STRUCTURE

NCSEA | CASE | SEI APRIL 2020

CONCRETE

INSIDE: Many Glacier Hotel 22

High Strength Reinforcement 9
Bond Strength of Adhesive Anchors 12
Building Above Coal Mines 24
CONNECT ELEGANTLY
The CAST CONNEX® Architectural Taper™
(ART) + Universal Pin Connector™ (UPC) is a
creative connection detail for circular
hollow structural section (HSS)/Pipe members
achieved by combining two standardized Cast
Connex off-the-shelf connectors.
Efficient
Cast Connex ART+UPCs enable efficient
connections when used in compression members
where loading allows a small pin connection
relative to the size of the member.
ARCHITECTURAL TAPER™ +
UNIVERSAL PIN CONNECTOR™
www.castconnex.com
Stylish. Sophisticated. Deliberate.
The newly renovated Baraboo High School’s
updated design focuses on transformative
and collaborative spaces and draws influence
from its surrounding vista. The building’s
exterior features expansive curtainwall and a
large cantilevered roof canopy supported
by HSS members fitted with Cast Connex®
Architectural Tapers™ and Universal Pin
Connectors™ at both ends. The result: a slender,
transcendental, and thoughtful expression
for exterior HSS connections.
Baraboo High School, WI
Designed by Eppstein Uhen Architects
Structural Engineer Pierce Engineers
Photography by C&N Photography
Sophisticated
Used together, the ART+UPC provide an
elegant aesthetic form that reduces the visual
mass of both the connected member and
the connection joint itself.
Hollow Structural Section Elevated
• Available in sizes to fit a range of HSS
members
• Pre-engineered: two simple welds are
all it takes
• Designed specifically for AESS conditions
making them easy for fabricators to
work with
• Stainless-steel hardware included (UPC)
innova�ve components for inspired designs
 ONEDEK ™

THE FUTURE
OF ROOF DECK CONSTRUCTION
OneDek™ from All Weather Insulated Panels is a superior alternative to traditional
roof deck systems. Requiring fewer steps to install, OneDek™ saves construction
time in providing exceptional energy efficiency for your low-slope roofing project,
and an industry exclusive 20-year top-to-bottom “System Warranty” is available.

MULTI-STEP TRADITIONAL Membrane

BUILT UP DECK SYSTEM
 Smooth flat exterior
Multiple layers steel substrate
of rigid board
Field-applied
Membrane

10”-14”

Steel decking

Requires numerous long deck screws

attached through multi-layer system

Composite Insulated Roof Deck Panel

R values up to 50 (6” thick)

Commercial / Industrial / Cold Storage THE ONEDEK
OneDek™ is the revolutionary insulated roof deck with insulation and
TM

SYSTEM
2 is better than
OneDek™
3
substrate formed at the factory so it arrives on the job site more secure Step 1: Composite Insulated Deck
and stronger than components of traditional built-up roof applications. Step 2: Waterproofing
Other Multi-Layer System
• Incredibly fast installation, no on-site application of rigid foam insulation Step 1: Steel Decking
• Steel substrate provides exceptional damage & fire resistance Step 2: Multi Layer Rigid Insulation
• Tested for diaphragm shear resistance and wind uplift Step 3: Waterproofing
• TPO or PVC membranes easily fastened mechanically or fully adhered
• Interior factory white painted steel in clean washable finish reduces lighting needs
• “System Warranty” covers membrane through to structural steel, including insulation and fastening applications

www.awipanels.com
Contact: Sales@awipanels.com
888-970-AWIP (2947)
 ADVERTISER INDEX Please support these advertisers
STRUCTURE ®

Adhesives Technology Corp ....................27 Hohmann & Barnard ..............................35 MARKETING & ADVERTISING SALES
Aegis Metal Framing ..............................11 Integrated Engineering Software ...............29 sales@STRUCTUREmag.org

American Concrete Institute .....................43 KPFF .....................................................4 Joe Murphy

jmurphy@STRUCTUREmag.org; Tel: 203-254-9595
Anthony Forest Products ..........................25 Larsen Products Corp..............................32
Denis O’Malley
AWI Panels ............................................3 Pieresearch ............................................8 domalley@STRUCTUREmag.org; Tel: 203-356-9694, ext. 13

Cast Connex ..........................................2 RISA ...................................................44 Jerry Preston

Commins Mfg .......................................17
CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp .............19
ENERCALC, INC ..................................21
GeoDesign ..........................................34
jpreston@STRUCTUREmag.org; Tel: 602-369-3037
Simpson Strong-Tie ................................15
StructurePoint ..........................................6 EDITORIAL STAFF
Subsurface Constructors, Inc ....................33 Executive Editor Alfred Spada
aspada@ncsea.com
Publisher Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
csloat@STRUCTUREmag.org

Get YOUR name on this list! Associate Publisher Nikki Alger

nalger@STRUCTUREmag.org

Visit our website to for more info about print Creative Director Tara Smith
graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org
and digital advertising opportunities.
EDITORIAL BOARD
STRUCTUREmag.org Chair John A. Dal Pino, S.E.
FTF Engineering, Inc., San Francisco, CA
chair@STRUCTUREmag.org

YOUR OPINION MATTERS!

Jeremy L. Achter, S.E., LEED AP
ARW Engineers, Ogden, UT

STRUCTURE magazine is always looking for Structural Forum (opinion) articles and Letters to the Editor. Erin Conaway, P.E.
We preserve a page at the end of the magazine to print these types of articles, as space permits. Please send AISC, Littleton, CO

your pieces to publisher@structuremag.org. And don’t forget – post questions or comments on the digital Linda M. Kaplan, P.E.
versions of articles on the STRUCTURE website. STRUCTURE looks forward to hearing from you! 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

Brian W. Miller
TOGETHER WE BUILD SOLUTIONS

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

ENR Regional Best Projects

magazine, Volume 27, Number 4, © 2020 by The National Council of
Structural Engineers Associations, all rights reserved. Subscription services,
back issues and subscription information tel: 312-649-4600, or write to

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

4 STRUCTURE magazine
 Contents APRI L 2020

Cover Feature
22 PRESERVING THE MANY GLACIER HOTEL
By Ian Glaser, P.E., and Christine Britton, P.E.

The lower of the iconic Hotel stories are concrete, and the upper stories are wood. Steel rod holdowns extend
continuously from the top of concrete to the attic level, and collectors were installed at each diaphragm level.
Each shear wall was founded on a new concrete grade beam supported by new micropiles.

Columns and Departments

7 Editorial Boost Your Career Plan 24 Construction Issues Building Above
By Nils V. Ericson III, P.E.
Underground Coal Mines
By Gennaro G. Marino, Ph.D., P.E., D.GE,
9 Code Updates High Strength Reinforcement and Abdolreza Osouli, Ph.D., P.E.

for Seismic Applications in ACI 318 -19

By Rahul Sharma, S.E., et. al
30 Codes and Standards
AASHTO Vehicle Live Loading
By Linda Kaplan, P.E.
12 Structural Components Beyond Bond
Strength of Adhesive Anchors 42 Legal Perspectives Warning Flags
By Alexis A. Clark, P.E.
for Structural Engineers
By Robert Hughes
16 Structural Practices Federal Changes
for Post-Installed Adhesive Anchors
By T. J. Bland, P.E.
In Every Issue
4 Advertiser Index
34 Resource Guide – Engineered Wood Products
18 Structural Rehabilitation Adaptive Reuse of
36 NCSEA News
the Apex Hosiery Company Building – Part 3 38 SEI Update
By D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E. 40 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.

APRIL 2020 5
A Powerful Software Suite for Detailed
Analysis & Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures
 EDITORIAL
Boost Your Career Plan
Do Not Ignore Critical Soft Skills
By Nils V. Ericson III, P.E.

D o not neglect essential business skills that you never learned Financial – How do you manage the increasing popularity of
in Engineering School! Today’s EITs, PEs, SEs, and Project subscription-based software licensing models? How do employee
Managers are tomorrow’s firm leaders. utilization rates relate to profitability? What are some of the different
Staying abreast of code revisions, construction advances, and rapidly fee development strategies used by leading firms? What are the project
evolving technology is critical for today’s structural engineer. However, and firm financial metrics you most closely monitor?
do you pay the same amount of attention to the development and Human Resources – How do you encourage a culture of inclusion
continual maintenance of skills that will be necessary when you are and diversity? How do you develop policies regarding family and medi-
faced with issues related to firm management and operations? Building cal leave? What is the appropriate (and legal) way to interview, and

‘‘
a foundation of techni- how do you standardize your
cal expertise is paramount, firm’s interview process? How
particularly at the start of do you manage the multitude
your career. But do not fail
to train that other side of
your brain, that part that
generates revenue, avoids
claims, contributes to your
firm’s culture, and weighs
the relative importance of
It may come as a surprise to some
younger engineers but, not too far
into their career, that they will likely
be spending a minority of time on
‘‘ of potential disruptions from
a worldwide pandemic such
as COVID-19?
All of the topics above (and
more) were discussed in vary-
ing settings at the Coalition
of American Structural
quality, client satisfaction,
employee satisfaction, and
traditional engineering tasks. Engineers (CASE) February
Winter Meeting in New
firm profitability. Orleans. The most benefi-
It may come as a surprise cial environment, perhaps,
to some younger engineers is one-on-one informal
but, not too far into their conversations between par-
career, that they will likely be ticipants during breaks in the
spending a minority of time scheduled program. It is now
on traditional engineering easier than ever before to gain
tasks. To successfully and profitably run an engineering business, insight and knowledge from respected industry leaders at the CASE
engineers need to develop, practice, and train risk management, Winter and Summer meetings. No longer a full day of inclusive
human resources, and financial management skills with the same committee planning, these meetings kick off on Thursday with a
commitment that they approach technical skills. dinner presentation, generally on a project or issue of local inter-
If you are a small or medium-sized firm without in-house financial, est. Discussions continue with a half-day of presentations, industry
human resources or legal departments, you may not have a sounding roundtables, and expert panels. The remainder of the day is dedicated
board to discuss approaches and strategies to address current business to open committee meetings, where you can find yourself discussing
practices and risk management issues. How would you like to have an the most pressing issues facing practicing structural engineers with
open forum to consider the following example issues facing today’s a group of generally ten or less firm principals and owners. Best
project managers, principals, and owners? of all, the meeting is open to engineers of all levels of experience,
Recruiting and Retention – Does your firm offer an atmosphere giving younger engineers and project managers unparalleled access
and culture that interests and motivates today’s graduates? How do to industry leaders.
you keep your staff challenged and engaged enough in engineering, I would also like to invite structural engineers of all experience
so they do not consider a move to another industry? What benefits levels to NCSEA’s Structural Engineering Summit in Las Vegas this
and creative compensation/benefits packages (beyond salary) do your November. This year’s Summit will include an all-new full-day program
competitors use to recruit and retain engineers? What strategies do developed jointly by NCSEA and CASE, The Business of Structural
you use for hiring a new employee with salary demands that do not Engineering, focusing on pressing business practices and
fit your firm’s compensation structure? risk management issues facing today’s Project Managers
Risk Management – How do you prepare project managers to hold and Principals.■
difficult conversations with clients and jurisdictional authorities? What
are the contract terms/clauses that raise red flags, and how do you Nils V. Ericson III is a Principal at m2 Structural in Atlanta, Georgia,
negotiate those terms with your client? What is the standard of care and the chair of the CASE Programs and Communications Committee.
as it relates to delegated design? Do you need a teaming agreement (nericson@m2structural.com)
when you are a sub-consultant on a design-build project?

STRUCTURE magazine A P R I L 2 02 0 7
 DEEP DOWN
®

WE’RE
HIGH TECH.
Choose PIERESEARCH®
for all your rebar and rebar
cage alignment projects.
Our alignment products are unique proven
designs, made of noncorrosive plastic,
install in seconds and are built tough!

Quick - Lock HD® Quick - Lock® Quick - Lock

Pier Wheel Pier Wheel Pier Boot®

Patent No. 10,584,459

Adjustable Quick-Lock Unibar® Centralizer

®

Quality Concrete Accessories Proudly Made In The USA!

EST. 1986
®
pieresearch.com • stanagee@pieresearch.com • 817.277.3738
New York Office: Herb Engler • 516.376.9807 • herbengler@pieresearch.com
code UPDATES
High Strength Reinforcement for Seismic
Applications in ACI 318-19
By Rahul Sharma, S.E., Kion Nemati, P.E., Jakub Valigura, Ph.D., Nate Warner, P.E., and Catherine Chen, S.E.

A s buildings get taller, bigger, and are required to resist higher seismic forces, the amount of reinforcement needed
becomes impractical. Even if theoretical sizes can be calculated, it may be impossible to construct tightly spaced rebar
cages or congested joint connections. Using higher strength reinforcement is a natural solution to this problem. Research
on the use of high-strength reinforcement (HSR) began in the late 1950s. The outcome of this research first appeared in
ACI 318-71, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, which allowed limited use of reinforcement with a higher
grade than 60 ksi. However, the maximum yield strength of reinforcement in elements resisting seismic loads was limited
to 60 ksi. This restriction remained in the building code until recently due to a lack of data on cyclically loaded members
with HSR. The main expected advantage of HSR over conventional reinforcement (CR) is a lower volume of reinforcement
material in construction, resulting in lower construction time and costs (Price et al. 2013). In 2014, two reports identified
experimental tests required and provisions of ACI 318 that would need to be updated to allow the use of HSR in seismic
applications (ATC 2014; NIST 2014). Later, extensive research answered many of the identified gaps (the online version of
this article includes a summary of this research). This article introduces changes in ACI 318-19 related to the use of HSR
and presents considerations engineers should be cautious of before specifying HSR.
use two equations to calculate development and lap lengths. Those two
Changes Related to HSR in ACI 318-19 equations remain largely the same except for an added reinforcement
In response to the research, ACI 318-19 introduces significant changes grade multiplier (ψg) that is equal to 1.0 for Grade 60, 1.15 for Grade
allowing more applications of HSR in concrete buildings. ACI 318-19 80, and 1.3 for Grade 100; Example 1 illustrates splice length calcula-
was released in July 2019 and will likely be referenced in the 2021 tion according to ACI 318-19 with f´c = 6 ksi. Also note that, for lap
IBC. Reinforcement in special lateral force resisting systems, which splices of HSR, the code now requires a minimum amount of splice
were previously limited to Grade 60 for flexural, axial, and shear confinement provided by transverse reinforcement along the splice.
reinforcement, can now use up to Grade 80 or Grade 100 depend-
Example 1. Splice Length Calculation
ing on the application. Additionally, various gravity elements, which
were previously limited to Grade 80, are now extended to Grade 100. Ls (#11, Grade 60, 6 ksi) = 6’-0”*; best case** = 3’-7”
Refer to Table 1 for a summary of major reinforcement grade changes Ls (#11, Grade 80, 6 ksi) = 6’-0” x (80 ksi/60 ksi) x (1.15)
from ACI 318-14 to ACI 318-19. = 9’-3”*; best case** = 6’-6”
Ls (#11, Grade 100, 6 ksi) = 6’-0” x (100 ksi/60 ksi) x (1.3)
Reinforcement Specification Requirements
= 13’-0”*; best case** = 7’-9”
These revisions occurred without the introduction of new ASTM *Use of equation in Table 25.4.2.3 (traditionally used by structural
specifications for HSR. Despite this, the adoption of higher grades was engineers for most typical conditions without epoxy coating)
not independent of new refinements to rebar manufacturing. The ACI **Best case refers to the upper limit where (cb + Ktr)/db = 2.5, in con-
318 Committee chose to address these refinements directly in the code, junction with Eq. 25.4.2.4a
in Chapter 20, by setting requirements for smoother bar deformation The minimum amount of longitudinal reinforcement for flexural
profiles, various minimum strength ratios, and minimum elongations members is inversely proportional to reinforcement yield strength
before fracture. For ASTM A706, the requirement on deformation and hence is lower for HSR than for CR. However, 80 ksi is the
profiles calls for “the radius at the base of each deformation… be at least maximum yield strength permitted to be used in equations in 9.6.1.2,
1.5 times the height of the deformation.” This requirement is intended equating minimum reinforcement areas for Grade 80 and Grade 100.
to avoid low-cycle fatigue cracks at these locations along the bar and For special structural walls, the minimum reinforcement area follows
improve the number of half-cycles to fracture. These new provisions the same pattern, except the steel yield strength is not limited in this
apply to ASTM A706 Grade 60 reinforcing as well. calculation (18.10.2.4). The maximum longitudinal reinforcement
ratio in special moment frame beams is lowered to 0.02 for Grade
Detailing Enhancements
80 reinforcement (18.6.3.1).
Perhaps the most significant changes to designing with HSR relate to Tighter transverse tie spacing is required for seismic systems using
detailing requirements. In past versions of the code, engineers could HSR to inhibit longitudinal bar buckling under higher axial stresses.
continued on next page
APRIL 2020 9
 Table 1. Changes in use of reinforcement grades between ACI 318-19 and ACI 318-14.

ACI318-19 ACI318-14
Maximum fy or fyt permitted Maximum fy or fyt permitted
Usage Application for design calculations, psi for design calculations, psi
Flexure; axial force; shrinkage
80,000 60,000
and temperature Special Moment Frames
Flexure; axial force; shrinkage
100,000 60,000
and temperature Special Structural Walls (2)
Flexure; axial force; shrinkage Other
and temperature examples: gravity columns, slabs, beams, 100,000 80,000
foundations, etc. (3)
Shear Special Moment Frames (4)(8) 80,000 60,000
Shear Special Structural Walls (5)(8) 100,000 60,000
Regions designed using Other (except longitudinal ties)
60,000 60,000
strut-and-tie method examples: strut reinforcement, etc. (6)(7)
Reference: ACI 318-19 Table 20.2.2.4(a)-Nonprestressed deformed reinforcement
1. Refer to ACI 318-19 Table 20.2.2.4(a) for a complete list of applications and limitations.
2. All components of special structural walls, including coupling beams and wall piers.
3. Longitudinal reinforcement with fy > 80,000 psi is not permitted for intermediate moment frames and ordinary moment frames resisting earthquake demands.
4. Shear reinforcement in this application includes stirrups, ties, hoops, and spirals in special moment frames.
5. Shear reinforcement in this application includes all transverse reinforcement in special structural walls, coupling beams, wall piers, and diagonal bars in coupling beams.
6. Note that this does not apply to confined regions within strut-and-tie designs.
7. Note that ACI 318-19 now has a section dedicated to seismic applications of the strut-and-tie method.
8. Shear friction applications are limited to an fy = 60,000psi.

The maximum spacing in the plastic hinge region is decreased to 5db
for Grade 80 in special moment frames (18.6.4.4 and 18.7.5.3), and
to 5db and 4db for Grade 80 and Grade 100, respectively, for special
shear walls boundary elements (Table 18.10.6.5(b)).
Additionally, stricter limitations exist for the use of mechanical splices
of HSR in seismic applications and should be considered early in the
design process (18.2.7.2). Headed bar provisions (25.4.4.1) have seen
multiple changes, one of which directly applies to HSR. The previous
limitation of fy to 60 ksi for the use of standard class HA headed bars
has now been removed, opening its application to HSR.
Stiffness Considerations
HSR allows for proportionally less area of steel to resist the same
strength demands as traditional reinforcement. This economy can
result in a decrease in member stiffness, which should be considered.
Most notably, this decrease is evident in minimum 2-way slab thickness
limitations for which deflections need not be calculated; the minimum
thickness limitation for 2-way slabs using Grade 80 reinforcement is
approximately 10% and 20% larger than when using Grade 60 and
Grade 40, respectively (Table 8.3.1.1).
For lateral analysis, this consideration is not explicitly addressed by
decreased modifiers for effective section stiffness
in first-order linear analyses (Table 6.6.3.1.1(a)).
However, some decreased stiffness has been
shown in research studies. Engineers concerned
with capturing this reduction more precisely
could do so by using the alternative moment
of inertia equations from Table 6.6.3.1.1(b).
• Engineers should continue to use fy of 60 ksi in their calcula-
tions for shear friction. Shear friction may begin to govern
designs as the total area of longitudinal reinforcement is
reduced with HSR. Correspondingly, greater attention should
be paid to roughening construction practices if shear friction
becomes critical in the design.
• Larger crack widths correspond to HSR yielding. This may
adversely affect certain serviceability criteria, such as steel
corrosion.
• From experience with HSR, it is the authors’ opinion that all
HSR should be very clearly marked to distinguish it from typi-
cal reinforcement on a job site; a common solution is the use
of spray paint.
• Diagonal coupling beams, challenging to construct and
typically heavily congested, could reduce diagonal reinforce-
ment congestion through the use of HSR up to Grade 100.
A secondary benefit is the production of a more favorable
tie angle in the member, which will more efficiently use the
diagonal reinforcement; this benefit is most pronounced
with shallow diagonal coupling beams (Figure 1 ). In this
example, the beam on the left achieves a more efficient tie

Important Considerations
While there are many benefits to using HSR,
there are times when the engineer should be
cautious about specifying it. Below is a partial
list of considerations that the authors believe
engineers may face during design. Figure 1. Comparison of similar diagonal coupling beams with the same shear capacity.

10 STRUCTURE magazine
 angle to resist shear than the beam on the right, resulting
in a reduction of bars to just 12 total in the Gr. 80 design.
This is more substantial than reducing the Gr. 60 design by
the ratio of stresses, 60ksi/80ksi, which would have pro-
duced 15 total bars.
• Mechanical couplers are not permitted in plastic hinge zones
utilizing HSR; the code commentary permits the EOR to over-
ride this if provided with adequate product data.
• Caution should be exercised where the use of HSR indirectly
reduces redundancy of reinforcement. An example would be
chord or collector reinforcement taken from 2 bars (total)
down to 1 bar, thereby reducing the redundancy of that ele-
ment if there was a bar defect or splice failure.
• Compression members utilizing HSR can attract and sustain
higher demands. As a result, buckling becomes a critical
consideration. Although columns typically come to mind
in this application, ends of slender shear walls can also be
of concern, especially those of asymmetric T- or L-type
configurations.
• In general, anchorage and force transfer should be of more
concern now that higher bar stresses are being transferred.
Anchorage or bond failures are more brittle and could pre-
clude an intended ductile mechanism. An example of this
would be inadequate tie development within nodal zones of
strut and tie models.
• The engineer should check with suppliers on the availability of
HSR. Manufacturers may have size limitations on various bar
configurations.
Conclusion
For many years, using HSR in seismic applications has been restricted
due to a lack of test data. However, a push from the structural engi-
neering community has led to recent studies which alleviate the
restriction on HSR in ACI 318-19. This article summarizes the
research, changes in ACI 318, and various considerations that come
with using HSR, mostly in seismic design applications. Changes in
the ACI 318-19 include, among others, larger lap splice lengths for
HSR, lower minimum longitudinal reinforcement limits, tighter
transverse reinforcement spacing, and reduced stiffness of
elements with HSR. The authors of this article would like to
acknowledge and thank Noah Macias for editing this article.■
The online version of this article contains insights into research
on the material specification of HSR and detailed references.
Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
Rahul Sharma is a Project Engineer with Hohbach-Lewin, Inc located in
Palo Alto, CA. (rsharma@hohbach-lewin.com)
Kion Nemati is an Engineer with Arup’s Structural Group in San Francisco,
CA. (kion.nemati@arup.com)
Jakub Valigura is a Design Engineer with KPFF Consulting Engineers in San
Francisco, CA. (jakub.valigura@kpff.com)
Nate Warner is an Engineer with Arup’s Structural Group in San Francisco,
CA. (nate.warner@arup.com)
Catherine Chen is an Engineer with Arup’s Structural Group in San
Francisco, CA. (catherine.chen@arup.com)

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
COLD-FORMED STEEL - ROOF • WALL • FLOOR • Does not warp, shrink, split or twist
with age
• Aegis
Resistant
hastoa insects, mold shape
proprietary and rotthat
• brings
Wide variety of sizes and configurations
your building the strongest
• Cold-Formed
Industry leading estimating
Steel on theand design
market.
software
• 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
314-851-2200
www.aegismetalframing.com

APRIL 2020 11
 structural COMPONENTS
Beyond Bond Strength of Adhesive Anchors
Testing, Design, and Specification
By Alexis A. Clark, P.E.

A variety of factors influence an engineer’s decision to

use cast-in anchors or post-installed anchors including
working principles, installation, and the impact on project
timeline and budget. Above all, a licensed engineer shall hold
paramount their code of ethics and the safety, health, and
welfare of the public. At a time in which budget and scope
have tightened for professional engineering work, it is dif-
ficult to allocate resources to sift through technical data and Figure 1. Quick references within an ICC-ES report.
footnotes for a comprehensive comparison of post-installed
anchoring systems. This article establishes an understanding of the Jurisdiction (AHJ). ICC-ES reports provide technical information
chemical and physical factors that affect the performance of post- in a standard format but may vary significantly in depth and breadth
installed adhesive anchor systems. It also explains how product testing between product reports. The Report sections include valuable infor-
is incorporated into design calculations and provides suggestions for mation for selecting the appropriate adhesive anchor system for an
designing and specifying adhesive anchor systems. application (Figure 1).
Why is this important? Inappropriate selection or improper instal- ICC-ES reports also include tables of published data that can be
lation of adhesive anchor systems can result in a reduction in anchor used to design the anchor with ACI 318 anchoring-to-concrete
capacity or anchorage failure. The consequences can lead to expensive provisions. Information in these tables can include the following:
repairs, project delays, and, possibly, endangerment to public safety. • Specifications and physical properties of anchor elements
The International Code Council Evaluation Service (ICC-ES) • Design information for anchor elements
developed the Acceptance Criteria for Post-Installed Adhesive Anchors • Concrete breakout design information
in Concrete Elements (AC308) in 2006. AC308 includes provi- • Bond strength
sions to qualify adhesive anchor systems for compliance with Load Reduction Factor Design (LRFD), per ACI 318-14, requires
the International Building Code (IBC). Adhesive anchor systems the assessment of capacities corresponding to possible failure modes
that demonstrate compliance with the IBC can be used with in tension and shear to determine which failure mode governs the
the anchoring-to-concrete provisions of the American Concrete adhesive anchor system performance. An abbreviated method to
Institute (ACI) publication Building Code Requirements for compare adhesive anchor systems is to compare nominal bond
Structural Concrete (ACI 318). strengths as listed in ICC-ES report tables. These tables, however,
Structural connection design includes cast-in anchors and post- may be differentiated by the condition of concrete, special inspec-
installed anchors. Cast-in anchors can be tion levels, in-service temperature range,
used directly with ACI 318 anchoring-to- or drilling method. Footnotes at the end of
concrete provisions. Post-installed anchors tables can include several reduction factors
are qualified per ICC-ES acceptance cri- for design calculations.
teria to (a) demonstrate compliance with The ICC-ES report concludes with the
the IBC, and (b) obtain data to design manufacturer’s printed installation instruc-
the anchor with ACI 318 anchoring-to- tions (MPII), which should describe
concrete provisions. congruent installation procedures to those
In 2011, ACI developed the test stan- that have been tested and included in the
dard Qualification of Post-Installed Adhesive body of the report.
Anchors in Concrete (355.4) to qualify Adhesive anchor systems rely on adhesive
adhesive anchor systems, thereby harmo- bonding as a result of a chemical reaction
nizing AC308 with an ACI test standard. between hardener and resin. The bond
To dive deeper, read Changes in Adhesive formed with the base material as a result
Anchor System Approvals (STRUCTURE, of this chemical reaction can be affected by
September 2015). several factors, including temperature and/
or the presence of dust or water. ACI 318
Evaluation Service Reports Section 17.8.2.1 notes characteristic bond
stress parameters that should be included
and Design Code in the language of an adhesive anchor spec-
ICC-ES reports serve as a third-party ification (Figure 2). This article focuses on
evaluation of engineered products. These three bond stress parameters: drilling or
evaluations can be used to demonstrate hole-cleaning methods, moisture condition
product compliance with the IBC, sub- Figure 2. ACI 318-14 Section 18.8.2.1 encourages of the concrete, and temperature at time of
ject to approval by the Authority Having specific parameters be specified. installation.

12 STRUCTURE magazine
 comply with the MPII. In 2013,
Reliability Testing some manufacturers offered anchor-
of Manufacturer’s ing technology to help reduce the
human error inherent to the hole-
Installation Procedure cleaning of adhesive anchor systems.
Proper adhesive anchor installation These technologies include (a) a
includes drilling into cured concrete torque-controlled anchor element
using an approved drilling method, that relies on friction-hold rather
cleaning the drilled hole to remove than adhesive bonding to transfer
dust and debris, properly injecting load and thus requires no hole-
the adhesive, and inserting the anchor cleaning to achieve load capacity,
element within the gel/working time and (b) a hollow drill bit system that
of the adhesive (Figure 3). extracts dust while drilling.
Figure 3. Installation steps and objectives.
Properly cleaning the drilled hole can Due to rising numbers of severe
have a significant impact on adhesive health conditions and fatalities
anchor performance. AC308 provi- associated with silicosis, a lung dis-
sions include reference and reliability ease attributed to inhalation of silica
tests to establish a proper hole cleaning dust from concrete or masonry, the
procedure. Reference tests establish a Occupational Safety and Health
baseline cleaning procedure by which Administration (OSHA) heightened
the adhesive is qualified and bond respirable silica dust regulations and
stress values are established. Typical renewed enforcement in June 2017.
steps for hole cleaning include blow- OSHA’s Respirable Crystalline Silica
ing out the drilled hole, brushing of Standard for Construction, known
the hole with a steel wire brush, and as OSHA 1926.1153, or Table 1,
blowing out the hole again. Although outlines the maximum levels and
the blow-brush-blow method is a methods to reduce exposure to
typical cleaning method for adhesive respirable silica dust allowable by
anchor systems, the number of itera- application, including the cleaning
tions for each step, proprietary steel method of post-installed anchor
wire brushes, and prescribed pressure systems.
of compressed air can vary for each Existing hole-cleaning technology
system. In the subsequent reliability included in ICC-ES reports were
test, the same anchor configuration is tested and confirmed to meet the
tested at half the number of cleaning purpose of dust-removal to comply
steps of the reference test with the with Table 1. Anchor manufac-
purpose of validating that at least a turers that did not have existing
certain percentage of the bond stress hole-cleaning technology partnered
value is achieved under reduced hole- with tool manufacturers to develop
cleaning procedure. It follows then, dust-removal systems to comply with
with the lowest possible reliability test Table 1. To date, some manufacturers
cleaning procedure of 1 blow, 1 brush, Figure 4. Percent of bond stress to be achieved for various anchor categories. have included dust-removal systems
1 blow, the lowest allowable reference in an MPII without including them
test cleaning procedure is 2 blow, 2 brush, 2 blow. in ICC-ES report testing. Some manufacturers that do include dust-
Manufacturers have the freedom to select any level of cleaning procedure removal systems in an ICC-ES report may still require manual cleaning
for reference tests. More cleaning iterations reduce the amount of dust steps, or their anchor may only be allowable in dry concrete conditions.
and debris in the drilled hole, increasing bonding between the adhesive
and concrete. Some manufacturers choose to use the minimum cleaning
steps possible (2x2x2) with the intention of reducing the expectation of
Effect of Moisture Conditions
installer diligence to follow manual cleaning procedures, relying on the Adhesive product testing per AC308/ACI 355.4 establishes a strength
adhesive anchor system’s resilience to deliver performance. reduction factor (φ-factor) relevant to the reliability or sensitivity of
If an adhesive anchor system does not achieve a specific percentage of the product with respect to installation conditions. Adhesive sensitivity
the reference test bond stress value in reliability testing, the anchor may can be influenced by mixing the hardener and resin, hole cleaning,
report a lower category than intended or the number of iterations or and moisture content of the base material, among others. φ-factors
intricacy of cleaning steps may increase in the reference test to provide vary for tension loads, as shown in Figure 5. Note that adhesives
a cleaner hole in which the adhesive can reliably reach the intended with high reliability have a φ-factor of 0.65 while adhesives with low
level of performance (Figure 4). Intricate cleaning steps to help achieve reliability have a φ-factor of 0.45. φ-factors for an adhesive product
and maintain bond stress include proprietary steel wire brushes specific can vary with respect to anchor diameter, special inspection levels,
to the adhesive anchor system, or drill-mounting of brushes that may core-drilling, or whether the drilled hole in the concrete is dry, water-
have wider or more densely packed bristles to remove dust. saturated, water-filled, or wholly submerged.
In 2011, Concrete International published A Field Study of Adhesive Lower φ-factors typically result from a single adverse installation con-
Anchor Installations, reporting that 77% of installations did not dition or compounding adverse conditions. Some adhesive products

APRIL 2020 13
 perform at the highest level of reliability,
achieving a 0.65 φ-factor for both favorable
and adverse conditions, like dry concrete and
water-saturated concrete, respectively. It is
essential to be aware of any compounding
conditions in testing for reliability as the
resulting φ-factor directly affects design capac-
ity and performance of the anchor.
Other adhesive products have a φ-factor of
0.65 for a 3⁄8-inch-diameter anchor element
and a φ-factor of 0.45 for a ½-inch-diameter
anchor element. Some φ-factors are obtained
with the requirement that all adhesive anchors,
regardless of installation orientation, are under
continuous inspection, although 2015 IBC
Chapter 17 requires continuous inspection for
only adhesive anchors that are horizontal-to-
upwardly-inclined with sustained tension loads.
φ-factors are strongly influenced by the presence Figure 5. The reliability of an adhesive anchor is
of water that may affect the bond of an adhesive reflected in a φ-factor.
anchor system to the base material.
Although the office environment in which
we design anchorage is climate-controlled and
dry, the job sites where the product is installed
rarely are. AC308 defines dry concrete as con-
crete that has not been exposed to water in
14 days. Most regions of North America are
likely to experience precipitation, regardless of
season, within a two-week period.
ACI requires consideration of moisture condi-
tions in the design phase. Whether an anchorage
design is generated in response to a Request for
Information (RFI) for installation later that Figure 6. Published cure times required at approximately 41°F.
day or a general notes section is developed for
anchors that are installed throughout the duration of a project, water-
saturated concrete is realistic to assume for a design basis.
Impacts of Installation Temperature
Adhesive anchors cure because of a chemical reaction between a
precise ratio of hardener and resin. Temperature greatly influences
the rate at which the adhesive cures. When the concrete temperature
is high at the time of installation, the reaction is accelerated; when
the concrete temperature is low at the time of installation, the reac-
tion slows. Four considerations of temperature include the range
in which the product can be installed, the required cure time at a
given temperature, the gel/working time at a given temperature, and
conditioning requirements of the product to be installed properly
in a given application.
Installation temperatures are included in ACI 318 anchoring-to-
concrete provisions. Adhesive anchor manufacturers typically test
their products for a wide range of installation temperatures. The
most common temperature ranges include 41°F to 104°F. Some,
although not all, products have been tested for installation at mini-
mum temperatures as low as 14°F. Reference the ICC-ES report for
the installation temperatures specific to an adhesive anchor system
to validate applicability in the realistic temperatures your projects
may experience.
Ideally, adhesive anchor systems strike a realistic balance between
cure time and gel/working time. As construction schedules con-
tinue to tighten, priority is given to shorter cure times that allow for
more immediate loading. Waiting for the full required cure time for
14 STRUCTURE magazine
a given base material temperature before
loading is critical to the performance of the
adhesive bond. A general rule-of-thumb
followed by many installers is to wait 24
hours after installing an adhesive anchor
system before loading, regardless of the
MPII. Some products require cure times
that exceed this rule-of-thumb, as shown
in Figure 6. Additional cure time may be
required in water-saturated conditions, as
shown in footnotes in either an ICC-ES
report or MPII.
Gel/working time is another significant
consideration in adhesive anchor selection.
During gel/working time, the installer must
inject the required amount of adhesive into
the drilled hole with no air voids, insert
the anchor element to the required embed-
ment depth, and position it properly. At
elevated temperatures, most products have
a gel/working time of at least five minutes
in which the installer can reasonably execute
these steps; other products allow for only 90
seconds of gel/working time.
Depending on their chemical makeup, prod-
ucts may require special conditioning to be
used in certain environmental conditions.
Water-based adhesives require minimum con-
ditioning of the adhesive product to above
32°F, and a common conditioning require-
ment among products is a minimum of 41°F.
Other products require installers to condition
adhesive products to 70°F when base material
temperatures are less than 70°F.
Basis-of-Design Parameters in ACI 318
ACI 318 recognizes the reliability of adhesive anchor system performance
is influenced by adverse job site conditions including moisture condition,
temperature at time of installation, hole drilling methods, and cleaning
procedures. While these aspects are addressed by testing per AC308, the
resulting bond strengths, reduction factors, and conditions of use included
in the ICC-ES report vary significantly between products.
A best practice to help ensure the adhesive anchor system meets ACI
318-14 Section 17.8.2.1 requirements is the inclusion of basis-of-
design parameters in your design and specified in the general notes.
Examples include:
• Cracked concrete
• Water-saturated concrete
• Base material temperature at the time of installation
of 23°F to 104°F
• Allowable drilling methods to include hammer-drill, hollow
drill bit, and diamond core drill
By including basis-of-design expectations of the final
installed product, engineers can help ensure reliable per-
formance in realistic job site conditions.■
The online version of this article contains references.
Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
Alexis A. Clark is the Structural Engineering Trade Manager for Hilti North
America. (alexis.clark@hilti.com)
You’ve got cracks.
We’ve got you covered.

A complete line of structural epoxy repair products.

From viscosity, to cure time, to pot life, to temperature, to class — the Simpson Strong-Tie® family
of crack repair products has a solution for almost every job. And we’ve got the dispensing tools
and injection systems that help make application fast, easy and clean. Our epoxies are tested to
the latest standards, so you can be sure that repairs are strong, and that your structures are safer.
To learn more about our versatile set of crack repair solutions, visit go.strongtie.com/crackrepair
or call (800) 999-5099.

© 2020 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. WSV19

 structural PRACTICES
Federal Changes for Post-Installed
Adhesive Anchors
By T. J. Bland, P.E.

T he wheels of change turn slowly when it comes to government regulations. For federal highway infrastructure, some of the
regulations for new construction have not been modified for decades, but developments in the past two years regarding
the adhesive anchor industry are nothing short of a sea change. The most significant development was the issuance of a new
technical advisory for bridges and structures by the Federal Highway Administration in January of 2018 (T5140.34). It estab-
lishes new guidelines for the installation and inspection of adhesives used in new and existing federal-aid projects. An additional
development involves ongoing efforts by the federal government to strengthen the standards used under the Buy American Act.
This article explains the recent history of state-by-state regulations in the industry, the review and adoption progress for the new
regulations, and the significant impact of the developments on the formulation, specification, and use of anchoring adhesives.

The new technical advisory is the third advisory issued since the investiga-
tion into the 2006 ceiling panel collapse in the I-90 Seaport Connector
Tunnel in Boston. The new advisory states that “since the original tech-
nical advisory was issued, two National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) studies have been completed, and the industry and
the American Concrete Institute (ACI) have made significant advance-
ments on regulating adhesive anchor systems and installation.”
Industry efforts over the past 10 years have led to the new advisory,
and it makes several recommendations.
Focus and Key Provisions
T5140.34 focuses primarily on structural connections that are under
load. For new Federal-aid projects where post-installed adhesive
anchors are deemed a necessity, they should be designed using the
American Concrete Institute’s ACI 318-14, Building Code Requirements
for Structural Concrete, or later editions for the given loading condition
(vertical, horizontal, or overhead) and use only adhesive anchor systems
qualified per ACI 355.4-11, Qualification of Post-Installed Adhesive
Anchors in Concrete, or later editions for the same loading condition.
For existing projects, where applications of post-installed adhesive
anchors are under permanent sustained tension and where the adhe-
sive anchor system was not specifically qualified for use under that
loading per ACI 355.4-11 or later editions, the owner should either:
1) Institute a rigorous and regular inspection program that
considers importance and redundancy to maintain an appro-
priate level of confidence in the long-term performance of
these existing adhesive anchors. This may require developing
a testing protocol and program to determine the site-specific
ultimate capacities and creep characteristics of the adhesive
over the expected life of the structure. Or,
2) Retrofit and/or replace the existing adhesive anchors with a
post-installed mechanical anchor or post-installed adhesive
anchor meeting the requirements of ACI 318-14/ACI 355.4-
11 or later editions.
The rationale behind the decision can be found in the technical
advisory, and the specific details can be found in the code itself. One
of many key takeaways is that this technical advisory brings a federal
requirement of a national standard, for the first time, to the use of
post-installed adhesive anchors in roadways and structures – and it
requires that each state abides by these standards. In short, adhesive
anchors used in federally funded infrastructure projects must be
approved to the same standards as adhesives specified in accordance
with the International Building Code (IBC).
Some of the critical provisions of ACI 318-14 and ACI 355.4-11
that engineers and specifiers should be aware of include:
• The ACI and Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI)
have established an Adhesive Anchor Installer certification
program. The purpose of the program is to ensure unifor-
mity in the knowledge base of those that install anchors on
the parameters that may affect anchor performance, includ-
ing hole drilling, hole cleaning, adhesive storage, adhesive
mixing, and the importance of Manufacturer’s Printed
Installation Instructions (MPII).
• Installation of adhesive anchors horizontally or upwardly
inclined (including vertically overhead) to support sustained
tension loads shall be performed by personnel certified by
an applicable certification program, such as the American
Concrete Institute (ACI)/Concrete Reinforcing Steel
Institute(CRSI) Adhesive Anchor Installer Certification
program, or equivalent.
• ACI 318-14 requires continuous inspection of adhesive
anchors installed in horizontal or upwardly inclined orienta-
tions to resist sustained tension loads, but it is left up to the
owner to establish the inspector qualifications.
• ACI 318-14 establishes evaluation requirements under various
adverse loading conditions, including sustained tension.
State Adoption
Historically, individual states have maintained their own approval
regulations for adhesive anchoring materials used on infrastructure
projects. They kept their own authorized materials lists or approved
products list, and the standards varied from state to state.
When T5140.34 was published in January 2018, only one state,
Wisconsin, was requiring products tested following the building code

16 STRUCTURE magazine
requirements. Adoption by other states has been limited, but this is not
surprising, particularly if you understand the history within the industry.
The adoption of the new requirements varies from state to state and
has been constrained by several factors.
First, some road and bridge officials may not be aware of the new
standards – trends in adhesive anchoring are not exactly front-page news.
Second, the amount of applicable federal work varies significantly
from state to state. Large states, like Texas, have always had a robust
system in place to monitor, approve, renew, and test products. Road
construction is big business in Texas, so it is no surprise that it has
already adopted specific classes of products that align with T5140.34.
Third, some states want to be sure that their published requirements
are compliant with T5140.34 while also meeting other construction
requirements that are unique to their state.
For example, Florida has its own anchoring testing because aggregate
in the state is typically softer than in other parts of the country. For
this reason, Florida developed its own creep test for anchoring. If a
product is to be certified in Florida, it will need to meet state and
federal standards (once they are officially adopted). While state-specific
requirements might be delaying overall adoption, it is a positive thing
when such requirements go above and beyond the federal requirements.
Since January 2018, the following states have adopted the new
requirements: Arizona, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin.
It is important to note that the remaining states are not sitting on
their hands but are most likely in some stage of adopting the new
standards. California, for example, announced in January 2020 that it
will be sunsetting its legacy requirements on April 20, 2020, in favor
of entirely new acceptance criteria, the first to require not only code
approved products but also only those products that meet a specific
minimum performance threshold. States that often follow California’s
lead will surely be next in line.
Smaller states, which do less federal road and bridge work, have been
slower to adopt. In some instances, it is a question of staffing and pri-
oritization. In other cases, smaller states follow the lead of neighboring
states, which also may have not yet acted on the new requirements.
Another factor that should not be overlooked is the impact of
T5140.34 on existing projects, which have both retrofit and inspec-
tion requirements. The ongoing cost associated with this type
consistent with law, encourage recipients of new Federal financial
assistance awards pursuant to a covered program to use, to the greatest
extent practicable, iron and aluminum as well as steel, cement, and
other manufactured products produced in the United States in every
contract, subcontract, purchase order or sub award that is chargeable
against such Federal financial assistance award.”
The original 1954 Buy American Act considered a product “foreign”
if the cost of the foreign products used in the materials constituted
50 percent or more of the total cost.
In the most recent executive order published in July of 2019, it
lowers the threshold for steel to 5 percent or more. For all other end
products, it lowers the cost to 45 percent or more. For products made
in the adhesives industry, the majority of the cost must be paid in the
United States, or the related projects will not qualify for federal money.
Moving Forward
For engineers and specifiers, the most conservative route is to specify
adhesive anchors that are manufactured domestically and meet the new
federal requirement. Even though a majority of states have not yet strictly
adhered to the new regulations, it is only a matter of time before there is
widespread compliance. In conclusion, the new developments
discussed in this article reinforce the importance of products
that are both code-compliant and made in the USA.■
T. J. Bland is the President of Adhesives Technology Corp. in Pompano
Beach, Florida. (tjbland@atcepoxy.com)
AutoTight®
TIGHTER CONNECTIONS
BETTER PERFORMANCE

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

of inspection or retrofit should drive the specification for code-
approved products by the engineers working at state Departments
of Transportation (DOT) levels even before the state mandate for
such products is drafted/ratified. Currently, engineers may already
be specifying products that meet the intent of the federal regulations
without being “told to do so” by their current state requirements.
 
This may be another reason why adoption has been slow.

The Buy American Act

The next significant development is the ongoing effort by the federal
government to enforce and expand the Buy American Act, initially
proposed by President Eisenhower in 1954.
The White House issued two executive orders in 2019 on this
topic, both to enforce the Buy American Act “to the greatest extent
permitted by law.” In January of 2019, the executive order directed
government agencies and departments to encourage recipients of
federal project dollars to use products, of almost all kinds, that are
produced in the United States. ZERO LOOSENESS
It stated, among other points: “Within 90 days of the date of this
order, the head of each executive department and agency admin- PH: (360) 378-9484 – WWW.COMMINSMFG.COM
istering a covered program shall, as appropriate and to the extent

APRIL 2020 17
 structural REHABILITATION
Adaptive Reuse of the Apex Hosiery
Company Building
Part 3: Adaptive Reuse Feasibility Analysis
By D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E., P.Eng, F.ASCE, F.SEI, A.NAFE, SECB
T his four-part series (Part 1, STRUCTURE, November 2019,
Part 2, January 2020) discusses how the collapse of a
building during a demolition operation in Philadelphia in 2013,
which resulted in several fatalities, led to the enactment of a
City Ordinance to prevent similar calamities. As a result of the
Ordinance, the author became involved with the structural inves-
tigation, review of the Site Safety Demolition Plan, and Demolition
Special Inspections associated with the adaptive reuse of the
Apex Hosiery Company Building located in Philadelphia.
South Side of Building
The typical two-way slab analyzed as a part of the investigation and
feasibility study of the south side of the building involved the remain-
ing east-west three-span structure and a typical north-south spanning
slab of no more than five equal spans. Both slabs were analyzed using
the Portland Cement Association (PCA) spSlab software. This software
utilizes the Equivalent Frame Method (EFM) of analysis recognized by
ACI. The EFM involves the representation of the three-dimensional
slab system as a series of two-dimensional frames that are analyzed
for the loads acting in the plane of the same frames.
Figure 14. Lateral capacity of the post-renovation three-story building was assumed
adequate based on the theory that the original six-story building sail area and mass
translated to larger wind and seismic loads.
18 STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 13. Analysis of demolition equipment and debris loading conditions
revealed that proposed demolition equipment could be safely operated, but
temporary storage of concrete debris was limited.
The analysis was based on the conventional bottom and top reinforcing
bar diameters and spacings documented as a part of the field assessment
and yield strength of 40 ksi based on the laboratory test of two samples
obtained from a slab that was scheduled to be demolished. Typically,
the results of an analysis to determine the load-carrying capacity of
an existing vintage reinforced concrete structure are greater than that
which was specified by the original designer. This is because the ultimate
strength method used for current day design and analysis typically
provides greater capacities than that which would have been obtained
via the working stress method of concrete design used in the 1920s.
However, using current-day methods of analysis, a superimposed ser-
vice load capacity of only 120 psf was determined. This relatively low
calculated capacity probably resulted because the method of analyzing
two-way flat slabs in the early 20th Century was based on concepts that
did not accurately represent the true behavior of this type of structure.
Never the less, this capacity is consistent with the 1929 Philadelphia
Building Code for light manufacturing buildings, as documented in
the 18th Edition of Kidder Parker Builders’ Handbook. As a result, it
was concluded that the Apex Hosiery Company’s utilization of the
building did not involve heavy manufacturing that required a live
load capacity of 200 psf per the same 1929 code.
The 120-psf uniform load capacity was input into the spSlab soft-
ware as a 20-psf superimposed dead load and a 100-psf live load.
This was based on the combined superimposed dead load of 15 psf
for partitions (as required by the IBC) and 5 psf for miscellaneous
suspended mechanical equipment. A superimposed dead load for
ceilings was not included because there were no ceilings shown on
the architect’s renovation drawings. The 100-psf live load was based
on the IBC minimum requirement for residential public rooms and
corridors, and the first-floor retail spaces located above the south side
basement. The minimum IBC live load for the residential spaces on
all floors of the building is only 40 psf.
A review of the structural drawings issued for the renovation project
indicated that floor live loads used for the design were 40 psf, 100 psf,
and 80 psf for Dwelling Units, Lobbies and Stairs, and Corridors, respect- System, which was based on the early to mid-20th Century Working
fully. Also, 15 psf was included as a partition allowance. All of these same Stress method documented in the Taylor, Thompson, and Smulski
design loads were less than or equal to the calculated 120-psf capacity of textbook on Plain and Reinforced Concrete, Volume 1. The existing floor
the existing two-way slab. Therefore, it was determined that the adaptive slab was analyzed as a 6-inch structural slab supporting a 1-inch-thick
reuse of the existing remaining south side structure was feasible. non-composite concrete topping. The flexural moment capacities for
The investigation of the demolition equipment and debris loading Unit B, in other words, the diagonal positive moment span, and Unit
conditions for the south side slab indicated that the existing distribution C, the negative moment at the column support, were established as a
of top and bottom reinforcing in the east-west direction did not match part of the analysis. The results of the analysis indicated that the slab
the moment demand requirements of the spSlab software output. As a system was capable of supporting a 120-psf superimposed uniform
result, it was necessary to redistribute the negative moment provided load similar to that established at the framed two-way slab at the
by the software analysis to the positive moment region to justify the south side of the building.
worst-case demolition equipment and debris loading conditions. The The results were based on the concept that the diagonal slab simple-
maximum negative to positive moment redistribution was limited to spanned a distance of 3⁄5 of the clear span between the existing column
20%, as allowed by Section 8.4 of ACI 318.
As a result of the analysis, it was deter-
mined that the proposed mechanized
equipment could be safely operated inside
the building during the demolition opera-
tion. However, the triangular volume of
demolished concrete debris that could be
temporarily stored in the span immediately
adjacent to the span in which the equip-
Maximize Value and Performance with
ment would be operating was determined
to only include a maximum height of 3 feet SHRINK AGE-COMPENSATING
and maximum width of 5 feet in the east-
west direction in a continuous north-south CONCRETE & GROUT SOLUTIONS
mound, based on a unit debris weight of
120 pcf, as illustrated in Figure 13.
A lateral load analysis of the remain-
ing existing building was not included as
part of the assessment for the following
reasons. The reduction in the height and 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

footprint of the remaining building from
its original configuration significantly
reduced the sail area of the exterior verti-
cal surfaces of the building. As a result, ADVANTAGES
the lateral wind loads on the remaining ¡ Maximize joint spacing (up to 300 ft, L/W 3:1) ¡ Enhance compressive and flexural strengths
building would be reduced considerably
¡ Prevent shrinkage cracking and curling ¡ Eliminate pour/delay strips
from that which it was assumed to have
been initially designed for. ¡ Thinner slabs and walls viable ¡ Reduce long-term relaxation of P/T tendons
Therefore, because the lateral resisting and shear wall stresses
¡ Reduce reinforcement requirements
capacity of the remaining three-story ¡ Minimize creep and moment
building seen in Figure 14 was more than ¡ Improve durability and lower permeability
likely designed for a greater accumulated ¡ Minimize waterstops
¡ Increase abrasion resistance 30-40%
wind load of the original six stories, it
was reasonable to assume that the lateral
load resisting capacity of the remaining
structure was adequate. Also, although it
is unlikely that the original designer of the
structure analyzed the building for lateral
earthquake loads, for this investigation, it
was assumed that, similar to the wind loads,
the current Code-based seismic base shear
for the remaining three-story building was
significantly less than the potential seismic
loads on the original six-story building.
by CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp.

North Side of Building

The existing slab at the north side of the Contact us for more information and project support at 888.414.9043
building was analyzed using the vintage CTScement.com
method previously described for the SMI

A P R I L 2 02 0 19

Figure 15. Analysis indicated that the north-side slab system could
support a 120 psf superimposed uniform load similar to that established
at the framed two-way slab on the building’s south side.
capitals, and the slab, drop panel, and column capital cantilevered
from the face of the column to support the end reaction of the Unit B
diagonal span. The analysis was based on the bottom and top concentric
reinforcing hoops documented as a part of the field assessment shown
in Figure 15 and a yield strength of 27 ksi based on the laboratory
test of one hoop sample shown in Figure 16 obtained from a slab that
was scheduled to be demolished. An analysis of the SMI slab was also
conducted for the same demolition equipment and debris loading condi-
tions used for the south slab. The results of the analysis indicated that
the northern SMI slab was capable of supporting the same demolition
operations as the south slab.
As previously described, the SMI method of calculating positive
moments is based on a simple span rather than continuous span
condition, and negative moment is based on a cantilever condition
around the circumference of the columns for the support of the sur-
rounding reactions from the simple span slabs. This method of analysis
was conducive to the proposed renovations because the interruption
of the continuity of the existing slab as a result of the north-south
line of demolition along the east face of the existing drop panels did
not adversely impact the structural integrity of the remaining interior
slab span that was converted to an end span condition.
However, because it was determined that a small portion of the top
hoop reinforcing extended beyond the edge of the drop panel, it was
necessary to extend the originally proposed line of demolition slightly
further east, beyond the east edge of the drop panel, to avoid damaging
the outer most top bar hoops. Adjusting the extent of the demoli-
tion was required because the flexural capacity of the existing SMI
slab system is based on continuous, uninterrupted concentric rings
of reinforcing bars, as required to resist the hoop stresses imposed by
the deformation of the concrete slab. Therefore, all of the top hoops
20 STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 16. Feasibility analysis was based on top and bottom concentric reinforcing hoops with a
27 ksi yield strength resulting from a laboratory test of this sample.
Figure 17. Interruption of SMI slab reinforcing hoops at new stair and elevator openings
showing required additional slab supports.
in the Unit C group had to be protected from damage or disruption
of the surrounding concrete encasement.
A similar requirement to extend the east side of the line of demoli-
tion was also needed for the outer most hoops of the bottom bars
located in the north-south span of the Unit A portion of the slab
located along the line demolition. However, it was determined that
the location of these same bottom hoops did not extend any further
east than that documented for the top hoops over the drop panels.
For reasons similar to that described along the eastern edge of the
demolition, interruption of the SMI slab reinforcing hoops at large
openings associated with new stairs and elevators required additional
slab supports beyond the new supplemental steel framing at the perim-
eter of the stair opening. This was also true for the new loadbearing
CMU walls at the perimeter of the elevator opening shown on the
renovation structural drawings. The approximate extent and location
of the additional slab supports that were required at a typical large
opening in the SMI slab was provided on a plan shown in Figure 17.
Conclusion
The results of the feasibility study for both the conventionally reinforced
and SMI two-way slabs indicated the existing remaining structure
was adequate for the proposed adaptive reuse with only a few minor
modifications required at the edge of demolition and supports at new
openings for the SMI slab. Part 4 of the series will include
a discussion of the Demolition Special Inspections and the
post-demolition assessment of the remaining structure.■
Matthew Stuart is the Senior Structural Engineer at Pennoni Associates Inc.
in Philadelphia, PA. (mstuart@pennoni.com)
 Preserving
the Many Glacier Hotel By Ian Glaser, P.E., and Christine Britton, P.E.

The Many Glacier Hotel after the completion of the

renovation in 2017. Courtesy of Mark Bryant Photographics.

T he Great Northern Railway built the Many Glacier Hotel from basement features exterior balconies on all sides and all levels, grand
1914 to 1917. This iconic hotel, built in the style of a Swiss masonry chimneys in the public spaces, a four-story lobby atrium
chalet, is perched on the edge of Swiftcurrent Lake overlooking the space framed with log columns and trusses, and an expansive dining
glaciated valleys and mountains of Glacier National Park’s less-traveled room with a timber and steel-rod trussed roof. The structural reha-
east side. The Many Glacier Hotel was listed on the National Register bilitation scope involved repairing deteriorated framing, fortifying
of Historic Places in 1976 and was designated as a National Historic the roof framing for the 135 psf roof snow load, and retrofitting the
Landmark in 1987. However, due to significant deficiencies in the building’s lateral system for Seismic Design Category C. The build-
knob-and-tube wiring, the plumbing and fire-suppression systems, and ing’s original lateral force-resisting system consisted merely of interior
the gravity and lateral load-resisting structural systems, the structure stud walls surfaced with Sacket Board (a more brittle precursor to
was placed on the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s annual gypsum wallboard) and exterior walls surfaced with board sheathing.
list of “America’s 11 Most Endangered Historic Places” in 1996. Because the lateral force-resisting system upgrade was voluntary, 75%
The National Park Service initiated a comprehensive, phased rehabili- of current-day code-prescribed seismic forces were used as permitted
tation around 2000. The first phases focused on the most immediate by the International Existing Building Code. All upgraded and new
needs of the building’s exterior. In structural systems had to be con-
2004, JVA, Inc. was engaged as cealed within the building’s walls,
the structural engineer in partner- floors, and chimneys to maintain
ship with the architect, Anderson the visitor experience.
Hallas Architects, P.C. The team The roof framing over the dining
worked on the rehabilitation for room had been concealed by a
13 years until its completion in dropped ceiling installed in the
2017. Swank Enterprises was the 1930s. After selective strengthen-
general contractor for all the con- ing of the purlins using lumber
struction phases, which totaled that matched the original lumber
approximately $42 million. in appearance, the dropped ceiling
The hotel is situated in an alpine was removed. The timber and steel-
environment, and the structural rod trusses were re-exposed, paying
systems were suffering due to homage to the railroad engineers
extreme environmental condi- that designed and built them.
The Many Glacier Hotel in April 1956. Snow has reached the second floor of
tions. In winter months, drifted the lobby. Chimney at left was removed at an unknown date before the recent In the guest wings, the partitions
snow can reach the third floor of rehabilitation work. Courtesy of Glacier National Park Archives. between rooms did not align across
the hotel, 20 feet above grade on the central corridors and did not
the uphill side, with a design ground snow load of 180 pounds per stack perfectly from floor to floor. The partitions on one side of the
square foot. The annual onslaught of snowmelt running under the hallway were mobilized as shear walls so that utilities could be routed
building was undermining the foundations and causing the wood on the opposite side. The partitions were reconstructed as shear walls to
framing at the base of the building to deteriorate. resist wind and seismic loads in the guest wings’ short direction using
The approximately 140,000-square-foot hotel is framed with a mix their average centerline along the building height. Having a height-to-
of heavy timber, log, and dimension lumber. The foundations and length aspect ratio of approximately 5:1, the lower stories are concrete
chimneys are stone masonry. The four-story building with a walkout and the upper stories are wood. Steel rod holdowns extend continuously

22 STRUCTURE magazine
Interior of the dining room featuring the chimney and the original roof trusses. Braced frame in the basement level of the lobby. Courtesy of Mark Bryant
Courtesy of Mark Bryant Photographics. Photographics.

from the top of concrete to the attic level, and collectors were installed by re-siding. Below grade, the unreinforced masonry foundation was
at each diaphragm level. The shear walls were re-clad with their historic replaced with a reinforced concrete grade beam over micropiles. The
board-and-batten wainscoting. Each shear wall was founded on a new reinforced chimney became a shear wall in its long-axis direction.
concrete grade beam supported by new micropiles capable of resisting The lobby wing features a ring of twenty 30-inch-diameter Douglas-
uplift forces over 100 kips. A small rig was driven inside the building Fir columns that extend from the basement to the roof and form the
to install piles to an approximate depth of 50 feet into the bedrock. grand atrium space. The main level had very few walls that could be
To reduce seismic mass, four utilitarian chimneys that were concealed used as lateral force-resisting elements. Steel moment frames were ruled
behind finishes and that historically expelled gases from wood-burning out since they would impact the aesthetic of the space. Instead, the
stoves in the guest rooms were removed. One other chimney was log columns were mobilized as vertical collectors that receive upper-
removed at an unknown date before the rehabilitation. Five stone level shear forces and transfer them into the strengthened first-floor
masonry chimneys remain: three feature fireplaces for hotel visitors diaphragm and, in turn, into braced frames in the basement. The
in the dining room, lobby, and lounge areas, one serving deluxe guest braced frames in the lobby’s basement are some of the only structural
rooms at each level, and one serving the kitchen. retrofitting measures that are visible to the public.
The existing chimneys all required reinforcement and positive attach- Early during the lobby-wing construction phase and once finishes
ment to the building’s diaphragms. Each chimney was unique and were removed, the log columns were discovered to be spliced at the
required a different structural solution. Chimney reconstruction was first-floor level and not continuous from the basement to the roof
not a viable option because of the desire to preserve the historic fabric as the original drawings had indicated. Bending moments across the
and to control costs. Some chimneys were used as shear-resisting ele- splices are resolved with a matrix of 1-inch-diameter, 3-foot-long lag
ments with new collectors; others were tied into the diaphragms and bolts installed at steep angles across the splices via a custom-made jig.
their mass was resisted by nearby shear walls. Four of the log column bases were also discovered during construc-
The dining room chimney has two flues. The flue that originally tion to be deteriorated, and their beehive-shaped cones of internal
served the boiler in the basement was cleaned, reinforced, and grouted. deterioration were profiled using a resistance drill. Deterioration
The chimney’s shoulder on the opposing side was removed, a rein- extended as high as 3 feet above the basement floor. At these four
forced concrete chord installed, and the shoulder was refaced with locations, the framing above was shored, the deteriorated log column
the original stones in their original positions. The dining room flue, bottoms were carefully extracted, and the deteriorated material
which follows the reinforced shoulder, remains operational. was removed from the bottoms leaving only the intact outside
The lobby chimney weighs almost 500 shells. The remaining undamaged sec-
kips. Its basement-level flue was inter- tions of the log columns were reset on
nally reinforced and grouted from top to steel standoffs and then clad with the
bottom. The outer leaf of stone was pinned original, hollowed-out shells.
to the reinforced core. The lobby-level flue Through innovative structural solutions
remains operational. The lounge chimney that preserved the historic fabric of the
has only one flue and it also needed to stay building, the Many Glacier Hotel now
operational. A 40-foot-tall, 20-inch-diam- complies with current building codes,
eter, 16-gage steel round form was lowered and visitors can experience the
into the 24-inch square flue via a crane. structure’s original charm and
The spaces between the original square flue grandeur for years to come.■
and the new steel form were reinforced and
grouted. The chimney serving guest rooms Ian Glaser is JVA, Inc.’s Director of Historic
on each floor, having 8 flues, is situated at Preservation. (iglaser@jvajva.com)
the end of a guest wing. The exterior stud
Christine Britton is a Project Engineer in
wall concealed its back face. The stud wall the Historic Preservation group at JVA, Inc.
was removed, the stone face reinforced and Reinforcing cage inserted into the full-height flue of the dining (cbritton@jvajva.com)
surfaced with shotcrete, and then concealed room chimney. Courtesy of Dan Cooke, JVA, Inc.

APRIL 2020 23
 construction ISSUES
Building Above Underground Coal Mines
By Gennaro G. Marino, Ph.D., P.E., D.GE, and Abdolreza Osouli, Ph.D., P.E.
W hen underground coal mining began in the 1700s in the U.S.,
many of the mines were located far away from developing
city infrastructure. There was little thought of potential expansion
over these mined-out areas or the effects of long-term subsidence.
Until the 1970s, most mine design was essentially done by rule of
thumb and focused on short-term operational needs. As cities began
to expand into mined-out areas, city infrastructure became exposed
to the risk of damage caused by mine subsidence. There are presently
17 states which have active and abandoned underground coal mines
that require significant expenditures each year to address mine sub-
sidence risk and damage.
Geologic Setting
In the U.S., coal beds lay relatively flat and are found in the bedrock
between layers of mainly sandstone, shale, and limestone. In some
regions of the U.S., there are multiple coal seams that have been
mined. A coal seam is considered mineable by underground methods
when it is at least 30 inches thick. Because of the number of mine-
able seams in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, these states contain
the most areas with multiple coal workings.
Mining Methods
The underground mining of coal has evolved. Most older abandoned
mines were developed using room-and-pillar methods. This method
involved extracting the coal first by manual excavation and later by
mechanical means. After coal extraction, this method left voided areas
that contained unextracted coal (i.e. pillars) to support the mine roof
and overburden. Over time, these pillars were more systematically
placed. Figure 1 provides an illustration of room (void) and pillar
(coal) workings. Although the pillars in the illustrations are prismatic
in shape, they can be quite irregular and virtually any shape, especially
in older mines. The amount of coal extracted with this method typi-
cally ranges from 60% to 75% by area.
A common high extraction method of coal mining used today is
called longwall mining. This is a mechanized system of mining where
100% of the coal seam can be removed in up to typically 1,500-feet-
wide by mile-long strips.
Mine Stability
The stability of the underlying room and pillar mine is directly
related to the risk for future subsidence and the nature of the
subsidence in the ground above. Consequently, the accuracy of
these assessments plays a key role in determining proper land
development decisions, such as how to avoid expensive subsidence
24 STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 1. Illustration of room-and-pillar coal workings.
mitigation or improper solutions, which can result in severe losses
due to subsequent subsidence.
In assessing the risk of surface subsidence from an underlying coal
mine, there are three basic modes of failure of the mine structure that
should be evaluated.
• Mine-roof collapse into a mine opening,
• crushing of multiple mine pillars, and
• punching of multiple mine pillars into the mine floor.
Surface subsidence from the collapse of the mine roof occurs when
upward caving in one of the mine rooms or room intersections breaches
the bedrock surface. This phenomenon is also called chimney subsid-
ence. The upward caving potential depends on the rock overburden
conditions and the bulking or volume expansion of the caved material.
The upward caving can be obstructed if a competent zone of rock in
the overburden were able to bridge across the collapsed roof. Where no
sufficiently competent rock zone exists, chimney subsidence will con-
tinue upwards until it breaches the bedrock surface, unless it chokes off.
The second mode of failure that results in surface subsidence is the
yielding of the mine pillars or “pillar crushing.” This mode depends
on the demand and capacity of the pillar.
The third mode of mine failure that can induce land subsidence is
a mine-floor bearing failure. This phenomenon has also been termed
“pillar punching” and “floor squeeze.” As with pillar crushing, several
pillars must fail for significant subsidence to be realized on the ground
surface. The potential for subsidence from a mine-floor failure depends
on the loading on the pillar and the strength and durability of the
floor materials. Pillar punching typically results when the mine floor
is exposed to groundwater, dramatically reducing the overall floor
bearing capacity. Another component that can compromise the floor
strength is the presence of fissures in the rock.
Mine Subsidence Movements
Mine subsidence expresses itself on the ground surface in the form of
pits (sinkholes) and sags or troughs. Pit subsidence exclusively occurs
 BUILD STRONG WITH POWER BEAM ®
BETTER, FASTER,
STRONGER

CHECK OUT OUR NEW

STRONGER BENDING
VALUE FOR 7”
POWER BEAM®

POWER BEAM® FEATURES

• Strongest engineered wood product on the market
• Design values 3000Fb-300Fv-2.1E
• Wide width for faster installation - 3 1/2”, 5 1/2”, and 7”
• Compliment to Mass Timber wood framing systems
• Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI®) Certified
• Excellent fire resistance
• Manufactured with superior strength
southern yellow pine MSR Lumber
• Cost-efficient, high-strength solution for
load-bearing structural applications
Anthony Forest Products is part of the Canfor Group of Companies

W W W. CA N FO R . CO M | 800.221.BEAM | W W W. A N T H O N Y FO R E S T. CO M ©
Anthony Forest Products Company, LLC
 from chimney subsidence. This surface expression can range in size
from a pothole to typically 30 feet in diameter and over 10 feet deep
(Figure 2). These pits can extend to elongated-shaped sinkholes under
very severe conditions.
Sag or trough subsidence expresses itself on the ground surface like a
bowl- or swale-shaped depression. For room-and-pillar and high extrac-
tion mines, these expressions can range from one hundred to thousands
of feet across with depths from 1 to 7 feet. The specific character of
the sag or trough depends on the site conditions, most importantly:
• Mode of a mine failure
• Mine depth
• Mine layout
• Mining method
• Extraction height
• Soil and rock overburden
• Surface topography
Smaller sags occur at shallower mine depths and result from room roof
collapse where the soil cover slumps into the breach in the bedrock.
These events are usually circumscribed by faulted tension cracks on
the ground surface. Although these sags are of smaller diameter, they
can be quite deep at greater extraction heights and/or shallow mine
depths or soil cover. Sags or troughs in the range of more than 300 feet
to 800 feet across occur above room and pillar mines, are generally 1
to almost 4 feet deep, and are the result of multiple pillar deflections.
Larger subsidence events are caused by longwall mining. However,
most of the movement from these events occur during mining, so
there is some ability to implement mitigation measures where possible.
These very long subsidence troughs occur sequentially and parallel
to each other, with overlapping movements. Individual troughs are
typically 4 to 6 feet deep and several thousands of feet across.
In addition to vertical surface deformations, sag/trough events induce
differential horizontal displacements which result in centralized com-
pressive zones and circumferential tension zones.
In relatively flat terrain, the maximum horizontal displacement for
the larger subsidence events typically occurs in the direction of the
bottom of the subsidence basin and is generally in the range of 10 to
30 percent of the maximum vertical movement. In rugged terrain,
the horizontal displacements can be significantly more exacerbated
and generally follow the direction of the steeper topography. Figure 2. Illustrations of pit and sag/trough subsidence.

building deformation depend on the variation and magnitude of the

Subsidence-Structure Interaction
Given the risk of mine subsidence, the most important aspect of mine
subsidence engineering is the estimation of structural response and
associated damage. The general behavior of a surface structure to pit
mine subsidence depends mainly on the nature of the structure and
the subsidence characteristics. Pit subsidence under or in the vicinity
of a building, if initially small or of pothole size, may result in no or
slight damage. However, such an event would indicate that this area
of ground is unstable and should be treated as a hazard because the
pit can unpredictably expand at any given time until it is treated.
Larger pits or sinkholes that develop under buildings typically result
in concentrated heavy damage to the foundation and superstructure
(and can result in the collapse of a pole/column-supported structure).
If the structure is small in comparison to the pit, the structure can
become unrepairable. Once pit subsidence develops, it may move
again (reactivate) in the future.
For sag subsidence, the estimation of structural response and associated
damage requires a much greater understanding of a complex set of fac-
tors. The behavior of a surface structure with respect to sag subsidence
depends on the nature of the structure, the ground conditions, and the
subsidence characteristics. The nature and magnitude of the induced
26 STRUCTURE magazine
ambient ground movement (controlled by the characteristics of the sag
and the position of the structure within the sag). The induced deforma-
tion is also related to the construction of a proposed structure and the
condition of an existing structure. Generally speaking, structures that
are more flexible, simpler, and smaller react better to sag movements
than large structures with rigid and fragile components, especially if
the structure is complex and thus more susceptible to stress deforma-
tion concentrations. Consequently, even when impacted by the typical
range of sag subsidence, structures such as wood barns, sheds, and
smaller wood/metal warehouses (without floors) are likely to sustain
only minor damage.
Figure 3 (page 28) shows the full range of imposed structural defor-
mations that can exist from the compression zone to the tension
zone when the sag is large compared to the structure. The induced
deformation is a function of the plan orientation, as well as the posi-
tion of the structure on the sag (or trough) profile. Variations in the
ground movement, as well as in construction, make the behavior
difficult to model. The structural elements are rarely exposed to a
purely two-dimensional state of stress. Moreover, where severe struc-
tural deformations are present, significant bending, shear, and tensile
and/or compressive strains can be commonly found in the structure.
continued on page 28
 FORANDALL SEASONS.
ALL THE RIGHT REASONS.
Introducing the industry’s best pair of all-season, IBC compliant
anchoring and doweling adhesives for cracked and uncracked concrete.

New ULTRABOND® HS-1CC—the world’s strongest anchoring epoxy with a 1:1 mix ratio that’s IBC approved in cartridge or
bulk—provides longer working time in warm temperatures. And new ULTRABOND® HYB-2CC is IBC approved for application
in temperatures down to 23 °F. For jobs where a quick cure rate is required, it will completely cure in 30 minutes at 70°F.

Two great new structural anchoring options from from the nation’s foremost adhesives specialist, now available from an
authorized distributor near you. So no matter what month it is, you’ve got the perfect duo for vertical construction and
transportation infrastructure projects.

450 EAST COPANS RD POMPANO BEACH, FL 33064 | 754.399.1057 | WWW.ATCEPOXY.COM/STRUCTURE

ICC-ES REPORT NUMBERS:

HS-1CC ESR-4094; HYB-2CC ESR-4535
 For any given subsidence basin, ground, and structure sce-
nario, the relative size and location of the structure with respect
to the sag determines the induced foundation strains/stresses
and rigid body rotation. When structure area, S, versus the
basin area, B, is small (e.g., up to about a small house for
larger sags or trough), and assuming typical subsidence con-
ditions, the structure will commonly lie in either the tension
or compression zone and may be exposed to maximum slope
effects. At small S/B ratios, the ambient ground movements are
relatively two-dimensional in the tension zone, while ground
deformations in the compression zone are commonly three-
dimensional, even at small S/Bs. Structures that are relatively
small with respect to the subsidence basin have the highest
potential for rigid body tilt and translation. For intermediate
values of S/B, the subsidence-structure interaction will most
Figure 3. A sketch of some deformed flexible blocks resulting from a single sag event over an
likely be more complicated. The structure can also span the
abandoned mine.
slope zone, and both compressive and tensile damage can occur
at opposite ends of the structure. At large S/B ratios (e.g. department great, the underlying mine workings can be stabilized. Mine stabilization
store size), the foundation and superstructure response will usually be via grouting can be done utilizing various methodologies ranging from
three-dimensional with compressive and tensile effects and include sag- significantly reducing to virtually eliminating any subsidence effects, at
ging unless the exposure to the basin is small enough under the structure a significant difference in cost. Although relatively inexpensive for unit
that a “cantilevered” tensile condition may result. costs, mine stabilization can require massive grout quantities; 20,000
As noted above, building response depends on several variables. to 50,000 cubic yards is not uncommon.
However, based on the authors’ experience, noticeable damage can
be expected to commence at angular distortion values of 1/250 to
1/300 with structural damage on the order of 1/150. An example is
Conclusion
provided in Figure 4. In addition to other significant damage, Figure In addressing construction above underground coal mines, questions
4 shows the wall-floor of about 0.7 feet, which occurred in the middle that need to be answered are: What is the risk of subsidence over the
of an apartment building, on the third floor, from hogging curvature lifespan of the structure? What is the amount of movement that can
of the subsidence profile. The angular distortion of the subsidence occur? What is the potential damage? What can be done to mitigate
profile over the span of this building reached about 1/90. the risk? The risk decision-making process involves understanding
and evaluating the likelihood of subsidence and associated
consequences. Therefore, given the investment, having cor-
Mitigation Measures rect risk information is critical to proper decision making.■
The subsidence damage risk can be controlled by taking surface and/or
subsurface measures to reduce the potential damage. Surface measures Dr. Marino is a nationally known expert in mine subsidence engineering
include moving to a preferable structure orientation/location, earth pres- and the President of Marino Engineering Associates, Inc. (MEA).
sure reduction design, stress/strain resistant and compliant design, and (gmarino@meacorporation.com)
tilt accommodation. In most cases, however, the subsidence-resistant
Dr. Osouli is an Associate Professor at Southern Illinois University
design is not the most cost-effective alternative when exposed to more
Edwardsville and Senior Consultant. (aosouli@siue.edu)
typical movements. Where the potential subsidence damage risk is too

Figure 4. Three-story apartment building subjected to severe mine subsidence.

28 STRUCTURE magazine
model.iesweb.com
Easy-to-use structural software. Get a free trial in 2 minutes. 800-707-0816.
 CODES and STANDARDS
AASHTO Vehicle Live Loading
Past, Present, and Future
By Linda Kaplan, P.E.

T he American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials Load and Resistance Factor
Design code (AASHTO LRFD) guides modern highway bridge
design. The code includes prescriptive criteria for vehicular
live load covering individual truck loads, lane loads, the likeli-
hood of multiple lanes of traffic containing high truck loads
simultaneously, and impact loading. Additionally, state-specific
codes allow for special permit vehicles based on local condi-
tions and needs. The current AASHTO live loads were put into
practice in 1996, the latest in a series of updates developed
to represent modern traffic and design practices.

Development of AASHTO Live Loads

The first written specifications for bridge design in the U.S. can be
traced to railroad companies in the early 1870s. Previous to that,
highway and railroad bridges were to meet simply stated criteria
specific to the expected use and span length of the structure, usu-
ally by private investors teamed with engineers. For example, John
Roebling’s 1846 Suspension Bridge to carry highway traffic over the
Monongahela River in Pittsburgh, PA, was specified for: Figure 1. Specifications for Steel Highway Bridges (Conference Committee)
Weight of the superstructure supported by cables for truck trains and equivalent loads.
Four 6-horse teams, loaded with 104 bushels of coal
Weight of 100 head of cattle when representatives of each, as well as the American Institute of Steel
As the need for highway bridges expanded, so did the need for consis- Construction (AISC), met, forming the Conference Committee and
tent guidelines and design criteria. Individual engineers were interested
publishing the Specifications for Steel Highway Bridges in 1928.
in addressing the need for design standards. Theodore Cooper, previ- The Specifications only addressed vehicular traffic as the primary
ously best known as the chief inspector on the Eads Bridge over the source of transportations for urban areas. No discussion was included
Mississippi River, published his General Specifications for Steel Highway
for trolley loads or shared structures which were common in many
Bridges and Viaducts in 1884, followed by his Specification for Highway cities. Three traffic classes with associated “truck trains” representa-
Bridges in 1890. Considered the “first authoritative specification… tive of a line of trucks, and equivalent loads, were included. The “H”
published and circulated,” Cooper's publications were frequently trucks defined here are the predecessors of the modern “HS” and
sighted as the basis of future codes and standards. “HL” loading definitions in today’s code (Table 1).
The American Railway Engineering Association (AREA, now AREMA), Following the Conference Specifications, the first edition AASHO
the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO, now Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges and Incidental Structures
AASHTO), and ASCE all worked on this issue – each developing was published in 1931, with the same live load definitions (Figure 1).
separate guidelines in the early 1920s before coming together in 1924 It was not until the 3rd edition, published in 1941, that significant
changes were made. Bridge classification was elimi-
Table 1. Traffic classes form the 1928 Conference Specification.
nated, the “equivalent” load was changed to “lane”
load, the HS truck (which represented a truck with
Traffic Live Load / a semitrailer) was defined, and the truck train was
Class Description Truck replaced by either a single design truck per lane or
AA Frequent heavy traffic with regular higher loads H-20 the lane loading. The 4th edition in 1944 contained
A Normal heavy traffic with occasional higher loads H-15 additional changes, including modification of the
HS truck to have variable axle spacing, modifica-
B Temporary or semi-temporary structures with light traffic H-10 tions to lane loads to better suit continuous spans,

30 STRUCTURE magazine
and a change in nomenclature adding the devel- Table 2. Multiple presence factors. expected percentage of truck traffic on the struc-
opment year to the truck designation. Number of Multiple ture. Two traffic conditions were considered in
Few changes were made from the mid-1940s Loaded Lanes Presence Factor this development:
until the development of new live load models • Random traffic moving with highway speed
for the AASHTO LRFD code in the 1980s. 1 1.20 in which the site average number of trucks
Current bridge live loads and design are based 2 1.00 is observed, evenly distributed across the
on the 1994 AASHTO LRFD code and remain 3 0.85 structure, and are separated by an average
basically unchanged since then. number of cars.
>3 0.65 • Traffic jams, with trucks moving at a slow or
crawling speed in which the trucks are likely
Current AASHTO Live Load to be traveling primarily in one lane while
In the 1980s and early 1990s, it became clear cars utilize the others.
that the HS20 vehicle used in design was not a Truck behavior was taken from survey data
good representation of current highway loading from the Michigan Interstate Highways and
and that a new design model was needed. Five combined with engineering judgment to develop
candidate loads were developed and modeled additional influence surface models. For exam-
using influence line analysis to look at the maxi- ple, limited observation suggested that, with two
mum positive bending moment, maximum shear lanes of traffic flowing in the same direction,
at supports, and maximum negative moment. about every 15th truck is on the bridge simulta-
Representative bridges consisting of simple neously with another truck in an adjacent lane.
spans ranging in length from 10 to 200 feet Based on the modeling, the multiple presence
and two-span continuous structures with equal factors in Table 2 were developed and are to be
spans, also ranging from 10 to 200 feet, were applied to the live load.
modeled. The goal was to determine which of Figure 2. HL-93 live load vehicle. These factors were based on modeling that
the candidate vehicles would produce the most assumed an Average Daily Truck Traffic (ADTT)
consistent results so that a single live load model could be utilized of 5,000 trucks in one direction. For low traffic structures with an
for all structure types and lengths. ADTT between 100 and 1,000, 95% of these values may be used.
The selected and current AASHTO live load vehicle is designated For extremely low truck areas with ADTT less than 100, 90% of
HL-93, and loading consists of a combination of the design truck these values may be used.
or design tandem with the design lane load, specified to produce Modern live load analysis for bridge structures typically utilizes
the extreme force effect. The total vehicle weight is 72 kips with the design software to determine the worst-case loading. Thousands of
axle weights and spacing of the design truck as shown in Figure 2. individual load cases can be considered on a structure to calculate the
The spacing between the two 32.0-kip axles varies between 14.0 feet worst possible force effects on the bridge. The analysis will include
and 30.0 feet. load cases with the lane load covering single lane loading, multiple
The design tandem, representing two trailers in series attached to lane loading, single-span loading, and multi-span loading. For each
one truck, consists of a pair of 25.0-kip axles (50-kip total vehicle condition, the truck point loads are moved throughout the loaded
weight) spaced 4.0 feet apart, with the transverse spacing of wheels area to determine the location causing maximum shear and maximum
set as 6.0 feet. The design lane load consists of a load of 0.64 klf positive and negative moment in the component being designed. No
uniformly distributed in the longitudinal direction. See Figure 3 for single load case will control the overall design of the structure.
the loading diagrams. Transversely, the design lane load is assumed
to be uniformly distributed over a 10.0-foot width. The force effects
from the design lane load are not subject to a dynamic load allowance.
The Future of Live Load Models
Additionally, many states have designated Permit Vehicles required As it has now been over 25 years since the live load truck models
for design, which place higher loads on the structure to account for currently used in design were developed, the question arises if these
common local industry needs. The maxi- models are still applicable to modern
mum legal load is the same for all states traffic patterns and vehicle designs. To
at 80 kips, while permit loads vary quite investigate this, the Federal Highway
a bit with maximums up to 110 kips. Administration (FHWA) has started to
Application of the permitted load varies collect data on vehicle weight, frequency,
by state with some requiring permit loads and axle arrangements in various parts of
to be analyzed similarly to the HL-93, the country. By looking at representative
and others allowing them to be a sepa- samples of Weigh in Motion (WIM)
rate load case, assuming no or limited data obtained as part of the ongoing
other traffic will be on the structure at studies, one can start to get a sense of
the same time. how current conditions compare to
When adapting the developed loading design standards.
to long-span and multi-lane structures, Data obtained from interstate highway
it was recognized early on that the likeli- bridges around metropolitan areas in
hood of a bridge completely packed with Oregon and Georgia provide a basis for
trucks was low, so factors were necessary quick comparisons and justification for
to account for multi-lane traffic and the Figure 3. Lane and truck loading combination diagram. further study. Seasonal changes in traffic

APRIL 2020 31
 Table 3. Representative samples of weigh in motion data.

Total Vehicle # Between 50 Average Vehicle Approx. Lane Load (assumes

State Month Count # Over 72 Kips and 72 kips Weight (kips) 30 feet between vehicles)
April 2018 272,427 25,656, (9%) 21,921 (8%) 20,783 0.693 k/ft
Oregon
October 2018 292,834 20,245 (7%) 21,653 (7%) 17,964 0.599 k/ft
April 2018 1,617,011 53,701 (3%) 43,243 (3%) 11,038 0.370 k/ft
Georgia
October 2018 1,048,575 30,766 (3%) 39,936 (4%) 11,122 0.371 k/ft

are to be expected, so a year’s worth of data is required for complete
analysis. However, a sample of the data looking just at April and
October 2018 was analyzed using metrics of Gross Vehicle Weight
(GVW) and average vehicle weight for demonstrative purposes (Table
3). Data related to axle weight, axle spacing, vehicle spacing, speed,
and frequency were also collected but have not been included here.
Looking individually at the data from Georgia would imply that the
current design criteria fit observed traffic reasonably well. Only 3% of
the vehicles observed are over the design GVW, which could easily be
explained by state permit loads. Additionally, the approximate lane load
is well below the 0.640 k/ft used in design. However, looking at the
Oregon data is less reassuring. With up to 9% of the observed vehicles
over the design load and an additional 7% over the design tandem load,
it appears that a more substantial design load may be called for. The
lane load observed in this data set also approaches or exceeds the design
lane load, again implying that higher design loads may be justified.
Traffic loads are likely to change significantly in the not-to-distant
future as autonomous vehicles, both cars and trucks, become more
common. The possibility of driverless, long truck trains, moving in close
formation and high speeds, and the significantly higher load potential
they present, has not yet been considered. As this becomes a reality, both
codes and existing infrastructure will need to be carefully reevaluated.
Conclusion
Bridge live load modeling as prescribed in the AASHTO LRFD code
has developed over the past century to account for vehicle changes,
advances in modeling techniques, and new and better data on existing
traffic. As traffic continues to evolve, it is both timely and appropri-
ate that the FHWA is again looking into this matter. Preliminary
data indicates that changes may be called for and validates the effort
involved in the studies.■
The online version of this article contains references.
Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
Linda Kaplan is a Structural Project Engineer with Pennoni Associates in
Pittsburgh, PA. She is a co-author of the book, Bridges... Pittsburgh at the
Point... A Journey Through History. (lkaplan@pennoni.com)

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

Weld-Crete®—The pale Simply brush, roll or spray Weld-Crete®

blue bonding agent with
over 60 years of superior
performance in the field.
on to concrete or any structurally
sound surface. Then come back hours,
days or a week later and finish with
new concrete, stucco, tile, terrazzo,
other cement mixes or portland cement
plaster. Plus Weld-Crete’s® low VOC
content significantly reduces airborne
pollutants that affect health and the
environment.

Originators of leading chemical bonding

agents… worldwide since 1952

800.633.6668
www.larsenproducts.com

32 STRUCTURE magazine
 ENGINEERED WOOD products guide
American Wood Council
Phone: 202-463-2766
Email: info@awc.org
Web: www.awc.org
Product: National Design Specification for Wood
Construction® (NDS)
Description: The 2018 NDS is referenced in
the 2018 International Building Code. Significant
additions to the 2018 NDS include new Roof
Sheathing Ring Shank nails and fastener head pull-
through design provisions to address increased wind
loads in ASCE 7-16 Minimum Design Loads and
Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures.
CAST CONNEX
Phone: 416-806-3521
Email: info@castconnex.com
Web: www.castconnex.com
Product: Timber End Connectors™
Description: The leading supplier of cast steel
components for use in the design and construction
of structures. Timber End Connectors bring off-
the-shelf simplicity and reliability to architecturally
exposed steel connections at the ends of heavy
timber or glulam structural elements, while
custom designed components enable unparalleled
opportunity for creativity in design.
Concrete Masonry Association
of CA & NV
Phone: 916-722-1700
Email: info@cmacn.org
Web: www.cmacn.org
Product: CMD18 Design Tool for Masonry
Description: Structural design of reinforced concrete
and clay hollow unit masonry elements for design 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).
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org
34 STRUCTURE magazine
ENERCALC, Inc.
ENERCALC
Phone: 800-424-2252
Email: info@enercalc.com
Web: http://enercalc.com
Product: Structural Engineering Library/
ENERCALC SE Cloud/RetainPro
Description: Whether working with wood
beams, trusses, columns, ledgers or shear walls,
ENERCALC’s Structural Engineering Library
handles it easily. New 3-D sketches make it easy to
visualize/analyze components. Built-in databases
for sawn lumber and engineered wood products
(VersaLam, Glu-Lam, etc) put section properties
and allowable stresses at your fingertips.
IES, Inc.
Phone: 800-707-0816
Email: info@iesweb.com
Web: www.iesweb.com
Product: VisualAnalysis and VAConnect
Description: Your wood structures start with a
model. VisualAnalysis helps you create models
easily to obtain accurate analysis and design
results. With VAConnect you also get wood
connection design to take you a step further
toward success. Download free trials of these
tools in the next 3 minutes from the website.
RedBuilt
Phone: 866-859-6757
Email: info@redbuilt.com
Web: www.redbuilt.com
Product: Red-I™ Joists, RedLam™ LVL and
Red-OW Trusses
Description: Structural solutions developed to
optimize the design of your project and have become
an integral part of floor, roof, and ceiling framing.
Visit the Resources section of the website for the
complete list of Specifier’s Guides.
Not listed?
All 2020 Resource Guide
forms are now available on
our website.
STRUCTUREmag.org.
S-FRAME Software
Phone: 604 273-7737
Email: info@s-frame.com
Web: s-frame.com
Product: S-TIMBER
Description: The solution to mass timber, light-
frame, and hybrid structural design; leverages over 38
years of structural engineering expertise into a solution
that automates and manages all aspects of the timber
design process: modeling, structural analysis, and
timber design. All S-FRAME Software solutions are
backed by best-in-class customer support.
Trimble
Phone: 678-737-7379
Email: jodi.hendrixson@trimble.com
Web: www.tekla.com/us
Product: Tekla Structures
Description: Can be used for wood framing:
True BIM model of wood framing; parametric
components allow for easy creation and design
change; easily add or move doors and windows;
library of industry standard wood connections
included; clash checking functionality to eliminate
change orders; easily customizable to suit any job
requirements.
Product: Tekla Tedds
Description: Using Tekla Tedds you can design
a range of wood elements, and produce detailed
and transparent documentation for beams (single
span, multi-span and cantilever), wood columns,
sawn lumber, engineered wood, glulam and
flitch options, shear walls (multiple openings:
segmented or perforated) and connections (bolted,
screwed, nailed, wood/wood and wood/steel).
WoodWorks Software
Phone: 800-844-1275
Email: sales@woodworks-software.com
Web: www.woodworks-software.com
Product: WoodWorks Design Office Suite
Description: Conforms to IBC 2015, ASCE 7-10,
NDS 2015, SDPWS 2015. SHEARWALLS:
designs perforated and segmented shearwalls;
generates loads; rigid and flexible diaphragm
distribution methods. SIZER: designs beams,
columns, studs, joists up to 6 stories; automatic
load patterning. CONNECTIONS: Wood-to-
wood, wood-to-steel, or wood-to-concrete.
Listings are provided as a courtesy,
STRUCTURE is not responsible for errors.
REDUCE
THERMAL
TRANSER
TBS Thermal Brick Support System
+ Our Thermal Brick Support System is a
groundbreaking brick veneer support system
that reduces thermal bridging in shelf angles.

+ It allows for the installation of continuous

insulation behind the support angle.

+ Each job is designed and engineered in-house

to meet your specific project needs.

+ A recent study shows that attached shelf

angles will create an effective reduction of the
R-Value by between 46% and 63%. The
same study shows that offset angles minimize
that reduction to between 15% and 16.5%.

2-SEAL™ Thermal Wingnut

+ Our 2-SEAL™ Thermal Wingnut is the only
THE ONLY ANCHORS
functional wingnut anchor in the industry. As TO SEAL THE
the wingnut tightens, it presses the insulation INSULATION AND
tight against the backup wall, maximizing its THE AIR BARRIER
R-Value.

+ Single-barrel means a single penetration,

as opposed to anchors that typically require
two fasteners. This means the number of
thermal bridges is reduced by half.

+ Using a wall configuration with 4” of XPS

insulation, at 16” x 16” spacings, typical
masonry anchors can lead to an R-Value
reduction of upward of 20% or greater. This
anchor limits that effective R-Value reduction
to 7.4%, or operating at 92.6% efficiency.

STEEL REINFORCED
www.h-b.com // 800-645-0616 WINGS
 NCSEANCSEA News
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
Invitation to Participate in the 2020 SE3 Survey
The NCSEA Structural Engineering Engagement and Equity (SE3) Committee is currently administering its third nationwide survey of
structural engineers across the profession and we invite you to participate!
The SE3 Committee is composed of a diverse group of engineers across the United States. Our mission is to attract and retain the best
and brightest into our profession; and to ensure ALL structural engineers have a clear
pathway to success. The SE3 survey is an ongoing effort to identify trends, understand
the underlying factors, and initiate industry-wide conversations.
For example, did you know that roughly 60% of survey respondents have considered
leaving the profession at some point in their career? When comparing a respondent's years
of experience with their inclination to stay until retirement, the 2018 survey identified
three (3) career pinch-points – occurring at year two (2), ten (10), and eighteen (18) years.
Based on key survey findings, the committee utilizes presentations, panel discussions,
and networking events to provide actionable information for industry improvement.
Survey topics include career development, compensation, work flexibility, and overall
engagement. For more information, including past events and publications, check
out www.SE3committee.com.
The SE3 Committee looks forward to your participation! Join the conversation and participate in the 2020 SE3 survey – look for the link
on the SE3 website or www.ncsea.com/committees/se3.

Now Accepting Nominations for NCSEA Special Awards

NCSEA's Special Awards are presented each year at the Structural Engineering Summit. These awards are presented to NCSEA members
who have provided outstanding service and commitment to the association and to the structural engineering field. Special Awards are
granted to worthy recipients in four different categories:
The NCSEA Service Award is presented to an individual who has The Susan M. Frey NCSEA Educator Award is presented to an
worked for the betterment of NCSEA to a degree that is beyond the individual who has a genuine interest in, and extraordinary talent for,
norm of volunteerism. It is given to someone who has made a clear effective instruction for practicing structural engineers.
contribution to the organization and therefore to the profession.
2019 Recipient: Dr. S.K. Ghosh
2019 Recipient: Ben Nelson, P.E.
The James Delahay Award is presented at the recommendation of
The Robert Cornforth Award is presented to an individual
the NCSEA Code Advisory Committee, to recognize outstanding
for exceptional dedication and exemplary service to a Member
individual contributions towards the development of building codes
organization and to the profession.
and standards.
2019 Recipient: Thomas A. DiBlasi, P.E., SECB
2019 Recipient: Kelly E. Cobeen, S.E.
Visit www.ncsea.com to submit your nomination by June 23, 2020.

Don't Miss This Month's Training to Become a Second Responder

Register for the next NCSEA CalOES Safety Assessment Program on Wednesday, April 29, 2020
The California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) Safety Assessment Program (SAP), hosted by NCSEA, is highly regarded as a standard
throughout the country for engineer emergency responders. It is one of only two post-disaster assessment programs that will be compliant
with the requirements of the Federal Resource Typing Standards for engineer emergency responders, and has been reviewed and approved
by FEMA's Office of Domestic Preparedness. Based on ATC-20/45 methodologies and forms, the SAP training course provides engineers,
architects, and code-enforcement professionals with the basic skills required to perform safety assessments of structures following disasters.
Doug Fell, P.E., Structural Resource Center LLC, is a CalOES Assessor, Coordinator and Instructor. Doug is the man-
aging principal of Structural Resource Center LLC. He was the lead structural engineer for the Minneapolis Metrodome
roof collapse stabilization and return to service. Doug is the chairperson of the Minnesota SEA SEER Committee and is
the MNSEA SEER member organization representative on the NCSEA SEER Committee.

Register by visiting www.ncsea.com. This course is not included in the Live & Recorded Webinar Subscription.

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

L’EGGO MY EGGO
By Sarah Kay Twine
The Structural Engineers Association of Arizona (SEAoA) hosted their 2nd Annual Egg-Drop
Competition and Fundraiser in January at the University of Arizona. The competition
serves to raise money for SEAoA's Annual Student Scholarship given to University of
Arizona structural engineering students, and to provide a networking opportunity for
professionals and students in the fields of engineering, architecture, and construction.
The evening was a fun-filled egg-citing way for teams to take on the great challenge of
creating an apparatus to protect a raw chicken egg from cracking when dropped from
the 35-foot second landing of the Civil Engineering courtyard staircase.
Each team, consisting of two professionals and one or two students, was given a bag of
the same materials and had only twenty minutes to hatch an idea and create a device to
protect their egg. The competition is intended to parallel the structural engineering world:
protect the public (the egg) and provide an economical (light weight) design.
Some teams designed a parachute to slow the fall while others chose materials to absorb
the impact. A few decided to combine both concepts. As the deadline approached, some
teams were scrambling to finish while others patiently waited to show off their design.
All teams had great egg-spectations for their personal creations.
After time was up, each device was weighed before it was dropped. The winner would be
the lightest device to sustain the drop resulting in an unbroken egg. Applause filled the
courtyard after each team had "l'eggo their eggo" from the landing. A judge determined
whether each egg was un-cracked, cracked (no leaking), or completely obliterated. After
13 dropped eggs, 6 were un-cracked, 4 were cracked, and 3 had been annihilated. Team
5 crushed the competition with an apparatus weighing 79 grams (31 grams less than the previous year’s winner). The winners included
two University of Arizona civil engineering students: Adam Bishop and Sergio Corona, and two Professionals from M3 Engineering and
Technology Corp.: Allan Ortega and Austin Urton. The winners each received a $50 Amazon Gift Card. The event was a huge success,
and approximately $1150 was raised for the students! SEAoA would like to extend a special thank you to the University of Arizona ASCE
Executive Team and Jessica Carson, S.E., from Martin, White & Griffis, for creating this event last year and lending a hand this year.

SEAs Participate in E-Week

SEAOI (left) and SEAoAL (right) each demonstrated seismic activity to budding SEAW assisted students with a variety of OSEA's Young Member group testing
structural engineers with their shake tables. interactive activities, including building students' structures during a bridge
gumdrop towers. breaking competition.
NCSEA's Communication Committee has developed many resources to help members take the first step in reaching out to their local
schools to share the profession and how students can start their career plans. These valuable resources include many hands-on activities, the
step-by-step High School Outreach Start-Up Guide, and the What is Structural Engineering PowerPoint presentation. These resources have
aided local NCSEA Member Organizations in the creation of impactful outreach programs as well as successful e-week activities.
For more information about NCSEA's STEM resources, visit www.ncsea.com.

NCSEA Webinars Register by visiting www.ncsea.com

April 16, 2020 Structural Design and Embodied Carbon April 23, 2020 Rain Loads – The Forgotten Hazard
Nicholas Miley, S.E. Michael O’Rourke, P.E., Ph.D.

Courses award 1.5 hours of Diamond Review-approved continuing education after the completion of a quiz.

A P R I L 2 02 0 37
 SEI Update
Advancing the Profession

Congratulations to the 2020 ASCE Structural and SEI Award

Recipients
SHORTRIDGE HARDESTY JACK E. CERMAK MEDAL NATHAN M. NEWMARK
AWARD Peter J. Vickery, Ph.D., P.E., MEDAL
Ben Young, Ph.D., M.ASCE F.SEI, F.ASCE Satish Nagarajaiah, Ph.D.,
F.SEI., F.ASCE

RICHARD R. TORRENS W. GENE CORLEY AWARD WALTER P. MOORE, JR.

AWARD Randall P Bernhardt, P.E., AWARD
Anil Agrawal, P.E., Ph.D., S.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE Charles A. Kircher, Ph.D.,
M.ASCE S.E., M.ASCE

DENNIS L. JACK E. CERMAK MEDAL

TEWKSBURY AWARD Kenny Kwok, Ph.D.,
Donald Dusenberry P.E., CPEng, M.ASCE
SECB, F.SEI, F.ASCE

SEI PRESIDENT’S AWARD RAYMOND C. REESE RESEARCH PRIZE

David W. Cocke, S.E., F.SEI, Dan Mircea Frangopol, P.E., F.SEI, Dist.M.ASCE,
F.ASCE and Yan Liu, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE

MOISSEIFF AWARD
Tsukasa Mizutani, Tomonori Nagayama, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE,
Tomoaki Takeda, Ph.D., and Yozo Fujino, Ph.D., M.ASCE

SEI CHAPTER OF SEI GRADUATE STUDENT

THE YEAR AWARD CHAPTER OF THE YEAR AWARD
SEI Houston Chapter SEI Graduate Student Chapter (GSC)
at Northeastern University

Nominate for 2021 SEI/ASCE Awards at www.asce.org/SEI.

SEI Online
Are you on Social Media?
Follow SEI on Linked In, Twitter, Facebook,
YouTube, and now Instagram too!

SEI News Read the latest at www.asce.org/SEINews

SEI Standards Visit www.asce.org/SEIStandards to view ASCE 7 development cycle
38 STRUCTURE magazine
 News of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
Learning / Networking
ASCE Guided Online Course: Seismic Analysis
of Building Structures
April 27 – July 17, 2020
• Understand the theoretical basis and the appropriate methodology for implementing three primary seismic analysis methods needed
to determine the seismic force and deformation demands in ASCE 7 for building structures and nonbuilding structures.
• Enhance structural analysis skills for engineers who design structures for seismic loads.
• Apply equivalent static and linear dynamic analysis methods for the determination of seismic demands.
www.asce.org/seismic-analysis-of-building-structures

Save the Date and Call for Proposals

Submit abstract and session proposals by June 3, 2020, related to the full lifecycle of structures to advance structural engineering
through: Leadership Development | Project Solutions | Emerging Technology | Resilience | Sustainability | Functional Recovery |
Global Climate Change | Innovative Research with Practical Application

Sponsor/Exhibit and reach more than 1,000 industry professionals. Contact Sean Scully at sscully@asce.org
www.structurescongress.org #Structures21

What distinguishes Structures Congress from other conferences?

By J. Greg Soules, P.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE, Chair of SEI NTPC, Senior Principal, McDermott

The annual SEI Structures Congress covers all materials used in structures (steel, concrete, masonry, and timber) along with foundations,
special loadings (blast, fire, seismic, wind, etc.), code issues, and professional issues such as licensing, liability, and other legal issues.
Additionally, we have topics related to all types of structural research and education issues. The more than 1,000 participants at Structures
Congress generally specify materials and equipment.
The SEI National Technical Program Committee (NTPC) is an SEI Board-level committee responsible for organizing the technical pro-
gram and is made up of 20 volunteer structural engineer members from government, private practice, industry, and academia along with
two SEI staff members. The goal of NTPC is to provide the best possible program to attract practicing structural engineers and academics
from around the world, provide a forum to exchange knowledge, and support the growth and development of the structural engineering
profession. NTPC volunteers represent all areas of structural engineering practice and academia. Structures Congress involves all areas of
structural engineering, including:
• Blast and Impact Loading • Business and Professional Practice • Natural Disasters
• Bridges, Tunnels, and other • Career Development • Nonbuilding and Special Structures
Transportation Structures • Education • Nonstructural Components and Systems
• Buildings • Forensic • Innovative Research
Each year, NTPC receives more than 600 presentation abstracts through an open call and invites abstracts on specific topics and those
related to the location of Structures Congress that year. Peer review papers are not required. The technical program is highly competitive,
generally accepting less than half of the abstracts submitted. While the technical program includes both practice and academic topics, it is
weighted toward practicing structural engineers since the majority of the 30,000 SEI members are in practice.

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.

A P R I L 2 02 0 39
 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 or keep track of the skills
young engineers are learning at each level of experience, CASE has the tools you need!
The following documents/templates are recommended to review/use if your firm needs to update its current Quality Assurance Program,
or incorporate a new program into the firm culture:
962: National Practice Guidelines for the Structural Engineer of Record (2018)
962-B: National Practice Guideline for Specialty Structural Engineers
962-C: Guidelines for International Building Code Mandated Special Inspections and Tests and Quality Assurance
962-D: Guideline addressing Coordination and Completeness of Structural Construction Documents
Tool 1-2: Developing a Culture of Quality Tool 4-4: Phone Conversation Log
Tool 2-1: Risk Evaluation Checklist Tool 4-5: Project Communication Matrix
Tool 2-4: Project Risk Management Plan Tool 9-2: Quality Assurance Plan
Tool 4-1: Status Report Template Tool 10-1: Site Visit Cards
Tool 4-2: Project Kick-off Meeting Agenda Tool 10-2: Construction Administration Log
Tool 4-3: Sample Correspondence Letters
You can purchase these and the other Risk Management Tools at www.acec.org/bookstore.

CASE Winter Member Meeting Update

Previously, CASE has brought their committee members together for a day-long
working session with a roundtable the night before. This year, along with three other
ACEC Coalition groups, CASE developed an education meeting with some strategic
planning in the afternoon. Held February 27-28 in New Orleans, LA, this meeting
had several education sessions ranging from an internal ethics case study done by
legal counsel of Terracon to an interactive technology panel with representatives from
Autodesk, BST Global, and Newforma.
During the afternoon of the 28th, break-out sessions were held by the CASE Contracts, Guidelines, Toolkit, and Programs & Communications
Committees to work on advancing some strategic initiatives and engaging members even further in discussions.
Current initiatives include: • Discussed options for a session to submit for the 2021 SEI
I. Contracts Committee – Bruce Burt Structures Congress
(bburt@rubyandassociates.com) • Discussed joint CASE/NCSEA Business of Structural
• The committee is working on updates to the three commen- Engineering Workshop
taries that correspond to AIA contract documents. IV. Toolkit Committee – Roger Parra (rparra@degenkolb.com)
• Exploring new design-build area within CASE along with • Exploring new design-build area within CASE along with
CASE Guidelines and Toolkit committees CASE Contracts and Guidelines committees
II. Guidelines Committee – Kevin Chamberlain • Working on the following updates to current tools:
(kevinc@dcstructural.com) º Tool 2-5: Insurance Management
• Exploring new design-build area within CASE along with º Tool 3-1: A Risk Management Program Planning
CASE Contracts and Toolkit committees Structure
• Working on the following new documents: º Tool 6-2: Scope of Work for Engaging Sub-consultants
º Introduction to Seismic Engineering for the Practicing º Tool 8-1: Contract Review
Structural Engineer º Tool 8-2: Contract Clauses and Commentary
º Structural Engineer’s Guide to the Procurement, Use, • Working on the following new document topics:
and Implementation of Geotechnical Engineering • Job Descriptions
º Beyond the Code – Understanding Client Expectations • Succession Planning
and Strategies for Managing Them • Employee Retention
III. Programs and Communications Committee – Nils Ericson
(nericson@m2structural.com) The next Member Meeting will be held summer of 2020. Please
• Discussed options for sessions at the 2020 ACEC Fall contact Heather Talbert (htalbert@acec.org) to be added to the
Conference pre-registration listing.

40 STRUCTURE magazine
 News of the Coalition of American Structural Engineers
CASE Practice Guidelines Currently Available
CASE 976-C – Commentary on 2010 Code of Standard COSP are necessary to ensure the proper design and documentation
Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges of steel joists and Joist Girders. However, the discussion highlights
sections of interest to the specifying structural engineer.
The 2010 COSP addresses many recent changes in the practice
of designing, purchasing, fabricating, and erecting structural steel CASE 976-E – Commentary on ASCE Wind Design Procedures
and is, therefore, a continuation of the trend of past improvements
The purpose of this Guideline is to provide guidance and commen-
and developments of this standard. It is important to note that the
tary on the wind provisions of ASCE/SEI 7, and provide a brief
Structural Engineer can change any of the requirements of the Code
overview of the changes from ASCE/SEI 7-05 to ASCE/SEI 7-10,
of Standard Practice by specifying an alternative in the Contract
and again from ASCE/SEI 7-10 to ASCE/SEI 7-16. One helpful
Documents. This document discusses the list of changes published
aspect of the restructured wind provisions is that each part of each
in the preface of the 2010 Edition and provides some commentary
analysis procedure contains a step by step checklist of items that
to these changes. This document also addresses areas of the COSP
need to be determined for that given procedure, along with refer-
that may not be well understood by some SERs but will likely have
ences to Figures, Tables, and Equations in which those parameters
an impact on the structural engineer’s practice of designing and
can be determined. The changes in wind design procedures and
specifying structural steel.
chapter formatting from ASCE/SEI 7-05 to ASCE/SEI 7-10 were
CASE 976-D – Commentary on 2010 & 2015 Code of very extensive. The changes from ASCE/SEI 7-10 to ASCE/SEI 7-16
Standard Practice for Steel Joists and Joist Girders were minor in comparison and were noted with solid grey lines in
the margins of ASCE/SEI 7-16.
This commentary provides observations and analysis of the revisions
and additions in both documents and discusses specific aspects of the
COSP that have a direct impact on the structural engineer’s practice of You can purchase these and the other CASE Risk
specifying steel joists. A familiarity and understanding of the entire SJI Management Tools at www.acec.org/bookstore.

Donate to the CASE Scholarship Fund!

The ACEC Coalition 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 $35,000
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 Member Firms Win Engineering Excellence Grand,

Honor Awards
Congratulations go out to the following CASE Member firms for winning Grand Awards:
Thornton Tomasetti, The Shed in New York, NY
Magnusson Klemenic Associates, Inc., Amazon Urban Neighborhood in Seattle, WA

These firms are finalists for the Grand Conceptor Award being awarded at the 53rd Engineering Excellence Awards Gala April 28th in
Washington, DC, as part of the ACEC Annual Convention.
CASE Member Firm raSmith won an Honor Award for their project, University of Wisconsin-Madison Hamel Music Center, in Madison, WI.

Follow ACEC Coalitions on Twitter – @ACECCoalitions.

APRIL 2020 41

Warning Flags for Structural Engineers
Watch for Ten Hidden Risks in Contracts
By Robert Hughes
T oday, more owners and other project
participants are looking for ways to
transfer risk to engineering firms by insert-
ing potentially onerous language in contracts.
In many cases, such contractual exposures are
not insurable under an engineering firm’s pro-
fessional liability insurance or other policies,
leaving the firm with potentially substantial
uninsured exposures.
Here are ten contractual issues that engineers
should flag, discuss with their legal counsel
and insurance advisor, and either address in
the final version of the contract or be prepared
to make informed business decisions on how
to proceed.
Indemnification Language
1. Duty to defend. A key contractual pit-
fall for engineers involves the inclusion in
an indemnity agreement of an obligation
to “defend” a client from claims made
by third parties. This affirmative obliga-
tion is not insurable under professional
liability policies. Strike any reference
to an obligation to defend a client; as
a back-up, agree to reimburse defense
costs in your proportionate share and as
recoverable under common law (do not
include legal fees or costs for enforcing
the indemnity obligation itself ).
2. Tied to negligence. Many indemnification
clauses require the engineer to indemnify the
project owner or client for “any and all claims
arising out of ” the engineer’s services, without
regard to negligence. Modify this language
so: 1) it is tied to the engineer’s negligence,
and 2) you agree to indemnify a client only
for third party claims. Also, be sure that a
finding of some degree of negligence on your
part does not then trigger an obligation to
indemnify the owner or client for their per-
centage of fault.
3. Indemnifying entities related to the
owner. Often, clients insert language requir-
ing engineers to indemnify entities that may
be “related” to the actual client in the con-
tract. This may include agents, representatives,
subsidiaries, affiliates, other consultants, and
lenders, all creating insurability issues. Strike
any references to parties or agents beyond
your client, its officers, and its employees.
42 STRUCTURE magazine
legal PERSPECTIVES
Standard of Care
4. Expansive wording. When defined in the
contract, the standard of care should require
the engineer to “... perform its services within
the degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised
by other members of the same profession
practicing in the same locality and under
similar circumstances as of the time services
were rendered.” Watch for language altering
the standard, such as requirements for the
engineer to exercise its “best efforts” or the
“highest” degree of care, or that allows the
client to make unilateral determinations as
to the quality of your services. Further, your
contract never should promise perfection or
total accuracy in your professional services;
that might be interpreted as a warranty or
guarantee, both of which are excluded under
most professional liability policies.
5. Agreeing to act in a fiduciary capacity. If
a client inserts a sentence in the contract that
reads “consultant will act at all times in the
best interests of the client” or refers to there
being a fiduciary duty owed by the consultant,
this is “disguised” standard of care language.
Strike any language referring to a fiduciary
relationship or that requires you to act at all
times in the client’s best interest.
General Contractual Issues
6. Waiver of consequential damages.
Consequential or special damages are indirect
economic expenses, such as lost profits and
elements of delay damages or diminution in
value. Although potentially insurable, conse-
quential damages represent a disproportionate
risk to the compensation provided to the pro-
fessionals in the engineering contract. Try to
reject language holding you responsible for
consequential damages and consider adding
a clause to waive that responsibility.
7. Site safety. Contracts should include a
safety clause, making job site safety the sole
responsibility of the contractor and excluding
the engineer from any related obligation such
as site supervision. By written agreement, the
project owner should require the contractor
to name the engineer as an additional insured
under the contractor’s commercial general
liability and auto policies.
8. Ownership of documents. Strike contrac-
tual language that offers a client unlimited
license to use the A/E firm’s instruments of
professional services; instead, contracts should
only provide a limited license for the client’s
specific project needs. If this is not possible,
secure a waiver and indemnity from your
client for any subsequent use or re-use of
your work product.
9. Retaining consultants historically hired
directly by the owner. Owners traditionally
hire an A/E firm to design their project, with
the firm then hiring various subconsultants.
However, some services, such as geotechnical
engineering and environmental investigations,
are traditionally independently retained by the
owner, outside the prime engineer’s responsi-
bilities. Today, more contracts seek to have the
prime consultant retain all subconsultants on
the project (often including firms selected by the
owner). You should not agree to this; if you hold
the contract, you are liable for their negligence.
10. No right to rely on owner-supplied
information. In any project, engineers can
only complete their work after receiving accu-
rate information and documents from the
owner, such as geotechnical reports, as-builts
of existent structures, etc. Traditionally, con-
tracts addressed at least two related obligations
– one on the owner to furnish accurate infor-
mation on a timely basis; the other, giving
engineers the right to rely on that informa-
tion. However, there has been an increase in
language altering these obligations. Insist on
language that obligates the owner to provide
timely, accurate information necessary for
you to complete your scope of services and to
affirm your right to rely on that information.
By understanding these hidden exposures,
structural engineers will be better positioned
to practice good contractual hygiene and have
productive, profitable, and mutually reward-
ing relationships with their clients.■
Disclaimer: The information in this article is for
educational purposes only and is not legal advice.
Readers should not act or refrain from acting based
on this article without seeking appropri-
ate legal or other professional advice as to
their particular circumstances.
Robert Hughes is Senior Vice President and
Partner with Ames & Gough.
APRIL 2020
Learn about the changes in ACI 318-19

Attend one of 25 public seminars

titled “ACI 318-19: Changes to
the Concrete Design Standard”
being held throughout the
United States this spring.
With ACI 318-19 now 100 pages
FREE longer than the previous edition,
COPY OF two industry experts will walk
ACI 318-19 FOR seminar attendees through the
ALL SEMINAR
new provisions and present
ATTENDEES
major technical changes.

SEMINAR LOCATIONS
Albany, NY New Orleans, LA
Baltimore, MD Pittsburgh, PA
Chicago, IL (Rosemont) Portland, OR
Cleveland, OH Raleigh, NC
Dallas, TX Richmond, VA
Denver, CO San Diego, CA
Des Moines, IA Savannah, GA
Detroit, MI (Farmington Hills) St. Louis, MO
Emeryville, CA Tampa, FL
Houston, TX
Indianapolis, IN
Little Rock, AR
Miami, FL
Minneapolis, MN
Nashville, TN
New Brunswick, NJ

Visit concrete.org/ACI318 for a complete seminar

description and all registration information
 THE NEW RISA-3D:
DELIVERING MORE
POWER AND A GREAT
NEW INTERFACE

JUST HOW DID WE IMPROVE

ON THE INDUSTRY’S BEST?
You know RISA-3D for its power as the
industry’s best design and structural
analysis solution. Now you can appreciate
it for its looks, too. And in addition to a
modern, new interface, the new RISA-3D
adds improved, high-speed processing,
expanded detail reports, and upgraded
printing options. Model changes are effortless,
so whether you’re working with steel, concrete,
aluminum, masonry, wood, or cold formed
steel, you now have more power and flexibility
than ever before. Learn more at risa.com.

Copyright © 2020 RISA Tech, Inc. All rights reserved. RISA is part
of the Nemetschek Group. RISA, the RISA logo and RISA-3D are
registered trademarks of RISA Tech, Inc.
 Designing a wood building?
Ask us anything.
FREE PROJECT SUPPORT • EDUCATION • RESOURCES
Photo: JC Buck

Platte Fifteen
Oz Architecture

Nationwide support for • Allowable heights and areas/construction types

the code-compliant design,
engineering and construction
of commercial and multi-family
wood buildings
• Structural detailing of wood-frame and hybrid material systems
• Fire resistance and acoustical-rated assemblies
• Efficient and code-compliant lateral system design
• Alternate means of code compliance
• Energy-efficient detailing
• Application of advanced building systems and technologies

woodworks.org/project-assistance • help@woodworks.org

MULTI - FAMILY/ MIX ED - USE • EDUCATION • OFFIC E • RE TA IL • INDUSTRIAL • CIVIC • INSTITUTIONAL