner is removed is critical for determining the need for
ground improvement or presupport. For example, on the Cape Creek
Tunnel project, a combination of permeation grouting, void filling
grouting, and drilled steel reinforcement was used to pre-support the
ground during liner removal. The replacement liner design methods
are the same as those discussed later for new tunnels.
Analysis for New Tunnels
Method Selection
The tunneling method selection could be the contractor’s responsibil-
ity or could be predetermined by the Owner and Owner’s engineer
based on permitting limitations or project-specific requirements. The
geotechnical data and analysis performed during design are used to
help determine the appropriate excavation method. A partial list of
methods that could be considered, depending on the anticipated
subsurface conditions, includes: slurry pressure balance tunnel boring
machine (TBM), earth pressure balance TBM, gripper TBM, open-
face TBM, sequential excavation method (SEM), boom-mounted,
milling excavator (roadheader), and drill-and-blast. Required cross-
sectional shape and tunnel length, available work area, local contractor
experience and availability, and project schedule can also influence
the excavation method selected. The Sound Transit E330 Tunnel in
Bellevue, Washington, is an example of where the project schedule
and ability to take advantage of a non-circular cross-section led to the
selection of SEM as the preferred method of construction.
Liner Design
The initial and final liner selection will depend on the subsurface con-
ditions and also on the method selected. The shielded soil tunnels are
commonly initially supported with precast concrete segmental liners
followed by a cast-in-place final liner. SEM initial liners are usually a
combination of shotcrete and lattice girders with other SEM toolbox
items like grouting or presupport. The final liner is commonly shot-
crete. Other methods, such as roadheader, drill-and-blast, or gripper
TBM tunnels, could be initially supported with items such as spot
or pattern bolts, mesh, and steel sets and wood lagging.
The Federal Highway Administration’s Technical Manual for Design
and Construction of Road Tunnels – Civil Elements provides design
considerations and procedures for the common liner types used for
transportation tunnels.
Settlement
The tunneling-induced ground movement magnitude can be the
result of the Contractor’s selected means and methods. However,
some ground movement is almost inevitable as a result of changing
the stress in the ground during construction and the elastic response
of the ground. In other words, assuming “zero settlement” is not
practical. The estimation of settlement can vary from using empiri-
cal relationships between an assumed volume loss, soil type, tunnel
diameter, and depth to a three-dimensional numerical analysis which
accounts for anticipated soil and groundwater parameters, the state
of stress in the ground before construction, and all of the subsequent
construction steps. The effort is often directly related to the risk of
ground-movement-induced damage. Where the tunnel is deep, has a
relatively small diameter, and predominately single-story wood-framed
structures are present over the alignment, the empirical analysis may
be sufficient. The empirical analysis can also be used as a screening
tool to identify buildings or structures that could require additional
analysis. On the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement project in Seattle,
Washington, the empirical analysis was used to estimate the settle-
ment. Relationships between settlement, angular distortion, and
damage were used to identify buildings and structures for additional
analysis. For selected structures, such as the pile-supported Viaduct,
numerical analysis was performed to estimate the potential settlement
and damage as well as evaluate potential mitigation methods.
Conclusion
Geotechnical input for tunnel projects will vary depending on whether
the work is being done for an existing tunnel or proposed tunnel, and
whether the tunnel is in soil or rock. While relatively standardized
approaches are available for analyzing new tunnels and new liners,
modifications to existing tunnels can require significantly more analysis
to address uncertainty and non-standard liner geometries parametri-
cally. The effort and requirements to estimate settlement-induced
damage can also vary widely from a quick empirical-based
analysis to screening structures for potential damage to an
in-depth soil-structure interaction analysis.■
David Ward is a Senior Associate at Shannon & Wilson, Inc., in Seattle,
WA. (dcw@shanwil.com)
D E C E M B E R 2 019 11
 structural PRACTICES
Geo-Structural Challenges for Advancing
Tunnel Design and Construction
By Rouzbeh Vakili, Ph.D., P.E., P.Eng., Alexander Herzog, P.E., and Philip Lund, P.E.

U rban areas are becoming more densely built: consequently, surface

space is less available. The United Nations recently projected that
68% of the world’s population would live in urban areas by 2050 (up from
55% at present). Thus, it is expected that cities, counties, and states will
increasingly look to underground structures as alternatives to surface
infrastructure to address space constraints. The increase in the number
and extent of tunneling projects also increases the complexity of urban
infrastructure development, necessitating structural and geotechnical
or tunneling engineers to collaborate closely to deliver an efficient and
practical design while managing impacts on existing structures. Figure 1. Pressurized tunnel boring machine.

This article highlights challenges that may be faced in urban tun- peak-hour train storage beyond the terminal station, the size was set
neling projects during design and construction phases and provides by ventilation requirements, and the depth was fixed by the elevation
examples of coordination between disciplines to reduce risk factors of the sump pit for the tunnel dewatering system.
such as ground settlement or cost overruns. Some factors requiring Tunnel designers must also consider the effects of tunnel excavation
enhanced coordination between structural and geotechnical engineers on existing and future structures within the zone of influence. The team
include subsurface investigations for locating and designing under- of geotechnical and structural engineers must work jointly to produce
ground structures, identifying and minimizing geotechnical risks, a constructible design for a tunnel project. That design must both
and the design of excavation support systems to prevent damage to satisfy each discipline’s technical considerations and accommodate
existing structures and other infrastructure and to manage the impacts all other disciplines’ requirements through a process of fine-tuning
of tunneling on adjacent structures. and refinement. Accommodations can range from shifting a tunnel
element, such as an access shaft, a few hundred feet along the align-
ment in order to avoid poor geologic conditions, to moving the
Development of Alignment tunnel alignment horizontally a few feet in order to avoid the deep
One of the first steps in any tunneling project is the selection of an pile foundations of an existing building or vertically to avoid ground
overall tunnel alignment. The alignment may be constrained horizon- anchors of an abandoned excavation support system.
tally or vertically by factors such as geological conditions, proposed Since subsurface conditions are a controlling factor for alignment selec-
rail station locations, connections to existing infrastructure, existing tion, it is crucial to have an experienced geologist on the design team to
underground structures, or available right of way space. Traditionally, review the existing subsurface information and evaluate the soil or rock
alignments will follow paths with limited surface obstacles to avoid formations during the initial phases of the project. Based on the location
sub-surface property acquisition and to mitigate the risk of settle- and depth of the selected alignment and the subsurface conditions, the
ment. However, in dense urban locations, the alignment will often geotechnical and structural designers will select the most appropri-
pass under or close to existing struc- ate type of excavation method and tunnel
tures (e.g., buildings, tunnels, or other structure. Pressurized face Tunnel Boring
below-ground structures) or pass under Machines (TBMs), such as slurry and earth
an unoccupied area that will be a future pressure balance machines, are often used
development site and impose additional for urban tunneling through soil to control
load on the tunnel. Therefore, for urban ground deformations, prevent groundwater
tunneling, designers must consider the inflow, and minimize the risk of damage to
requirements of multiple engineering adjacent buildings and utilities (Figure 1).
disciplines including rail or roadway However, other types of tunneling, such
operations, ventilation, egress, tunnel as mined drill-and-blast tunneling in rock,
safety systems, and architectural goals. As the sequential excavation method (SEM)
a practical example, on a recent complex in soft ground, or cut and cover excava-
urban underground rail project, the loca- tions, are used in urban tunneling, typically
tion of a deep underground shaft was set for non-circular or large diameter open-
by train operation requirements such as Figure 2. Shear zone in rock tunnel excavation. ings or in the presence of poor subsurface

12 STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 3. SOE system comprised of slurry walls, struts, and tieback anchors.
conditions or obstruction constraints. For shallow vertical alignments,
cut and cover could be the preferred method; however, it creates the
most community disturbance. Cut and cover excavation design requires
considerable interaction between geotechnical and structural engineers
for designing the temporary supporting system (e.g., soldier pile, slurry
wall, secant pile, sheet pile) and waterproofing design. Cut-and-cover
construction also requires coordination with civil engineers to address
maintenance of traffic issues.
Site Investigation (Below and Above Ground)
Developing a subsurface investigation program (including field and
lab testing) is a critical part of the design process. The depths and loca-
tions of the borings must be selected strategically to capture as much
variation in the soil and/or rock conditions as possible. Therefore,
having an experienced geologist on the design team and having local
experience with the in-situ soil and rock types are crucial factors in
developing a successful subsurface investigation program. In addition,
structural engineer input (e.g., shaft or cavern depths and diameters)
is required in selecting borehole locations and depths.
It is necessary to have a thorough understanding of the geologic condi-
tions before executing the design because unexpected ground conditions
can cause significant delays and complications during construction. As an
example, unanticipated highly fractured rock encountered during tunnel-
ing can cause issues for tunnel advancement and worker safety. Figure 2
shows a shear zone encountered during tunneling through a dolomitic
rock formation, which delayed a project because the TBM grippers were
not able to bear on competent rock to push the TBM forward. The figure
shows the steel rings and mesh that had to be installed within the shear
zone area to stabilize the tunnel heading, introducing extra cost and
delay. The structural design of the final tunnel lining had to be revised
because the internal diameter changed due to the deformed ground and
intrusion of initial support elements. This delay and expense could have
been avoided with more up-front costs on subsurface investigation.
In addition to subsurface conditions, the condition of existing
structures along the tunnel alignment must be investigated. Structural
engineers generally collect building and historical information and flag
structures sensitive to settlement, which require special consideration,
such as landmark or masonry buildings. The pre-construction inspec-
tion reports should include the types and depths of the foundations,
structural materials and connections, and existing defects. The effect
of tunnel construction on the existing structures must be evaluated
during the design process, allowable movement thresholds deter-
mined, and strengthening or protection methods designed if required.
Protection measures may include traditional underpinning or use of
Figure 4. Urban excavation abutting existing tunnel (left) and other structures.
ground improvement methods. Protection of existing structures often
influences the type of excavation support and bracing preloading
requirements for cut-and-cover tunnel projects.
Design Collaboration
The design of cut and cover tunnel structures in urban areas requires
close, multidisciplinary collaboration. Before excavation can begin, a
complex network of buried utilities, such as gas and electric lines, sewers,
telecommunications, and various other conduits, must be relocated or
supported in place. Information regarding the location and type of utili-
ties may be limited or nonexistent. The Support of Excavation (SOE)
system sometimes needs to accommodate utilities that cannot be relocated
– for example, by using jet grout columns as temporary walls in lieu of
traditional elements such as sheeting or secant piles to allow a sewer to
pass through the excavation. The SOE system itself must be designed to
create the required architectural and structural space while minimizing
impact to adjacent structures (Figure 3). Property limits can restrict space
options and the method of SOE support. For example, when permission
cannot be acquired to install temporary tieback anchors below an owner’s
property, pipe struts may be used as an alternative means to support the
SOE walls, but these restrict the temporary working space. Thus, design
collaboration between civil engineers, electrical or telecommunications
engineers, geotechnical engineers, and structural engineers is essential to
satisfy the requirements of utility companies and other stakeholders and
maintain the safety of the public.
Rehabilitation and expansion of existing underground rail tunnel
structures can require nonstandard support of excavation designs,
requiring close coordination between structural and geotechnical
engineers. Several projects the authors have been involved with have
featured excavations above or adjacent to cut and cover tunnel boxes
(Figure 4). Since it is often not feasible to install sheeting or piles
on the tunnel roof, concrete button piers placed on the roof, above
the tunnel walls, have been used successfully as SOE walls. These
concrete button piers, cast-in-place using individual shoring boxes
before mass excavation, act as soldier piles while minimizing damage
to the existing structure. The button piers transfer additional load to
the existing tunnel columns and walls.
In some cases, the tunnel box itself becomes part of the SOE system
with struts bearing on the exterior wall of the tunnel box and transfer-
ring earth and surcharge loads induced by mass excavation to existing
tunnel slabs. Some existing tunnel structures pre-date common struc-
tural shapes, such as wide flange beams, and require more detailed
structural analysis. Historical drawings become critical references
for allowable stress checks. The process of designing an appropriate
D E C E M B E R 2 019 13
 Figure 5. Numerical modeling of complex urban tunneling.
SOE system, which can remain below the allowable stress increase
of historical steel and cast-iron elements, requires close coordination
between geotechnical and structural engineers.
Mined tunneling (e.g., drill-and-blast through rock) also requires
an iterative design process between geotechnical and structural engi-
neers. The authors have worked on the development of many rock
tunnels and caverns where the ground conditions and corresponding
feasible excavation methods strongly influence the proposed geometry
of final structures or architectural elements. New underground rail
stations built in dense urban areas often require significant excava-
tion beyond public platform areas. Ancillary shafts for ventilation
or fire protection, electric substation vaults, passenger entrances,
emergency egress tunnels, and cross passages between adjacent rail
tunnels are all common elements of design in addition to multiple
entrance tunnels, shafts, and connections to existing transit infra-
structure. These multiple excavations often intersect or are adjacent
to each other, which creates zones of increased stress within the rock
mass. Geotechnical engineers perform rock mass stability analyses to
determine if the architectural or structural configuration is feasible.
During this iterative process, tunnels are sometimes relocated to allow
for wider rock pillars to support overburden loads such as rock and
soil cover, adjacent building loads, or other infrastructure (Figure 5).
Rock mass quality and rock joint geometry will also dictate the type
and extent of temporary excavation support.
As discussed above, urban tunnel designers should also consider the
effect of tunneling on existing structures. A recent project required an
assessment of the effect of tunneling through lightly loaded timber
piles that support an existing marine bulkhead. Due to the criti-
cal nature and complexity of the proposed tunnels and the relative
locations to the existing bulkhead supported on timber piles, a three-
dimensional numerical analysis was performed (Figure 6 ). The results
of the analysis were used to estimate the ground surface settlement
at different construction stages and to evaluate the impact on the
existing vertical and battered piles. Cutting the existing piles would
impose additional loading on the adjacent piles. This analysis was
performed to evaluate the amount of the load that would be trans-
ferred to adjoining, un-cut piles, and evaluate the geotechnical and
structural capacity of foundation.
Instrumentation and Monitoring
All underground excavation causes stress redistribution in the ground,
which leads to ground deformation. Mitigating the associated risk
is an essential factor during the design process. Although various
14 STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 6. Numerical modeling evaluating the effect of tunneling through existing structures.
choices can be made during the design process to reduce the risk
of damage to adjacent structures, instrumentation monitoring of
existing structures is a fundamental part of the construction process
to provide a quantitative assessment of the tunneling operation and
selected construction technology. The collected field measurements
can also be used to refine the design analyses and modify construction
procedures, if necessary.
Ground deformation monitoring is particularly crucial for shallow
urban tunnel construction with a slurry or earth pressure balance
shield. Empirical equations and numerical modeling, with analyses
informed by precedent projects, are commonly used at the design
phase to estimate the ground movement due to tunneling and for
determining appropriate TBM face pressures. During construction,
collected ground deformation data is reviewed against predicted values.
This may result in previously performed analyses being modified
and TBM operations parameters being adjusted. Collected ground
deformation data can also be beneficial for any tunnel project that
might be constructed in the future. On a recent project, field data
collected in the mid-20th century was used to calibrate the analyses
related to a new subaqueous tunnel at a nearby location.
Conclusion
Underground structures are in direct contact with natural ground
materials, and that simple fact makes tunnel design a multidisci-
plinary problem. The subsurface conditions and the sizes and types
of tunnels change from project to project, but one factor is constant:
urban tunnel design and construction requires knowledgeable and
experienced geotechnical engineers, structural engineers, systems
engineers, geologists, and other disciplines to deliver a project suc-
cessfully. Overcoming each challenge and providing the ideal solution
as urban environments densify necessitates seamless communica-
tion and collaboration between multiple engineering disciplines.
Individuals with different backgrounds and specialties must work
together, collaboratively, to develop a project that meets
clients’ expectations and offers the greatest added benefit
to communities and society.■
All authors are employed at the Geotechnical and Tunneling Technical
Excellence Center of WSP USA.
Rouzbeh Vakili is a Senior Geotechnical Engineer. (rouz.vakili@wsp.com)
Alexander Herzog is a Senior Geotechnical Engineer. (alex.herzog@wsp.com)
Philip Lund is a Senior Structural Engineer. (philip.lund@wsp.com)
 The easier way
to a stronger roof

Introducing the Simpson Strong-Tie Three-Connector

®

Roof System.
It takes more than just nails to build a strong roof. Our LSSJ
adjustable jack hangers, HHRC hip-ridge connectors and
LRU rafter hangers are ideal solutions for designing resilient
and cost-effective stick-frame roofs. These connectors not only
provide strength, their versatile and intuitive design allows for
quick and simple installation – making it easy to meet code.
HHRC LRU LSSJ To learn more, visit go.strongtie.com/strongroof
or call (800) 999-5099.

© 2019 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. STRONGROOF17-S

 historic STRUCTURES
Desjardins Bridge Disaster of 1857
By Frank Griggs, Jr., Dist. M.ASCE, D.Eng., P.E., P.L.S.
S quire Whipple built two wooden swing bridges in
Ontario, Canada, in 1853 on the Great Western
Railway. One was near Hamilton, Ontario, at Dundas and
the other over the Welland Canal at Thorold Station just
west of Niagara Falls. The bridge at Hamilton, called the
Desjardins Bridge, opened in early November 1853. The
turntable was on the bank and not in the center of the
bridge as was generally the case. Large masonry abutments
had been built to cut down the length of the swing span
Failed swing bridge decking at Dundas. Illustrated London News, 1857.
required. In addition, a wooden structure was built, upon
which the swing span rested when it was in an open position. The waterway was 66 feet wide and required a swing span of
eighty feet (from the center of turntable to the far abutment) to reach the other side of the channel.
The counterweight span was 36 feet (44 feet from the center of the
turntable) making the entire span 124 feet, including the 16-foot-
diameter turntable panel. The truss pattern had tension ties and
counters in each panel and no verticals. The truss height was 18 feet
with the truss members on the small side for contemporary structures.
Whipple wrote in his 1869 appendix to his 1847 book, A Work Bridge
Building …for Iron and Wooden Bridges:
After being used nearly 3½ years, and borne the passage of, probably,
10,000 trains, and passed through vicissitudes testing its capacities
pretty thoroughly, including the swamping of a heavily loaded freight
car, which broke loose upon a steep grade and ran on to the bridge (off
of the track) with such speed and force as to break 6 or 8 beams; on
the 12 th of March, 1857, it met with a disaster involving consequences
most lamentably fatal.
On that day, the Locomotive Oxford, drawing a passenger train east-
ward, with a broken axle, ran off the track upon the downgrade
approaching the bridge and could not be stopped till it went crashing
into the timber of the bridge; probably coming in collision with the
light lattice timbers on the right hand side, cutting them off, and letting
the engine and train down some 40 feet into the canal.
Such was the conclusion arrived at by the Coroners’ Jury, after a
long and thorough investigation and the hearing of a vast amount of
Swing bridge at Dundas on the Great Western Railway.
16 STRUCTURE magazine
testimony by experts and others. The Jury also found that the Bridge
was “safe and sufficient” for the traffic of the Road, with engines &
trains upon the Track; but not sufficient, in case of their running off
the track while passing over the bridge.
The bridge had never been supposed to be safe for the passage of trains
off the track, and it is believed that few bridges in the country would be
reliable in such conditions. There was, however, a general concurrence
of opinion, in the testimony at the Inquest, that the bridge would have
borne, before straining the materials to their utmost capacity, from 3
to 5 times the weight that would ever come upon it in ordinary usage.
There was another bridge of the same kind, and built at the same time,
for crossing the Welland Canal at the Thorold Station, upon the same
road; and the length of time the structure sustained the heavy traffic
of that road should be regarded as a demonstration of the adaptability
of this Plan of Bridging to railroad purposes.
It was still winter in Canada West; the canal was not operating, and the
bridge was “spiked” closed and acted like a fixed span rather than a swing
bridge. Newspaper accounts of that fateful day of March 12, 1857, told
of the disaster, with one giving the following description of the events
occurring as the 4:10 P.M. train out of Toronto reached the bridge,
We have said that the train had passed the switch apparently all right;
in a moment or two, the locomotive enters on the bridge; one sharp,
shrill whistle gives the only warning to the passengers
that between them and eternity there is left scarcely
sufficient time to say, “May the Lord be merciful!”
The Oxford sinks through the floor of the bridge, and
goes down, with that brave driver BURNFIELD,
who perished at his post, in the execution of his duty.
Next comes the tender, and then the baggage car,
in which there were two or three persons. And then
the first passenger car, with its fifty precious souls,
comes down the rails and takes the fatal leap, either
turning a complete somersault or careening over
upside down. It lies across the bed of the canal, the
 ice being broken through, and the car is about half filled with water. and appearance I have witnessed since my arrival at the bridge on
But there is yet another car-load of mortal beings poised for a moment the 20 th instant, that the immediate cause of the disaster on the 12 th
on the top of the wall, and then it, too, plunges into that fearful abyss instant, was the violent collision of some part or parts of the locomotive
leaving the hind trucks on the rails above a poor remnant of a whole attached to the ill-fated train with the timber of the ill-fated bridge
train, which but a moment before was as perfect as skill could make either directly or through the medium of some interposed body.
it, and bore homeward many a manly heart and fondly-beloved father, The inquest continued for another six days with other men testifying.
mother, husband, wife, brother, sister and child. A few escaped, and Thomas Keefer, a civil engineer of some renown and later President
others perished in the attempt; but not less than fifty-seven or sixty lives of ASCE, was one of the last to testify. He stated, “if I am correct in
were, “at one fell swoop,” cut off in the twinkling of an eye, as it were, my belief of the immediate cause of its destruction on the 12th March,
and souls were landed on the shores of eternity which had no time to any wooden bridge with the roadway upon the lower chord would
reflect of its grandeur or its despair. have shared a similar fate.”
The news of the disaster spread rapidly throughout the United On Tuesday, April 8, 1857, the Jury handed down its findings that,
States and Canada, and even abroad. In its April 14, 1857 issue, in part, were as follows:
the Illustrated London News ran a major
article of the disaster entitled “Frightful
Railroad Accident in Canada.” It quoted
the Rochester Union of March 13, “the
bridge appears to be a frail structure, to
be thus easily destroyed.”
That everyone was not happy with the
coming of the railroad was evident in an
editorial in the Chatham Western Planet Maximize Value and Performance with
writing about this disaster and the previ-
ous wreck that had taken place near their SHRINK AGE-COMPENSATING
city, which said,
Better, infinitely better, that the whistle CONCRETE & GROUT SOLUTIONS
of the locomotive had never woke the
echoes of our forest than that it should
have sounded the death knell of so many
human beings who have dyed this road
with their blood.
The jury for the coroner’s inquest was Use for all types of concrete and grout applications, from slabs-on-grade to
containment tanks, multi-story post-tension structures to bridge decks.

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

sworn in the day after the accident in the
boardroom of the Great Western Railway.
During the first three days of the inquest,
testimony was given by people who had ADVANTAGES
survived the crash or had witnessed the ¡ Maximize joint spacing (up to 300 ft, L/W 3:1) ¡ Enhance compressive and flexural strengths
failure. They all said that they had always
¡ Prevent shrinkage cracking and curling ¡ Eliminate pour/delay strips
thought the bridge to be safe.
Richard Bond reported he had, “been ¡ Thinner slabs and walls viable ¡ Reduce long-term relaxation of P/T tendons
connected with railways for 20 years; con- and shear wall stresses
¡ Reduce reinforcement requirements
sider myself able to judge when a bridge
¡ Minimize creep and moment
is right or wrong; examined the bridge ¡ Improve durability and lower permeability
about a fortnight or three weeks before the ¡ Minimize waterstops
¡ Increase abrasion resistance 30-40%
accident; it was all right; always considered
the bridge a safe one, and am aware of no
report ever having been made that the
bridge was not safe.”
On March 25, the Jury went to Thorold
to inspect Whipple’s other swing bridge.
The big day for Whipple came on the
ninth day of the Inquest, March 26, when
he gave his testimony in the case. He gave
a lengthy statement describing his design
methods and concluded,
From what proceeds, it is abundantly
evident to me that the bridge over the by CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp.
Desjardin Canal was not broken down
by the simple pressure of the traffic passing
over it bearing fairly on the track rails; Contact us for more information and project support at 888.414.9043
and it is my decided opinion from the CTScement.com
examination I have made, and the facts

D E C E M B E R 2 019 17
 The jurors aforesaid also find that the said bridge over the
Desjardin canal was built of wood, and constructed of sufficient
strength for the conveyance of the traffic of the line safely and
securely over the said bridge, provided that the locomotive and cars
remained on the railway track, but that the said bridge was not
built of sufficient strength to sustain an engine and train in case
they should run off the track while passing over the said bridge.
The jurors are of the opinion that the only certain way of provid-
ing against a similar catastrophe, at the same place, would be
the erection of a permanent bridge, and they would, therefore,
strongly urge on the Government to cause the same to be built
forthwith, and also that the Toronto and Great Western lines
should have separate tracks over said structure, thereby doing
away with switches, which are always objectionable in such places.
The jurors would further recommend the renewal of the former
law, compelling trains to come to a dead stop before passing on
this and all similar bridges, believing as they do, that the lamen-
table accident might have been avoided had this precautionary
Later view of the site with iron swing span on the same abutments replacing Whipple’s Bridge measure remained in full force.
and a Whipple Truss on high piers replacing the suspension bridge. Whipple was completely exonerated of any wrongdoing
or responsibility for the failure. As he said, he had never
The jurors aforesaid find that the immediate cause of the accident designed the bridge to handle trains off the track. With the death of
was owing to the breaking of the forward axle of the engine-truck 59 people, however, many questioned the ability of engineers
close to the wheel on the right, at a point on the road not ascertained, to design safe bridges. The failure was attributed more to an
in consequence of which the left forward wheel of the truck left the operational problem than an engineering design problem.■
rail at or near the switch near the bridge, causing the locomotive
when entering on the bridge to diverge to the right crushing and Dr. Frank Griggs, Jr. specializes in the restoration of historic bridges, having
tearing away its supports, and precipitating the whole train into the restored many 19 th Century cast and wrought iron bridges. He is now an
canal, and resulting in the calamity which forms the subject of this Independent Consulting Engineer. (fgriggsjr@twc.com)
melancholy inquiry…

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

Innovation Highlights
 No Beam or Column Damage Under Severe
Earthquake Loading
 Faster Repair Following a Severe Earthquake
 Less Steel + Less Fabrication Labor
= Up Front Cost Savings
 No Field Welding + No Field Weld Inspection
= Fast Erection

Easy to Design
 Stiffness Checks Performed in RAM or ETABS
 Complimentary Design Assistance
 Connection Design, Detail Sheets,
and Connection Schedules Provided

Resiliency
The bottom fuse plate
in DuraFuse Frames
protects the beams and
durafuseframes.com columns and is the only
contact@durafuseframes.com part to be replaced after
801.727.4060 a severe earthquake.

18 STRUCTURE magazine
Geotechnical Engineer: Chung & Vander Doelen Engineering Ltd
Structural Engineer: Stephenson Engineering Ltd
General Contractor: Reid & DeLeye Contractors Ltd

GEOPIER
Geopier Installer: GeoSolv Design/Build Inc.

IS GROUND
IMPROVEMENT ®

Geopier rigid inclusions

were installed in soft,
compressible soils to
support a 12-story condo
with 2-levels of below
grade parking.

Geopier rigid inclusion systems enable

you to:

• Improve variable fill soils in place

• Replace deep foundations
• Control settlement
• Increase soil bearing capacities

REQUEST FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT

800-371-7470 • info@geopier.com
www.geopier.com/feasibilityrequest
 CODES and STANDARDS
ASCE 7-16 Provisions for Lateral Drift
Determination
Part 2: Seismic and Wind Drift
By Abdulqader Al-sheikh

T his article is the second of a two-part article

on ASCE 7-16, Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures, and its provisions
for lateral drift determination. The first article
(STRUCTURE, July 2019) discussed main
points influencing seismic drift computation.
Column base restraint conditions.
In this article, the effect of soil flexibility and
cracking of reinforced concrete elements on seismic drift computation force-resisting systems have different levels of nonlinear response,
of structural systems is addressed. It also discusses the determination and these levels are represented by the values of response reduction
of the level of loads for checking wind drift, return periods of wind factors R. The reduced stiffness of these various systems also varies
speed maps, and allowable wind drift limits. A brief comparison based on the permitted degree of nonlinear deformation. Special
between seismic drift and wind drift, in connection to their nature, moment frames, for example, may have higher stiffness reduction
and a determination procedure is covered. factors among a group of seismic force-resisting systems because this
system is designed to permit a high level of nonlinear deformation.
Selecting reduction factors for different seismic systems in association
Effect of Soil Flexibility Modelling with their behavior under seismic forces is not clearly stated in ACI
Soil flexibility can have a significant effect on the behavior of a struc- 318-14; however, engineering judgment may be employed to select the
ture. ASCE 7-16-12.7.1 (Foundation Modeling) states, “For purposes best value for stiffness reduction based on the type of seismic lateral
of determining seismic loads, it is permitted to consider the structure force resisting system and the intended level of nonlinear deformation.
to be fixed at the base. Alternatively, where foundation flexibility is
considered, it shall be in accordance with Section 12.13.3 or Chapter
19.” Therefore, structural engineers must decide the most appropriate
Wind Load Level
analytical assumptions for the structure considering its construction Wind design has been brought into strength level design since 2010
details. The Figure illustrates four types of base restraint conditions (ASCE 7-10). As a result, many changes have been incorporated in
that may be considered. comparison to older versions. Unlike seismic drift, which is determined
Higher flexibility (pinned base) lengthens the period of the build- at the strength load level, wind drift is still a serviceability concern and
ing, resulting in a smaller calculated base shear but larger calculated thus calculated at the service load level (low mean recurrence interval,
story drifts. MRI). Since 2010, ASCE 7 has considered two wind load levels, which
One drawback to the pinned-base condition is that the story drift of are the strength load level (high mean recurrence interval, MRI) maps
the frame, especially the story drift in the lowest story, is difficult to with MRI 300, 700, 1700, and 3000 years and the service load level
keep within allowable code limits. If the story drift of the structure (low mean recurrence interval, MRI) maps with MRI 10, 25, 75,
exceeds acceptable limits, rotational restraint can be increased at the and 100 years. The strength load level is used for checking strength
foundation by a variety of methods, as illustrated in the Figure. design requirements while service load level is used for complying
with serviceability requirements such as drift and vibration.
Effect of Structural Elements Cracking
Seismic design is based on consideration of nonlinear response. It is,
Wind Speed Maps
therefore, necessary to consider the reduced stiffness of seismic system The Appendix C Commentary presents maps of peak gust wind speeds
elements due to cracking. ASCE 7-16 Section 12.7.3 states that, for at 33 feet (10 m) above ground in Exposure C conditions for return
reinforced concrete structures, stiffness properties of concrete and periods of 10, 25, 50, and 100 years (Figs. CC.2-1 through CC.2-4
masonry elements shall consider the effects of cracked sections. ACI of ASCE 7-16). However, the decision of which map to use is not
318-14, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, also states explicitly stated and is left to the discretion of the design engineer.
in its Commentary R18.2.2 that, for lateral displacement calculations, MRI of 10 and 50 years is recommended but, under certain cir-
assuming all structural elements to be fully cracked is likely to lead to cumstances, the design engineer can use a higher MRI wind speed
a better estimate of the possible drift than using uncracked stiffness in consultation with the client. The height of the structure, type of
for all members. According to ACI 318-14 – R18.2.2, the assumption cladding materials, and type of cladding detailing are among the
of I = 0.5Ig for all structural members of the seismic resisting force most important reasons that may encourage using wind speed maps
system shall be permitted. It should be noted that various seismic with high return periods.

20 STRUCTURE magazine
 Table of moment inertia permitted for elastic analysis at service load level.
Wind Drift Limit
Member and Condition Moment of Inertia
The ASCE 7-16 standard does not suggest an allowable drift limit for
wind design as it does with a seismic design but, according to the non- Column 1 Ig
mandatory Appendix CC (Serviceability Considerations) of ASCE 7-16, Wall Uncracked 1 Ig
common usage for building design is on the order of 1/600 to 1/400 Cracked 0.5 Ig
of the building or story height without more details. Typical wind drift
Beams 0.5 Ig
limits in common usage vary from H/100 to H/600 for total building
drift and h/200 to h/600 for interstory drift, depending on building type Slabs 0.36 Ig
and the type of cladding or partition materials used. The most widely
used values are H (or h)/400 to H (or h)/500 (ASCE Task Committee be appropriate because the philosophy of wind design does not
on Drift Control of Steel Building Structures, 1988). An absolute limit allow the nonlinear response.
on interstory drift is sometimes imposed by designers in light of evidence • Allowable drift limits for structures under wind and seismic forces
that damage to nonstructural partitions, cladding, and glazing may occur are, to a great extent, different because of the different design
if the interstory drift exceeds about 0.4 inches (10 mm). philosophies. The allowable drift limits of seismic force-resisting
systems are much higher than those permitted for wind force
resisting systems. The allowable drift limit for certain seismic sys-
Effect of Cracking of Structural Elements tems is about 10 times the drift allowed under wind loading.
For wind analysis, the cracking of structural elements has less effect on
the structural response of the wind force resisting system. This lesser
effect stems from the nonlinear response of a structure, which is not
Conclusion
considered in wind analysis. According to ACI 318-14 Commentary, One of the inherent provisions in most codes and standards is the
the factors shown in the Table shall be used to consider cracking effects. consideration of building drift under seismic and wind loading. This
The factors shown in the Table are calculated by multiplying the must be thoroughly addressed because of the high importance of drift
moment of inertia factor for strength load level stipulated in Table control on structural systems and nonstructural elements, such as parti-
6.6.3.1.1 by 1.4 as stated in R.6.6.3.2.2 of ACI 318-14. tions, glass, and other brittle components. There are many reasons that
necessitate limiting drift; the most significant is to address the structural
importance of member inelastic strain in the case of seismic design and
Seismic and Wind Drift system stability and to limit damage to non-structural components,
Both seismic and wind drift are lateral deflections that take place which can be a threat to safety, health, and welfare of the public.■
because of applied lateral design forces, but they have many differ-
ences, such as allowable drift limits, nature of drift, and determination The online version of this article contains references.
procedures. The main differences are summarized as follows: Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
• Seismic drift is recognized as inelastic drift because of the
inelastic behavior of the seismic force-resisting system. Thus,
Abdulqader Al-sheikh is a Structural Design Engineer at AD Engineering
a deflection amplification factor, Cd, is used to account for
Company (AEC) and a Member of the Saudi Council of Engineers (SCE).
an inelastic drift. On the other hand, wind drift is considered
(abdulqader37@gmail.com)
an elastic drift because the wind force resisting system inter-
acts linearly with the design wind
forces. Nonlinear response of the
wind force resisting system is not
permitted. This can be clearly seen
from the strict allowable drift limits
under wind loads as compared with
the relaxed allowable seismic drift.

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

• Seismic drift of structures is deter-
mined at the strength-load level
(Strength Limit). However, wind
drift is still regarded as serviceability
limit and is obtained at service load
level (service wind speed with return
period of 10, 25, 50, 100 years).
• ASCE 7-16 and ACI 318-14 have
explicitly stated that the effect of
reinforced concrete cracking shall
be considered for obtaining realistic
estimates of seismic drift. Yet, they
do not state the same for wind
drift. ACI 318-14, instead, states
in its Commentary that, for wind
design, effective stiffnesses repre-
sentative of pre-yield behavior may

D E C E M B E R 2 019 21
 TURNING
UNDERGROUND
TO BUILD THE
CITIES
T
OF
O
THE
D
FUTURE
21 -C UNNELING PENS THE OOR TO ST
ENTURY
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
By Brian Gettinger, P.E., Brad Watson, P.E., and Mike Shiflett, P.E.

T he twentieth century saw great monuments to structural

engineering erected across the United States, from the
Empire State Building to the Golden Gate Bridge and from the
Hoover Dam to the Sears Tower. These skyscraping and mas-
sive steel-and-concrete structures each challenged preconceived
notions of what was possible and left a legacy of engineering and
architectural excellence.
In the twenty-first century, urban areas continue to grow rapidly.
Some of the fastest expansion is in Texas, where the Kinder Institute
at Rice University projects that the population of the state’s urban
centers may double by 2040. Four of the largest urban areas – Austin,
San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston – already have accounted for 85%
of Texas’ overall population growth since 2010. Unrelenting growth
in these regions stresses the existing infrastructure, particularly linear
civil infrastructure: transportation, water, sewer, and stormwater
assets. Surging population presents a two-pronged challenge for
city planners – they face more demand coupled with shrinking Figure 1. Flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey's massive, persistent rain resulted in $125
space for construction. Meanwhile, greenfield sites are gobbled up billion in damages and 65 deaths across the Houston region and Southeast Texas in 2017.
for development, and existing transportation corridors and utility Courtesy of ThinkStock.
easements are already full.
In response to this breakneck growth, Texas’ major urban areas are
Houston, We Have a Problem
building different kinds of engineering marvels. Instead of skyscrapers Before August 2017, Houston might have been best-known for the
reaching toward the sky, they are digging deep underground to install National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s landing a man on
new infrastructure. In the same way that the 102-story Empire State the moon, or hosting the largest livestock exhibition and rodeo in
Building challenged engineers in the 1930s, this move underground the world. After August 25, 2017, the city also became an exhibit
presents its own set of challenges, particularly in Houston, with its for urban flooding in the devastating aftermath of Hurricane Harvey.
unique geotechnical conditions. Massive, persistent rains fell on the sprawling urban and suburban
landscape, with its flat terrain and clayey
and minimally absorbent soils, trigger-
ing devastation never before seen in the
city (Figure 1). Up to 60 inches of rain
fell during Harvey, leading to wide-
spread flooding resulting in $125 billion
in damages and 65 deaths across the
Houston region and Southeast Texas.
Following Hurricane Harvey, Houston’s
engineering community got to work
brainstorming solutions to mitigate
the impacts of future flooding events,
but few traditional solutions seemed
feasible. These traditional solutions
for flood mitigation included building
Figure 2. Tunneling facilitates construction of an inverted siphon to move large volumes of stormwater safely underground. regional and local detention basins and

22 STRUCTURE magazine
widening flood conveyance channels, creeks,
and bayous so that additional flow could be con-
veyed downstream to Galveston Bay. Houston’s
urban growth, particularly along the waterways,
quickly showed that this approach would require
extensive property acquisition – an unpopular,
time-consuming, and expensive proposition.
What if, instead of moving stormwater at the
surface, it could be conveyed underground,
which would take it through densely popu-
lated urban areas with minimal community
and environmental impacts? That is precisely
what the Harris County Flood Control District
(HCFCD) wanted to find out in a study begin-
ning in the summer of 2019. HCFCD, the Figure 3. Structural design of concrete segments used for tunnels continues to improve, making the segments
United States Army Corps of Engineers’ non- more durable and corrosion-resistant. Courtesy of Cylonphoto/123rf.com.
federal local sponsor for the region, is responsible
for approximately 2,500 miles of bayous and tributaries that drain However, clayey and sandy soils, high groundwater, and creeping
stormwater from Harris County. HCFCD’s service area encompasses growth faults had dissuaded consideration of tunnels in Houston
Houston and some of Texas’ fastest-growing suburbs. Tunneling has – until now.
not been a tool in the agency’s arsenals; so, HCFCD leveraged a grant
from the United States Economic Development Administration and
local funding from voter-approved bonds to start the process of study-
Geotechnical Meets Structural Engineering
ing the feasibility of tunneling for stormwater management (Figure 2). Tunneling is a nexus between geotechnical and structural engineer-
Tunneling for stormwater management is not a new idea; the concept ing. For a project to be safely and successfully constructed, existing
has been proven in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and even in Texas earth and groundwater pressures must be balanced by the excavation
cities such as San Antonio, Austin, and Dallas, which all have or are equipment, and the permanent shafts and tunnel lining systems must
constructing large-diameter, inverted-siphon stormwater tunnels. support earth and hydrostatic loading over their design lives.
continued on next page

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

Aegis developed Ultra-Span trusses ®

with a proprietary shape that brings your

building the strongest Cold-Formed Steel
on the market.
• 100% non-combustible Prime Steel
• Does not warp, shrink, split or twist
with age
• Resistant to insects, mold and rot
• Wide variety of sizes and configurations
• Industry leading estimating and design
software
www
.aeg
isme
talfra
ming
.com

ROOF • WALL • FLOOR

D E C E M B E R 2 019 23
 are evenly distributed throughout the entire volume
of the segment and are present closer to the surface of
the concrete than steel reinforcement, the segments are
more durable, reducing the risk of damage to the edges
and corners due to handling. Steel fiber reinforcement
improves the overall quality and reduces the need for
rework. Synthetic fibers offer similar benefits as steel fibers
plus even greater corrosion protection because they are
innately corrosion resistant.
Bekaert Maccaferri, a manufacturer of steel fiber for
segments, indicates that impact resistance of steel fiber-
reinforced segments is 20 times higher than for unreinforced
concrete. Impact resistance is a benefit of both steel and
synthetic fiber-reinforced concrete. Recent laboratory test-
ing of synthetic fiber-reinforced concrete found that strain
during impact loading was reduced by as much as 68 percent
compared to unreinforced concrete.
Figure 4. Tunnels are the skyscrapers of the underground, facilitating needed higher-density The first tunnel solely using synthetic fiber-reinforced seg-
infrastructure development in urban areas and presenting unique engineering challenges the ments is currently under construction near Kansas City,
same way the first skyscrapers did in the 20 th century. Courtesy of Gui Yongnian/123rf.com. Missouri. These advances in segment reinforcement tech-
nology provide greater durability, longer service life, and
Tunneling in rock, as is common in Dallas, Chicago, and the Upper an improved final product at a comparable or lower cost than the
Midwest, often can rely on the excavated rock formation to be self-sup- traditional methods.
porting with minimal initial support systems. Excavation in competent
limestone often can be opened and left without a permanent support
system with no geotechnical consequence. In Houston, the clays,
Crossing a Different Kind of Fault
sands, and high groundwater require ground support systems to be Improvements in tunneling technology over the last 30 years have
installed before excavation or immediately after excavation. These are mitigated many risks associated with tunneling in soft ground with
much different and more complex systems. high groundwater tables. But the greatest geotechnical and structural
Excavation equipment must use pressurized-face tunneling equipment challenge facing tunneling in Houston may be crossing active growth
to control the earth and groundwater pressure that continually acts faults that are slowly but continuously creeping toward the Gulf of
on the tunnel boring machine, and also varies along the tunnel align- Mexico. The most-active faults generally cross west and northwest
ment as different geologic formations are encountered. Earth pressure Houston in a northeasterly direction, including the Long Point and
balance and slurry tunnel boring machines are both pressurized-face Brittmoore Faults, which have been measured to creep up to one-half
tunneling equipment that could be used in Houston depending on inch per year. Although they are not at risk of rupture or generating
the soil and groundwater conditions that are encountered. seismic events, the consistent creeping of these faults poses a challenge
Immediately following excavation, the pressurized-face tunnel boring to any concrete structures crossing them, as evidenced by the frequent
machine erects precast concrete segments for both the initial and concrete pavement patches required on Houston’s Interstate 10 above
permanent excavation support system for the tunnel. The precast the surface expression of the Long Point Fault.
concrete segments are typically produced at a manufacturing facility, Special structural design considerations must be made for these fault
cured, and then transported to the project site for erection. The seg- crossings to ensure that the tunnel can withstand the potential fault
ments can also be fabricated on or near the site. Factory production displacement over its service life. Prospective mitigation concepts are
of precast segments results in higher repeatability and quality across being evaluated as part of the study commissioned by HCFCD and
large batches than cast-in-place concrete structures, which can be will be developed in greater detail in the future.
challenging in large and deep tunnels.
In most tunnel applications, the concrete segments (Figure 3, page 23)
form a concentric compression ring as they counteract the earth and
Skyscrapers of the Underground
groundwater pressure deep underground. In unique circumstances, if Houston’s unique geology, urbanization, and extreme weather events
the tunnel’s internal pressure due to the conveyed water, wastewater, or are encouraging innovative thinking about infrastructure. Tunneling,
stormwater is expected to exceed the confining earth and groundwater once considered impractical, is now at the forefront of the effort to
pressure, post-tensioning may be required in the segments. This is to build resiliency into one of America’s largest urban areas (Figure 4). This
ensure that the segments remain in compression. effort, still in the early planning phases, will require innovative
Traditional concrete segment structural designs incorporated steel engineering and construction solutions to serve as a backbone
reinforcement. As in other concrete structures, this reinforcement for the next century of infrastructure investments.■
is the leading cause of deterioration. As the steel corrodes, the rust
increases the volume of the steel, creating tensile cracks that can result Brian Gettinger is the Tunneling Services Leader for Freese and Nichols,
in spalling, cracking, and other failures. Concrete segment designs Inc. (brian.gettinger@freese.com)
are now using alternatives to steel reinforcement, including steel wire Brad Watson is a Freese and Nichols Principal and Manager of the firm’s
mesh and, more recently, steel fiber and synthetic fiber reinforcement Structural Group. (bbw@freese.com)
to prolong concrete service life, particularly in corrosive environments.
Mike Shiflett is a Senior Geotechnical Consultant in Freese and Nichols’
Steel fibers are noncontinuous and discrete, so there is less poten-
Water Resources Design Group. (mms@freese.com)
tial for propagation of corrosion activity. Also, because the fibers

24 STRUCTURE magazine
 Repair and
strengthen all
in one shot.

Repair, protect and strengthen concrete and masonry structures in

one application and significantly reduce your clients’ installed cost.
The FRCM Externally Bonded Composite Strengthening System
combines high-performance sprayable mortar with carbon fiber mesh
to create thin-walled, reinforced concrete shells without adding
significant weight or mass to the structure.

To learn more visit go.strongtie.com/frcm or call (800) 999-5099.

© 2019 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. FRCM17E

 22ND ANNUAL
EXCELLENCE STRUCTURAL
IN
ENGINEERING AWARDS
T he National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA) is pleased to publish the
winners of the 2019 Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards. The awards were announced
on the evening of November 14 at NCSEA’s 27th annual Structural Engineering Summit in
Anaheim, California. Given annually since 1998, each year the entries highlight work from the
best and brightest in our profession.
Awards were given in seven categories, with one project in each category named the
Outstanding Project. The categories for 2019 were as follows:
• New Buildings under $20 Million
• New Buildings $20 Million to $100 Million
• New Buildings over $100 Million
• New Bridge and Transportation Structures
• Forensic | Renovation | Retrofit | Rehabilitation Structures up to $20 Million
• Forensic | Renovation | Retrofit | Rehabilitation Structures over $20 Million
• Other Structures
The 2019 Awards Committee was chaired by Carrie Johnson (Wallace Engineering, Tulsa
OK). Ms. Johnson noted: "We had two rounds of judging to allow the judges more time
to focus on each individual project. The preliminary round was performed via electronic
voting by a group of NCSEA Past Presidents and the final round was done in Austin,
Texas, by engineers from the Structural Engineers Association of Texas (SEAoT). The
judges had an enormous task of trying to determine winners from an impressive group
of submittals. The group of winning projects is outstanding.”
Please join NCSEA and STRUCTURE® magazine in congratulating all the winners.
More in-depth articles on several of the 2019 winners will appear in the Spotlight sec-
tion of the magazine over the 2020 editorial year.

Category 1: New Buildings under $20 Million

OUTSTANDING PROJECT
Brother James Gaffney,
FSC, Student Center
Romeoville, IL | Wight & Company

Brother James Gaffney, FSC, Student Center at Lewis University is

designed to be distinctive, projecting an image of a contemporary,
forward-thinking university. The focal point is an 80- x 70-foot clear
span roof framing which pays tribute to the university’s aeronautics
heritage. The roof incorporates custom trusses which uniquely resemble
the cable-and-strut construction of vintage airplanes. Trusses extend
through the southern curtainwall and frame a large overhang. Sloped
columns support the overhang and incorporate CastConnex specialty
connections. The entire structure is exposed including floors, roof,
Photos courtesy of Paul Schlossmann Photography
decking, walls, columns, and stairs. Architecturally exposed structural
steel specifications were strictly adhered to.

26 STRUCTURE magazine
Category 2: New Buildings $20 Million to $100 Million

OUTSTANDING PROJECT
Rufus 2.0 Spheres
Seattle, WA | Magnusson Klemencic Associates

Courtesy of Bruce Damonte

The centerpieces of Amazon's new corporate headquarters in Seattle,

the first-of-their-kind Spheres, feature three intersecting glass-and-steel
structures enclosing five freestanding floors. Comprised of organically
shaped steel sections, the 65,000-square-foot workspace features tree-
house meeting rooms, waterfalls, a paludarium, a four-story living wall,
and is packed with more than 40,000 plants from over 50 countries – a
collection worthy of a top-tier conservatory. MKA collaborated with the
architect, contractor, detailer, and fabricator through all phases of design,
fabrication, and erection. Integrating fabrication and erection constraints
into the design during earlier stages, the team delivered the architect’s
vision within the owner’s challenging schedule requirements and budget.

Category 3: New Buildings over $100 Million

OUTSTANDING PROJECT
181 Fremont
San Francisco, CA | Arup

181 Fremont is a 56-story mixed-use building featuring luxury residen-

tial and commercial space. Its innovative damped mega-brace structural
design facilitated a reduction in building stiffness to decrease seismic
demands while still satisfying stringent occupant comfort criteria for
wind-induced vibration, eliminating the need for a tuned mass damper.
Mega-columns designed to uplift slightly in a major earthquake also
limit seismic demands in the tower and foundation. The building’s
resilience-based design approach earned it a REDi Gold rating, having
Photos courtesy of Jay Paul Company
been designed to remain essentially elastic and achieve immediate re-
occupancy after a 475-year earthquake.

Category 4: New Bridges or Transportation Structures

OUTSTANDING PROJECT
41st Street Steel Arch Pedestrian Bridge
Chicago, IL | AECOM

Through an international design competition, the City of Chicago con-

structed a new signature pedestrian bridge at 41st Street connecting the
Bronzeville neighborhood with the lakefront while creating an inviting
atmosphere with an aesthetically pleasant iconic structure. The new 41st
Street Pedestrian Bridge is 1500 feet in length and incorporates twin
240-foot-long inclined arches on graceful sweeping S-curves to span
over Lake Shore Drive and Metra Electric/CN Railroads. The structure
has very complex and complicated geometry, which created challenges
to design, fabricate, and erect over extremely active railroad tracks (263
trains daily) and a major highway carrying 100,000 vehicles daily.

D E C E M B E R 2 019 27
 Category 5: Forensic / Renovation / Retrofit / Rehabilitation Structures under $20 Million

OUTSTANDING PROJECT
“Leaning Tower of Granby” Historical Renovations/Savoy
Norfolk, VA | Speight Marshall Francis

The 1907 Hotel Savoy was dubbed the “Leaning Tower

of Granby” because the nine-story building developed a
21-inch northward tilt. After a decade of annual inspec-
tions, it was determined that it had stopped settling
for over fifty years. A committed developer resolved to
straighten it regardless of cost – a feat that had never been
accomplished on a building that tall. An innovative plan to
correct the lean on the 3,250-ton building using custom-
made 200,000-pound hydraulic-powered jacks involved
nearly 70 sheets of drawings for each step of the process.
Subsequent historic renovations transformed Savoy into
modern apartments with ground-floor retail.

Category 6: Forensic / Renovation / Retrofit / Rehabilitation Structures over $20 Million

OUTSTANDING PROJECT
Hudson Commons: Innovative Approaches
to Vertical Expansion
New York, NY | WSP USA

Hudson Commons is a unique repositioning project on

34th and 9th Ave in New York City that pushes the bound-
aries of vertical expansion. Designed by KPF with WSP
as the engineer of record, the eloquent renovation adds 17
floors of steel to an existing 1960s era concrete structure,
bringing the new building’s total rentable area to 700,000
square feet. The complexity of the problem inspired innova-
tive solutions, including shotcrete column jackets, a new
reinforced concrete core threaded through the building,
shoring free demolition, and a range of foundation retrofit
methodologies. The exposed concrete core punctuates the
sleek tower addition.

Category 7: Other Structures

OUTSTANDING PROJECT
Vessel, New York’s Staircase
New York, NY | Thornton Tomasetti
Vessel is the centerpiece of Hudson Yards, a 16-building complex on the West Side of Manhattan.
The steel structure features a lattice of 154 interconnecting flights of stairs, 80 landings, and
nearly 2,500 individual steps. As the
structural engineer for the project,
Thornton Tomasetti worked closely with
the client and project team to develop
the design from concept through design
development, design-assist, fabrication,
and construction. Vessel is a sculpture on
an industrial scale, a beautifully refined
design that balances form and function
and celebrates craftsmanship and atten-
tion to detail to create a defining object
in New York’s urban fabric.

28 STRUCTURE magazine
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 1
Waffle
Culver City, CA | NAST Enterprises Corp.
Waffle is a four-story tower with a gently
curving surface sculpted with vertical and
horizontal steel fins, home to Vespertine res-
taurant in Culver City, CA. Four aggressively
bending steel pipe columns on the inside pro-
vide structural support for the building. The
elevator shaft, annexed on the west, provides
for circulation in addition to hiding the ther-
mal expansion joints of the steel shell. Two
sets of stairs, levitated on the inside and the
outside corner, are designed with slotted and
slip connections to accommodate the flexibility
demands of the building. Corner fins are can-
tilevered, utilizing the extent of steel capacity.
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 2
NCA&T Student Union
Greensboro, NC | Stewart
Stewart has exceeded North Carolina A&T State
University’s expectations, designing a focal point
and multicultural hub for the country’s largest
historically black public university. Since its open-
ing, enrollment has soared. The entrepreneurial
spirit of the school is expressed through complex
design. The three-story, cutting-edge facility is
LEED silver certified and structurally innova-
tive. It features long cantilevers extending off the
building from every angle, a unique exterior wall
system, cantilevered floors, and two expansive,
minimally supported monumental stairs, which
demand attention and invite students into the
center of the social energy on campus.
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 1
Rose Park Pool Operations
Building
Billings, MT | Cushing Terrell
A large, singular curved roof was constructed
over two smaller structures to create a new
pool house. Cantilevered steel columns fixed
on drilled shafts support the high roof curved
steel girders. Large glue-laminated beams of
naturally durable cedar support a metal deck
that follows the roof curve. The high roof con-
struction sequence provided quick shelter for
underlying construction during winter condi-
tions. Careful detailing, material selection, and
assemblies remove unnecessary finishes and
result in a raw structure that is both form and
finish and is void of noticeable connections.
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 3
Jewel Changi Airport
Singapore | BuroHappold Engineering
The new mixed-use complex at Jewel Changi
Airport in Singapore delivers an exceptional
experience for the 85 million passengers that
pass through it every year. BuroHappold
Engineering, as the design engineer for the
roof, created an incredibly complicated glass-
and-steel thin-shell gridshell that encloses the
interior forest and commercial spaces. The grid-
shell roof itself contains more than 5,000 solid
steel nodes and 14,000 member elements. At
the apex of Jewel’s glass roof is an oculus that
showers approximately 10,000 gallons of water
per minute, as a 130-foot indoor waterfall,
through this spectacular central garden space.
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 2
Hale Centre Theatre
Sandy, UT | Dunn Associates, Inc.
Hale Centre Theatre is a world-class theater
experience that is truly one of a kind. It features a
centrally located round stage with seating radiat-
ing concentrically outward, each row increasing
in diameter. When patrons experience a show
at the Hale Centre Theatre’s center stage, the
viewing angle is 360-degrees. The theatre is
approximately 130,000 square feet with two
separate stages – a theater-in-the-round, which
seats over 900 patrons, and the smaller Jewel box
theater that seats 460. The larger of the two has
the functionality to telescope vertically above
stage level and then to retract while rotating
360-degrees.
Courtesy of Hines
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 3
53W53 – MoMA Tower
New York, NY | WSP USA
53W53, the pyramid-shaped luxury-con-
dominium building envisioned by Pritzker
Prize-winning Architect Jean Nouvel, is a
728,000 GSF high-rise of 82 stories, reaching
1113 feet in height on a narrow site of 87 feet in
width, resulting in a 1:12 slenderness ratio. It is
the first time a structure of this magnitude and
complexity is done with reinforced cast-in-place
concrete diagrids. Adjacent to the Museum of
Modern Art, the new building will also provide
65,000 GSF of additional unobstructed gallery
spaces, at levels 2, 4 and 5, that will complement
the current program of the existing premises of
the MoMA Museum.
D E C E M B E R 2 019 29
 AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 4
Sarah Mildred Long Bridge
Kittery, ME and Portsmouth, NH |
FIGG/Hardesty & Hanover
The new Sarah Mildred Long Bridge carries
US Route 1 Bypass over the Piscataqua River
between Kittery, Maine, and Portsmouth, New
Hampshire. The crossing consists of vehicu-
lar approach bridges stacked over railroad
approach bridges leading to a movable lift
span over the navigation channel. The 2,434-
foot segmental vehicular bridge provides two
12-foot lanes with 5-foot shoulders and bridge
railings for cyclists. Span lengths vary from 132
to 320 feet. The 1,437-foot segmental railroad
bridge provides a heavy rail line that serves the
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Span lengths vary
from 69 to 160 feet.
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 5
Regents of the University
of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI | SmiithGroup
The Clements Library project involved the addi-
tion of a state-of-the-art preservation storage
space for a priceless collection of American his-
tory, while subtly marking its presence in relation
to the existing 1923 Italian Renaissance-inspired
building. The addition was placed underground in
response to site constraints. This solution presented
a sophisticated structural challenge involving
underpinning a portion of the existing building
during the 35-foot deep excavation. The result
yielded a barely visible perimeter wall of black
granite, peeking slightly above grade, and two glass
entrance and access "jewel" boxes – subtle signifiers
of the incredible undertaking of this construction.
30 STRUCTURE magazine
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 4
Samuel De Champlain Bridge
Montreal, Canada | TYLI-SLI Joint Venture
Opened to traffic on July 1, 2019, the Samuel De
Champlain Bridge spans the St. Lawrence River
in Montreal. The over 2-mile (3.4-km) viaduct
with a signature cable-stayed bridge represents the
most high-profile infrastructure project in North
America. The project faced stringent design and
performance criteria, various site constraints, and
an aggressive 48-month design-build schedule.
Challenges included limits to field construction
during severe winter months, wind and seismic
hazards, navigational channel closures, imposed
no-construction zones, and more. Large-scale
precasting, modular construction methods, and
creative erection sequencing were incorporated
to meet the design-build schedule.
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 6
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta
Int'l Airport Modernization
Atlanta, GA | HOK
As part of the modernization of the world’s
busiest airport, HOK delivered a structural and
architectural icon. Dual 864-foot-long structural
steel canopies clad in ETFE flank the existing
terminal and support new pedestrian bridges
over the existing roadways. Interdisciplinary
design and parametric structural modeling were
key in providing a structure that welcomes and
shelters passengers at the airport threshold.
Surmounting challenges ranging from complex
existing conditions to accommodating uninter-
rupted airport operations were key in exceeding
the client’s expectations and enlivening the air-
port for the 21st century.
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 5
Epoch Tasting Room
Templeton, CA | SSG Structural Engineers, LLP
Bringing life back to the original York Mountain
Winery, condemned after the 2003 San Simeon
earthquake (6.6M), the new Tasting Room’s
full reconstruction salvaged original materi-
als from selective demolition, taking great care
to repair the original stone winery and pre-
serve the “bones” of the building. A delicate
procedure due to 100 years of soil pressures,
water infiltration, and seismic deformation, the
existing building was carefully dismantled, with
its usable materials cataloged, stored, and re-
purposed to save the character of the circa-1907
clay brick, heavy timber framing, and to shore
and re-point the un-reinforced stone walls of
the original cellar.
Courtesy of Doublespace Photography
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 6
National Arts Centre
Architectural Rejuvenation
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Fast + Epp
The National Arts Centre in Ottawa underwent
a significant rejuvenation for Canada’s 150th
anniversary. A key project feature is a striking
coffered ceiling covering a 60,000-sqaure-foot
glass-clad extension, a piece of structural artistry
visible from the street. The roof was formed of
28 hybrid wood-steel panels pre-fabricated off-
site, with electrical, mechanical, and acoustic
integration. The ceiling promotes engineered
wood products fabricated in Canada and the
ability to span large spaces using a hybrid system
where each material is used according to its
strengths. The rejuvenated Centre has become
a new beacon for arts and culture.
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 7
Northeastern University’s
Interdisciplinary Science
& Engineering Complex –
Spiral Stair
Boston, MA | Summit Engineering, PLLC
The spiral stair is a five-story, cantilevered, monu-
mental steel plate stringer stair comprised of steel
bent plate treads and hollow structural section
(HSS) cross-member framing. The stair is located
within the main atrium of the building and is sup-
ported at each floor level by an A-frame structural
steel frame system serving as both the primary
support and the stair landing at each floor. The
stair employs sloped and curved glass guard rails
with stainless steel pipe railings. The stair was
completed on schedule and became the focal
point of the new Interdisciplinary Science and
Engineering Complex at Northeastern University.
AWARD WINNER – CATEGORY 7
Reinventing the Gabion:
ROMO Backcountry
Estes Park, CO | STRUCTURALIST
Iconic Longs Peak is the tallest mountain in
Rocky Mountain National Park and one of
the most frequented 14ers (> 14,000 feet) in
Colorado. NPS collaborated with Colorado
Building Workshop, the design-build program
at the University of Colorado Denver, to design
and construct new backcountry privies. The new
privies success is due to their unconventional
hybrid structural system and prefabrication.
The solution? A series of prefabricated gabion
walls and 1⁄8-inch steel plate moment frames that
triangulate lateral loads resisted by the stone
ballast. This innovative assembly allowed for
rapid on-site construction and architecture that
disappears into the surrounding landscape.

2019 PANEL OF JUDGES

The judges for this year’s Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards were:

PRELIMINARY ROUND ‒ NCSEA Past Presidents

Vicki Arbitrio, P.E. ‒ Gilsanz Murray Steficek Carrie Johnson, P.E. ‒ Wallace Engineering
Craig Barnes, P.E. ‒ CBI Consulting, LLC John Joyce, P.E. ‒ Engineering Solutions, LLC
Marc Barter, P.E., S.E. ‒ Barter & Associates Jim Malley, S.E., P.E. ‒ Degenkolb
Bill Bast, P.E., S.E. ‒ Thornton Tomasetti Ben Nelson, P.E., S.E. ‒ Martin/Martin
Tom Grogan, P.E. ‒ Haskell Sanjeev Shah, P.E., Esq ‒ Lea + Elliott
Ron Hamburger, S.E. ‒ Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Mike Tylk, S.E. ‒ TGRWA

FINAL ROUND ‒ Structural Engineers Association of Texas (SEAoT)

Davy Beicker, P.E Jim Goes, P.E., S.E Jeremy Klahorst, P.E. Galen Schroeder, P.E.
Beicker & Associates ATS Engineers, Inspectors & Surveyors Datum Engineers Datum Engineers
Matt Carlton. P.E. Tom Grogan, P.E. Joe Luke, P.E. Kris Swanson, P.E., S.E.
WJE Haskell LCRA DCI Engineers
Brian Caudlee, P.E. Brian Johnson, P.E. Ben Nelson, P.E. Larry Swayze, P.E.
Walter P. Moore Backbeat Structural Design Martin/Martin LM Swayze Engineers PLLC
Bobby Chamra, P.E. Carrie Johnson, P.E. Gary Pickett, P.E. Bob Tieman, P.E.
Building Diagnotics, Inc. Wallace Engineering Pickett Kelm Associates Page Sutherland Page
Angela Galloway, P.E. Bill Kelm, P.E. Lemar Porter
Amtech Solutions Pickett Kelm Associates Retired

D E C E M B E R 2 019 31
“ These tools simplify
our design process ”

Structural Software
Easy and affordable at: iesweb.com

Get VisualAnalysis 2D Design

for steel and wood frames.
Only $54/month
with annual subscription.

Download your free trial today:

iesweb.com 800.707.0816
 Napa County
HISTORIC
Courthouse By Luke Wilson, S.E.,
Brett Shields, P.E.,
and Kevin Zucco, S.E.

Figure 1. Entry showing damage; taken the morning of the Earthquake.

At 3:20 AM, August 24, 2014, the Napa County Historic

Courthouse was severely damaged in the magnitude 6.0
South Napa Earthquake, which induced nearby ground motion read-
unsafe due to settlement and wall cracking. In 1874, construction
began on the current courthouse, which has been serving the local
community for over 140 years.
ings indicating spectral accelerations ranging from 0.4g to 1.7g for The current courthouse architectural design was provided by the
low period structures. Most obviously, the top of the south east corner Newsome Brothers, who also designed the Napa Opera House and
at the front of the building (east face), along with its attached dental the William Carson Residence in Eureka, with the assistance of
cornice, collapsed outward to the sidewalk below (Figure 1). The Initial local architect Ira Gilcrest. The Courthouse, along with the Hall of
review also revealed a partial collapse of the exterior brick wall on the Records and Administrative Annex, occupies a city block bounded
north elevation. At one corner of the building, the top two to three by 2nd, 3rd, Coombs, and Brown Streets in downtown Napa. The
feet of brick wall fell inward, collapsing the ceiling framing above land for the Courthouse site was donated for use by City founder
the jury room (Figure 2). There was significant additional damage Nathan Coombs. As part of the original construction, a two-story jail
throughout the exterior and interior masonry walls and the building was constructed west of the courthouse with a small access corridor
frequently appeared in news coverage as a prominent downtown between the two buildings.
public building affected by the Napa Earthquake. The Courthouse In 1918, the Hall of Records building was constructed adjacent to
was subsequently red-tagged by the City of Napa (the building was the jail on the west end of the block. When the jail was demolished
deemed unsafe for occupancy or entry, except as authorized by the in 1977, a new Administrative Annex was built as infill between
local building Authority Having Jurisdiction per Applied Technology the Hall of Records and the Historic Courthouse to create a single-
Council, ATC 20-1), beginning the long process to assess the damage, occupancy space. While the 1977 infill project is seismically separate
repair, and reoccupy the historic structure. from the Historic Courthouse, several large openings reinforced with
concrete frames were added to the
west wall of the Courthouse building,
History and multiple smaller openings were
The Napa County Historic either added or infilled to accom-
Courthouse was constructed in 1878, modate new circulation patterns in
with an estimated $51,000 construc- the combined space. Additionally,
tion cost equivalent to approximately in 1977, a seismic retrofit of the
$1.3 million in 2019 dollars. It was Historic Courthouse was performed
added to the National Register of with concrete pilasters added in the
Historic Places in 1992. Before this north and south exterior walls and the
building was built, two previous interior hallway corridor walls, and
courthouse buildings existed on the out-of-plane wall anchorage hardware
same site. The original building was a was installed throughout. In 2003,
prefabricated structure shipped to the a tenant improvement to the court
city by barge in 1851. Just five years clerk’s office added an approximately
later, in 1856, the original building 25-foot-long concrete infill shear wall
was replaced with a site-built court- Figure 2. Courtroom view from the attic where brick partially collapsed between the first and second floors
house that was ultimately deemed the ceiling below. along the north corridor wall.
continued on next page

D E C E M B E R 2 019 33
 Figure 3. Horizontal offset of brick in the attic. Figure 4. Partially collapse of URM wall due to adjacent Administrative Annex Framing.

The Courthouse is a 15,000-square-foot, two-story, unreinforced non-structural damage, including broken sprinkler lines that caused
brick masonry building with wood-framed floors, ceiling, and roof. additional water damage.
The original construction included an octagonal bell tower with The out-of-plane wall anchorage included failures of both the original
an onion dome roof that was damaged in the 1906 San Francisco government anchors (approximately 8-inch-diameter iron plate on the
Earthquake and eventually removed in the early 1930s. The roof far face of the brick wall anchorage by a flat plate through the wall to
framing consists of straight sheathing over 2x rafters and site-built, the wood framing beyond) and the 1977 retrofit adhesive anchors.
large rough-sawn timber trusses, while the ceiling framing below Observed failures included: wythe pullout, retrofit anchor adhesive
consists of conventional 2x framing. Roof and ceiling framing bond failure, buckling of 2x diagonal braces, net tension rupture of
both span between perimeter and corridor bearing walls. The floor 2x braces, and bolted connection failures in 2x members. With few
consists of assorted finishes over straight sheathing with rough-sawn exceptions, out-of-plane wall anchorage failures were concentrated
3x12 joists. at the roof/attic level.
ZFA’s longstanding relationship with Napa County and direct
involvement with the Historic Courthouse since 2006 offered famil-
iarization and knowledge of the building invaluable to the process
Documenting the Damage
after the earthquake and repair solutions beyond. In lieu of traditional damage documentation methods, in which reviews
are completed on a room-by-room basis, generally looking at a wall from
one side at a time, ZFA employed a wholistic 3-D approach. Detailed
Damage from 2014 Earthquake and scaled field observations of damage on both sides of walls (cracks,
ZFA was brought in as part of a team tasked with completing the deflections, displacement of wythes, localized collapses, and failures in
Courthouse repair after the building was shored under a prior con- out-of-plane wall anchorage), as-built conditions differing from the origi-
tract with a separate design team. Before beginning repair design nal construction, and 1977 reconfiguration documents were combined
and drawings, ZFA completed an extensive damage documentation with original construction documents to create a 3-D BIM model. All
effort to reveal and illustrate the level of damage to the client and observed wall cracks were modeled with different color and weight 3-D
the insurance company’s peer review engineer for confirmation of model lines. Blue lines indicated cracks occurring on the north or east
required repair scope. faces, while red indicated cracking on the south or west faces of walls.
In addition to obvious partial collapses, the building sustained sig- Model line weights were also varied to depict crack size thresholds. Wall
nificant damage at the second-floor level and along the front of the profiles were edited to show localized collapsed areas and voids.
building. The front (east) façade, con-
sisting of a series of reentrant corners
stepping out horizontally towards the
front entrance, experienced significant
corner damage throughout. Observed
damage included: diagonal cracking of
walls leading to in-plane and out-of-
plane horizontal wall displacements
up to three inches (Figure 3); mul-
tiple localized or partial collapses of
brick walls (Figure 4); failure of both
the original out-of-plane government
roof-to-wall anchors and the 1977
retrofit wall anchorage; and significant Figure 5. Site photo of damaged wall and heat map showing offset.

34 STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 6. BIM Model showing entry damage Figure 7. Example damage documentation drawings (see Figure 5 for an actual photo of the wall).
(see Figure 1 for actual photo of area).
A 3-D exterior site scan was completed shortly after the earthquake for
use in shoring design, and an internal 3-D scan of each room was com-
pleted during the damage documentation phase. The resulting data point
cloud was linked into the BIM model to verify dimensional assumptions
and aid in building deflection review and assessment. Sections were cut
through the walls with the point cloud to illustrate out-of-plane wall
displacements and verify wall thicknesses that were otherwise difficult to
identify solely through field observations. The 3-D scans were also used
to generate “heat maps” (Figure 5) showing relative out-of-plane displace-
ments in a colorized gradation to augment the documentation drawings.
Using the damage documentation 3-D BIM model (Figure 6), two-
story full-length wall elevations and 3-D views clearly illustrated crack
patterns on both sides of walls (Figures 7 and 8). Using this whole-
building approach to documenting the damage, significant two-story
diagonal crack patterns were revealed that extended through wall
faces, providing valuable insight into the global building behavior
and resulting damage extent from the earthquake.
Assessing the Damage
FEMA 306, Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry
Wall Buildings, was used to classify observed failure modes and provide
an estimated loss of strength for each wall pier along each wall line.
Typical failure patterns included wall-pier rocking, in-plane flexural
cracking, and out-of-plane flexural cracking. Additionally, significant
Figure 8. Two-story section through the main hallway showing damage documentation.
corner damage was observed due to the reentrant corner configura-
tion along the eastern front façade, resulting in the partial collapse
of two walls at the roof. In addition to the more common damage
patterns documented in FEMA 306, weak pier/spandrel joint damage
patterns were also observed at exterior corners and reentrant corners.
The combination of the field observations, 3-D BIM modeling, and
FEMA 306 analysis created a summary of the damage documenta-
tion that was used to develop a conceptual repair approach for review
and discussion with the insurance company’s peer review engineer.
Because of the historic materials and construction techniques, 140
years of use and modification, and the wide range of damage through-
out, a single repair option was not appropriate. The repair concept,
therefore, used a combination of traditional brick repair methods,
repointing, grout injection, and localized areas of brick rebuild along
the western portion of the building. However, the more heavily dam-
aged eastern portion and corridor walls required a creative repair
approach to save the historic fabric of the building and provide
improved structural performance.
This repair approach included the use of Fabric-Reinforced
Cementitious Matrix (FRCM), one of the first applications in California,
and wall reconstruction with specially-detailed CMU construction to
replace the walls in the areas of heaviest damage.
A more detailed review of the various repair and reha-
bilitation techniques utilized will appear as a future article
in STRUCTURE.■
All authors are with ZFA Structural Engineers in Santa Rosa,
California.
Luke Wilson is an Associate Principal. (lukew@zfa.com)
Brett Shields is an Engineer. (bretts@zfa.com)
Kevin Zucco is an Executive Principal. (kevinz@zfa.com)
Project Team
Owner: County of Napa
Structural Engineer: ZFA Structural Engineers
Historic Preservation Architect: TreanorHL
Architect: TLCD Architecture
Owner’s Rep: AECOM
General Contractor: Alten Construction
D E C E M B E R 2 019 35
 I n late 2018, Little, a national architecture and
engineering firm, moved its Charlotte, NC, office
into a newly constructed building in the heart of the
city’s uptown. In addition to being a flexible, adapt-
able environment pursuing both LEED and WELL
certification at a Silver level (targeted to be one of the
first WELL spaces in Charlotte), the interior upfit
focuses on vibrancy, energy, rawness, complexity, and,
most of all, connectivity. Helping to drive all of these
factors through the 14th, 15th, and 16th floors occupied
by the firm, Little incorporated an open, internal
staircase that acts as a focal point – an architectural
center of gravity.
This monumental centerpiece, however, is not a
typical connecting stair. Little used its engineering,
design, and architectural expertise to create a structure
that not only facilitates impromptu meetings and idea
exchange but provides an unexpected visual statement
View from Level 15.
– starting at the top.

HANGING A Aligning Architectural and

Engineering Goals

MONUMENTAL
Instead of being traditionally anchored and reinforced
at the lower level, which would disturb existing ten-
ants on the 13th floor below, this 30,000-pound stair
hangs from a four-pronged, structural mast on the

STAIR
underside of the building’s 17th floor.
By Dan Wray, P.E., and Bryan Starr, P.E., S.E.,
Ensuring structural reliability was a challenge for
the design team. The team knew it did not want to
LEED AP BD+C
add significant strengthening to the existing building
structure. Using the existing building as it was origi-
International WELL Building Institute (IWBI) defines WELL as “Buildings and Communities nally designed reduces the carbon footprint of the
that help people thrive.” Where LEED focuses on the performance of a building, WELL renovation while also making it more cost-effective.
focuses on the performance of the occupants. WELL Building Certification was developed With the stair connecting three of Little’s floors, the
through a medically proven research matrix that focuses on the health and wellness of team was able to remove the mildly reinforced con-
building occupants. WELLv1 is based on seven concepts (Air, Water, Nourishment, Light, crete slab and a 21-inch mildly reinforced concrete
Fitness, Comfort, and Mind) with over 100 features (www.wellcertified.com). beam at two levels, totaling 56,000 pounds of con-
crete – more weight than the actual stair. The team
distributed the load of the stair to the underside of
the 17th-floor beams with bolted steel channels to support the stair
and designed for the live loads required by code.
The team initially evaluated a straight hanger to suspend the stair
from the 17th floor. However, this type of hanger pushed almost the
entire load to the 17th floor, which would have required strengthen-
ing the existing structure. Instead, after several iterations, the team
crafted a four-pronged structural mast to transfer some of the load,
due to flexibility of the prongs, to the 16th and 15th floors, allow-
ing the existing structure to adequately carry the appropriate load.
Approximately 55 percent of the dead and live loads are carried by
the 17th floor, while the 16th and 15th floors support the remainder of
the load transferred from the inside HSS14x4 stringers (see Figure 1
and further explanation below).
Every project attempts to combine architectural intent with engineering
design but, in this unique case, the two aligned perfectly. The architects
introduced a concept of a flaring mast to symbolize a ‘spark’ (one of
Little’s core values is to ‘spark’ a spirit of excitement and discovery).
This introduced the structural flexibility needed to better share the stair
load between multiple floors. Four 2¼-inch-diameter pins accomplish
the mast connection to the 17th floor. This connection is utilized to
Four-pronged hanger at Level 16.
eliminate the transfer of any moment into the existing structure while
complimenting the rawness of the design.

36 STRUCTURE magazine
 only be directly in front of the lobby elevators but also between
four PT girders to avoid cutting any post-tensioned cables. Also, the
placement eliminated requirements for reinforcing the existing slab
which was then cantilevered past the nearest girder. The maximum
cantilever of the concrete slabs and beams cut to form the stair
opening on the 15th and 16th floors was 2 feet, 7 inches from the
edge of an existing PT girder. The existing slab was checked for this
cantilever and reinforcement was deemed not necessary. One existing
12-inch-wide beam was removed from each slab for a length of 22
feet. The remaining beam on either side of the stair slab opening
was checked to verify stresses and deflections were within allowable
code requirements. The PT girders were checked with the removal
of the concrete slab to verify they were not overstressed and still
met ACI serviceability for uncracked members.

Building the Stair Structure

Figure 1. Monumental stair section.
Creating the Stair Opening
Beyond the mast concept, the design team had to evaluate the loca-
tion of the staircase carefully. The existing cast-in-place concrete
structure of the building consists of 48-inch-wide post-tensioned
(PT) girders in both directions between columns supporting mildly
reinforced beams at approximately 11-foot centers and a one-way
5-inch-thick mildly reinforced concrete slab. The location of the
17-foot by 22-foot floor opening for the stair was selected to not
The main stair structure was designed to give the impression that
the stair is “floating.” Two HSS10x6 outriggers are cantilevered
from the steel mast at each level supporting each HSS14x4 stringer,
and an HSS14x4 outrigger is cantilevered from the mast to sup-
port the landing. The main HSS14x4 stringer runs along the inside
edge of the stair directly under the inside railing and is supported
by the 15th and 16th floors as well as the HSS10x6 outriggers at the
intermediate landings, framed back to the center mast. A second-
ary HSS6x6 stringer runs along the stair approximately 2 feet, 4
inches from the outside edge of the stair (Figure 2, page 38). The
architects requested the edge of the stair treads be exposed steel,
which was termed the ‘zipper.’ The 10 gage stair treads cantilever

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

one source FOR MICROPILE

QUALITY SYSTEMS LARGE BAR . HOLLOW BAR . MULTI-BAR

reliable | durable | versatile

Large Bar Micropiles:

• Excellent choice for underpinning or emergency repairs
All-Thread Bar
— can be installed in virtually any ground condition with
with Steel Casing
minimal vibration and disturbance to existing structures.
Geo-Drill Injection Bar
• Right-handed threaded Grade 75 All-Thread Rebar in #14
Williams Multi-Bar Micropile System
– #28 along with a selection of reducer couplers that can adapt to space together any larger size bar to any small size.
• Grade 80 to 100 All-Thread Rebar, as well as 150 ksi All-Thread Bar (as alternative for micropile design application upon request).
Hollow Bar Micropiles:
• Accepted by the FHWA in the Micropile Design and Construction Guidelines Manual
Manual, Hollow Bars are being used increasingly for
micropile applications as the reinforcement bar choice in collapsing soil conditions because of their increased bond stress resultant
from the simultaneous drilling and grouting operation.
• Using sizes from 32mm – 76mm, these bars offer up to 407 kips of strength, up to 3.88in2 of cross sectional reinforcement area, and
their selection modulus provides considerable bending resistance.
Multi-Bar Micropiles:
• Used for attaining ultra-high load carrying capacity. High-rise office buildings and condos are construction examples where such high
Construction photos courtesy of load carrying micropiles (mini-caissons) are used.
Williams Form Engineering Corp.
• Designed to specific contractor specifications and shipped to the jobsite fabricated in durable cages for quick installation.

Williams Form Engineering Corp. has been a leader in manufacturing System illustrations courtesy of
quality products for the customer service for over 80 years. Williams Form Engineering Corp.

Belmont, MI 616.866.0815
San Diego, CA 858.320.0330
Golden, CO 303.216.9300
Lithia Springs, GA 770.949.8300
Portland, OR 503.285.4548
Collegeville, PA 610.489.0624
Kent, WA 253.854.2268 For More Information Visit:
London, ON 515.659.9444
williamsform.com
D E C E M B E R 2 019 37
 Base of the stair.

2 feet, 4 inches past this secondary stringer and support the C4

zipper, which in turn supports the outside railing.
The design of the stair also included checking step live loading
with live load only on half the stair, as well as only on the landings,
to verify stresses and movement. Differential deflections of the 15th-
and 16th-floor structural members were also checked as altering these
movements changed the amount of load supported by the 17th floor.
Figure 2. Monumental stair isometric.
Executing the Installation constructed at the fabricator’s (CM Steel) shop and then cut into 42
Even with diligent planning from both the engineering and design pieces to be delivered and re-connected on site. Once in the space,
team, the stair execution did not come without its challenges. the stair was pieced back together using full penetration welds.
One obstacle was the limited size of the building freight elevator The construction sequence took advantage of the existing floor by
and getting materials to the 16th floor. The solution – the stair was installing the hanger framework on the underside of the 17th floor
before cutting the new holes in levels 16 and 15.
The team also had to pay careful attention to not damaging rebar

AutoTight®
and PT cables while adding the connections to the 17th floor and
attaching the stringers to the 15th and 16th floors (bolted to the PT
girders). All reinforcement and PT cables were located by the use of
X-ray and ground-penetrating radar (GPR) before drilling.
TIGHTER CONNECTIONS While the structural integrity of the stair was important, so was its
BETTER PERFORMANCE architectural design. A winding ribbon of structural steel that cre-
ates a finished backbone rendered in white is a stark contrast to the
rawness of the steel that it threads together. All exposed steel was left
to patina for several months in the field and was later rubbed with
a protectant bee’s wax. Bee’s wax was selected to meet the WELL
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

requirements for the space.

The apparent hand of the craftsperson was also integral, and the
materials used were critical in how the stair would invite users. In
this case, the more ‘raw,’ the better. Bolted connections, welds, bends,
and cuts became the narrative to the inherent beauty of material, in
  how they look, feel, and sound. The visible welds were lightly ground
smooth to keep with the rawness. The stair railing surrounding the
stairway was envisioned by the design team to mimic the shading of
architectural sketches.
This three-story monumental stair, suspended in the center of Little’s
space, is sensible and understandable yet impressive in unexpected
ways. Since physical activity is essential to our health, this feature,
luring employees away from the elevator and encouraging
movement, has been a key feature in supporting the environ-
ment’s pursuit of WELL Silver Certification.■

Dan Wray is Little’s Structural Engineering Studio Principal in Charlotte,

NC, and an officer with the Charlotte chapter of the SEAoNC.
ZERO LOOSENESS (daniel.wray@littleonline.com)
Bryan Starr works remotely for Little from Boise, Idaho, where he is an
PH: (360) 378-9484 – WWW.COMMINSMFG.COM officer with SEAI. (bryan.starr@littleonline.com)

38 STRUCTURE magazine

American Wood Council
Phone: 202-463-2766
Web: www.awc.org
Product: Permanent Wood Foundation
Design Specification
Description: A load-bearing wood-frame wall system
designed for both above and below-grade; use as a
foundation for light frame construction including
residential buildings. This document primarily
addresses the structural design requirements.
ASDIP Structural Software
Phone: 407-284-9202
Web: www.asdipsoft.com
Product: ASDIP RETAIN
Description: A software for design of retaining walls in
less time. It includes the design of cantilever, restrained,
and counterfort retaining walls, either supported on
piles or supported on soil. See the graphic results
immediately with every change. Do it faster, do it right.
Concrete Masonry Association
of CA & NV
Phone: 916-722-1700
Web: www.cmacn.org
Product: CMD18 Design Tool for Masonry
Description: Structural design of reinforced concrete
and clay hollow unit masonry elements for design of
masonry elements in accordance with provisions of
Ch. 21 of 2010 through 2019 CBC or 2009 through
2018 IBC and 2008 through 2016 Building Code
Requirements for Masonry Structures (TMS 402).
Not listed?
All 2020 Resource Guide forms are now
available on our website. STRUCTUREmag.org.
ProWall Tools
Innovative Software by Hohmann & Barnard
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org
ProWall Tools’ Wall
Compatibility tool helps
make your project easier!
prowall.h-b.com
40 STRUCTURE magazine
EARTH RETENTION guide
ENERCALC / RetainPro
Phone: 800-424-2252
Web: http://retainpro.com
Product: RetainPro
Description: For 30 years, RetainPro has provided time
saving tools for analyzing/designing most types of earth
retention structures. Concrete, masonry, cantilevered,
restrained, gravity walls, segmental walls with/without
geogrids (MSE), soldier pile, gabion, and more.
Handles multiple loading conditions and stem designs.
Check out our major new segmental wall update.
IES, Inc.
Phone: 800-707-0816
Web: www.iesweb.com
Product: QuickRWall
Description: Engineers turn to QuickRWall when
they need retaining wall designs they can trust.
With transparent reporting, get hand-calculation
type reports complete with equations, intermediate
values, code references, and sketches. This is no
black-box tool, but a powerful way to design or
check gravity, cantilevered, or propped walls.
RISA
Phone: 949-951-5815
Web: risa.com
Product: RISAFoundation
Description: The ultimate tool for analysis and
design of concrete and masonry retaining walls,
as well as two-way mat slabs, spread footings,
grade beams, piles, and pile caps. Open modeling
environment. The addition of punching shear
checks, rebar design, and international codes
make it the smart choice for engineers.
STRUCTUREPOINT
Phone: 847-966-4357
Web: www.structurepoint.org
Product: spMats
Description: Widely used for analysis, design,
and investigation of concrete mat foundations,
footings, and slabs on grade. spMats is equipped
with the American (ACI 318-14) and Canadian
(CSA A23.3-14) concrete codes. Utilized by
engineers worldwide to optimize complicated
foundation design and improve analysis of soil
structure interaction.
Product: spWall
Description: From shear walls and retaining
walls to precast, ICF, and tilt-up walls, engineers
worldwide use spWall to optimize complicated
wall design, reinforcing, and deflections. spWall's
graphical interface easily generates complex wall
models. Wall geometry, material properties, loads
(point, line, area), and support conditions are
assigned graphically by the user.
Tensar International Corporation
Phone: 800-836-7271
Web: www.tensarcorp.com
Product: ARES, Mesa and SierraScape Retaining
Wall Systems
Description: Easy to stage and install, reduced
construction time and costs, and long-term durability,
performance, and structural integrity. ARES is
especially suited to transportation projects. Mesa
serves virtually every sector. SierraScape Wire Formed
Retaining Walls provide for varying curves; face angles
can be created for a more natural look.
Trimble
Phone: 678-737-7379
Web: www.tekla.com/us
Product: Tekla Structural Designer
Description: Built-in loading wizards
automatically calculate all wind and seismic
forces, generate design cases, and optimize
the design of steel and concrete members
to the latest AISC, ACI, and ASCE 7
design codes. Engineers can review detailed
calculations with code clauses and print
complete reports for review submittals.
Product: Tekla Tedds
Description: A powerful design program
for automating wind and seismic
calculations and performing member
designs. Built-in library of calculations
for quickly calculating ASCE 7 wind
and seismic forces for any structure and
component design modules, beams,
columns and foundation designs. Link the
modules to create a professional report for
review submittals.
 HeliCAP® Helical Capacity Design Software,
a proprietary engineering software for
confident helical engineering.
CHANCE® THE CERTIFIED HELICAL PILE™

HPSAPPS.COM/HELICAP
855-913-1135

AD04274E_1119

CHANCE HELICAL PILES ARE SUPPLIED THROUGH THE

LARGEST DISTRIBUTION NETWORK IN NORTH AMERICA.

Automation of Construction Documents and Details
By Charles Portelli AIA, RIBA, CDT and Nick Mundell
T here is no shortage of articles that make
claims about how our work can and will
be automated in the future. With the recent
surge of development happening on the topic
of Machine Learning, these claims continue
to grow. The reality is, our industry is in a
constant state of evolution.
When we look 20 years in the past, the early
introduction of computers into the AEC space
created a significant disruption that brought
a level of efficiency by augmenting the tra-
ditional document delivery process. Analysis
applications helped streamline laborious and
time-consuming calculations engineers had
been doing manually for decades, while
CAD applications significantly increased the
efficiency in creating and revising the 2-D
documents that our industry heavily relies on.
The introduction of the computer did not
eliminate architecture or engineering as a pro-
fession but rather played an active role in its
evolution, allowing us to design more beauti-
ful and seemingly gravity-defying buildings.
Digital processes have become widely
adopted by the AEC industry and are cur-
rently the lifeblood of almost every firm. As
the computer automated certain processes
of the past, it created new opportunities ripe
for exploration.
Much automation is developed by home-
grown solutions within forward-thinking
firms, which focus on the development of
in-house applications to assist in streamlining
projects, allowing the firm to be more inno-
vative in their engineering solutions. These
custom solutions and design workflows help
optimize project delivery.
30 Hudson Yards
An example of automation is the work done
on the recently completed tower, 30 Hudson
Yards. Designed by Kohn Pedersen Fox, this
building consists of a 73-story, 1,268-foot
glass tower above reclaimed land spanning
the west side rail yards of Manhattan.
Thornton Tomasetti (TT) was commis-
sioned for the engineering and detailing of
the steel structure. From the early onset,
all project stakeholders set an objective to
deliver the project using BIM. The project
documentation and models were delivered
STRUCTURE magazine
via LOD400 to allow the models to be
used for construction and fabrication of the
steel structure. At the time, TT’s CORE
studio developed a common data environ-
ment (CDE) called TTX, later rebranded as
Konstru, which allowed engineers to move
model data between analysis, documentation,
and detailing applications seamlessly.
Multiple applications were used to analyze
the structural systems, from lateral to grav-
ity; each system required its own method of
analysis. The results of these models con-
tained valuable information for the detailing
and construction documentation process.
Konstru integrated directly into the analy-
sis applications, extracting the necessary
data and porting it to the documentation
applications natively. The data is serialized
into a common format that is application-
independent. Eliminating data silos meant
the model data can now easily be supportive
in other BIM platforms for further develop-
ment of the project. The project team did not
have to maintain many concurrent instances
of models across the variety of applications
being used on the project, which is an inef-
ficient and time-consuming process, not to
mention could be fraught with human error
making coordination grueling. The Konstru
platform assisted in keeping up with the rapid
pace of project development. Member loca-
tions were constantly in motion as program
spaces were being updated by the design team
to maximize leasable area. Trying to make
these updates manually would have made
the model obsolete by the time all framing
members were updated. The single model
set, which contained the geometric informa-
tion, as well as force data, saved countless
hours in coordination. The tower model was
exchanged weekly with project stakeholders
to keep everybody up to date.
One Vanderbilt
On One Vanderbilt, engineers within the
firm executed the project using the CDE,
while CORE studio played a support role. The
objective was to empower project engineers’
level of automaton proficiency. This required
a bit of a change in office culture, first gain-
ing the trust of engineers to demystify any
INSIGHTS
black-box scenarios and, second, by taking
active steps in the evolution of traditional
processes for project delivery. This led to the
development of an application, AutoConnect.
AutoConnect utilizes the Tekla application
programming interface (API) and leverages
force data embedded in the model elements,
coupled with structural code and standards
to auto-generate appropriately sized connec-
tion details. Traditionally, each connection
detail would be modeled individually.
AutoConnect reads attribute data built into
each member to identify the forces exerted on
the member. When this data is coupled with
design criteria and rule sets, connections can
be automatically generated in the 3-D model.
To increase transparency into the process,
safeguard measures were implemented to log
all the generated connections so they may be
reviewed in conjunction with the BIM data
in the model. A Connection Manager was
developed to look at the connections gen-
erated and allows engineers to plot out the
different connection types to identify which
connections can be standardized for ease of
fabrication, reducing overall cost.
What a Future Project
May Look Like
The skills within firms are continually evolv-
ing. Designers and engineers are becoming
more facile with developing bespoke solu-
tions. Automation allows engineers to focus
on creating elegant solutions. As an industry,
we should aim to go beyond basic BIM and
parametric models and aspire to positively
impact the evolution of the AEC industry.■
The online version of this article
contains references. Please visit
www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
Charles Portelli is the Senior Associate
Application Developer at Thornton Tomasetti.
(cportelli@thorntontomasetti.com)
Nick Mundell is the Director of CORE
Modeling at Thornton Tomasetti.
(nmundell@thorntontomasetti.com)
D E C E M B E R 2 019 43
 NCSEA
NCSEA News
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
2019 SEA Grant Program Recipients 2019 Excellence in
The NCSEA Grant Program was developed to assist Member Organizations Structural Engineering
(SEAs) in growing their Association and promoting the structural engineering
profession, in accordance with the NCSEA Mission Statement: NCSEA
Award Winners
advances the practice of structural engineering by representing and strengthening The winners of NCSEA's 2019 Excellence
its Member Organizations.
in Structural Engineering Awards were
The 2019 Grant Recipients are: announced at the Summit in Anaheim,
CA last month. This program annually
Structural Engineers Association of Central California (SEAOCC)
to enhance SEAOCC’s new Structural Engineering, Engagement, and
highlights some of the best examples of
Equity (SE3) Committee structural engineering ingenuity throughout
the world. Turn to page 26 to learn about
Structural Engineers Association of San Diego (SEAOSD)
this year's winning projects!
to support the EERI San Diego-Tijuana Regional Earthquake Scenario Study
and a Special Wind Region Study
Structural Engineers Association of Illinois (SEAOI)
to host a Young Professionals Workshop
Structural Engineers Association of Kansas/Missouri (SEAKM)
to launch a SEAKM SE3 Committee Panel Discussion & Networking Event,
and to assist with STEM classes for local elementary school students
Structural Engineers Association of Massachusetts (SEAMass)
to launch a SEAMASS SE3 Committee - Interactive Seminar Series
Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY)
for a screening of the documentary Leaning Out with panel
Structural Engineers Association of Ohio (SEAoO)
for a Young Members’ Track at SEAoO’s Annual Conference

Oklahoma Structural Engineers Association (OSEA)

to assist OSEA’s efforts in the Engineering Fair E-week 2020 Bridge
Competition
Structural Engineers Association of Texas (SEAoT)
to support a local SE3 Speed Mentoring event
Structural Engineers Association of Washington (SEAW)
to assist with a Joint Oregon and Washington Special Regions Wind Study

Congratulations to this year's recipients!

2018 Grant Program Recipient SEAOH Performs Student Outreach

The Structural Engineers Association of Hawaii (SEAOH) was awarded $1,000 for Structural Engineering Student Outreach as part of the
2018 Grant Program. SEAOH used the funds to host a series of weekly sessions working with middle school students. These weekly sessions
introduced students to bridge engineering concepts and guided them through the design and creation of their own foam bridges. At the
completion of the program, they held a ceremony for final presentations and awards; at this ceremony each student took turns load testing
their bridges and presenting their design concepts to a panel of judges. The bridges were scored on aesthetics, structural design, and design
efficiency, and the students were scored on their presentation skills.
The event was deemed a success by all involved! The feedback received was positive and students even stated that they walked away with a
better understanding and an interest in the complexity of bridge design.

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

MO Public Outreach Challenge – Finalists Announced

This year, the NCSEA Communications Committee invited SEAs to
participate in the very first Member Organization Public Outreach
Challenge to inform and educate other industries, professions, and
the general public about Structural Engineering! The purpose of
this challenge was to help improve the visibility and recognition of
practicing structural engineers with outreach through news articles,
videos, blogs, and any other creative content to spread the message
about our profession and its critical role in society.
Congratulations to the very first winners
of the MO Public Challenge!
1st Place: Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC)
2nd Place: Structural Engineers Association of Illinois (SEAOI)
3rd Place: Structural Engineers Association of Oregon (SEAO)

Young Member Group of the Year Announced

Each year, NCSEA awards the Young Member Group of the Year award at the Structural Engineering Summit. This award recognizes Young
Member Groups that are providing a benefit to their young members, member organization, and communities. The 2019 Finalists were:
Minnesota Structural Engineers Association, Structural Engineers Association of Georgia, Structural Engineers Association of Massachusetts,
and Structural Engineers Association of Metro-Washington.

Congratulations to the 2019 YMG of the Year Structural Engineers Association of Minnesota

NCSEA Webinars Register by visiting www.ncsea.com

December 10, 2019
Mass Timber Structural Floor and Roof Design
Dr. Scott Breneman
This presentation is intended for designers of building systems seeking to familiarize themselves with the category of products known
as mass timber, including cross laminated timber (CLT) and nail laminated timber (NLT). Topics will include manufacturing and
product performance standards, structural design standards, and recognition in the International Building Code.

January 30, 2020

Efficient Design of Long-Span Composite Steel Deck-Slabs
Vitaliy Degtyarev, Ph.D, P.E., S.E.
Long-span composite steel deck-slabs are a special type of composite slab, which allows for the design of buildings with large open
spaces and requires special design consideration not typical for conventional composite steel deck-slabs. In this session,
the ways of obtaining efficient designs of long-span composite slabs by providing supplemental reinforcing bars for extra
strength, deflection control, and establishing fire resistance are presented.

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

D E C E M B E R 2 019 45
 SEI Update
Learning / Networking

STRUCTURAL STRUCTURES Sponsor/Exhibit

CONGRESS 2020
ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE to showcase
St. Louis, Missouri I April 5-8 your brand.

Register now for the Premier Event in Structural Engineering – Flex and Group Registration Available. Apply for an
SEI Futures Fund Student/Young Professional Scholarship by January 3 to participate. www.structurescongress.org

SEI Local Leaders Conference

50+ local SEI Chapter and Young Professional Leaders participated in a Leadership Facilitation Skills
Bootcamp October 25-26, at ASCE in Reston, VA. The extended program was made possible with
support from Computers & Structures, Inc., and the SEI Futures Fund. #SEILocalLeaders19

Iconic Global Structures Conference in Dubai

“Attending the Iconic Global Structures Conference in Dubai was a great experience. It was interesting to
learn about how structures – from the Singapore Sports Hub stadium to the London Eye to new super tall
multi-use buildings – compared to their cohorts in other parts of the world. A major conversation topic
was the methodology of building beyond the code – as most of these structures pushed the boundaries of
structural engineering. It was really cool to hear how these engineers were able to take core principles and
manipulate them to achieve safety and efficiency. It highlighted the dynamism of structural engineering SEI/ASCE leaders at Burj Khalifa
and made me all the more excited to join the field!” Genevieve Graham, S.M.ASCE Read more at www.asce.org/SEINews.

Membership
Thank you to 2019 SEI Sustaining Organization Members
Elite Level: Alfred Benesch & Company • Hayward Baker, Inc.
Basic Level: Boswell Engineering • Geopier Foundations • Hardesty & Hanover • International Code Council
Schnabel Foundation Company • Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc. • Simpson Strong-Tie • Walter P Moore
Join SEI as a Sustaining Organization Member to reach more than 30,000 SEI members year-round, and show your support for SEI to
advance and serve the structural engineering profession. www.asce.org/SEI

SEI Online
Order Your Bridges 2020
Calendar Today
$13.95 | 2 for $20 + shipping/handling
www.asce.org/Product.aspx?isbn=9780784415375

SEI on Twitter SEI on Facebook SEI Standards

Follow us: @ASCE_SEI Visit www.asce.org/SEIStandards to:
Follow us: @SEIofASCE
View ASCE 7 development cycle

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

46 STRUCTURE magazine
 News of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
Students/Young Professionals
International Research – Applications Now Open
International Research Experiences in Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering through ASU in collaboration with ASCE and
NSF. Application open for Spring 2020 semester abroad. https://ireccee.engineering.asu.edu

Congratulations to Recipients of the 2019 O.H. Ammann

Research Fellowship in Structural Engineering
Sina Basereh, S.M.ASCE – University of Buffalo Mirela Tumbeva, S.M.ASCE – University of Notre Dame
Ran Cao, S.M.ASCE – The City College of New York Christopher Michael Zaverdas, S.M.ASCE – Rensselaer
Fei Ding, P.E., A.M.ASCE – University of Notre Dame Polytechnic Institute

Advancing the Profession

SEI President Glenn Bell on Future Vision for Structural Engineering
View his address from October 22 at Northeastern University www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRRX4V3j-bE.

THANK YOU
Thank you to SEI Futures Fund Donors who gave through the Ashraf Habibullah/ Computers & Structures Inc. 4:1
Challenge Match this summer! The total amount raised during the challenge through August was $21,875 from 71
donors. Through your combined generosity, more than $60,000 will go to SEI strategic initiatives investing in the
future of SE, student and young professional involvement, and professional development. Learn more and give www.asce.org/SEIFuturesFund.

Structural Standards Coordination Council (SSCC)

By J. Greg Soules, P.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE, Chair, Structural Standards Coordination Council

There are a lot of moving parts in the development of SEI standards.
One of these moving parts is the coordination of SEI standards with
codes and standards produced outside of SEI. The Structural Standards
Coordination Council (SSCC) is an SEI board-level committee
established to do just that.
The mission of the SSCC is to provide an organized mechanism for
planning and coordinating the development schedules of structural
standards developed and maintained by U.S. standards development
organizations (SDO) for the benefit of public safety, health, and
welfare, as well as for the benefit of structural engineering practice.
The SSCC has several overall goals:
1) Promote the code adoption of SSCC member standards
2) Improve communication between SSCC member
organizations.
3) Promote coordinated development schedules among SSCC
member organizations.
4) Provide a forum for coordinating technical content in SSCC
member standards.
5) Provide a forum for enhancing the usability of SSCC
member standards.
6) Provide a forum for discussing issues of common concern.
7) Provide a forum for longer-term discussions and coordination
for structural standards code development.
8) Provide a forum to discuss educational outreach for standards.
9) Provide a platform for coordination with other SDOs and
code bodies in areas of mutual concern.
The following organizations are SSCC members:
• ASCE/SEI
• ACI (American Concrete Institute)
• AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction)
• AISI (American Iron and Steel Institute)
• AWC (American Wood Council)
• The Masonry Society (TMS)
• NCSEA (National Council of Structural Engineers
Associations)
With regards to the publication of ASCE/SEI 7 Minimum Design
Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, the
overall goal is for ASCE 7 requirements to be coordinated with the
material standards published by the member organizations shown
above and to have ASCE 7 and these material standards adopted into
the IBC. On occasion, the ICC changes its process and timetable for
the submission of standards to be adopted into the IBC. When these
changes occur, the members of the SSCC must work together to
produce coordinated standards. Sometimes, the revised ICC schedule
cannot be met. When this happens, some of the material standards
will not be fully aligned with ASCE/SEI 7 for up to 3 years. For
the good of the structural engineering profession, the SSCC tries to
prevent this problem from happening.

D E C E M B E R 2 019 47
 CASE in Point
Did you know?
CASE has tools and practice guidelines to help firms deal with a wide variety of business scenarios that structural engineering firms face
daily. Whether your firm needs to establish a new Quality Assurance Program, update its risk management program, keep track of the skills
young engineers are learning at each level of experience, or need a sample contract document – CASE has the tools you need!
CASE has recently updated its Contract Library, and they have re-issued updated Contracts that have been reviewed by outside legal
counsels. Below is a handy guide for firms to know which contract is appropriate to use in certain situations.
You can purchase these and the other Risk Management Tools at www.acec.org/bookstore.

CASE Contracts – Usage Guide

Structural Engineer is Retained
CASE Agreement #1 – An Agreement for the Provision of Limited
Professional Services. This agreement is intended for use for small
projects or investigations of limited scope and time duration.
CASE Agreement #2 – An Agreement Between Client and
Structural Engineer of Record for Professional Services. This
agreement is intended for use when the client, e.g., owner, con-
tractor developer, etc., wishes to retain the Structural Engineer of
Record directly. This agreement may also be used with a client
who is an architect when the architect-owner agreement is not an
AIA agreement.
CASE Agreement #3 – An Agreement between Owner and
Structural Engineer as Prime Design Professional. This agree-
ment is intended for use when the Structural Engineer serves as the
Prime Design Professional.
CASE Agreement #4 – An Agreement between Client and
Structural Engineer for Special Inspection Services. This agree-
ment is intended for use when the Structural Engineer is hired directly
by the Owner to provide Special Inspection services.
CASE Agreement #5 – An Agreement Between Client and Specialty
Structural Engineer for Professional Services. This agreement is
intended for use when the structural engineer is hired directly by a
contractor or sub-contractor for work to be included in a project
where you are not the Structural Engineer of Record.
CASE Agreement #6 – An Agreement Between Client and Structural
Engineer for a Structural Condition Assessment. This agreement is
intended for use when providing a structural condition assessment.
CASE Agreement #7 – An Agreement for Structural Peer Review
Services. This agreement is intended for use when performing a peer
review for an Owner or another entity and includes responsibilities
and limitations.
CASE Agreement #8 – An Agreement Between Client and Structural
Engineer for Forensic Engineering (Expert) Services. This agreement
is intended for use when the engineer is engaged as a forensic expert,
primarily when the Structural Engineer is engaged as an expert in
the resolution of construction disputes. It can be adapted to other
circumstances where the Structural Engineer is a qualified expert.
Structural Engineer is Retaining Additional Entity
CASE Agreement #9 – An Agreement Between Structural Engineer
of Record and Design Professional for Services. This agreement
is intended for use when the Structural Engineer of Record, when
serving in the role of Prime Design Professional or as a Consultant,
retains the services of a sub-consultant or architect.
CASE Agreement #10 – An Agreement Between Structural Engineer
of Record and Geotechnical Engineer of Record. This agreement
is intended for use when the Structural Engineer of Record retains
geotechnical engineering services. It can also be altered for use as an
agreement between an Owner and the Geotechnical Engineer of Record.
CASE Agreement #11 – An Agreement Between Structural
Engineer of Record and Testing Laboratory. This document is
intended for use when the Structural Engineer retains testing services.
Other Situations
CASE Agreement #12 – An Agreement Between Structural
Engineer of Record (SER) And Contractor for Transfer of Digital
Data (Computer Aided Drafting (CAD) or Building Information
Model (BIM)) Files. This agreement is intended for use when trans-
ferring CAD or BIM files to others.
CASE Commentary #A – Agreement for Use with and Commentary
on AIA Document C401 “Standard Form of Agreement Between
Architect and Consultant,” 2017 Edition. This document is intended
for use as a letterform of an agreement that adopts the AIA C401
by reference. This Agreement is intended for use when the owner-
architect agreement is an AIA B-series. A scope of services is included.
The purpose of the commentary is to point out provisions that merit
special attention.
CASE Commentary #B – Commentary on AIA Document A295
– 2008 “General Conditions of the Contract for Integrated Project
Delivery,” 2008 Edition. This document provides commentary on
AIA Document A295 Integrated Project Delivery.
CASE Commentary #C – Commentary on AIA Document A201
“General Conditions of the Contract for Construction,” 2017
Edition. This document provides Commentary on AIA document
A201-2017 sections that merit special attention.

48 STRUCTURE magazine
 News of the Council of American Structural Engineers
Donate to the CASE Scholarship Fund!
The ACEC Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE) is currently seeking contributions to help make the structural engineering
scholarship program a success. The CASE scholarship, administered by the ACEC College of Fellows, is awarded to a student seeking a
Bachelor’s degree, at minimum, in an ABET-accredited engineering program. Since 2009, the CASE Scholarship program has given $32,000
to help engineering students pave their way to a bright future in structural engineering.
We have all witnessed the stiff competition from other disciplines and professions eager to obtain the best and brightest young talent from
a dwindling pool of engineering graduates. One way to enhance the ability of students to pursue their dreams to become professional
engineers is to offer incentives in educational support.
Your monetary support is vital in helping CASE and ACEC increase scholarships to those students who are the future of our industry. All
donations toward the program may be eligible for a tax deduction, and you don’t have to be an ACEC member to donate! Contact Heather
Talbert at htalbert@acec.org to donate.

CASE Winter Member Meeting

February 27-28, 2020
The 2020 CASE Winter Member Meeting is scheduled for February
27-28, 2020, in New Orleans. The agenda for the meeting includes:
Thursday – February 27
1:30 pm to 5:30 pm CASE ExCom Meeting
6:15 pm to 7:30 pm CASE Project Speaker
Friday – February 28
7:30 am to 8:30 am Shared Breakfast
8:30 am to 10:00 pm CASE Roundtable – Stacy Bartoletti,
Moderator
10:00 am to 10:30 am Shared Morning Break
10:30 am to 12:00 pm Technology Panel Discussion – Kevin
Peterson, Moderator Registration can be found at
12:00 pm to 1:15 pm Shared Lunch www.acec.org/coalitions/upcoming-coalition-events.
1:30 pm to 5:30 pm CASE Breakout Sessions
Questions? Contact Heather Talbert at htalbert@acec.org.

Manual for New Consulting Engineers

An HR Favorite for New Hires
ACEC’s best-seller, “Can I Borrow Your Watch?” A Beginner’s Guide to Succeeding in a Professional Consulting
Organization offers new engineers a head start in the business of professional consulting. This essential guide is tailored
to the unique needs of engineering firms, and the skills and experiences rookie consultants need to be successful in a
large organization, including:
• Proposal Preparation • Financial Management • Client Relationships
• Project Management • Staff Management
With over 140 pages of consulting expertise, this resource is the perfect addition to any new staffer’s welcome pack or in-house orientation.
It can even be a useful resource for more seasoned engineers looking to refine their skills. To order this book, go to www.acec.org/bookstore.
Bulk ordering is available; for more information, contact Maureen Brown (mbrown@acec.org).

Follow ACEC Coalitions on Twitter – @ACECCoalitions.

D E C E M B E R 2 019 49

A Check-Up of Your Firm’s Quality Assurance Plan
By Jeff Morrison
M any times, the phrases quality assur-
ance and quality control are used
interchangeably. Quality assurance (QA) is
process-focused, where the processes are put
in place to ensure the correct steps are per-
formed. Quality control (QC) is used to verify
that deliverables are of acceptable quality and
that they are complete and correct. As this
relates to structural engineering, one may
think of QA as the process we go through
during our design and construction document
production phases and QC as the review exer-
cise at the end of a project to determine how
well the process worked in producing a quality
set of construction documents that met the
needs of the client, owner, and contractor.
It is critical to make sure that all staff under-
stand the important goals of this process, such
as increasing the quality of the firm’s work
product, decreasing liability, and serving as
a learning opportunity. The process should
be approached in a context of teamwork and
camaraderie; this can go a long way in build-
ing a culture of quality and obtaining buy-in
from all staff. The goal of the process is not
to be burdensome or add another task but
rather, in the long term, to increase efficiency
and learning.
Recommendations
Have a kick-off meeting with the entire
project team to get the project off on the
right foot in the early Concept/Schematic
Design phase. Involve all staff working on
the project, including engineers, technicians,
and the QA reviewer. At this meeting, share
the project background information, client,
consultants, scope, and schedule. Review the
main elements of the project such as gravity
framing systems, lateral-load-resisting sys-
tems, foundation system, basic wall sections,
serviceability requirements, and any special
requirements or unique details that can be
identified. This can also serve as a mini design
charette to brainstorm ideas and start thinking
about some of the more challenging aspects
of a project. Review with the technical staff
the organization of drawing sheets, building
information modeling (BIM) model, as well
as BIM execution plan requirements and BIM
level of development requirements.
After completion of the Design Development
phase, a formal QA review should be per-
formed. This is an excellent opportunity to
50 STRUCTURE magazine
CASE business practices
review all major structural elements, design
criteria, typical wall sections, and details. This
check is important to make sure all primary
elements are properly accounted for in the
most efficient, economical, and constructible
way early in the project. It will also serve as a
check to verify if the assumptions and decisions
made at the project kick-off are still accurate or
if any adjustments need to be made.
A thorough QA review should be performed
near the end of the Construction Document
phase; additional reviews at appropriate
milestones during this phase should also be
performed for larger or more complex proj-
ects. These check-in reviews can serve to make
sure the project stays on track throughout a
lengthy design process. At this point, the review
should be focused on the details of the project
and coordination with architectural and other
consultants. Dimensional and detail coordina-
tion is essential at this stage. At this point, an
engineering design and construction docu-
ments checklist can be used as a valuable tool.
Challenges
Several factors can make the QA process for
structural engineering firms challenging. Our
design process and each project are typically
different and unique. Whether it be a fast
track schedule, architectural challenges, exist-
ing building or site conditions, or complex
owner requirements, all of these items make
the development and implementation of a
quality assurance plan that applies to all proj-
ect sizes and types a challenge.
• Time – We are all busy, and making
time for additional review during the
design process can be a challenge.
However, the QA process needs to be
looked at as one that can be a great tool
to increase efficiency, improve quality,
provide excellent learning opportuni-
ties, reduce construction phase issues,
and decrease liability exposure.
• Scalable – The plan should be nimble
and scalable to work for the smallest
to largest project. The smallest proj-
ect may only require a brief review of
the final documents at the end of the
project. The largest and most complex
projects will likely require multiple
check-ins during each phase to verify
that the project team is staying on track
and on schedule.
Resources
CASE has several documents and tools
available to assist with the QA process.
These include:
CASE 962-D – A Guideline Addressing
Coordination and Completeness of
Structural Construction Documents
Tool 1-2 – Developing a Culture of
Quality
Tool 9-1 – A guideline Addressing
Coordination and Completeness of
Structural Construction Documents
(includes a drawing review checklist)
Tool 9-2 – Quality Assurance Plan
• Accountability – What will be the
means to track accountability to make
sure the process is being followed? This
needs to be a consistent emphasis to
all staff during regular staff meetings.
Adequate time needs to be built into
the production schedule to allow for
both the QA review, and analysis and
response to the comments. This will
build a culture of quality, and, over
time, it will become an ingrained part
of the project planning process.
Questions to Consider
A few questions to consider in the review of
your firm’s QA plan:
• Who will perform the QA reviews,
and how will this be assigned for
each project?
• What projects require a QA review,
and how will this be determined for
each project?
• When will the QA reviews occur?
• Why are we doing this? Buy-in from all
staff and understanding the importance
of this process is critical to making sure it
happens and that the process is given the
care and attention it deserves.
• How will this fit in our work
process schedule?■
Jeff Morrison is Vice President and Senior Project
Engineer at Lynch Mykins in Raleigh, NC. He
also serves on the CASE Toolkit Committee.
(jmorrison@lynchmykins.com)
D E C E M B E R 2 019
 ACI University All-Access
ACI 212.3R-10
Digital Subscription
Report on Chemical
Admixtures for Concrete

Reported by ACI Committee 212

The American Concrete Institute

announces a new all-access subscription
to ACI University webinars and on-demand
courses. This 12-month subscription
includes all ACI monthly webinars and
ACI’s 220+ on-demand courses. Multi-user
options are also available. Visit
www.aciuniversity.com to subscribe

Prices as low as $99.00

220+ On Demand Courses | Monthly Webinars | Multi-User Options | 55+ Different Topics

www.ACIUniversity.com