STRUCTURE

NCSEA | CASE | SEI JUNE 2020

TALL BUILDINGS

INSIDE: Evolution of Fire Safety 8

High Capacity Foundations 22
10 Hudson Yards 26
Seismic Performance of Towers 32
Before They Go Up They Have To Go Down.
Specify PIERESEARCH for all your rebar and rebar cage alignment projects.
PIERESEARCH® provides custom
quality alignment products that
are critically important to all
professionals involved in the
structural engineering, geo-design
and construction industry.
“Perfect your spec to protect
what you cannot inspect!”
© Stan Agee

Quality Concrete Accessories Proudly Made In The USA!

EST. 1986

NEW YORK PIERESEARCH.COM / 516 376 9807 ARLINGTON, TEXAS PIERESEARCH.COM / 817 277 3738
HERBENGLER@PIERESEARCH.COM STANAGEE@PIERESEARCH.COM
 ADVERTISER INDEX Please support these advertisers
STRUCTURE ®

Aegis Metal Framing ..............................17
ASDIP Structural Software ..........................9
AWI Panels ..........................................28
Commins Mfg .......................................41
CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp .............37
KPFF .....................................................4 MARKETING & ADVERTISING SALES
sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
LNA Solutions .......................................35
Joe Murphy
NCEES ...............................................30 jmurphy@STRUCTUREmag.org; Tel: 203-254-9595
Nucor Tubular Products ...........................43 Denis O’Malley
Pieresearch ............................................2 domalley@STRUCTUREmag.org; Tel: 203-356-9694, ext. 13

ENERCALC, INC ..................................15
Geopier Foundation Company.................51
Hohmann & Barnard ..............................44
Integrated Engineering Software ...............45
Keller – North America ...........................46
Kinetica ...............................................25
Jerry Preston
RISA ...................................................52
jpreston@STRUCTUREmag.org; Tel: 602-369-3037
Simpson Strong-Tie ................................11
Strongwell ............................................19 EDITORIAL STAFF
Executive Editor Alfred Spada
StructurePoint ..........................................6
aspada@ncsea.com
Trimble ..................................................3 Publisher Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
csloat@STRUCTUREmag.org

Associate Publisher Nikki Alger

nalger@STRUCTUREmag.org

YOUR OPINION MATTERS! Creative Director Tara Smith

STRUCTURE magazine is always looking for Structural

Not listed? graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org

Visit our website to EDITORIAL BOARD

Forum (opinion) articles and Letters to the Editor. We
Chair John A. Dal Pino, S.E.
preserve a page at the end of the magazine to print these see what advertising FTF Engineering, Inc., San Francisco, CA
types of articles, as space permits. Please send your pieces opportunities are
chair@STRUCTUREmag.org

to publisher@structuremag.org. And don’t forget – post Jeremy L. Achter, S.E., LEED AP

right for you! ARW Engineers, Ogden, UT
questions or comments on the digital versions of articles on
Erin Conaway, P.E.
the STRUCTURE website. STRUCTURE looks forward AISC, Littleton, CO

to hearing from you!

STRUCTUREmag.org Linda M. Kaplan, P.E.
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

2017 GOLD NUGGET AWARDS Gilsanz Murray Steficek, LLP, New York, NY

MERIT AWARD Jason McCool, P.E.

Robbins Engineering Consultants, Little Rock, AR

Best on the Boards Brian W. Miller

Davis, CA
Multifamily Community
Evans Mountzouris, P.E.
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

The DiSalvo Engineering Group, Danbury, CT

Nexus • Seattle • WA
John “Buddy” Showalter, P.E.
International Code Council, Washington, DC

Eytan Solomon, P.E., LEED AP

TOGETHER WE BUILD SOLUTIONS

Silman, New York, NY

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

JVA, Inc., Boulder, CO
Seattle San Diego
STRUCTURE ® magazine (ISSN 1536 4283) is published monthly
Tacoma Boise
by The National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (a nonprofit
Lacey Salt Lake City Association), 20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 750, Chicago, IL 60606
Portland Des Moines 312.649.4600. Application to Mail at Periodicals Postage Prices is
Eugene St. Louis Pending at Chicago, IL and additional mailing offices. STRUCTURE
magazine, Volume 27, Number 6, © 2020 by The National Council of
Sacramento Chicago Structural Engineers Associations, all rights reserved. Subscription services,
San Francisco Louisville back issues and subscription information tel: 312-649-4600, or write to
Los Angeles Washington, DC STRUCTURE magazine Circulation, 20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 750,
Chicago, IL 60606.The publication is distributed to members of The
Long Beach New York
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations through a resolution to
Irvine its bylaws, and to members of CASE and SEI paid by each organization as
nominal price subscription for its members as a benefit of their membership.
Yearly Subscription in USA $75; $40 For Students; Canada $90; $60
for Canadian Students; Foreign $135, $90 for foreign students. Editorial
Office: Send editorial mail to: STRUCTURE magazine, Attn: Editorial, 20
KPFF is an N. Wacker Drive, Suite 750, Chicago, IL 60606. POSTMASTER: Send
Address changes to STRUCTURE magazine, 20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite
Equal Opportunity Employer.
750, Chicago, IL 60606.
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
 22 26 32

Contents JU N E 2020

Columns and Departments

7 Editorial Iconic Global Structures – what did
we learn? By Derek Skolnik P.E., Ph.D.

8 Structural Performance The Evolution of

Fire Safety in Supertall Buildings
By James Antell, AIA, P.E.

22 HIGH CAPACITY FOUNDATIONS FOR 12 Building Blocks The Future of Structural

110 N WACKER DRIVE Round Timber By Amelia Baxter and Michaela Harms
By Darren S. Diehm, P.E.

Structural engineers designing the new building at 110 N Wacker Drive, 16 Structural Design Performance-Based
determined that the core foundations would support nearly 40,000 kips Wind Design By Sean Clifton, P.E., S.E.,
using high-capacity concrete, a design equivalent end bearing of the rock Russell Larsen, P.E., S.E., and Kevin Aswegen, P.E.
socketed drilled shafts of 600 ksf.
20 Structural Rehabilitation Fuzzy Wood
26 10 HUDSON YARDS and Coastal Piles By Richard S. Barrow, P.E.
By Adam Beckmann, P.E., Chris Christoforou, P.E., and Michael Squarzini, P.E.

The structural and architectural advantages of filigree slabs contributed 36 Legal Perspectives Managing the Risks of
immensely to the success of 10 Hudson Yards. The reduced weight of the Subconsultant Relationships By Dan Knise

composite system allowed for reductions in column sizes, beam depths,

and foundation reinforcing. 38 CASE Business Practices Coordination and
Completeness in a BIM Dominated World
29 BIG MOVES FOR THE HISTORIC SHARPE HOUSE By David Ruby, P.E., S.E., SECB

By David J. Odeh, P.E.

40 Historic Structures Bridge Failure in
Brown University identified an opportunity to relocate the historic Sharpe
Dixon, Illinois By Frank Griggs, Jr., D.Eng., P.E.
House. Moving the building opened a site for development while simultaneously
preserving the historic fabric that makes the neighborhood unique.
50 InFocus Understanding Why
32 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF SLENDER
By John A. Dal Pino, S.E.

CORE-ONLY TOWERS
By Mark Sarkisian, S.E., Eric Long, S.E., and David Shook, P.E.
In Every Issue
4 Advertiser Index
The design and verification of the 500 Folsom seismic force resisting
44 Resource Guide – Tall Buildings
system revealed the importance of conducting a detailed analysis even
47 NCSEA News
if code-provisions are satisfied.
48 SEI Update
49 CASE in Point
June 2020 Bonus Content
Additional Content Available Only in the Digital Magazine – www.STRUCTUREmag.org On the Cover The 875 N. Michigan Avenue Building in
Chicago, formerly the John Hancock Center, is a typical example of
Code Updates What’s Old Is New Again high-rise construction during the post WWII era. See the full article in

By Lori Koch, P.E., and Matthew Hunter the Structural Performance column on page 8.

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.

JUNE 2020 5
A Powerful Software Suite for Detailed
Analysis & Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures
 EDITORIAL
Iconic Global Structures – what did we learn?
The last great international conference … that I attended
By Derek Skolnik P.E., Ph.D., M.ASCE

D uring the last two days of September 2019,

a group of internationally renowned struc-
tural engineers, along with their architectural
(or other-related-industry) cohorts, assembled in
Dubai to share experiences in building some of
the world’s most iconic structures.
The Iconic Global Structures – what can we learn?
Conference was the successful inaugural event
jointly organized by IStructE and SEI/ASCE.
It aimed to promote an international exchange
of essential lessons learned within the structural
engineering profession. It was awesome. For those
(left) Iconic Global Structures – what can we learn post-conference summary document. Available at
who missed it, a post-conference summary report
www.asce.org/SEIGlobal (right) The Last Panel. From left: Derek Skolnik, Jiemin Ding, Jiliang Chen,
is freely available at www.asce.org/SEIGlobal.
Ron Klemencic, Edward Dionne, John Peronto, Peter Weismantle, and Hendrik Stephan.
I was honored to be a member of the technical
committee. The invitation to do so came from a chance encounter perhaps COVID-21 emergence limit attendance? Is handshaking
with SEI Director Laura Champion at the 2018 National Conference really done? Will presenters and panelists wear facemasks? Ok, that is
on Earthquake Engineering in Los Angeles, CA. Not only did I get enough of my anxiety; I shall now explore the possibility of co-location
to help shape the event, but I also had the pleasure to moderate the while working from home. BTW, I have been a remote worker at
last session that culminated in a panel discussion with some of our Kinemetrics for over five years and do feel qualified enough to make
profession’s brightest stars – see last panel photo on performance- outrageous suggestions.
based design. The benefits of networking at conferences are evident. Virtualized meetings are the obvious alternative when co-location is
The post-conference report elegantly summarizes the event with not possible. There can be awkwardness and shortcomings, of course,
excellent images of several of the iconic structures. Of course, there but online meetings do get more effective with each iteration. What
is no replacement for firsthand experience, but the committee spent never seems to get better, in my opinion, is missing opportunities to
considerable effort to highlight the more significant points, and it develop interpersonal relationships and stumbling upon impromptu
shows. My assigned task was to divine the most important lessons conversations that foster new ideas. Can these and other office-
learned from the many pages of notes. There were many, but we settled intangibles ever sprout organically in a virtual landscape? I do not
on these six: influence, collaboration, reflection, constructability, peer know. However, I recently observed something like that in my young
review, and sustainability. son collaborating with schoolmates on Fortnite while simultaneously
As I ran through the conference report again, I thought about the FaceTiming each other – a dual virtual environment. Imagine an entire
current applicability of each lesson learned, given the COVID-19 project team plugged-in to a virtual construction trailer with full-on
pandemic. Most of the statements remain true as ever, but there was gamer headsets constantly chatting away but without the trash talk.
one red-flag-waving exception – that of the need for co-location of I admit that it would be too chaotic for me to get any work done,
collaborative teams throughout a project. but chaos breeds opportunity, as they say.
The lesson learned around collaboration speaks to the use of co- These days I find myself thinking a lot about the potential long-term
location and effective communication to enable more collaborative impact from sustained co-isolation or perhaps biennial human migra-
multi-disciplinary work. Working in the same physical space during tions to home offices. Our profession is resilient, but yes, some global
a project fosters shared thinking and new levels of expertise. For activities such as conferences and sizeable international construction
example, structural engineers that become fluent in the language of projects will need some adapting. Our challenge is to maintain global
other disciplines become invaluable “trade translators.” interconnection throughout.
Between the time of composing the report and this editorial, a whole If you want to help address this challenge, consider joining the SEI
lot of bad stuff has happened. It is unsettling to write about the ben- Global Activities Division www.asce.org/SEIGlobal, and
efits of conferencing while in lockdown and not knowing what the please check out the Iconic Global Structures conference
world is going to be like three months from now. I hope that these summary document.■
thoughts elicit more worry-free chuckles than wood-tapping knuckles,
but for me, right now, it feels like it will be some time before we can Derek Skolnik is a Senior Project Manager at Kinemetrics, Inc., a world
enjoy international exhibitions like this one. I do wonder what a large leader in earthquake monitoring technology and services. He currently serves
conference would look like if it were to take place shortly after lifting as Secretary on the SEI Global Activities Division Executive Committee.
social distance mandates. Will the fear of COVID-19 resurgence or

STRUCTURE magazine J U N E 2 02 0 7
 structural PERFORMANCE
The Evolution of Fire
Safety in Supertall
Buildings
By James Antell, AIA, P.E.
A s structural engineers, our approach to structural fire
safety in supertall buildings has evolved along with overall
fire and life safety goals. Structural systems have progressed
from the early steel frame towers of the 1970s to current
practice incorporating concrete and composite steel/concrete
structural elements. This article looks at the relationship between structural engineering practices for tall buildings and how these
practices have influenced fire safety strategies for passive and active protection systems in tall buildings over the last 50 years.
Tall buildings have always relied on a combination of passive building
elements and active fire detection, alarm/notification, and suppression
systems to control fire and its effects. What has changed is how we
use these passive and active elements and the intended results of these
fire safety strategies. This evolution is the result of both advances in
structural and fire safety technology, as well as new safety and security
threats that make the integrity of the building structure and the abil-
ity to evacuate occupants in a timely manner of the utmost priority.
Fifty years ago, the technology available to us to create fire-safe tall
buildings was quite basic. Passive protection of the steel structural ele-
ments was provided by sprayed-on cementitious or fiber fireproofing
materials. These materials were designed to insulate the steel from
the heat of a fire and keep the steel below critical temperatures for a
prescribed period (usually 3 hours for the structural frame and 2 hours
for floors when tested to a standardized fire exposure test). Exit stairs to
evacuate occupants from the fire area to areas of relative safety within
the building were provided. Firefighting features such as elevators and
firefighting water supplies to facilitate fire department response and
manual suppression of fires at altitude were developed. Still missing
from fire protection strategies were reliable fire detection, alarm and
voice communications, and automatic suppression by sprinklers.
The idea that tall buildings would someday be targets for a broad
range of malicious attacks was not a consideration for the first wave
of tall buildings constructed in the 1960s and 70s in the U.S.
The Post WWII Era
The 1970s witnessed the first, sustained tall building boom in the
United States with iconic, tall buildings constructed in Chicago, New
York, and other major cities around the country. Most building codes
did not include provisions specifically for high-rise buildings. During
this time, design practices advanced ahead of codes and standards.
Only after significant experience with high rise design and high-rise
fires did codes and standards adopt specific high-rise provisions. In
those early days, passive elements were more prevalent than active
elements. Fire alarm systems were not considered reliable in fire
8 STRUCTURE magazine
John Hancock Center, Chicago.
safety design. And, automatic sprinkler systems that, at the time,
used thick-walled schedule 40 pipes with screwed fittings that were
cut and threaded on-site, were considered too expensive.
The goal of passive elements was to control the spread of fire and to
maintain the buildings’ structural integrity during occupant evacuation
and manual firefighting operations. Structural systems were primarily
structural steel frames with steel deck and concrete floor slabs.
The 875 N. Michigan Avenue Building in Chicago, formerly the
John Hancock Center, is a typical example of high-rise construc-
tion during this period. The building structure consists of a robust
structural steel frame where the perimeter structural system carries
significant structural load with perimeter diagonal bracing for lat-
eral loads. Although the robust steel structure itself has significant
resistance to heat from a fire by virtue of its high thermal mass,
spray-applied cementitious fireproofing was also applied to the
structure to provide the required fire resistance of 3 hours to the
structural frame and 2 hours to the floors.
Exit stairs, elevator shafts, and mechanical shafts were enclosed with
fire-rated non-structural drywall or concrete block construction. In
those early designs, the building core was typically not a structural
element and did not generally contribute to the structural strength or
fire resistance of the structure itself. Active firefighting systems were
limited to a water supply. In most cases, this included relatively small
on-site tanks and heavily relied upon municipal water supplies pumped
to upper levels of the building to serve wet standpipe outlets located
in each stair for use by fire department personnel. Those services were
considered highly reliable, and the need for the building to operate
“off the grid” was not a high priority.
Codes “Catch Up”
During the mid-1970s, building regulations in Chicago, New York, and
throughout the U.S. “caught up” with the design practices of early tall
buildings and mandated specific requirements for tall buildings. The
requirements included most of the passive features incorporated into
the earlier designs, including structural fire resistance and enclosed egress
stairs. At the time, automatic sprinklers, active smoke
control systems, and emergency voice communication
systems were not required by these codes.
During the 1980s, the U.S. experienced many signifi-
cant fires in high-rise buildings, including hotels and
office buildings. However, none of those high-rise fires
resulted in the overall failure of the buildings’ structure.
In several cases, there was significant localized struc-
tural failure where the localized heat of the fire had
compromised the steel structural frame with spray-on
fireproofing. As a result of those fires, many of the U.S.
codes mandated automatic sprinkler protection for all
new high-rises and eventually for most existing high-rise
buildings. It is widely held that automatic sprinklers are
the most effective way of controlling fire size and there-
fore controlling heat and smoke from a fire. Sprinkler Petronas Twin Towers and the Kuala Lumpur skyline
system technology had also advanced considerably at
this time, reducing costs and improving constructability. stairs, firefighting elevator vestibules, passenger elevators and critical
fire alarm, emergency communications, smoke extraction, and fire
suppression system risers, protecting them from exposure to a fire in
Asia 1990s the occupied portion of the building. The concrete cores also facilitate
The next tall building boom occurred in Asia during the 1990s. Two safe “refuge” areas required by local building regulations.
iconic projects during this timeframe were the Jin Mao Tower in In the Petronas Towers, in addition to the emergency evacuation
Shanghai and the Petronas Twin Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. stairs, firefighting elevator vestibules, and critical life safety risers, the
Built contemporaneously, these two projects represent an evolution concrete cores also contain passenger elevators that can be used in
in the structural design of tall buildings and the associated fire safety some emergency scenarios to evacuate building occupants from the
strategies of these buildings. In both cases, the buildings were designed sky lobby levels. The sky lobbies are designed with limited combustible
by U.S. based design and construction teams, using a combination contents so they can act as safe areas for staged building evacuation
of local building regulations and international design standards and during emergencies. The sky bridge has the additional benefit of
practices. In terms of both structural systems and fire safety, both providing an emergency evacuation route between the towers in case
projects were quite advanced for their time. of an emergency affecting the lower portion of one tower.
Both designs incorporated poured concrete structural cores with
composite perimeter super columns and steel and concrete floor
assemblies. The early use of high strength concrete enhanced the
9/11 Brings Changes
design efficiency of the core and perimeter columns. This structural As a result of the events of September 11, 2001, the U.S. National
system was found to have the advantages of both improved structural Institutes of Science & Technology (NIST) undertook a series of
efficiency and improved ease of constructability. With the concrete investigations into all aspects of the design and construction of the
core carrying a significant portion of the
lateral loads on the building, the struc-
tural system had the advantage of allowing
the perimeter to be more open to more
glass curtain walls and better views for
building occupants.
The concrete cores provide a highly

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

fire-resistant enclosure in the center of
the towers, separated from the occupied
areas of the buildings where fire is likely
to occur. All critical life safety egress
stairs, firefighting elevators, and critical
risers’ power, fire alarm, fire sprinkler,
and smoke exhaust are located within the
fire-resistant core, protecting them from
fire occurring in the perimeter occupied
portion of each floor. The concrete core
wall also forms a portion of a fire-rated
public corridor system surrounding the
core and separates occupied office spaces
from the common public exits and core
elements.
In the case of the Jin Mao tower, the con-
crete core contains the emergency egress

JUNE 2020 9
 World Trade Center towers. The results of Passive fire protection is achieved primar-
these investigations, published in the docu- ily by the building’s concrete structure,
ment “NIST NCSTAR 1 Final Report on the which acts as a fire-rated enclosure for all
Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers,” exit stairs, firefighting elevators, and evacu-
includes “areas in current building and fire ation elevators. Critical fire safety system
codes, standards, and practices that warrant risers are incorporated into the building’s
revision” including “a list of 30 recommen- concrete core.
dations for action in the areas of increased Because of the extensive pace of develop-
structural integrity, enhanced fire endurance ment in Dubai at the time of construction,
of structures, new methods of fire-resistant the building was designed so that it does not
design of structures, enhanced active fire rely on municipal water or electric service
protection, improved building evacuation, during emergency operations. The fire pro-
improved emergency response, improved tection water supply is provided from water
procedures and practices, and education tanks of 1- or 2-hour capacity located on all
and training.” mechanical floors. Water supplying auto-
The NIST recommendations included matic sprinklers is fed by gravity to zones
changes to structural design standards to pre- below the tanks, so there is no reliance on
vent progressive collapse, as well as changes fire pumps to supply necessary water in an
to fire endurance of structures, in-service emergency.
performance of fireproofing materials, Finally, evacuation elevators are incorpo-
redundancy of active fire protection systems, rated into the design to enable full building
and provision for full building evacuation evacuation, if needed, based on a broad range
in response to a wide range of emergency of emergency scenarios. Shuttle elevators are
scenarios other than fire. operated in “lifeboat” mode to shuttle occu-
Many of these recommendations were pants from sky lobbies to grade.
adopted by model code groups and were Burj Khalifa – currently the world’s tallest building.
incorporated into their building and fire
codes. The 2009 International Building Code (IBC) adopted a series
The Future: Jeddah Tower
of new requirements specific to buildings more than 420 feet (128 Currently under construction in western Saudi Arabia, Jeddah Tower,
meters) in height. These requirements include: when complete, will be the world’s tallest building at over 1,000
• Reverting to earlier code requirements mandating a fire meters. Structurally, the building is quite similar to the Burj Khalifa,
resistance of the structural frame of 3 hours by removing the using a fully reinforced concrete structure for most of the building,
allowance for 2-hour ratings on buildings over 128 meters. incorporating concrete core, shear walls in each wing, columns, and
• Design of the structure to eliminate the likelihood of concrete floor slabs. Because the building is residential, it is also highly
progressive collapse compartmented by concrete corridor walls and demising walls. Passive
• Impact-resistant construction materials for walls enclosing fire protection is achieved primarily by the building’s concrete struc-
exits and elevator shafts ture, which acts as a fire-rated enclosure for all exit stairs, firefighting
• Minimum bonding strength for spray-applied fireproofing elevators, and evacuation elevators. Critical fire safety system risers
materials, so they are less likely to fail in a fire are incorporated into the building’s core.
• Redundant water supply sources and risers for automatic One of the distinguishing features of the Jeddah Tower is the use of
sprinkler systems highly protected refuge floors every 20 floors, as mandated by local
• One additional exit stair for firefighters or elevators designed code. The refuge floors are full floors and, in an emergency, become
for emergency occupant evacuation safe areas for occupants’ evacuating the building. Occupants from
Many of these enhanced features that were incorporated into high- the 20 floors above each refuge floor can evacuate their zone of the
rise buildings on a project-by-project basis were now mandated for building using exit stairs to reach the refuge floor below. Each refuge
all buildings over 420 feet. floor is a safe area with minimum connections to other floors and
includes independent mechanical systems. During an emergency,
they serve as a staging area for elevator evacuation. Shuttle elevators
2000 to the Present are used to evacuate occupants from refuge floors to grade.
The design of Burj Khalifa, currently the world’s tallest building,
began in 2003 after the events of 9/11, but before the release of the
NIST report and the incorporation of the report’s findings into the
Conclusion
2009 IBC. The design does incorporate several features that even- Over the past 50 years, our approach to fire safety in tall buildings has
tually became part of the 2009 IBC requirements. The design also evolved considerably, incorporating new technologies to provide build-
incorporated some relevant aspects of the local code in conjunction ings that are protected from a broad range of threats from
with international codes (IBC) and fire safety enhancements. fire, natural disasters, and malicious acts. As we keep building
Structurally, the use of a reinforced concrete structure incorporat- taller, our strategies and technologies will continue to evolve.■
ing a concrete core, shear walls in each wing, columns, and concrete
James Antell is a Regional Practice Leader for Telgian Engineering &
floor slabs was dictated by the fact that the building is primarily a
Consulting. Mr. Antell acts as an advisor to design teams and building
residential occupancy and the shape of the building is three wings.
owners regarding compliance with local and international fire safety codes
Because the building is residential, it is highly compartmented by
and standards. (jantell@telgian.com)
concrete corridor walls and demising walls.

10 STRUCTURE magazine
Bringing unmatched
products and service
to mass timber.

With over 60 years of leadership in structural engineering, Simpson Strong-Tie

is now proud to offer smart solutions for mass timber. From our rigorously
tested connectors and fasteners that provide design flexibility, to a nationwide
supply network that delivers exactly what you need, when you need it — our
products and expertise ensure that your mass timber projects are built faster,
easier and stronger than ever.

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

©2020 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. MASSTIMB20

 building BLOCKS
The Future of Structural Round Timber
The Original Mass Timber
By Amelia Baxter and Michaela Harms

As Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) decision-makers continue to explore new applications for mass
timber products. Forest product innovators are applying decades of existing research toward the scaled commer-
cialization of structural round timber (SRT). The authors of this article predict that rising demand for mass timber products
is an enormous opportunity for accelerating the use of SRT columns, spanning members, and trusses.

trees are left in the forest longer while the timber

New Markets stand reaches a more mature stasis. Forest prod-
A dramatic rise in North American mass timber ucts can thus achieve higher ratings in data-driven
markets reflects successful public and private initia- certifications such as Life Cycle Analyses (LCAs)
tives over the last decade to develop new markets and Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs).
for forest products from sustainable forest manage- New software platforms such as EC3 and One-
ment. The U.S. alone has over 700 million acres click LCA then glean carbon sequestration rates
of private and public forests, some ten percent from EPD and LCA data, drawing the market’s
of which are critically under-managed (Bowyer, attention to carbon sequestering materials, such
2011). The traditional wood products markets as mass timber.
that once supported these forests, such as lumber
and pulp, are depressed. The long-term decline
of the housing and paper industries exacerbates
New Markets for SRT
overstocking and requires new diversified markets Well managed forests are defined here as forests fol-
within the forest products industry. lowing prescribed plans that successively remove,
As government awareness has grown for the role or thin, low-value trees while the remaining forest
Figure 1. A Douglas Fir’s ability to
commercial construction markets can play in forest capture carbon from the atmosphere grows toward mature high-value harvests. This
economies and ecologies, building professionals increases exponentially between 35 to healthy forest management may cost more during
and innovative building owners have amplified 60 years of growth. As a forest matures the lifespan of the forest but generally results
this call for new engineered wood products. Private toward a 60-year planned harvest, it in more stable ecologies and improved carbon
manufacturers have followed suit and invested in adds considerable mass and carbon sequestration. If forest owners, both public and
manufacturing capacities for high-tech engineered storage. (Source: PortBlakely.com) private, are expected to manage their forest lands
wood solutions such as glued laminated and cross- for healthy ecologies and carbon sequestration,
laminated timber. The results of this 21st century “wood zeitgeist” can then they need new markets for the on-going timber thinning of a
be seen in tall wooden buildings such as T3 in Minneapolis, Brock forest’s first 30 to 60 years (Figure 1). The most optimal market value
Commons in Vancouver, and HoHo in Vienna. of a timber thinning is when it is used as Structural Round Timber
New markets for mass timber products can also be attributed to in place of other high-margin mass timber and steel alternatives in
the role carbon footprints now play in AEC decision-making and commercial construction.
specification. Detailed studies show that well-managed forests result SRT is stronger in bending than an equivalent cross-sectional area
in increased carbon uptake. This first occurs as forest fiber growth of milled lumber due to the wood fiber continuity and preserva-
patterns speed up when trees are thinned of competition, and then as tion of grain orientation (Wolfe, 2000) (Figure 2). Comparing SRT
strength data (Wood et al. 1960) to dimensional lumber strength data
(Green and Evans 1989) has shown that the coefficient of variability
(COV) for SRT is about one-half to two-thirds that of conventional
lumber. This is because wood fibers in milled lumber are disrupted
and discontinuous, creating stress concentrations and fracture initia-
tion, while wood fibers in round timber flow continuously around
knots on the surface. This lower variability in strength leads to higher
design values for SRT.
Figure 3 illustrates the effects of lower COV on design values. The
blue line shows the lower 5th percentile limit for Select Structural
Red Pine 2x6 lumber, assuming a normal distribution. Assuming the
same mean strength value but half the COV (15%), a distribution
Figure 2. The largest timber (A) that can be milled will be only 17-33% of the and lower 5th percentile for SRT is overlaid with a red line. In this
strength of the log (B). (Source: Wolfe, 2000, image by author). example, the ratio of 5th percentiles is 1.60 for round wood versus

12 STRUCTURE magazine
 x 10-4
2 by 6 Select Structural, COV = 32%
Est. Roundwood, COV = 15%
3
Probability Density Function
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Modulus of Rupture
Figure 3. Estimated effects on SRT design values if variability can be lowered
through a reliable MSR process.
milled lumber. The tighter distribution allows for more predictable
design values based on fewer outliers.
Grading Methods
Before exploring the future of SRT, an engineer must look to the his-
torical research of this material. SRT is one of the oldest construction
materials used by humans, yet there is still no standardized means of
deriving optimal design values for SRT in spanning structures. When
U.S. builders bring SRT into commercial applications, structural engi-
neers and building code officials often win approval using significant
over-designs of members and connections. This over-design is the
result of using design values derived from antiquated visual grading
techniques meant to be applied to cantilevered poles and piles loaded
axially, not in spanning.
Design values for structural round timbers used in pole or log build-
ings may be determined using the standards published by ASTM
International. The ASTM standard D 3200 refers pole designers to
ASTM D 2899, the same standard used to derive design stresses for
timber piles. Derivation of design stresses for construction logs used
in log homes is covered in ASTM D 3957, which provides a method
of establishing stress grades for structural members in any of the most
common log configurations. These approaches typically assume regular
inscribed geometry with an irregular shape. Additional research has
been conducted on developing a machine evaluation system for round
timber beams (Green and others 2006).
Despite a substantial body of research demonstrating superior design
values for SRT, the International Building Code (IBC) only accepts
design values initially established in the 1930s. Current-state visual
grading methodologies build on material properties derived from clear
wood one-inch-square samples paired with substantial margins of
safety. Visual grading methods to-date are better researched, updated,
and practiced for milled lumber where grain patterns can be clearly
seen, and do not suit SRT in the same manner.
Machine Stress Rated (MSR) grading, on the other hand, is better
able to assign optimal and reliable design values to this geometri-
cally variable natural resource stream, thereby improving consistency
and production yields. For this reason, the USDA Forest Products
Laboratory in Madison, WI, now recommends MSR grading practices
when assisting other countries with assigning new allowable design
values to lumber resources or assigning design values to yet-unclassified
wood species in the U.S.
7000 8000 9000 10000
Figure 4. Red Pine ASTM D198 Flexural Testing at the USDA Forest Products
Laboratory, Madison, WI.
The core of MSR grading is the ability to non-destructively measure
one or more characteristics from the source material, such as modulus
of elasticity (MOE) and specific gravity, to reliably assign member-
specific mechanical properties. MSR grading allows manufacturers
to sell material with reliable design values without destructive testing,
giving architects, builders, and consumers confidence in the speci-
fied material.
Research has shown that longitudinal stress tests on standing trees
can assist manufacturing decisions by sorting the poles into strength
classes earlier in the supply chain (Wang 2001, 2004 and 2007). The
authors of this article have built on this body of research. They are
working toward the implementation of such nondestructive evalua-
tion (NDE) practices at the log sort yard and in the manufacturing
yard to further reduce the downstream variability of SRT members
and ensure that components are used in the highest value applica-
tion for their strength. (Figure 4). What is more, pairing NDE data
collection with ASTM D198 tests (prescribed flexural bending test)
demonstrates that SRT can earn assignable design values 25 to 50%
higher than the currently established visual grades, which is allowed
when NDE data is cross-correlated with destructive test data by species.
The presence of continuous fibers in SRT, the lack of which dimin-
ishes the structural capacity of conventional milled lumber, needs to
be considered in an optimized SRT grading system. These benefits
are not currently attributed to SRT because existing visual grading
and ASTM procedures were developed for the use of poles and piles
in an exterior environment, or log buildings. Until methods consider
spanning applications in enclosed building structures, grading of
SRT will continue to result in over-built structures that inhibit cost
competitiveness and market expansion.
Quality and Design Values
Building a broader commercial market for SRT will require a stan-
dardized MSR grade procedure for establishing structural design load
values. MSR grade methodologies in the milled lumber industry
evaluate lumber using a nondestructive machine test, followed by a
visual override of certain characteristics that the machine may not
properly evaluate. MSR applies measured pressure to each piece of
lumber to determine the modulus of elasticity (MOE), and uses the
relationship between MOE and bending strength to assign a design
value. The general procedure for establishing the mechanical properties
of MSR grade systems is covered by ASTM D 6570.
continued on next page
JUNE 2020 13
 Figure 5. Festival Foods Grocery Store (Madison, WI). The red pine SRT trusses span up to 55 feet and support up to 500lbs/lf. The load-bearing Ash Columns support up
to 220kip in live and dead loads. Courtesy of Heartland Photography.
The advantage of using MSR grades for logs is twofold. First, the
conventional grading system for logs is based on a conservative,
mathematical determination of design values; second, MSR grading
allows the identification of select pieces that are superior to the average
values based on visual grading alone. For example, a study by Green
et al. showed that 64% of the 292 machine-graded lodgepole pine
logs studied could be assigned an MSR grade of 1.4E-2250Fb, which
is 27% stiffer and 80% stronger than the allowable values for No. 1
lodgepole pine logs. Furthermore, nearly 17% of those 292 logs could
be assigned an MSR grade of 1.8E-3350Fb, which is 67% stiffer and
2.7 times stronger than allowable values for No. 1 lodgepole pine logs
(Green, 2005). The authors, applying Green’s techniques to a study
of red pine poles, found similar optimized values at 23% stiffer and
33% stronger than assignable visual grades.
Studies have shown that continuous fibers have a significant benefit to
the design value of SRT, but a broad study solely to investigate this would
be cost-prohibitive. The authors are instead developing a better approach
– a standardized MSR grading procedure that incorporates SRT’s unique
factors and optimized strength. NDE techniques that include stress
wave velocity, transverse vibration, and static mid-point loading can be
used to assign an MSR grade to SRT members. Current MSR lumber
grade designations could also be utilized for SRT. This relationship and
familiarity will enhance the acceptance of the MSR procedures for logs.
Figure 6. Blakely Elementary School (Bainbridge Island, WA). Fourteen structural
White Oak columns interact with a steel superstructure in a Seismic Zone 4.
14 STRUCTURE magazine
The Future of SRT
With cost-effective, reliable, scaled grading procedures that allow
for 25 to 80% increases in design values for over half of all timber
thinnings removed from managed forest plans, SRT of any species
becomes a cost-effective mass timber product. Also, SRT thinnings
from the on-going management of forest stands are regionally available
in nearly all areas of the U.S. This contributes to their carbon-negative
footprint, as does the minimal additional processing required to lever-
age the innate strength of unmilled trees.
The authors predict that rising demand for mass timber products is
an enormous opportunity for SRT columns, spanning members, and
trusses. Recent projects across the country include the Festival Foods
Grocery Store in Madison, WI (Figure 5), and the Blakely Elementary
School (Figure 6) on Bainbridge Island, WA. Both projects include
heavy live and dead loads (up to 220 kips on an individual column
and 500 lbs/lf on an individual truss) and high seismic conditions in
areas of high seismicity. Long spanning trusses are perhaps the earliest
and largest potential market for scaling SRT, and examples to-date
include 60-foot spans tested at the USDA Forest Products Laboratory.
In addition, early adopters of SRT in new commercial settings are
specifying load-bearing columns in a wide range of applications,
including K-12 education, retail, workspaces, health and recreation,
and university facilities.
An approved MSR grade system, in addition to facilitating scale,
will promote the development of industry-standard and accepted
procedures to disseminate the superior strength, improved envi-
ronmental impacts, and rural economic development of SRT. The
successful scaling of SRT will create markets for a wider variety of
low-value trees.■
The online version of this article has detailed references.
Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
Amelia Baxter is co-founder and CEO of WholeTrees Architecture and
Structures. She has led project teams in several USDA research grants
working toward the commercialization of the tree’s natural engineering.
Michaela Harms is a sustainability-focused systems-thinker with an array of
research and development experience across the wood construction supply
chain. Michaela serves as a Building Products Engineer for PFS TECO.
 structural DESIGN
Performance-Based
The Next Frontier
Wind Design
By Sean Clifton, P.E., S.E., Russell Larsen, P.E., S.E., and Kevin Aswegan, P.E.
W ith the release of the ASCE/SEI Prestandard for Performance-
Based Wind Design (PBWD) in August 2019, the industry
has taken an initial step toward implementing a structural engineer-
ing technique similar to well-established Performance-Based Seismic
Design (PBSD) for the other most common building environmental
hazard, wind. The Prestandard outlines an alternative and com-
prehensive approach to building design for wind loading, which
explicitly evaluates occupant comfort, building drift, and extreme
wind event behavior. The application of this approach may have the
greatest significance to tall building design, particularly in high seis-
mic hazard regions where both seismic and wind load effects control
lateral demands.
While PBSD methodologies have been in use worldwide for over 25
years, the development of similar techniques for the design of buildings
due to wind hazards has lagged behind. Several concerns have slowed
the application to wind design, including duration and directionality
of loading, element fatigue, computational methods, wind-tunnel tech-
niques, and dynamic response. The Prestandard was created to address
these concerns and chart a path forward for implementation of PBWD.
ASCE/SEI Prestandard
The Prestandard for Performance-Based Wind Design presents an alternative
to the prescriptive procedures for wind design specified in the nationally
adopted ASCE/SEI ASCE 7 standard. The Prestandard calls for perfor-
mance objectives to be established concerning the relevant building or
facility responses meaningful to the owners, occupants, and users of the
building or facility. These objectives range from occupant comfort level
(detection of objectionable building motion), through serviceability (drift
and motion), to strength and safety levels (building strength, damage
potential, stability, and reliability). The designer and building stakehold-
ers may apply specific design techniques to determine and demonstrate
acceptable building functions across the range of objectives.
The Prestandard recognizes that a detailed evaluation of building
response requires a detailed understanding of the relevant wind envi-
ronment. Therefore, the building analysis and design are predicated
on conducting wind-tunnel testing to establish structural loads. The
designer then evaluates these loads using one of three
methods of linear or nonlinear response history analy-
sis. The three methods are included to give designers
a choice between modest additional analysis up to
sophisticated levels of additional analysis.
Method 1
The first method requires a linear response history
evaluation of wind loads. This analysis can be com-
pleted using commercially available analysis platforms.
The Prestandard provides a series of element- and
system-level acceptance criteria benchmarked to the
linear analysis output. If the linear evaluation indi-
cates elevated demand-to-capacity ratios, as defined
in the Prestandard, the designer may be required to Figure 1. ASCE/SEI Prestandard.
16 STRUCTURE magazine
A storm descends on the Chicago skyline.
perform a nonlinear evaluation of the structure. In this method, the
designer is restricted to limited levels of inelasticity within specific
structural elements.
Method 2
The second method directly evaluates structural reliability for agreement
with the target reliabilities of ASCE 7, Chapter 1. The reliability evalua-
tion requires a nonlinear incremental dynamic evaluation of the building
response as input; the analysis findings are then compared with the critical
collapse initiation modes specific to the structure. The designer can then
determine the resulting reliability of the structural system relative to the
target reliabilities required by ASCE 7. In this method, the designer has
considerable latitude to identify and demonstrate acceptable structural
performance within elastic and inelastic elements.
Method 3
The third method, like Method 2, also directly evaluates a build-
ing’s structural reliability but instead uses system nonlinear analysis
directly coupled to the wind time-history loads and the uncertainties
in structural load and resistance. The high computational demands
of Method 3 can be avoided using a structure Shakedown Analysis,
which has recently advanced to a point where it is ready for practical
use. Shakedown Analysis directly determines reliability through Monte
Carlo simulation of the structural response. Method 3 findings can
then be compared to the target reliabilities required
by ASCE 7. With this method, the designer has the
most significant latitude to identify and demonstrate
acceptable structural performance within the structure.
The Prestandard provides a series of structural ele-
ment and structural system performance targets for
evaluating the analysis findings for each method. If
the building performance is acceptable, the resulting
design may be submitted to the Authority Having
Jurisdiction for Peer Review, according to the alternate
design provisions of ASCE 7, Chapter 1 (Figure 2).
Furthermore, recognizing that the historic bulk of
wind-related losses for tall buildings are due to wind-
driven rain damage following breaches of the building
envelope, the Prestandard provides building envelope
 methodology can be applied to
the design of a variety of Main
Wind Force Resisting Systems
(MWFRS) with different struc-
tural materials. With the MWFRS
typically consisting of a third or
more of the structural material in
a tall building, the use of enhanced
design techniques can optimize its
material utilization.
The Prestandard outlines a pro-
cedure to ensure the building
meets the established perfor-
mance objectives in three primary
areas: occupant comfort, opera-
tional performance, and building
strength. While most current
Figure 3. Tall buildings in the high wind
building codes do not require and seismic region of the Philippines.
Figure 2. Outline of PBWD Main Wind Force Resisting Systems analysis and wind-tunnel testing or verifica-
acceptance methods. tion of serviceability criteria, the use of PBWD will allow designers
and owners to more directly understand the behavior of the building
enhancements specifically intended to improve envelope perfor- and make adjustments to refine that behavior.
mance. These enhancements include recommendations from envelope Optimization of the structure for its strength is partially achieved by
industry groups, recommended ASTM testing benchmarks, and rec- taking advantage of inherent material overstrength and allowing for
ommendations for installation testing and construction observation. limited element yielding in ductile elements that can then dissipate
energy and redistribute forces. The Prestandard recommends this be
achieved through the use of expected material strengths and demand-to-
Tall-Building Design capacity ratios (DCR) of 1.25 or 1.5, depending on the method used.
While the Prestandard applies to various building types and heights, it Method 1, described above, is the most straightforward and has
is considered most impactful to tall-building design, which is typically many similarities to the methodology of PBSD, as outlined in the
dominated by the flexural and dynamic response of the structure. The PEER Tall Building Initiative Guidelines. Method 1 follows these steps:

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

AEGIS STEEL ENGINE™

ENGINE™ SOFTWARE

Increase Speed
Design for Latest
Latest
of Production
Building Codes

Profile to
Model Trusses
Fabrication
and Walls

Estimate with
Clash Detection
Accuracy

314-851-2200
www.aegismetalframing.com

JUNE 2020 17
 1) Conduct a wind-tunnel study (force-controlled) elements in the building
to identify building wind-force to require more strength than they would
demands otherwise. By implementing PBWD, this
2) Classify the structural components issue is improved and better aligns wind
as deformation (ductile) or force and seismic approaches.
(brittle) controlled
3) Using results of the wind tunnel
study, complete a preliminary
Research
design of the MWFRS, apply- One of the most critical topics for the
ing enhanced design criteria for PBWD process is the inelastic behavior
deformation-controlled elements of structural elements subjected to wind
4) Verify the structural components’ demands. Because inelastic behavior has
response when subjected to wind not historically been permitted, there is
time history records limited research available on this topic.
5) If necessary, conduct nonlinear To address this gap, the MKA Foundation
response history analysis to verify sponsored research on conventionally
that components meet the accep- detailed reinforced concrete coupling
tance criteria Figure 4. Example of a building base over-turning from beams at UCLA (Abdullah and Wallace).
While the process of Method 1 is wind response history showing dynamic response. The experimental program tested eight
straightforward, it involves considerable different test specimens with four different
additional design effort beyond conventional approaches – primarily wind-loading protocols. The initial results are positive and suggest
the application of wind time histories and conducting the nonlinear that standard concrete coupling beams can resist wind demands with
response history analysis. more than 2,000 loading cycles and ductility demands of at least 1.5
Traditional methods to compute the element forces in the struc- with little to no strength degradation. The research results will be
ture involve applying a set of static wind loads distributed through published in 2020 and will include nonlinear modeling recommenda-
the height of the building to a linear-elastic analysis model. In tions such as effective stiffness values and backbone curves. Similar
PBWD, the element forces are determined by applying a set of research is underway across the country to evaluate the performance
loads in a response history analysis corresponding to various wind of reinforced concrete shear walls, concrete-filled composite-steel-
directions. The dynamic response of the structure, considering mass plate shear walls (CF-CPSW), and concrete-encased embedded-steel
and stiffness, is then directly captured in the analysis model. The wide-flange coupling beams.
global response of the building, subject to a linear response history Further development is also underway for Methods 2 and 3 found
analysis, should match the wind tunnel static loading (Figure 4) in the Prestandard. This includes research sponsored by the MKA
closely. If results are not similar, further consideration should be Foundation at the University of Michigan (Spence), which seeks to
given to response history input and details of the analysis model. publish software to perform the Method 3 analysis.
Enough wind directions must be considered for the response his-
tory analysis to fully envelop the response of all components of the
MWFRS. As a minimum, wind directions should be selected to
Conclusions
produce peak base demands in all four quadrants of overturning The most significant advancements of PBWD will be the application of
(Mx+ My+, Mx+ My-, Mx- My-, Mx- My+). the methods found in the Prestandard to real building designs, an effort
When the preliminary design has been evaluated with linear response currently underway by the authors on several projects nearing comple-
history results and components are found to exceed a DCR of 1.0, a tion. Similar to Performance-Based Seismic Design, the first several
nonlinear response history analysis is required to verify the response designs will require outside-the-box thinking and open collaboration
and acceptance criteria. The development of this more complex model between the structural engineer, wind engineer, building owner, peer
requires advanced modeling techniques to capture the nonlinear reviewers, and the local jurisdiction. The publication of the Prestandard
behavior of any yielding elements such as coupling beams, shear wall for Performance-Based Wind Design is only the beginning, and
flexure, or other deformation-controlled elements. much more knowledge will be gained in the coming months
With a properly calibrated nonlinear model, the dynamic behavior of and years regarding how tall buildings respond to wind.■
the building should respond to the changing stiffness as elements yield
and forces redistribute. Given that the analysis directly captures the Sean Clifton is a Principal at Magnusson Klemencic Associates and leads
dynamic behavior, the Prestandard also allows for the more thoughtful the firm’s work in Southeast Asia. As an active member of MKA's in-house
implementation of supplemental damping systems to control build- High-Rise Technical Specialist Team, his portfolio reflects numerous high-rise
ing movement as well as element forces. Careful consideration of the developments in high-wind and seismic regions. (sclifton@mka.com)
reliability, redundancy, and damping properties of these systems is
Russell Larsen is a Senior Associate at Magnusson Klemencic Associates.
crucial to ensure that performance objectives are met.
He is the leader of MKA’s Wind Technical Specialist Team and has been
Significant motivation in applying PBWD in tall buildings design actively involved in the development of the ASCE/SEI Prestandard for
comes in high-seismic hazard regions where the wind demands con- Performance-Based Wind Design. (rlarsen@mka.com)
trol the design of certain elements. Seismic design principles rely
heavily on the concept of energy dissipation through the yielding Kevin Aswegan is an Associate at Magnusson Klemencic Associates. He is
of ductile (deformation-controlled) elements. When those elements the leader of MKA’s Performance-Based Design Technical Specialist Team
and has been instrumental in the MKA Foundation’s research efforts on
are made stronger and stiffer due to the wind demands, they tend to
PBWD. (kaswegan@mka.com)
dissipate less energy in an earthquake. This can cause other brittle

18 STRUCTURE magazine
Powerful, Versatile,
Intuitive
without the disadvatages of steel

INSTALL
1988 TALLEST BUILDING IN ORLANDO, FL

30+
WITH STRONGWELL FIBER YEARS
REINFORCED POLYMERS (FRP) LATER
No need for constant painting or upkeep.
Provides long-term, cost effective solutions
with lower life cycle costs. Holds L.A.R.R.
approval for use in transparent screening
and enclosure systems.
Building: SunTrust Center, Orlando, FL.

Learn More at strongwell.com/advantages

STEEL STRONGWELL PRODUCTS PROUDLY

The World Leader in Pultrusion and

FIBERGLASS Pultruded Fiberglass Structures & Shapes
ISO 9001 Quality Certified
Manufacturing Plants 276-645-8000 • info@strongwell.com
www.strongwell.com
 structural REHABILITATION
Fuzzy Wood and Coastal Piles
By Richard S. Barrow, P.E., S.I.
I t is common in Florida to elevate homes on wood piles in
coastal zones A and V. Many of those homes are adjacent
to the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, bays, estuaries,
and other bodies containing saltwater. Most of the piles are
sheltered under habitable space. Reacting to its environment,
the wood has a fuzzy appearance. Why would a wood pile,
driven on land or near a body of water, deteriorate at the pro-
tected and dry top and not at ground level or the waterline?
To understand the cause of “fuzzy wood” and to provide an
appropriate repair, we need go back to high school biology
and chemistry classes.
Where is Fuzzy Wood Found?
In high school biology class, we learned that all life requires air, food,
water, and a sufficiently warm environment or habitat to survive.
Naturally, the fungi, mold, insects, and marine life that inhabit and
consume wood piles are no different. A wood pile driven into the soil
will tend to degrade at or near the ground surface. At no more than
a couple of feet below ground, oxygen levels become insufficient to
support most life. At a couple feet above ground there may not be
enough moisture to support life (Figure 1).
Similarly, piles driven into water will tend to degrade in the tidal
zone or at just above the mean water elevation. In the continuously
submerged zone, the low oxygen content is only sufficient to support
some organisms (e.g. marine borers). Above the waterline, the amount
of moisture is limited by drying of the pile (Figure 2).
Many structures near or in saltwater are elevated on wood piles, which
are sheltered under habitable space such that the tops of the piles have
minimal exposure to weather. One would expect that any damage to
Figure 2. Wood pile deterioration near Figure 3. Corrosion of bolt due to wicking
waterline. at the top of an interior pile under a
coastal home.
20 STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 1. Wood pile deterioration near grade.
the piles would be on the portions of the pile that are exposed to the
elements. Therefore, despite the lack of exposure to salt spray, it has
been surprising to find that such sheltered piles often have severely
corroded bolts connecting the top of the piles to the wood floor fram-
ing (Figure 3). Those piles may also have a furry or fuzzy appearance,
which some fittingly refer to as “fuzzy wood” (Figure 4). Why would
a wood pile, driven on land or near a body of saltwater, deteriorate
at the protected top and not at the ground level or the waterline? To
understand the cause of “fuzzy wood” and to provide an appropriate
repair for that condition, we must examine the internal structure of
wood and the response of that structure to saltwater.
Basic Biology and Chemistry
When building with sawn lumber, we must work with what nature has
given us. You may recall from high school biology that the cambium
layer in a tree is the growth layer, just under the bark, that produces
both the inner bark cells of the phloem and the new living wood
cells in the xylem. The phloem conducts sugars from the leaves to the
roots, sometimes referred to as “shoots to roots.” The xylem is living
"sapwood," which conducts water and substances dissolved in water
from the roots to the leaves (“roots to shoots”) and provides support
for the tree. The yearly growth in the cambium layer results in annual
rings which are visible across the trunk of a felled tree. As new xylem
(sapwood) is continually formed, the old xylem dies, hardens, and
becomes heartwood at the center of the trunk. Heartwood is durable
and more resistant to decay. This is because heartwood has lost much
or all its ability to transport liquids due to the blocking of its tube-like
structure with gums and resins.
The xylem tube structure is visible as grain when wood is cut verti-
cally down its trunk. (Xylem cells are about the size of animal cells, so
one cannot see the individual tubes with the naked eye.) A common
analogy used in high school biology classes for xylem is that it acts
like a “bundle of straws” running parallel to each other up the trunk.
The xylem “straws” allow the wood to draw water upward in a pile in
a process known as “wicking.” To wick, it does not matter whether
the xylem is in a live tree or a timber pile.
What matters is the ability of the xylem
straws to transport water.
Furthermore, whether the pile is pres-
sure treated or not does not seem to be
a significant factor in wicking. This is
likely because the limited depth of pen-
etration of wood preservatives does not
significantly inhibit the wicking process
in a large wood member. It may also be
a result of the replacement of oil-based
non-preservatives (e.g. creosote) with
more environmentally friendly water-
borne wood preservatives (e.g. CCA and
ACQ). It has been the author’s experience
that the amount of heartwood in a pile
appears to have the most significant effect
on the ability of the pile to wick, as well Figure 4. Fuzzy wood pulled from a jacketed dock pile.
as which piles are damaged.
Shifting now to concepts taught in high school chemistry class, we bearing points under beams are typically areas where a waterproof
recall that sodium- or potassium-to-chloride ionic bonds are weak, coating or an isolation material is needed to separate bolts and
allowing salt molecules to separate in water. As the water evaporates, beams from the pile.
the salt molecules join to form cubic salt crystals, which have a higher Piles with significant structural damage or loss of structural capac-
volume than the elements did in solution. The same process occurs ity are more challenging to repair. This is because it is expensive,
in wood. As saltwater that has wicked into a wood pile evaporates, if not impossible, to replace existing driven wood piles “in-kind”
the increase in volume due to the formation of salt crystals generates under an existing structure. Consequently, shoring and repair-
expansive internal forces that work to split the wood fibers apart. Over ing only the degraded top portion of the damaged pile may be
time, these expansive forces may damage a polymer called lignin, preferable to replacing the entire pile. Figure 5 shows a pile with
which binds the xylem tubes together. The damaged wood may gain a significant damage at the top. However, when the pile was cut
“fuzzy” appearance with white salt residue on the surface. This process, off, approximately six inches below the notch for bearing of the
known as delignification, is analogous to the spalling of concrete due floor beams, the lower portion of the pile was found not to be
to the expansive forces resulting from the formation of rust. significantly damaged. A splice can also be designed as a moisture
barrier between the new top portion of the pile and the existing
bottom portion.
Repair Methods
There is little available literature regarding how to address pile wick-
ing and delignification in wood piles in service. It is the author’s
Conclusion
observation that, although damage to wood piles from delignification Sawn lumber is a unique building material because it is grown and not
may be unsightly, it may take a long time for significant structural manufactured. Therefore, we have to work with the unique proper-
damage (loss of load carrying capacity) to occur. Structural damage ties that nature has given us. One of those properties is that wood is
is more likely to occur in elements attached to the wicking pile. In consumed by organisms. Another property is that the structure of the
such cases, eliminating evaporation sites where damage to connected xylem in wood acts as a bundle of straws that can transport water. We
members might occur may be all that is needed. Bolt holes and tend to think that wood damage is only due to an attack by organisms or
exposure to chemicals. However, as dis-
cussed, it can also be the result of internal
mechanical stresses created by the evap-
oration and subsequent crystallization
of salt dissolved in water. The result of
those mechanical stresses is damage to
the pile in the form of “fuzzy wood.”
Understanding and properly diagnosing
the cause of damage to a wood
pile is needed to provide the
proper repair.■

Richard S. Barrow is President of Liebl

& Barrow Engineering, Inc. in Fort
Myers, FL. He is a member of ASCE’s
Figure 5. Left: Top of pile removed below a notch for floor beam bearing (note fuzzy wood on the right side). Committee on Forensic Investigations.
Right: “Fuzzy” wood and annular rings on the bottom portion of a coastal pile cut six inches below a degraded notch (rich@lbengineer.com)
for floor beam. (photos are not of the same pile).

JUNE 2020 21
 HIGH CAPACITY
FOUNDATIONS
for 110 N Wacker Drive
By Darren S. Diehm, P.E., D.GE

R ock is hard. While the degree of hardness varies, it is objectively harder than
soil. Geotechnical foundation design has largely concentrated on the analysis of soil.
In-situ site investigation techniques and constitutive modeling efforts are devoted to charac-
terization and performance prediction of non-linear soil behavior. When it comes to rock, the
default assumption has been that rock is unyielding, and the design of a foundation supported
on it should be based on the material parameters of the structural element.
Such is the case for For 110 North Wacker Drive in Chicago, the provided core founda-
driven steel piles. Pound tions would support nearly 40,000 kips. The design equivalent end
a piece of steel into the bearing of the rock-socketed drilled shafts was 600 ksf, which is 50%
ground to the point it greater than the maximum allowable presumptive bearing capacity
stops on apparent rock, in the Chicago Building Code (CBC).
and most everyone agrees When completed in 2020 after approximately 2½ years of construc-
that the pile will fully tion, the 56-story tower will have an architectural height of 817 feet. The
develop its structural gross footprint area will encompass slightly less than 1.8M square feet
capacity. However, until over an occupied height of 752 feet. In a reflection of changing com-
relatively recently, build- muter habits, only 110 parking spaces are provided over 2 lower levels.
ing codes did not provide After a long history of service as a commercial waterway and an
similar consideration for industrial transport corridor, the Chicago River, which defines two
drilled shafts. The rock sides of the Loop, is experiencing a renaissance of redevelopment.
had to be proven to be As recently as the 1990s, buildings were deliberately designed with
110 North Wacker at dusk.
capable of supporting a rear-facing to the river to avoid interaction with what was often
the applied point load. Pointing out the numerical fallacy of the a caustic and foul-smelling soup of shipping traffic, pollutants, and
argument – that the tip stress of a driven steel pile in service is 7 to stormwater runoff, swirled with occasional untreated discharges from
10 times higher than a cast-in-place concrete drilled shaft – invariably upstream manufacturing. Today, the Chicago River is being embraced
resulted in disapproving stares from building officials. as an asset for real estate, commercialization, and tourism. The City of
Not to disparage building officials, this point is intended to exemplify Chicago requires new construction on the North and South Branches
the discomfort many in the industry have in intuitively reconciling the to provide open public access to the riverfront. Rather than set back the
axial capacity of foundations. For the compact sections used in piling, entire structure, 110 North Wacker was designed with a multi-story,
the structural capacity is readily determined as the tip area of steel times
the allowable material stress. Under the maximum stress limit of the
International Building Code (IBC), the commonly used HP 12x53
section has a capacity of about 387 kips. For comparison, an uncased,
4-foot-diameter drilled shaft constructed with 6,000 psi concrete has an
axial capacity of slightly more than 3,250 kips – an 8-fold comparative
increase on a single element. Change the diameter to 7 feet, and the
capacity approaches 10,000 kips. From the viewpoint of the rock, the
driven pile is a more significant concern. Neither foundation realistically
threatens it with failure, but the tip stress of the pile could locally crush
the rock and penetrate the surface. The concentration of the stress over
the small pile footprint also increases the localized influence-variations
in the rock (e,g., fractures, clay-filled seams, voids) may have on the
performance of the element. Despite the higher likelihood of punching
failure with piling, designers tend to fixate on the much larger capacity
number and determine that the magnitude of the load justifies greater Foundation drilling. Belling tool (undeployed) on a rig in foreground and soil auger
scrutiny and caution in the design of drilled shafts. mounted on rig at back. Core barrel behind group of onlookers at right rear of frame.

22 STRUCTURE magazine
Site looking south. Upper and Lower Wacker Drive to the east (left). The barge Site looking north. Mud-slab placement in advance of mat slab pour (3,300 cubic
moored to the Chicago River Wall provided laydown areas for material storage yards placed in less than 8 hours) for the building core. Reinforcement projections
and a platform to tie reinforcing cages. include interior “bar cassettes” and exterior circular bars.

open-air overhang, which provides the requisite public space while
still maximizing the building footprint on the trapezoidal site. An
inspired sawtooth floorplate, which can accommodate as many as
nine corner offices on the riverside, enables the tower to feature a
dual-front facing. Architecturally, both the street and the riverside
are front doors to the building. The perimeter structure loading is
transferred through the overhang by three trident columns.
For its height, 110 North Wacker is a comparatively heavy building.
Had it been designed 15 or 20 years ago, it likely would have been a
light steel frame building as the majority of the older 50- to 60-story
high-rises are in Chicago. While code changes and advancements in
analytic methods that allow for consideration of an ever-growing
list of load combinations can be blamed for some of the increase in
building weight, it is the greater use of concrete in the structure and
the changes in design approach to provide occupant usage-driven
spaces which have had the greatest impact on the foundation demand.
The Chicago subsoils are predominantly composed of large masses of
clay and silt derived from the Devonian shale, which occupied the Lake
Age Unit Log Name
Fill
Michigan basin. The clays were deposited as a series of ground moraines
(or till sheets) lying one atop another by the advances and retreats of the
continental ice sheet during the Wisconsin glacial period. Geologically, six
separate till sheets, representing six advances and retreats of the ice front,
have been identified: (from bottom up, typically) the Valparaiso moraine,
Tinley moraine, and the Lake Border moraine which is comprised of the
Park Ridge, Deerfield, Blodgett, and Highland Park till sheets. Within the
project site footprint, the soil profile is about 120 feet thick. It includes
20 feet of urban fill and 40 to 50 feet of compressible and lacustrine clay.
The hard, silty clay and clayey silt of the Tinley Moraine till sheet, which
is locally referred to as “hardpan,” is located about 80 feet below the street
grade of Upper Wacker Drive. The majority of the 1,300+ high-rises which
form the Chicago skyline are supported on belled caisson foundations
bearing in this layer. The introduction of in-situ pressuremeter testing
increased the allowable bearing capacity in the hardpan from 15 ksf in
the 1960s to more than 50 ksf today.
A 20- to a 25-foot-thick layer of silt, sandy silt, and gravel is present
below the hardpan, immediately above the bedrock. The Chicago
Figure 2: Generalized soil profile
Description
Man placed material consisting
predominantly of sand-size
VII particles with varying
inclusions of cinders, brick,
and concrete fragments.

Glacial Weathered, over-consolidated

clays with low to medium PI.
Lake VI Identified by Peck and Reed as
Bottom “Desiccated Clay Crust.”

Compressible, lacustrine
Blodgett clays with low to medium
and V PI. Very soft and soft grey
Deerfield to medium bluish grey.
Lake Border moraines
Pleistocene

Lacustrine, low plasticity clay with

Park occasional silt and sand seams.
Glacial Drift

IV Natural moisture content

Ridge between 18-22%. Transitional
zone of variable thickness.

Glacially consolidated low

plasticity clay, silty clay and
Tinley clayey silt. Blow counts in excess
III of 40 bpf and natural moisture
moraine
contents below 14%. Locally
referred to as “Chicago Hardpan.”

Ex. Dense Sandy Silt, Silty

Terminal
moraine

Valparaiso Gravel and Gravelly Sand

II with Occasional Cobbles
moraine
and Boulders.

Extremely Weathered to
Ia Disintegrated Dolomite
Niagran Series

Fresh to moderately
Silurian

weathered, hard to medium,

grey to light tan, blocky,
Dolomite slightly to moderately vuggy
Ib dolomite and dolomite
limestone. Generally near-
horizontal bedding with slightly
inclined to near-vertical joints.

Generalized soil profile.

JUNE 2020 23

Top of rock isometric surface and contours.
bedrock consists of shallow dolomite formations mainly of Silurian
age and deep sandstone and dolomite formations of Cambrian and
Ordovician age. The Niagaran series immediately underlies the glacial
drift, and it varies in thickness from 240 to 425 feet, generally increas-
ing eastwards towards the Lake Michigan basin. The rock surface in
the majority of the Chicago Loop is relatively flat. The relief over the
400-foot site length (north to south) is only 4 to 6 feet.
For permitting, the City of Chicago required each of the 37 socketed
drilled shaft foundations to be precored to evaluate the rock. The
presumptive bearing capacity provided in the CBC requires that the
rock be “solid” to a depth of at least 8 feet below the tip of the rock
socket. In the early days of hand-dug shafts, an acceptably solid rock
was determined by driving a steel pick into the base material and
evaluating the tone of the ring of the strike. This may have contributed
to the code language meant to clarify the concept of solid rock further
by defining it as sound, unweathered limestone without visible voids.
Setting aside the quibble that the underlying bedrock in Chicago is
dolomite rather than limestone, it is essential to note that the building
code relies only on qualitative assessment of the rock; it does not include
requirements for determination of mechanical properties. Although
the presumptive bearing capacity is limited to 400 ksf for end bearing
caissons socketed into rock, this is not an intrinsic property of the rock
The Geological Strength Index (GSI) was introduced by Evert Hoek
and Paul Marinos in 2007 as a characterization system to combine
geologic assessment of a rock mass with the results of sampling and
lab testing to improve analytic performance prediction of tunnels,
slopes, and foundations. Before GSI, engineering parameters for
rock were largely qualitative assessments of the degree of intactness
or integrity of the parent material. While the compressive strength
of the rock could, with proper sampling, be readily measured in the
laboratory, there was little consideration given to how the structure
of the geology would affect the engineering performance in the field.
Unconfined compressive strength tests were performed on over 100
samples, and a geotechnical strength index was determined for the rock
mass based on visual examination of the recovered cores. The rock exhib-
ited a strength distribution consistent with that for other sites sampled in
Chicago. Stress relaxation from drilling and sampling can allow microfrac-
tures to open in the recovered cores, and minor irregularities in the end
flatness of the samples can cause premature breaks, all of which contribute
to the large spread of the data. For the upper 10 to 20 feet of the rock, in
which any foundations would be supported, a conservative value of the
unconfined compressive strength was determined as 10,000 psi. Utilizing
24 STRUCTURE magazine
the Rock Mass Rating system, the dolomite classified as “Good to Very
Good” rock and the GSI was determined to be between 55 and 65.
The analysis of the rock socket followed the methodology of Carter and
Kulhawy, a modified form of which is provided in the AASHTO Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges. The GSI is incorporated into a mate-
rial strength constant and an exponential coefficient, and the ultimate
end bearing is determined from a power function. The side resistance is
determined from the square root of the unconfined compressive strength
(normalized by atmospheric pressure) multiplied by a scalar coefficient,
which considers roughness of the socket sidewalls. The axial capacity of
the socket is effectively determined using only two parameters.
For the dolomite recovered from the precores, the ultimate end
bearing was predicted to be 1,200 ksf, and the side resistance was
determined as 80 ksf. The allowable equivalent end bearing was esti-
mated to be more than 715 ksf for a 6-foot-long rock socket using a
factor of safety of 2. Under the presumptive bearing capacity of the
CBC, a 6-foot rock socket has an allowable bearing capacity of 400 ksf.
An Osterberg load test was performed to verify capacity and to
provide an index for validation of performance prediction. A 34-inch-
diameter load cell (the largest available) was installed near the base of
a 7-foot-diameter production caisson, and a biaxial load was applied
to evaluate socket end bearing and side friction in accordance with
ASTM D1143 Standard Test Methods for Deep Foundations Under
Static Axial Compressive Load (Method A). At its maximum capac-
ity, the O-Cell applied a sustained bi-directional load of 9,054 kips
on a 36-inch-diameter bearing plate, which produced a combined
displacement of approximately 1 inch (0.3 inches upward and 0.7
inches downward). The mobilized side resistance was slightly less than
60 ksf, and the end bearing was approximately 900 ksf.
It is worth noting that the load test was taken to the maximum
capacity of the O-Cell without initiation of creep or slip along the
rock socket sidewall. The test demonstrated more than 1.5 times the
design effective end bearing of the drilled shaft, also with no indica-
tion of creep or crushing below the socket tip. Assuming the rock
was completely decomposed to a cohesionless soil, the end bearing
would be expected to be fully mobilized at a deflection of 4 to 5%
of the base diameter. A movement between approximately 3 and 3.5
inches could only be achieved in the rock by punching failure. Due
to the thickness of the underlying massive rock, material crushing
of the shaft concrete would occur before the end bearing could be
mobilized. Osterberg load tests at other sites in Chicago have dem-
onstrated similar results.
By any measure, it should be clear that the axial capacity of rock
socketed drilled shafts is under-utilized. While it may be possible to
mobilize greater side resistance and even create slip using an O-cell
in a smaller diameter socket, end bearing failure is unlikely ever to
be demonstrated by load testing.
The static analysis using conservative parameters indicates that the
material properties of the concrete control the capacity of the drilled
shaft – just as it would be for a driven pile.
For the near future, the 56-stories of 110 North Wacker will con-
tinue to hold the title of the highest bearing capacity ever permitted
in Chicago at 600 ksf. The next step in foundation performance
(say 700 or 800 ksf ) will have to wait until someone starts produc-
ing 14,000 psi concrete, and there is a practical need for a
drilled shaft that can support 56,000 kips. Until then, the
rock will be waiting.■
Darren S. Diehm is a Senior Professional at GEI Consultants, Inc. in
Chicago. He is a specialist in the design and analysis of foundations and
deep excavations for urban environments. (ddiehm@geiconsultants.com)
 TM

FINALLY, A DAMPING SYSTEM EFFICIENT FOR

BOTH WIND AND SEISMIC LOADING.

A DAMPING SYSTEM THAT IS EMBEDDED

DIRECTLY WITHIN THE STRUCTURE, OCCUPYING
NO ARCHITECTURAL SPACE.

REQUIRES NO TUNING AND NO MAINTENANCE.

CONTROLS FREQUENT WIND INDUCED

VIBRATIONS, REDUCES WIND AND EARTHQUAKE
DESIGN FORCES AND REDUCES DAMAGE FROM
EARTHQUAKES TOO.

CONTACT US AT INFO@KINETICADYNAMICS.COM

WWW.KINETICADYNAMICS.COM
INFO@KINETICADYNAMICS.COM
416-587-3008
 10
M
HUDSON
YARDS
FILIGREE IN NYC

By Adam Beckmann, P.E., Chris Christoforou, P.E., LEED AP BD+C,

and Michael Squarzini, P.E., LEED AP

any engineers would agree that working on America’s largest

private real estate development is a significant challenge.
Imagine that the development was situated directly above an active
rail yard located in the heart of New York City. That development is
none other than Hudson Yards, a 28-acre site stretched across four
city blocks (30th to 34th Street, and 10th to 12th Avenue). The site is
split into two phases divided by 11th Avenue, which runs directly
through the center of the site. This divide creates a western yard and
an eastern yard. While the western yard is yet to break ground, the
eastern yard is open to the public and fully operational. Located on
the eastern yard are both 10 and 30 Hudson Yards, designed by Kohn
Pederson Fox (Figure 1). Even with the difference in height, the build-
ings appear very similar and are designed to complement each other.
While the outward appearances of the towers are similar, their struc-
tural systems could not be more different. The 1,269-foot 30 Hudson
Yards consists of a concrete slab on composite metal deck supported Figure 1. 10 (right) and 30 Hudson Yards (left). Courtesy of Kohn Pederson Fox
by steel framing and steel columns, all laterally supported by a steel
braced core and outrigger system, typical for a New York City office
tower. The 895-foot-tall 10 Hudson Yards, however, is an all concrete
office structure, atypical for New York City. It is the only one in New
Filigree System Overview
York to feature a gravity system comprised of post-tensioned beams Filigree slab systems typically utilize 2¼-inch-thick, 8-foot-wide
and a filigree slab supported by concrete columns and a concrete prestressed concrete planks compositely connected to a cast-in-place
core. This unique floor system provides several structural benefits in topping slab. Based on the shear demand of a particular bay, the planks
addition to creating an aesthetically pleasing floorplate, which can can be obtained with or without polystyrene voids. Voided planks
remain exposed in loft-type office spaces. utilize polystyrene blocks adhered to the plank to reduce concrete
volume and load on the supporting elements. The voids are located
based on the shear demand of the slab and typically concentrated
toward the center of the span where demand is low. Cast into the
plank is a steel lattice truss that bonds to the field poured concrete,
forming the composite filigree slab system.
The precast planks are designed to serve as both formwork for
the weight of the wet concrete and to meet the positive moment
demand of the composite slab. Before the production of the planks,
the design team provides the maximum positive moments to the
precast manufacturer. The manufacturer ensures that sufficient
prestressed tendons and rebar are provided in the plank to meet
the designer’s needs. Often the planks ultimately are set on steel
framing or “U” shaped filigree beams (Figure 2) to complete the
floor framing system. However, the planks are also commonly used
Figure 2. Typical filigree system overview. in typical two-way flat plate systems.

26 STRUCTURE magazine
 While 10 Hudson Yards utilizes the 2¼-inch-
thick 8-foot-wide prestressed concrete planks, it
did not use typical steel or filigree framing. Due
to the typical 45-foot by 30-foot bays in the tower
and the required clear floor-to-floor height, the
design team decided to use a post-tensioned cast-
in-place beam system in conjunction with voided
filigree plank (Figure 3) to reduce the structural
depth of the floor system. The typical beam size
utilized in the tower is a 48-inch-wide by 21-inch- Figure 3. 10 Hudson Yards filigree slab and beam section.
deep section; this allows for the use of 26-foot-long
precast planks. To meet the required moment demand of the
slab, the 2¼-inch voided plank was topped with a 6¾-inch-thick
poured-in-place concrete slab (Figure 4 ). The composite 9-inch-
thick system provides similar moment capacity to a traditional
concrete reinforced slab of the same depth but at the equivalent
weight of a 7-inch-thick slab. The reduction in mass has a positive
cascading effect on the structure. The reduction in load reduces
demand on the beams, columns, and foundations, which in turn
reduces the overall cost of the structure.
System Advantages
The filigree system has a significant number of advantages over typical
cast-in-place and steel-framed construction.
• The precast planks eliminate the need for formwork and
decrease the number of shores per floor, significantly reducing
congestion on the floors below active working decks.
• The system significantly reduces the effort and time required
during the typical stripping and reshoring cycle. The shoring
system used to erect the plank stays in place until the concrete
reaches the specified strength. At that point, the shoring system
can be dismantled and cycled up to the active deck to be
reused on the floor above.
• The voided filigree system reduces concrete volume and overall
building mass without sacrificing the moment capacity of the
slab system.
Figure 4. Concrete pour on polystyrene filigree plank.
• Coordination of sleeves, penetrations, and inserts takes place
before installation of the precast plank, reducing comeback
work and slab coring.
• The filigree slab and beam system provide clear, unobstructed
spans allowing for high ceilings and the ability for MEP
services to be easily hidden away into the void space between
supporting beams.
System Challenges
As with every floor framing system, there are drawbacks to consider
when specifying filigree. The precast plank sizes can be rather large
and difficult to maneuver due to their weight and shape, especially
in windy conditions. The typical plank on 10 Hudson Yards required
a team effort to place, as each plank weighs approximately 6,000
pounds. In addition to the construction workers on deck, each plank
requires a crane to maneuver it into place. It is important to consider
and coordinate this process well in advance and work it into the
construction schedule to limit its effect on the project. The designer
needs to also consider the availability of plank in regard to the project
location. Casting plants capable of producing filigree plank need to
be within an acceptable distance to the project site to recognize the
potential economic benefits of the system.
Summary
Although not a common system, the structural and architectural
advantages of the filigree slabs contributed immensely to the success
of 10 Hudson Yards. The reduced weight of the composite system
allowed for reductions in column sizes, beam depths, and foundation
reinforcing. The reduction in beam depths and column sizes created
a more desirable floorplate from both an architectural and leasing
perspective when compared to the properties of a traditional cast-in-
place or steel framed system. The reduction in concrete volume and
reinforcing resulted in measurable monetary savings to the budget.
When evaluating potential concrete and steel floor framing
systems on your project team’s next job, consider examining
the viability of a filigree system.■
All authors are employed by Thornton Tomasetti, Inc.
Adam Beckmann is a Senior Associate in the Newark, NJ office.
(abeckmann@thorntontomasetti.com)
Chris Christoforou is a Principal and Office Director in the Newark, NJ
office. (cchristoforou@thorntontomasetti.com)
Michael Squarzini is a Managing Principal and Co-CEO in the New York,
NY office. (msquarzini@thorntontomasetti.com)
JUNE 2020 27
 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)

Figure 1. Relocation path for Sharpe House.
I n 2017, Brown University embarked on a multi-phase program
to develop a new Performing Arts Center (PAC) at the heart of
its campus on the east side of Providence, Rhode Island. The historic
fabric of the neighborhood, with its interwoven streets and buildings of
various types and vintage, creates both opportunities and challenges for
the construction of new, modern facilities. In particular, the PAC would
require a large open site for its planned state-of-the-art concert hall.
Rather than demolish existing buildings to create a new building
site, Brown’s planners identified an opportunity to relocate a building,
called the Sharpe House, to an adjacent site owned by the University
(Figure 1). Relocation of this structure would create a suitably sized
lot for the new PAC and would have the additional benefit of re-
establishing the historic streetscape at its new site.
Sharpe House, originally constructed in 1873 as a three-story residen-
tial building, had been used by Brown for many decades as an academic
office building. The nearby Peter Greene House, of similar vintage,
was relocated as part of a previous project (2007) completed by the
same team of builders and engineers. Brown’s plan was to relocate the
Sharpe House and combine it with Peter Greene House, including a
new connector wing, to create a new home for the History Department.
Figure 2. Drone photography and laser scanning combined to create a point cloud
of Sharpe House in its original location.
Big
Moves
FOR THE HISTORIC
SHARPE HOUSE
By David J. Odeh, S.E., P.E., SECB, F.SEI, F.ASCE
Through careful planning and thoughtful collaboration, a team of
engineers, architects, and contractors pulled off this architectural
transplant operation in late 2018.
Moving a structure is a multi-step operation that requires close
coordination between the structural engineer and architect of record
for the project with the moving contractor.
As a first step, Odeh Engineers (Odeh) used reality capture tech-
nology to investigate the existing Sharpe House building. The firm’s
engineers used aerial drones and laser scanners to create precise three
dimensional digital representations – called “point clouds” – of the
building’s interior and exterior surfaces (Figure 2). The contractor
also removed some building finishes to expose otherwise concealed
structural framing elements for scanning and measuring. Using the
point clouds and field measurements, the engineers created a para-
metric building information model of the structural framing systems
and building envelope to use for design.
The architect for the project, KITE Architects, then virtually relocated
the above-grade portions of the building to the new site to design the
new combined facility. KITE also designed renovations and a new
deeper basement with usable academic space accessible from the exterior.
Odeh then designed new foundation walls and support frames in the
basement level to support the loadbearing walls of the existing building.
The Rhode Island State Building Code, based on the International
Building Code (IBC), requires that relocated structures are engineered
to support the permanent gravity and lateral loads required for a new
building with the same occupancy constructed at the new site. While
the gravity load carrying system was sufficient to carry the proposed
new occupancy loads, with some localized reinforcement, the lateral
load-carrying system required a complete upgrade. New, reinforced
masonry shear walls were incorporated into the permanent design,
to be installed after the building was relocated.
With the initial design concept ready, the construction team, led by
Shawmut Design and Construction, engaged Davis Building Movers
to design and implement the moving sequence. Davis worked with
the Da Vinci Group, LLC, of Woodbury, NJ, to design the system of
temporary supports to release the wood and masonry superstructure
from the original stone foundations, roll the house to the new site, and
lower it down into its final position where it could be connected to the
new permanent foundations and support frames.
Large scale transport of equipment and structures is common in
the shipbuilding, bridge construction, and aerospace industries.
These movers make use of specialized equipment, such as computer-
controlled “self-propelled modular transporters” (SPMTs), to safely
support massive weights on rolling platforms. For example, see The
JUNE 2020 29
 130 th Street and Torrence Avenue Railroad Truss Roll-In
(STRUCTURE, October 2014).
Moving historic structures uses many of the same tech-
nologies noted above but requires special considerations
unique to buildings. These concerns include the sensitiv-
ity of brittle finishes in the existing building, preparation
of a suitable path of travel with adequate clearance and
ground levelness, and coordination of support structures
in the initial and final locations. In general, wood-frame
structures are more resilient to the moving process than
masonry structures, although both can be relocated. The
path of travel can have slopes of up to 5%, must have
sufficient clearance from overhead utilities and trees,
and must be suitably compacted to distribute wheel
loads from the moving equipment. Theoretically, nearly
any size building can be relocated by movers, but these
practical considerations typically govern the limits of Figure 3. Plan elevation views of the temporary framework and dollies. Courtesy of Da Vinci
what is possible for a given project. Group, LLC and Davis Building Movers.
Based on the initial building study of the Sharpe House,
the Da Vinci Group prepared detailed drawings of the temporary design calculations. The entire building weighed approximately 460
support framework that Davis would install in the existing building tons and is 40 x 60 x 50 feet in dimension.
basement. Temporary supports included a gridwork of steel beams, and To implement the move, the contractor first installed the gridwork
(1) main beams located between the existing building support lines of steel beams in the existing basement supported by temporary
and supported by wood cribs, (2) cross beams, and (3) needle beams wood cribs (Figure 4). The load of the structure was then transferred
(Figure 3). This temporary framework, once shimmed into positive to the cribs using a system of hydraulic jacks, carefully located and
contact with the existing framing, allowed for the existing exterior controlled to balance the load distribution during jacking. With the
foundation walls to be demolished to make way for the dollies with building weight now carried by the temporary cribs, the existing
hydraulic jacks that were to be rolled into position beneath the main masonry foundation walls were removed and dollies rolled into posi-
beams. Da Vinci Group and Odeh worked together to coordinate the tion beneath the main beams. A total of 12 independently powered
load path and gravity loading assumptions that Da Vinci used in its hydraulic dollies, each capable of turning on its own, were positioned
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

RECORDS
“An NCEES Record makes it
fast, easy, and convenient to
apply for additional P.E.
licenses in other states.”
Alexander Zuendt, P.E.
Zuendt Engineering
Record holder since 2011

National Council of Examiners

for Engineering and Surveying® Build your NCEES Record today.
P.O. Box 1686, Clemson, S.C. 29633 ncees.org/records
864.654.6824

30 STRUCTURE magazine
 finishes are especially sensi-
tive to such movements and
can be damaged. The Sharpe
House move and reposition-
ing of the old structure on
new and more level foun-
dations resulted in several
cracks in wall and ceiling
finishes that were repaired
as part of the renovation
process. The relocation of
Sharpe House demonstrates
the possibilities for campus
planning and commercial
development that structural
Figure 4. Hydraulic jacks (two left photos); Gridwork of cribs (right). engineers can enable through
creative thinking and close
under the house. After transferring the load from the cribs to the collaboration with an experienced and detail-oriented design and
dollies, the Sharpe House was ready to roll. construction team. Moving a building, where feasible, opens up
Meanwhile, the contractor completed excavation and footing place- new possibilities for development in urban areas with limited land
ment at the new site, and then covered the pathway between the sites availability, while simultaneously preserving the historic fabric that
with a mat of crushed stone and recycled asphalt. This mat created makes the city unique and livable. Sea level rise and coastal erosion
a stable and level surface for the moving equipment. Dowel bar are also driving more interest in building relocation in affected
substitutes were used at the foundations to ensure that protruding regions. Brown is now building its new Performing Arts
reinforcement did not interfere with the moving operation. Center on the site freed up by the relocation of Sharpe
The building was first rotated into its new orientation to complete House, and simultaneously improving the character and
the move, an operation that required pivoting around one corner dolly connectivity of the neighborhood in Providence.■
(Figure 5). During the 90-degree rotation, dollies were individually
picked up and spun to point in the right direction. One dolly in the
David J. Odeh is a Principal with Odeh Engineers, Inc.
northeast corner was the pivot point for the rotation. The contrac-
(odehdj@odehengineers.com)
tor used steel plates along the path of the dollies to maintain level
surfaces during the move and distribute the heavy wheel loads from
each dolly. Surveyors carefully monitored the final location to place Project Team
the house above the new support framing and foundations.
The rotation of the house took about 45 minutes, while the remain- Owner: Brown University
ing move took about 90 minutes. The building was moved 160 feet Structural Engineer: Odeh Engineers, Inc.,
at a rate of about 6 inches per second. Readers can view a time-lapse North Providence, RI
video of the move at https://bit.ly/2L4Ysmd. Moving Engineer: Da Vinci Group, LLC, Woodbury, NJ
Once the building was in position, the dollies could be removed, and Building Mover: Davis Building Movers, Blue Point, NY
the building was re-supported on the temporary cribs. The contractor General Contractor: Shawmut Design and Construction,
then constructed the foundation walls and steel support frames in Providence, RI
the basement. With the new supports in place, the structure could Architect: KITE Architects, Providence, RI
be lowered into its final position and anchored in place to support
the permanent loads.
With any move, some degree
of nonstructural repairs should
be anticipated. Even if extreme
care is taken by the mover, some
degree of distortion and differ-
ential movement occurs in the
building during the process of
relocation. While the mover typ-
ically takes responsibility for the
integrity of the building during
the moving process, structural
engineers must be diligent in
reviewing the final installation
of the structure on its new sup-
ports to ensure that no structural
damage or permanent distortion
has occurred (Figure 6). Historic Figure 5. On the move, with dollies in place. Figure 6. Investigating post-move cracks.

JUNE 2020 31
 Seismic
Performance OF SLENDER CORE-ONLY TOWERS
By Mark Sarkisian, S.E., Eric Long, S.E., and David Shook, P.E.

500 FOLSOM is a new residential high-rise providing needed housing

in the densifying urban fabric of the Transbay District
of San Francisco. The site was originally part of the Embarcadero Freeway, con-
necting the Golden Gate Bridge and Bay Bridge, that was heavily damaged in the
1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The site has been rejuvenated by the San Francisco
Transbay Redevelopment Plan and Essex Property Trust. The architectural and
structural designs were collaboratively conceived by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill
LLP. The design was further enhanced through alliances with small business design
collaborators Fougeron Architecture and STRUCTUS. The design of 500 Folsom
is a good example for designers of slender-core only towers in high-seismic zones.
Massing maximizes the site’s housing potential with a 42-story, ¾ million-square-
foot, 537-unit apartment tower. The large podium is 85 feet tall with a 120- x
90-foot tower footprint rising to 420 feet (Figure 1), a floor height of 9.25 feet
is used to achieve the preferred density of units. A significant tenant amenity at
the podium roof provides sweeping views of the city. The architectural design
Figure 1. 500 Folsom Tower. gives the distinction of shifting blocks balanced with verticality, achieved with
energy-reducing shading fins.
The structural system is entirely reinforced concrete, for cost-efficiency, and
facilitates a 3-day floor-to-floor leading core concrete construction cycle. Spans
were coordinated with the architectural design to facilitate a thin 7-inch-thick
post-tensioned slab supported by conventional concrete columns and a core-only
lateral force-resisting system. The concrete core had a dimension of 33 feet by 52
feet. Wall thickness ranges from 36 to 24 inches. This system rests on a 6-story
below-grade basement, which is founded on a 10-foot-thick reinforced concrete
mat foundation over dense sands, rock, and soil-improvements.

Figure 2. Building cut-away, shear wall elevation, and wall vertical
reinforcement ratio.
Background
The building code requires buildings over 240 feet in height to have a dual
lateral force-resisting system, which includes a moment frame. The added
moment frame is a redundancy provision, in part due to the limitation of
code-prescribed design methods that utilize linear methods such as response
spectrum. Performance-based seismic design (PBSD) guidelines by PEER/
TBI have become the standard for tall building design on the West Coast.
These provisions create a rational method for validating seismic force-resisting
systems that take specific exceptions to the building code. For 500 Folsom,
the dual-system requirement and a slight reduction in vertical reinforcement
at the hinge zone where the only exceptions.
As required by the San Francisco Building Code, a peer-review panel was formed
with experts in reinforced concrete analysis (professor), design (practitioner),
and seismology. The panel is responsible for reviewing the design criteria,
analysis results, and final design of the seismic force-resisting system, including
drawings and calculations. Presentations are made to resolve comments by the
peer-review panel. The deliverable of the peer-review panel is a letter to the City
of San Francisco, giving a summary of their findings.

32 STRUCTURE magazine
 Design and Performance
The core-only approach has been ana-
lytically verified to provide adequate
lateral system strength and stiffness
on many projects. It is proportioned
to meet all non-exempted seismic
requirements using code-prescribed
linear response spectrum analysis. The
behavior observed in response spec-
trum analysis is favorable.
PEER/TBI requirements are
intended to meet minimum building
code provisions with a few enhance-
ments considered appropriate for
tall building design. ASCE 7-16,
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
and Other Structures, has formalized
the use of nonlinear response history
analysis (NLRHA) for taking exception
to building code requirements under
the guidance of a peer review panel, Figure 3. Design revisions and improved performance.
much like PEER/TBI, but only meet-
ing the minimum code requirements. A comparison of three significant Furthermore, many structural designers using NLRHA have observed
differences between ASCE 7-16 and PEER/TBI are: higher shear demands than prescribed by response-spectrum code design.
• ASCE 7-16 Chapter 16.4.1.2 permits the average of peak drift This finding is partially attributed to a code-based design methodology
results under MCE-level demands to be 4% for a shear wall build- that presumes all modes experience uniform energy dissipation. As
ing. PEER/TBI requires the average of peak drifts affirmed by NLRHA, the deformations associated with higher modes
to be 3%. often experience less energy dissipation and, therefore, higher shear
• ASCE 7-16 has no limit for individual ground motion results, demands, often 2-4 times response-spectrum code-based designs. In
but PEER/TBI limits individual ground motion results to the most recent version of ACI 318-19, Building Code Requirements for
4.5% drift or less. Structural Concrete and Commentary, this effect has been addressed by a
• ASCE 7-16 has no residual drift limits. PEER/TBI limits dynamic amplification factor for shear in slender shear walls.
average residual drifts to 1% and individual ground motion As part of the PBSD process, a detailed nonlinear response history
residual drifts to 1.5%. analysis was conducted. The analysis was conducted using PERFORM
After completion of the code-based design, it can be beneficial to the 3D and includes detailed nonlinear modeling of shear walls, link beams,
design team to create summarized plots describing wall vertical rein- and slabs represented as equivalent frames. A robust set of 22 MCE-
forcement ratio over the building height (Figure 2). This information level linearly scaled ground motions with a high level of dispersion
was compiled for all vertical reinforcement in the core and link beam was developed. Conditional mean spectra were used for each set of 11
shear strength. Gradual changes in core-wall vertical reinforcement ground motions to target short period and long period demands. At the
are essential. Also, consistent link beam strength over the height of primary period of the structure (5.5 seconds), some ground motions
the tower is necessary to avoid local concentrations. were 120% to 170% of the MCE target spectra. In other words, at
Traditionally, designers have preferred energy dissipation in core the fundamental period of the tower, some ground motions were up
wall buildings to primarily be from a hinge (a focused area of vertical to 70% higher than the MCE level demands. This is not unreasonable
wall reinforcement yielding) complemented by the yielding of link since MCE is not an absolute maximum, and it is not unreasonable to
beams. When evaluating the seismic performance of slender core- consider a few individual ground motions greater than MCE with some
only residential buildings using NLRHA, many designers have not below the MCE, such that the average meets the MCE.
observed this behavior. For slender core-only buildings, it is common
for most of the energy dissipation to come from link-beam yielding
and minimal energy dissipation to come from shear wall vertical
Analysis Results
reinforcement yielding. Typical residential towers stand unique Upon review of analysis results, ground motions within 120% of MCE
from typical office towers in that the floor-to-floor heights of typical at the target period performed well, and behaviors were well aligned
residential towers are noticeably lower. This results in shallow link with expectations resulting from response spectrum results. Isolating
beams (9.5 feet is a typical residential tower floor height, and 13 results of ground motions less than 120% of MCE, all key behavior
feet or more is a typical office building floor height). The shallower results such as drifts, link beam rotations, slab rotations, and wall shear
link beams, common in residential towers, provide lower wall-to- were reasonable. The difficulty arose from 3 ground motions that were
wall coupling and result in higher link beam rotational demands. between 120% and 170% of MCE at the fundamental period. These
The lower cumulative strength of the shallower link beams over the ground motions caused unacceptable link beam rotations and drifts.
height of the building limits the formation of a concentrated wall 500 Folsom is a compelling case in that the minimum requirements
hinge at the dynamic base of the core wall. While the behavior is of ASCE 7-16 could be considered satisfied with these responses
certainly acceptable, it is different than anticipated by the code- but would not have met the requirements of PEER/TBI without a
prescribed design procedures. revision to the code-based reinforcement design. Since the criteria

JUNE 2020 33
 was PEER/TBI, designers evaluated a variety of design
alterations which included:
• Widening openings on the east and west sides of
the core to reduce link beam rotation magnitudes.
• Increase link beam reinforcement from 6√f´c to the
code maximum of 8√f´c. This change increased the
link beam diagonals from #11s to #14s.
•Increase vertical reinforcement in the upper floors
near the roof solid wall regions to reduce yielding.
• Reduce vertical reinforcement near the top of the
podium to help encourage a more distinct plastic Figure 4. Proposed mapping of NLTH analysis result to ACI 318-14 Chapter
hinge in the wall vertical reinforcement in the 18.10.6.4 boundary detailing provisions.
higher magnitude events.
These targeted changes resulted in overall cost reductions and perfor- 3) Ordinary Boundary with 8-inch Spacing (ACI 318-14
mance improvements. These changes did not significantly change the 18.10.6.5-No Yielding):
response to ground motions under 120% of MCE. Still, the changes Limited bar buckling restraint in tension and
did result in significant improvements for ground motions greater no confinement in compression.
than 120%, as shown in Figure 3, page 33. These results indicate the T: 2x yield > εt ≥ 1x yield
importance of designing with NLRHA using prescribed guides such C: 0.001 > εc
as PEER/TBI. Through the incorporation of NLRHA, important Tensile Strain Limits
design improvements were identified to achieve the design intent Unrestrained bar = 1x yield
conforming to PEER/TBI and the San Francisco Building Code. 8" tie spacing = 2x yield
The high levels of dispersion in the ground motion demands is an 6" tie spacing = 10x yield
important consideration for resilience as well. Both ASCE 7-16 and Compressive Strain Limits
PEER/TBI permit the use of spectral matching. As often applied, Ordinary (8") Limit = 0.003/2*/1.5** = 0.001
spectral matching reduces demands to MCE level demands at all Ordinary (6") Limit = 0.004/2* = 0.002
periods, limiting designer understanding of performance at higher Special Limit = 0.013/2* = 0.006
levels of shaking, which may occur. Resilient designs should continue *Per Wallace, 2007
to generally perform well even beyond MCE level demands but, **Force-controlled action
without evaluations beyond MCE, this behavior cannot be con- Based on performance, a mapping of NLTH results and ACI
firmed. The higher levels of dispersion using spectral scaling in the 318-14 design provisions are utilized to distribute the three types of
500 Folsom design allowed designers, through a few modest changes boundary zone types throughout the tower (Figure 4). The boundary
to the design, to achieve reasonable performance beyond MCE level zone type above was mapped to each boundary on each floor based
demands and reduce costs. on average tension and compression strains under MCE demands.
Generally, special boundary zones were used between ground and
podium hinge and also lined the east and west core openings to
Shear Wall Boundary Confinement the roof. Ordinary boundaries with 6-inch and 8-inch spacing were
Nonlinear wall elements in NLRHA output strain at numerous locations used through the height of the tower, with select zones near the
of the core walls on all floors. This information cannot be obtained with two-third-point of the height having special boundary elements.
response spectrum analysis but can be greatly beneficial in specifying
boundary zone detailing. At the time of design, ACI 318-14 prescribes
the type and location of boundary elements based on a simple shear
Conclusions
wall, but core walls are much more complex. Mapping of compression The design and verification of the 500 Folsom seismic force-resisting
and tension strain demands to boundary zone types could be immensely system with NLRHA revealed the importance of conducting a detailed
helpful in increasing resilience while reducing costs. nonlinear analysis even if code-provisions are satisfied. Furthermore,
ACI 318-14 Section 18.10.6.4.2 provides boundary zone detailing component behaviors can be understood in greater detail, producing
requirements for three different types of boundary zones: special greater resiliency and reducing costs.■
boundary zone, ordinary boundary zone with a 6-inch spacing of ties,
and ordinary boundary zone with an 8-inch spacing of ties. The online version of this article contains additional
1) Special Boundaries (ACI 318-14 18.10.6.4): graphics. (www.STRUCTUREmag.org)
Bar buckling restraint in tension and ductile
confinement in compression. Mark Sarkisian is a Partner of Structural and Seismic Engineering at Skidmore,
T: 10x yield ≥ εt ≥ 2x yield Owings & Merrill LLP, and a member of ACI. (mark.sarkisian@som.com)
C: 0.006 ≥ εc ≥ 0.002 Eric Long is a Director in the San Francisco office of Skidmore, Owings &
2) Ordinary Boundary with 6-inch Spacing (ACI 318-14 Merrill L.L.P. (eric.long@som.com)
18.10.6.5-Yielding):
David Shook is a Director and Structural Engineer with Skidmore, Owings &
Bar buckling restraint in tension and very modest
Merrill LLP, in San Francisco. David is a co-author of a book, published by the
confinement in compression.
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitats, bringing performance-based
T: 10x yield ≥ εt ≥ 2x yield
design principles to an international audience. (david.shook@som.com)
C: 0.002 > εc ≥ 0.001

34 STRUCTURE magazine

Managing the Risks of
Subconsultant Relationships
By Dan Knise
E ngineers have a responsibility not only
for their actions or errors but also for the
actions/errors of those subconsultants or sub-
contractors who work under their direction.
While there is much focus on managing an
engineering firm’s own risk, all too often there
is not sufficient attention paid to its poten-
tial vicarious liability, or so-called inherited
risk, attendant to utilizing subconsultants.
Developing and sticking to a process to
manage subconsultant/subcontractor rela-
tionships can help minimize this risk and
further enhance a firm’s success.
What are the components of an effective
subconsultant risk management program?
Many point to three critical steps for any
engineering firm to take:
1) Work only with firms that have a
proven track record of success, are
financially sound, practice good risk
management/quality assurance, and
are known to deliver their work on
time and budget;
2) Utilize a well-thought-out subconsul-
tant agreement that clearly spells out
the relationship between the par-
ties, delineates the scope of the work
expected, and includes appropriate
indemnification and other pertinent
requirements; and
3) Establish and utilize an appropri-
ate requirement for insurances the
subconsultant must carry before
beginning work on your behalf.
Effective Subconsultant
Selection
Engineering firms must have a well-defined
process for evaluating and selecting appropri-
ate subconsultants. This typically involves
collecting some necessary information for
evaluating the firm’s capabilities and quali-
fications, management approach, quality
control/risk management commitment,
financial stability, etc. Many firms use a
simple questionnaire to collect this data and
then maintain an active database to track the
information and make it available to project
managers and senior executives.
References can play a crucial role in
determining appropriate partners, as can
36 STRUCTURE magazine
legal PERSPECTIVES
feedback from contractors,
local attorneys, and others
in the engineering and
construction community.
This should include input
about the experience of staff
members who may have
worked with the potential
partner firm in the past.
Furthermore, firms should
assess the qualifications and experience of
the prospective subconsultant’s key team
members to be assigned to the project.
Utilize Good
Subcontract Hygiene
The second leg of this three-legged stool
involves practicing good contract hygiene
when working with subconsultants. This
includes:
• Having a written agreement signed by
both parties;
• Including a clear scope of services;
• Being sure to flow down any unique or
additional requirements from the project
owner to the subconsultants, including
any indemnification and, if appropriate,
insurance requirements; and
• Specifying payment terms and any dis-
pute resolution procedures; some like
arbitration to avoid the courts, while
others feel that requiring a lawsuit may
reduce the likelihood of being sued.
Having a written, executed contract with a
subconsultant can often make a significant
difference in who pays a claim (or defends
one). Firms that lack standard contracts for
these arrangements might begin by check-
ing the prime-subconsultant forms available
from the American Council of Engineering
Companies (ACEC) or the Engineers Joint
Contract Documents Committee (EJCDC).
One item to flag if the subconsultant offers
their standard contract: inadequate limitation
of liability clauses that may leave you hold-
ing the bag. Some subconsultants argue the
smaller scope of their work or lesser compen-
sation justifies a limitation of liability (e.g., to
no more than the fees they are paid).
The problem with this approach is that,
unless the engineering firm hiring the
subconsultant has the same limitation
from their client, this could shift risk to
you with no recourse against the subcon-
sultant that created the issues and/or caused
the damages.
Require Minimum Insurances
Before Work Begins
Including thoughtful, comprehensive mini-
mum insurance requirements into your
subconsultant agreement is another essen-
tial approach to help minimize risk when
hiring subconsultants. Some key items to
consider are:
• What insurance policies should be
required? There may be variations in
required insurances, depending on the
type of work the subconsultant will
perform, the nature of the project, and
any requirements in the prime agree-
ment with the project owner (which
must flow down). Nonetheless, several
basic building blocks of an effective
insurance program should always be
required. These include:
o Commercial General Liability
(CGL);
o Automobile Liability (or non-owned
and hired auto liability as part of the
CGL policy);
o Workers’ Compensation and
Employer’s Liability;
o Umbrella/Excess Liability (may be
optional on very small projects);
o Professional Liability (also known as
Errors & Omissions coverage); and
o Pollution Liability (often combined
with professional liability).
Other insurance coverages may also be
required, depending on the subconsultant’s
services, such as drone (unmanned aviation
vehicles), marine, cyber/network security begin work until they provide certificates of a solid contract, and requiring appropri-
liability, etc. insurance that meet all agreed-upon coverage ate insurance – will help minimize
• What Limits to require? This is a requirements. risks from these arrangements and
trickier question (and, in any event, enhance the likelihood of success.■
should be noted as minimum insurance Taking Key Risk Management
requirements), but some basic standards
for a typical commercial or infrastruc- Steps Pays Off
Dan Knise is Chair and CEO at Ames &
ture project might be: Effective risk management is integral to Gough, a specialty insurance brokerage
o Commercial General Liability: $1 an engineering firm’s success. Taking these serving A/E firms, law firms and professional
million per occurrence/$2 million three steps – selecting an appropriate, repu- organizations.
general aggregate and products/com- table, and capable subconsultant, utilizing
pleted operations;
o Automobile Liability: $1 mil-
lion combined single limit or
equivalent;
o Workers’ Compensation/
Employer’s Liability: Statutory
and $500,000 per illness, injury,
or disease for employer’s liabil- Maximize Value and Performance with
ity; and
o Professional and Pollution
Liability: Varies, but ideally at
SHRINK AGE-COMPENSATING
least $1 million per claim and
aggregate.
CONCRETE & GROUT SOLUTIONS
Obviously, on larger or more complex
projects or with regard to specific ser-
vices that are riskier, these minimum
limits may increase dramatically (to
as much as $5 million or $10 million Use for all types of concrete and grout applications, from slabs-on-grade to
or more). containment tanks, multi-story post-tension structures to bridge decks.

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

• Other Insurance Requirements?
A well-thought-out subconsul-
tant insurance specification must ADVANTAGES
also include several other items.
¡ Maximize joint spacing (up to 300 ft, L/W 3:1) ¡ Enhance compressive and flexural strengths
While there are too many to
mention here, a few of the more ¡ Prevent shrinkage cracking and curling ¡ Eliminate pour/delay strips
important are:
¡ Thinner slabs and walls viable ¡ Reduce long-term relaxation of P/T tendons
o Additional Insured Status for and shear wall stresses
the Engineer hiring the subcon- ¡ Reduce reinforcement requirements
sultant on both the CGL and ¡ Minimize creep and moment
¡ Improve durability and lower permeability
Automobile Liability policies; ¡ Minimize waterstops
o Primary and Non-Contributory ¡ Increase abrasion resistance 30-40%
Status as part of being an
Additional Insured;
o Waiver of Subrogation on
the CGL, Auto, Workers’
Compensation/Employer’s
Liability; and
o Notice of Cancellation or Non-
Renewal to be provided to the
engineering firm if the insurer
cancels any of the policies.
Another critical step is having a com-
pliance procedure to collect and review
certificates of insurance from each by CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp.

subconsultant to ensure that they are

genuinely complying with the insurance
Contact us for more information and project support at 888.414.9043
requirements of their contract, as well as
CTScement.com
to make sure certificates are entirely up to
date. Do not allow any subconsultants to

J U N E 2 02 0 37
 CASE business practices
Coordination and Completeness in a BIM Dominated World
By David Ruby, P.E., S.E., SECB, F.ASCE

I n earlier times, when computers were neither

available or essential, one objective of the
structural design process was to discover a com-
putational method which was elegant, simple,
and appropriately accurate. When such a process
was identified, it was recorded as an expedient
approach to solving a recurring structural design
problem. Thus, quick “Rules of Thumb” became
essential resources for the structural engineer.
As computer software has proliferated, become
more comprehensive, and been made very user
friendly, the importance of Rules of Thumb and
approximate methods has been diminished. It
has been argued that, with computational speed
and ease of application of computer methods, the
need for approximations and Rules of Thumb no
longer exists. However, equally imposing argu-
ments can be made for the value of these quick
approaches, such as:
• The structural engineer should have tools
to make on-the-spot intelligent decisions.
• A reasonable solution is often required as
computer input.
• The validity of the computer output
should be verified with rational
approximations.
The above paragraph is a direct quote from
a February 2000 article in Modern Steel
Construction entitled “Rules of Thumb for
Steel Design.”
Twenty years later, the Rules of Thumb still
apply regardless of the vocabulary and modi-
fied delivery methods:
- Building Information Model
- BIM Execution Plan
- COBie (Construction Operations
Building Information Exchange)
- Clash Detection
- Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)
- Level of Development
- Model Element Author
- Polygonal Modeling
- Virtual Construction
No matter the means of communica-
tion, our responsibilities have not changed:
review and confirmation of the results of
our analysis, transfer of the design results
to construction documents, and compliance
of construction documents with governing
codes. Technology has allowed the design
process to be completed in greater detail,
moved us from 2-D to 3-D, advanced our
analysis and design capabilities, and allowed
Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts in Kansas City, MO.
today’s structural engineers to achieve struc-
tural feats never dreamed of in decades
past. However, we have not always viewed
technology for what it is not – it is neither
all-inclusive nor self-sufficient. It is only a
tool, a tool capable of enhancing the process,
but a tool that will never replace a competent
structural engineer.
In a high-rise building design, technology
often utilizes rigid diaphragms to distribute
the lateral forces to the lateral force-resisting
systems, complete the structural analysis,
determine the structure’s member forces,
or, in an extreme case, will utilize the rigid
diaphragm to account for the lack of a
well-defined load path. However, the com-
putations necessary to resolve those related
diaphragm forces are beyond the capabil-
ity of technology. They are and always will
be the structural designer’s responsibility to
recognize and perform.
Similarly, technology analyzes the structure
based on the structural engineer’s assumed
boundary conditions. Subsequently, the
structural engineer reviews the construc-
tion documents to ensure the design concept
is shown, essential elements are identified,
and the scope and quality of work to be
performed is communicated. The engineer
must also ensure that construction details
comply with the initial design assumptions
and vice versa.
Twenty years later, the industry’s expecta-
tions related to the quality and purpose of our
construction documents have not changed.
These expectations are clearly stated in CASE
Document 962D, Guideline Addressing the
Coordination and Completeness of Structural
Construction Documents, initially published
in 2003 and revised in 2013.
962D states that quality can be character-
ized as:
• Meeting the requirement of the owner as
to functional adequacy; completion on
time and within budget; life-cycle costs;
and operation and maintenance.
• Meeting the requirements of the design
professional as to the provision of the
well-defined scope of work; budget to
assemble and use a qualified, trained,
and experienced staff; budget to obtain
adequate field information prior to
design; provisions for timely decisions by
the owner and design professional; and,
contract to perform necessary work at a
fair fee with adequate time allowance.
• Meeting the requirements of the
constructor as to the provision of contract
plans, specifications, and other docu-
ments prepared in sufficient detail to
permit the constructor to prepare priced
proposal or competitive bid; timely
decisions by the owner and design
professional on authorization and

38 STRUCTURE magazine
 processing of change orders; fair and Technology does not compensate for missing leaving no time for innovation and resulting
timely interpretation of contract require- elements, such as incomplete load paths, base in unanswered questions about the braced
ments from field design and inspection fixity, or member stability. Too often, design vs. moment frame lateral system; column
staff; and, contract for the performance documents are developed directly from the through forces; lateral-force-resisting system
of work on a reasonable schedule which analysis model without an intermittent review description; special requirements of the design
permits a reasonable profit. or constructability input. Load paths may go concept and/or shoring necessary to maintain
• Meeting the requirements of regulatory undefined, unique features of the design con- the final structure’s positioning.
agencies (the public) as to public safety cept, lateral-force-resisting system, or material Many elements of the design/construction
and health; environmental considerations; relationships may not be identified or commu- process have been impacted by technology.
protection of public property including nicated, and all result in contractor-initiated Software has replaced manual methods,
utilities; and confor- computer screens have
mance with applicable replaced drawing boards,
laws, regulations, The three C’s > Essential ingredients for successful simple solutions may not
codes, and policies. be sufficient to check com-
962D states the Purpose of project execution in a BIM dominated world: plex structures, and hand
the Construction Documents: analysis is out of the ques-
“Documents, including Constructability through Collaborative design tion. Building models are
building information
models, drawings, and
and open and shared Communication generated directly from the
analysis model, which in
specifications, are the turn creates the construc-
tools structural engineers use to com- RFIs with an all too familiar response: “But, It tion documents through digitized printers.
municate the elements of the design of Worked in the Model!” It has been suggested Even estimates are automated, and engineer-
structures to contractors. Contractors use that Albert Einstein stated, “I fear the day that ing team members rarely ask themselves,
the Documents to develop and submit technology will surpass our human interaction. “How can I improve the process?”
bids for construction of the structure and The world will have a generation of idiots.” Until the advent of Building Information
then, if selected, to implement the design. What is evident after the author’s 60 years Modeling, the basic process had remained
In order for the bid to be accurate, the in the industry? My Many Rules of Thumb virtually unchanged.
Documents must describe in sufficient still apply: Now, however, design professionals have
detail the elements of the structure to be - The devil is in the details; a limitless opportunity to expand their role
built, the quality with which it is to be - The lightest structure is not always within the process, create their own Rules of
built, and any special requirements gov- the least cost; Thumb, and harness technology to improve
erning its construction. Regardless of the - Load always goes to stiffness; the quality and content of their construction
format, the Documents must be devel- - Shop time is always less costly and documents. They can do so by engaging in a
oped to a sufficient level of completeness more efficient than field time; collaborative environment and truly focusing
and coordination so that contractors can, - Structural steel cost is not related to on infusing construction knowledge and expe-
within customary time constraints, develop pounds per square foot or based on rience (constructability) through collaborative
a price, submit a bid, and, after award of the dollars per ton. It is directly related to problem solving and design development.
contract, build the structure in a manner material choice, complexity of details, Such a focus on the process will make them
consistent with their understanding of and manhours to fabricate and erect; much more than providers of information
the scope of the Documents at the time and, and technical solutions.
of bidding. Inherent in this process are - When an ironworker offers a comment, Communication within and between
the issues of what is customary in terms it is time for the engineer to listen. the design and construction communities
of the level of detail and coordination of Cost is impacted by our design decisions through integrated design teams will provide
the Documents and the degree of scrutiny related to complexity, the economy of scale, answers to those unanswered questions.
required of the bidder. For example, is a bay size, member and material selection, Silos of influence will disappear, and jointly
steel subcontractor able to rely solely on bolted vs. welded options, shop vs. field weld- developed, collaborative solutions will become
the structural documents, or must he also ing, and shop vs. field assembly. It is also the order of the day.
review the architectural and mechanical impacted by truss vs. girder “do’s and don’ts,” And all stakeholders will benefit.
documents? If the contractor is required lateral system, column size, and the design Remember: Communication is the
to review documents created by multiple decisions related to strength vs. deformation goal. It is not for you to know and
disciplines, how much effort would it be vs. serviceability. All these considerations have the contractor to find out!■
reasonable to expect of the contractor in been ignored by advanced technology.
comprehending the totality of the design? Also, technology has led to compressed The online version of this article
Inadequate communication results in schedules and reduced budgets. This precludes contains references. Please visit
budget and schedule overruns, disap- the consideration of structural alternatives, www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
pointed owners, and a potential risk to material substitutions, or the development
the safety of building occupants and the of difficult or complex connections, so they
David Ruby, Chairman / Founding Principal,
public. Successful communication is critical are delegated. Perhaps, in some circum-
Ruby+Associates, Inc. authored AISC’s Design
for the protection of public safety, which stances, the better solution is to modify the
Guide #23, Constructability for Structural Steel
is a structural engineer’s first priority as a framing concept. However, the owner and
Buildings. (druby@rubyandassociates.com)
professional.” architect have established a fixed release date

JUNE 2020 39
 historic STRUCTURES
Bridge Failure in Dixon, Illinois
By Frank Griggs, Jr., Dist. M.ASCE, D.Eng., P.E., P.L.S.

D ixon is located about 97 miles west of

Chicago on the southwesterly flowing Rock
River, a tributary of the Mississippi. A wooden
bridge crossed the river at Dixon for years but
was frequently washed out in floods. In 1868, it
was decided that an iron toll bridge was required,
and the Mayor solicited bids. Several committees of
the City Council visited bridges and bridge works in
Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, and elsewhere. A total
of 11 bridge companies submitted proposals for 45
Truesdale Patent No. 24,068.
different bridge styles and lengths from wood to
iron. Some of the most well-known firms were John A. Roebling; Smith, Latrobe & Co.; Zeneas King; and L. B. Boomer. The
lowest price was $15,000 for a wooden bridge up to $50,000 for an iron bridge. The Dixon City council, after several votes,
selected a design by Lucius E. Truesdale for $40 per lineal foot. The Dixon Telegraph wrote that the Council chose Truesdale’s
plan,“taking into consideration expense, as well as the form and comeliness of the structure.” Later, it was charged that some
of the Council members were bribed, but that charge was never proven. Truesdale had received several patents for bridges
and was proposing to build one according to Patent No. 24,068 for a truss bridge, issued on May 17, 1859. It was very similar
to patent no. 21,388 issued on August 31, 1858, also for a truss bridge.

Truesdale wrote, “The nature of my inven- elongation of all the horizontal chords, that
tion relates to bridges constructed of iron, any longitudinal tension will be transmitted or
and it consists in the use and combination distributed through all the horizontal chords;
of a double series of horizontal ribs or chords thus relieving that part which lies in the plane
with a series of diagonal and vertical braces of pressure from undue strain.” The truss was a
or their equivalents, by means of which the high, 15-foot pony truss in that Truesdale had
strain and tension of the various parts under no overhead cross bracing. He claimed to get
a rolling weight is in a measure neutralized by his lateral stiffness by having his vertical posts
the tendency of these parts to distribute them widen out from top to bottom, as shown on
more evenly throughout the whole structure, his sheet 2 of drawings.
thereby giving greater strength, rigidity, and The bridge consisted of five spans (with
firmness to the bridge with less weight of lengths of 132 feet), a deck width of 18 feet,
material than is obtained by any other known and two sidewalks with a width of 5 feet each.
modes of constructing them.” He also wrote, The total cost of the bridge was $75,000,
“These horizontal chords, which are made of with $31,512 going to Truesdale for the iron
wrought or malleable iron and run through the superstructure. The bridge opened on January
entire length of the bridge, serve the purpose 21, 1869, to a grand celebration with a local
of distributing the tension or strain which may paper writing, “A structure more truly grand
be exerted on any particular portion of the Truesdale Patent No. 24,068, Sheet 2. and beautiful to the eye can be found in no
bridge equally throughout the whole, for as western city and we presume in no eastern
the action of a heavy pressure on any part of the structure is to depress one.” Another paper wrote that the City Council thanked Truesdale,
it in a vertical plane, and as such a depression can only be effected by “for the promptness, energy, and faithfulness, and for his gentlemanly
an elongation of the baselines of the bridge, thus creating a longitudi- courtesy.” Before the opening, the bridge was test loaded in a fashion
nal tension and strain, it follows that in a bridge constructed on this by placing “four harnessed teams hauling stone, a load of flour, and a
plan, as the baseline can not be sensibly elongated without a similar large group of bystanders, all weighing at least 45 tons.”

40 STRUCTURE magazine
 It was later made public that the City Engineer,
L. Stanton, had advised against accepting the
bridge since the builder did not follow the speci-
fications. He had also been against awarding the
bridge to Truesdale, indicating that he “never
knew any engineer or practical bridge builder,
living or dead, that approved of the plan upon
which the Truesdale Bridge was built on,” and
it was his opinion that “the City Council who
favored the Truesdale bridge were influenced
by the opinions of the citizens, rather than by
practical bridge builders. Mr. Truesdale was a
sharp, shrewd man, who could make a favorable
impression upon men; enthusiastic in favor of
his own plan and carried the citizens with him.” Dixon Bridge showing the height of un-braced trusses.
Stanton was dismissed due to his opposition
before completion of the bridge and was not invited to be present when and had always been regarded as worthless by those whose opinion
the load testing was made. Later, in the press, he gave many reasons why was regarded as valuable.”
he opposed the bridge and its construction. “It is not a bridge at all. His method of construction is utterly at
All seemed well, even though a Truesdale bridge in Elgin, Illinois, fault. The bridge is not worth that, snapping his fingers.”
collapsed on December 7, 1868. And, after being rebuilt, it collapsed Mr. Herman said the bridge was constructed on a wrong principle.
again on July 5, 1869. One newspaper deflecting blame from Truesdale “The iron was spread over too much ground, and the bracing was
wrote, “The foundations of the structure must have been tampered very defective. There were five chords in the Truesdale bridge, the
with by some evil-disposed persons,” which was very unlikely. middle ones being perfectly useless, simply superfluous, while the
On May 4, 1873, only four years after its opening, The Dixon other inside ones were not much better.”
Bridge collapsed into the river. On that day, Reverend Pratt, a Baptist The Tribune also reported, “Some sank to rise no more. Some were
minister, was baptizing members of his flock in the river on the north killed before they touched the water. Some were entangled in the
side and west of the bridge, as he had done several times in the past. debris. Some jumped from the bridge to the river and swam ashore.
A large crowd, estimated at 200 people, mainly women and children, The weak generally succumbed.” The truss “fell over with the weight
gathered on the 5-foot sidewalk. Some young men climbed up on the
westerly truss to get a better view. The bridge tender, Henry Strong,
was concerned about the number of people bunched together on the
sidewalk and was reported to have ordered some off the bridge. After
baptizing two members and preparing to baptize the third, people
AutoTight ®

later reported they had heard a cracking of the iron and that the TIGHTER CONNECTIONS
bridge dropped out from under them. The collapse threw bystanders
into the water, with the truss falling over onto them and trapping BETTER PERFORMANCE
many of them under the ironwork. The end span fell in its entirety
in the river, and several other spans dropped partially into the river.
The Chicago Tribune ran almost a full two-page article on the fail-

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

ure, including an engraving of the bridge intact and collapsed. They
included such statements as,
“The cause of all this loss of life, and the broken hearts and deso-
lated homes that it entails was the adoption by the city authorities
of a bridge of unsound construction built in defiance of the true
principles of engineering…”
 
“The murderous instrument – The bridge which was the cause
of this accident – was built in 1868 at a cost of $83,000…the
people were rather pleased with it at first, just as a child is tickled
with a new toy. It was neat, light, and airy, very becoming to the
river –a sort of fashionable, stylish bridge that looked very well
but wore very badly.”
“It was very top-heavy. The heavy trusses were too much for the
rather light foundation.”
“That these bridges are perilous to life is the opinion of the best
engineers. The following relative to the diabolical Truesdale plan
shows in what estimation it is held by those competent to judge.”
The reporter interviewed several Chicago Engineers who told him:
“While the bridge was built pretty and light, and to the eye was
light and charming, it was practically useless…”
ZERO LOOSENESS
“Mr. Truesdale is no engineer at all. His methods of construction PH: (360) 378-9484 – WWW.COMMINSMFG.COM
showed an ignorance of the fundamental principles of mechanics,

JUNE 2020 41

Collapsed spans.
and imprisoned the doomed in an iron cage, with which they sunk
and from which there was no escape.” Despite heroic actions by many
bystanders to save them, 46 people, 37 of whom were women, lost
their lives on that fateful day.
As with any failure, people wanted to know who was to blame for
the collapse. Some blamed the City Council while some stated that
Truesdale had gotten the project by bribing the councilors. A Coroner’s
Jury was set up on May 7 to determine the cause of the failure. They
obtained testimony from many locals, all of whom expressed their
long-time concern about the safety of the bridge with one saying, “the
bridge was a humbug, it was not strong enough to hold itself up,”
and another saying, “unequal distribution of heavy weight threw (the
bridge) out of perpendicular and let it down,” which was undoubt-
edly true. A newspaper concluded that Truesdale, “had the means to
push his invention, and was thwarted only in the presence of men
of science, who again and again declared it dangerous and useless.
Every railroad company rejected it on sight.” The Coroner’s Jury
concluded, amongst other things, “the council erred in judgment in
selecting the Truesdale Bridge.”
The Scientific American wrote, in part:
“From the information gleaned regarding the superstructure, there is
little question but that its theory of construction was wrong and the
material poor and clearly inadequate. The principle of the Truesdale
patent, upon which it was based, is to lock joint all supports... The
metalwork throughout the whole fabric was exceptionally frail…But
when the facts are on record, not only of the falling of a structure (its
counterpart) but of the pronounced opinions of experts that this very
fabric was unsafe, the fault must be plainly attributed to neglect…Too
much light and cast iron is employed, and the lock joint arrangement
so weakens the metal that its full strength cannot be gained...Here
was a structure which any competent engineer should have been able
to perceive at a glance was improperly built and unsafe, even were he
not aware of the experience of others with its defects. Yet we are told
that a city council examined it and were suspicious of its strength,
and still it was allowed to remain.”
Charles Macdonald, a leading bridge engineer, wrote a letter to the
editor of the Dixon Sun, stating in part:
“I have been favored with the perusal of your very enterprising
paper containing a list of the bids received for the construction of
a bridge at Dixon to replace the one unhappily the cause of such
widespread grief in your midst, and having previously read with
42 STRUCTURE magazine
deep interest your account of that disaster. I am induced to make
a few suggestions to the people of Dixon through your columns
as to the problem they have to solve in building the new bridge…
First then, you employ a thoroughly competent engineer; you will
tell him in general terms what kind of a bridge you require and
then give him full power to draw up detailed specifications, in
order that all proposals may be compared by one standard. After
the bids have been carefully examined, you will require from
him a report upon their different merits with especial reasons for
any preference he may have for a particular design. And then, as
businessmen, you will be in a position to decide as to who shall
build your bridge…
With a selection made in such a way, there will be satisfaction
in preparing plans and estimates for the new bridge at Dixon,
and the people will stand a chance of getting full value for their
investment.”
Truesdale wrote a letter to the Springfield Republican on May 22,
1873, and a condensed version was picked up by the New York Tribune,
stating, “I know that I never made a better bridge than the one at
Dixon in every particular. After the completion of the bridge, a trial
of its strength was made, when each span was loaded with teams and
people all weighing at least 200,000 pounds…The bridge would have
sustained a weight of 250,000 pounds with safety, and yet it is said
to have fallen with less than 15,000 pounds. If some of the bolts had
been loosened in the top chord near their connections and weights
placed on the catwalk, then the bridge would have fallen precisely
as it is said to have fallen; and I cannot conceive of any other cause.”
He concluded his defense, saying, “It is nearly 18 years since I began
building iron bridges and the Elgin and Dixon bridges are the only
ones that have fallen, and no loss of life except at Dixon. Can as much
be said of any other plan?” The answer to his rhetorical question
was yes, and most, if not all of, the engineers of the time agreed the
Truesdale Bridge was a poorly designed structure.
The ASCE, at its 5th Annual Convention in Louisville, KY, held
only three weeks after the disaster, Resolved, “in view of the late
calamitous disaster of the falling of the bridge at Dixon, IL, and other
casualties of a similar character…that a committee be appointed
to report at the next Annual Convention the most practicable
means of averting such accidents.” The committee was a four-star
committee consisting of 11 of the leading engineers of their time.
Unfortunately, it was not a unanimous solution. Different members
of the committee submitted four reports. James Eads and C. Shaler
Smith concluded, in part, two years later, “After a careful examina-
tion into the causes of the most disastrous accidents which have
occurred during the past few years, it finds that they can readily be
divided into three different classes. First, where bridges are erected
by incompetent or corrupt builders, and accepted by incompetent
or corrupt railway or municipal officials…”
The failure of the Dixon bridges can be traced back to its poor
design and use of iron. While men like Squire Whipple had designed
bridges by forcing the loads to pass through as few members as pos-
sible, Truesdale had added members. His truss was not analyzable by
any means then known to the profession and, instead, was a “rule
of thumb” design. The loading at failure was similar to the Albion
Bridge disaster (STRUCTURE, March 2020) when one
sidewalk and side of the bridge was loaded with people to
view a tightrope walker.■
Dr. Frank Griggs, Jr. specializes in the restoration of historic bridges, having
restored many 19 th Century cast and wrought iron bridges. He is now an
Independent Consulting Engineer. (fgriggsjr@twc.com)
YOUR VISION. OUR STEEL.
NO LIMITATIONS.
Your projects depend on having the right products
in the right places at the right time. The Nucor
team is focused on providing you with high
quality products and unmatched customer service.
Our eight locations are conveniently located across
the United States to meet the demands of your
industry fast.

That’s our promise – every ton, every time.

Learn more at www.nucortubular.com

 TALL BUILDINGS guide
Adhesives Technology Corporation
Phone: 754-399-1057
E-mail: jjklaus@atcepoxy.com
Web: www.atcepoxy.com
Product: ULTRABOND®
Description: America’s #1 structural adhesive
specialist introduces two new ULTRABOND
formulas. New EPX-3CC, the best code-
approved, high-performance, and value-
optimized adhesive for high-volume anchoring
and doweling. And, new HYB-2CC, the hybrid
that cures fast in hot and cold temperatures.
Innovation engineered to outperform. See the full
line of ULTRABOND products.
ENERCALC, Inc. ENERCALC
Phone: 800-424-2252
E-mail: info@enercalc.com
Web: http://enercalc.com
Product: Structural Engineering Library/
Enercalc SE Cloud/RetainPro
Description: Steel design is easy/fast with
ENERCALC’s Structural Engineering Library
(SEL). Beams, columns, 2-D frames, force
distribution in bolt groups…SEL handles it all.
New 3-D sketches make it fast and easy to setup,
confirm, and “what-if” your calculations. Member
optimization improves efficiency and saves time!
RISA
Phone: 949-951-5815
E-mail: info@risa.com
Web: risa.com
Product: RISA-3D
Description: RISA-3D, in conjunction
with RISAFloor, designs and optimizes steel
and concrete buildings with fast, intuitive
interfaces, state of the art solvers, customizable
reporting options and robust integration with
other products such as RISAFoundation and
Revit, making the RISA Building Suite the
premier choice for structural analysis and
design of buildings.

CAST CONNEX
Phone: 416-806-3521
E-mail: info@castconnex.com
Web: www.castconnex.com
Product: High Integrity Blocks™
Description: Heavy, weldable, notch tough, solid steel
sections with up to 65 ksi yield strength in all three
directions and through full cross-section. Use within the
center of multi-axis loaded connections where lamellar
plate tearing may compromise strength or lamination of
multiple plates to build up a solid section is inadvisable.
GIZA Steel
Phone: 314-656-4615
E-mail: sales@gizasteel.com
Web: www.gizasteel.com
Product: GIZA
Description: A software tool to help design structural
steel connections. The GIZA library covers 415
different connection configurations in the Shear,
Moment, Vertical Brace, and Horizontal Brace groups.
GIZA works as a stand-alone tool or can integrate
with Tekla Structural Designer. Go to our website to
try our FREE 15-day trial.
IES, Inc.
Phone: 800-707-0816
E-mail: info@iesweb.com
Web: www.iesweb.com
Product: Structural Software
Description: Your structural software should be
easy, whether you are designing skyscrapers or
a floor beam. Your tools should be technically
accurate, communicate your design intentions,
and fit your budget. IES tools will help you get
results. Use discount code SE25-JUNE to save
25% on your first purchase.
S-FRAME Software
Phone: 203-421-4800
E-mail: info@s-frame.com
Web: s-frame.com
Product: S-CONCRETE Multistory Designer
Description: Shave days off your concrete design
workflow for tall structures. Multistory Designer
easily imports all concrete structural elements from
an ETABS® model file. Quickly design and detail all
concrete elements and generate a single design report.
Product: RISAFloor
Description: Designs and optimizes building
systems constructed of steel (composite and
noncomposite), open web steel joists, cold-
formed steel, and combinations of materials.
Automatic live load reduction, additive or
exclusive floor area loads, vibration calculations,
and more – the first choice for the design of all
types of steel building systems.
Strongwell
Phone: 276-645-8000
E-mail: bmyers@strongwell.com
Web: www.strongwell.com
Product: EXTREN®
Description: Pultruded fiberglass structural
shapes and plates replace traditional metals
in a wide variety of structural applications.
A durable, lightweight, cost saving structural
material ideal for turrets, spires, or other features
on top of tall buildings. EXTREN holds
L.A.R.R. approval for construction of
RF transparent screenings or enclosures.

REDUCE
Trimble
Phone: 678-737-7379
E-mail: jodi.hendrixson@trimble.com

THERMAL
Web: www.tekla.com/us
Product: Tekla Structures
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

Description: Move from design-oriented

to construction-oriented engineering and

TRANSFER
enable improved additional services for
structural engineers . With an open and
collaborative environment, you can easily
work with other disciplines and reduce
RFIs for complete control from concept to
Hohmann & Barnard’s project completion.

THERMAL BRICK Product: Tekla Tedds

Description: A powerful software that

SUPPORT SYSTEM
will speed up your daily structural and
civil calculations, Tekla Tedds automates
repetitive structural calculations. Perform
2-D Frame analysis, utilize a large library
of automated calculations to U.S. codes,
or write your own calculations while
creating high quality and transparent
documentation.
www.h-b.com/tbs

44 STRUCTURE magazine
model.iesweb.com
Easy-to-use structural software. Get a free trial in 2 minutes. 800-707-0816
Exclusive 25% Discount Code: SE25-JUNE, Expires July 10, 2020
 NCSEA
NCSEA News
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

Call for Entries: 2020 Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards

NCSEA's Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards annually highlight
some of the best examples of structural engineering ingenuity throughout the
world. Projects are judged on innovative design, engineering achievement, and
creativity. The awards are presented to multiple winners with an outstanding
winner chosen for each of the following categories:
• New Buildings < $30 Million
• New Buildings $30 Million to $80 Million
• New Buildings $80 Million to $200 Million
• New Buildings Over $200 Million Rufus 2.0 Spheres – Magnusson Klemencic Associates
• New Bridges or Transportation Structures 2019 New Buildings $20 Million to $100 Million Outstanding Award Winner

• Forensic/Renovation/Retrofit/Rehabilitation Structures < $20 Million Entries are due on July 14, 2020. More information about
• Forensic/Renovation/Retrofit/Rehabilitation Structures > $20 Million the awards along with submission instructions can be found
• Other Structures on www.ncsea.com.

Volunteer for an NCSEA Committee

NCSEA has a variety of committees that work to further the association’s mission to constantly improve the level of standard of
practice of the structural engineering profession throughout the United States, and to provide an identifiable resource for those needing
communication with the profession.
NCSEA SEA members may apply for committee positions throughout the year using the online Volunteer Application. Most committees
admit new members on a rolling basis while others add members only once per year. Once submitted, the application will be reviewed
to confirm Member Organization/SEA membership and then forwarded to the committee chair(s) for review.
Visit www.ncsea.com/committees to learn about NCSEA's Committees and to complete a volunteer application.

The Success of the 2020 SE3 Survey Relies on YOU!

The NCSEA SE3 Committee is currently administering its third nationwide survey of structural engineers across the profession. With
over 2,400 respondents by the beginning of May, the most commonly asked questions about the 2020 SE3 Survey include:
• WHO should take this survey?
• WHY should I take this survey (again)?
• HOW is it going to benefit the profession?
Every structural engineer is invited to participate regardless of race, gender, age, or
job title. The SE3 mission applies to every structural engineer. Initial survey demo-
graphics show that 72% of respondents are male and 25% are female; roughly 79%
are white Caucasian, 11% are Asian, and 5.5% are Hispanic; and the average age of
a respondent is 39.5 years old with a median age of 36.
As a structural engineer, you are part of a larger community and this is an opportunity
to have your voice heard. Preliminary results of the survey suggest that respondents
believe the top two (2) challenges facing the profession are inadequate compensation
relative to similar professions and retention of engineers due to stress and burnout.
By participating in every survey cycle, the SE3 committee can track trends, identify areas that need and/or have shown improvement,
and facilitate conversations towards change. The committee retains questions regarding demographics, career satisfaction, compensation,
and work-life balance as a baseline to the survey. However, new questions are incorporated based on popular demand and current events.
The success of the SE3 survey relies on participation of ALL structural engineers. For more information, check out www.SE3committee.com.

NCSEA Webinars Register by visiting www.ncsea.com

June 18, 2020 Frequently Misunderstood Seismic Provisions
Emily Guglielmo, S.E., P.E.
June 25, 2020 Seismic Assessment and Intervention for Historic Structures: An Exemplary Case Study
Terrence Paret, P.E., S.E., and Jeffrey M. Rautenberg, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
July 7, 2020 Existing Buildings and the "10% Rule" – Are We in Agreement?
Kevin O’Connell, S.E., and Daniel Zepeda, S.E.
Courses award 1.5 hours of Diamond Review-approved continuing education after the completion of a quiz.

J U N E 2 02 0 47
 SEI Update News of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
Resources
Confidential Reporting on Structural Safety CROSS-US – First newsletter available at www.cross-us.org with
failure reports and case studies. Confidential reports on structural safety hazards, including any arising from lockdown
or consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, are invited. Sign-up to receive the free newsletter.

Report from Iconic Global Structures Conference in Dubai September 2019 www.asce.org/SEIGlobal

Determination of Pressure Coefficients for High Rise Buildings of Different Aspect Ratios The Final Report
is available – joint effort of SEI/ASCE and Charles Pankow Foundation www.asce.org/SEIStandards

Structures Congress 2020 Proceedings are available for free access at ascelibrary.org

2019 SEI Annual Report, Advancing the Vision for the Future of Structural Engineering,
now available at www.asce.org/SEI

Remember to take advantage of your member benefit: 10 ASCE Free PDHs

Join us to celebrate
25 years of SEI!
Students and Young Professionals: Apply for
scholarship to participate.
Sponsor/Exhibit and reach more than 1,000
industry professionals.
Contact Sean Scully at sscully@asce.org
www.structurescongress.org #Structures21

Access Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures Books, Standards, Proceedings,

and Journal Papers at https://ascelibrary.org/ets2020p.

SEI Online

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

SEI Standards Visit www.asce.org/SEIStandards to view ASCE 7 development cycle

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

48 STRUCTURE magazine
 CASE in Point News of the Coalition of American Structural Engineers
Did you know?
CASE has tools and practice guidelines to help firms deal with a wide variety
of business scenarios that structural engineering firms face daily. Whether
your firm needs to establish a new Quality Assurance Program, update its risk
management program, keep track of the skills young engineers are learning
at each level of experience, or need a sample contract document – CASE has
the tools you need!
CASE has several tools available for firms to use to enhance their business
development processes:
CASE 962-F A Guideline Addressing the Bidding and Construction Administration Phases for the Structural Engineer
CASE 962-H National Practice Guideline on Project and Business Risk Management
CASE 976-A Commentary on Value-Based Compensation for Structural Engineers
Tool 5-4 Negotiation Talking Points
Tool 7-1 Client Evaluation
Tool 7-2 Fee Development

You can purchase these and the other Risk Management Tools at www.acec.org/bookstore.

WANTED: Engineers to Lead, Direct, and Engage with

CASE Committees!
If you are looking for ways to expand and strengthen your business skillset,
look no further than serving on one (or more!) CASE Committees. Join us to
sharpen your leadership skills and promote your talent and expertise to help
guide CASE programs, services, and publications.
We currently have openings on all CASE Committees:
Contracts – Committee is responsible for developing and maintaining
contracts to assist practicing engineers with risk management.
Guidelines – Committee will be responsible for developing and main-
taining national guidelines of practice for structural engineers.
Programs – Committee is responsible for developing program themes
for conferences and sessions that enhance and highlight the profession of
structural engineering.
Toolkit – Committee will be responsible for developing and maintaining the tools related to CASE’s Ten Foundations of Risk
Management program.

To apply, your firm should:

• Be a current member of ACEC
• Be a member of the Coalition of American Structural Engineers (CASE); or be willing to join the Coalition
• Be able to attend the groups’ usual face-to-face meetings each year: August, February (hotel, travel partially reimbursable)
• Be available to engage with the committees via email and video/conference call
• Have some specific experience and/or expertise to contribute to the group
Please submit the following information to Heather Talbert, Coalitions Director (htalbert@acec.org):
• Letter of interest indicating which committee
• Brief bio (no more than a page)

Thank you for your interest in contributing to advancing the structural engineering profession!

Follow ACEC Coalitions on Twitter – @ACECCoalitions.

JUNE 2020 49
 INFOCUS
Understanding Why
By John A. Dal Pino, S.E.

I t has been my personal observation, albeit in a limited geographical

area, that some people are clearly not understanding the COVID-19
public health messages inundating all of us. Either that or the messages
are just too opaque or generalized (one might say dumbed down) as to
leave many people bewildered and confused and trying their best, but
not understanding why. No need to go into the details and the many possible examples, but we have all probably seen some
misunderstandings. Most people are wearing some kind of face-covering while out in public. Still, I often see people briskly
driving alone in a car while wearing an ordinary bandana around their face (not an at-risk individual wearing an N95 surgical
mask) with the windows rolled up, and the AC turned on. I suppose this is better than not wearing the face-covering, but
it seems like the health messages regarding cause-and-effect and the critical do’s and don’ts are just not getting through. I
keep thinking that what is needed is to have an engineer presenting the message!
A world without building codes would be like a world ignoring the code). I can envision a comical situation similar to two cars coming
COVID-19 virus and the associated public health messages, and just face to face on a narrow street, where two people maintaining the
letting nature take its course. During extreme wind or earthquake recommended 6-foot social distance come face-to-face in a narrow
events, or in heavily loaded buildings, some buildings would collapse aisle and freeze waiting to see who backs up first. The sensible thing
and some buildings would stand. The smart people who hired a com- will be to assess the situation, judge the risk as rather low, and just
petent structural engineer to find out the why would do the best since walk past each other quickly. Only time will tell.
they would have the soundest information and employ best practices. The common thread through all of this, whether it is building or
Some other people would be fortunate and survive, mostly by luck. personal safety, is the need for superior knowledge, knowledge of the
The leaders of most countries decided long ago that having and “why” and the ability to clearly and effectively communicate complex
enforcing a building code was necessary to avoid large numbers of issues in a way that gets real buy-in and true understanding, not just
casualties in building failures and to maintain public confidence in blind allegiance and rule-following. The best engineers can do this.
the built environment. Over time, society developed a large number In a time of uncertainty and stress, quacks, snake oil salesmen, witch
of rules to guide structural engineers in the design of buildings in doctors, carnival barkers, and talk show hosts (have I listed them all?)
response to evolving conditions and new knowledge. Apparently, are seen by many as trustworthy, real subject-matter experts, depend-
engineers or their professional organizations could not be left up to ing on where one gets his or her information.
their own devices and figure it out for themselves. I am not sure I By “best” engineer, I do not mean the smartest since there is more
agree with this conclusion based on our excellent collective record, to it than just knowing everything and having it locked up securely in
but that ship has sailed as they say. The building code provisions have one’s head. Or necessarily the smoothest communicator, since talk not
become so numerous and pervasive that I suspect that many structural backed up with knowledge and experience (the “why”) leaves people
engineers do not truly understand what these provisions are intended confused. My personal experience with COVID-19 messaging is that
to prevent and just blindly follow them. Whether the “bad” result many politicians fall into this second category. So by “best,” I mean
is avoided by “meeting the code” is someone else’s concern. Some those engineers who understand the technical issues and can present the
engineers do understand the “why.” information clearly, logically, and in a manner geared to the experience
There is a parallel with COVID-19. There will be a new normal until and knowledge of the listener. One size does not fit all in this regard.
either an effective vaccine is developed or society just gets comfortable The engineer needs to use a lot of communication tools and styles to
with the health risk (that didn’t hurt too much did it?) and reduced tell the story effectively and be able to change the approach on the fly.
economic activity. It will involve many rules for the workplace and Perhaps, at the end of this, engineers will shine as experts and show
social interaction for all areas outside the home. Staying home if you their true worth as honest brokers without bias or personal agendas.
are sick (no heroes at work anymore), waving instead of shaking hands, An industry dedicated to helping their clients make informed decisions
maintain physical distancing, wearing a good mask at times, and more after understanding the hazards and risks, the options available
will define the new normal. Unfortunately, like understanding the to them, and what state-of-the-art engineering can achieve
building code, some people will understand the “why” behind the rules – collectively, the why – will help protect life and property.■
and when we can bend the rules without increasing risk. However,
John A. Dal Pino is a Principal with FTF Engineering located in San
most people will not know the “why,” and they will blindly do what
Francisco, California. He serves as the Chair of the STRUCTURE Editorial
they are told, take more extreme and unnecessary precautions, or
Board. (jdalpino@ftfengineering.com)
skirt the whole deal (like some building owners do with the building

50 STRUCTURE magazine JUNE 2020

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

GEOPIER
Geopier Installer: GeoSolv Design/Build Inc.

IS GROUND
IMPROVEMENT ®

Geopier rigid inclusions

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

Geopier rigid inclusion systems enable

you to:

• Improve variable fill soils in place

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

REQUEST FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT

800-371-7470 • info@geopier.com
www.geopier.com/feasibilityrequest
STRUCTURE
JUNE 2020
Bonus Content
 code UPDATES
What’s Old Is New Again
How Tall Mass Timber Touches the Sky and Matches the Fire
Performance of Traditional Non-Combustible Construction Types
By Lori Koch, P.E., and Matthew Hunter, BCO

W ith the adoption of the 2021 International Building Code (IBC), municipalities
across the United States will have the ability to build wood buildings taller than
ever before. With three new types of construction, Type IV-A, IV-B, and IV-C, mass timber
buildings will allow design professionals to erect wood buildings up to 18 stories in height.
Figure 1 represents the maximum permitted number of stories under the Type IV-A code
change. While these structures are constructed from wood, they are not conventional
Figure 1. Brock Commons-Student Housing,
light-frame construction, and the structural behavior and fire resistance of mass timber
Vancouver, BC. Currently the tallest mass
structures are not comparable to light-frame construction. timber building in North America at 18 stories.

The new provisions for Type IV-A, IV-B, and IV-C construction
were developed by the International Code Council’s (ICC) Tall Wood
Building (TWB) Ad Hoc Committee. One of the main objectives of
the TWB was to develop code provisions that incorporated the inher-
ent fire resistance of mass timber wood structural components into
the overall fire-resistance rating (FRR) for the three new construction
types. One-third of the required Fire Resistance Rating (FRR) must
come from the structural mass of the timber itself, while the other
two-thirds must come from noncombustible protection (typically
fire-rated Type X gypsum board).
Under the provisions in the 2021 IBC Section 602.4.2.2.2 for
noncombustible protection in Type IV-B construction, up to 20%
of the ceiling or 40% of the walls are permitted to be exposed wood,
based on the floor area in any dwelling unit or fire area. Even though
limited amounts of exposed wood surfaces are permitted, each build-
ing element must still meet the FRR required for Type IV-B without
noncombustible protection. This means the design professional must
size the section in question to account for wood charring. The char-
ring rate of wood is non-linear, but the char depth, achar, can be easily
quantified using procedures from Chapter 16 of the American Wood
Council’s (AWC) 2018 National Design Specification® (NDS®) for
Wood Construction, which is referenced in the IBC. Further details
about the Chapter 16 provisions of the NDS can be found in AWC’s
Technical Report 10 (TR-10): Calculating the Fire Resistance of Wood
Members and Assemblies, which is referenced in the NDS Commentary
to Chapter 16.
For structural calculations, the effective char depth, aeff, is estimated
to be 20% deeper than achar. This accounts for reduced strength and
stiffness in the elevated temperature zone in the wood behind the
char layer that has not charred yet but has been heated due to the
fire. Tables 16.2.1A and 16.2.1B from the NDS (Figure 2) provide
aeff values for use in fire resistance calculations of exposed wood
members and exposed cross-laminated timber slabs, respectively, for
fire exposure durations of up to 2 hours, based on a nominal char
rate of 1.5 inches/hr.
While TR10 compiles extensive test data and calculations for wood
members and assemblies tested in accordance with ASTM E119
Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction
and Materials as required by the IBC. Additional non-standard fire
tests were conducted in support of tall mass timber code changes.
Photos from full scale, two-story compartment tests conducted at
the U.S. Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Research
Laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland, are shown in Figure 3. The photos
reveal a char layer and uncharred wood, which was insulated from
the fire by the char layer.
The IBC addresses equivalent fire risk by regulating features that
affect fire performance; taller buildings or combustible construction
need more stringent fire protection measures. Unlike noncombustible

Figure 2. Effective char depth, aeff, from 2018 NDS Chapter 16.

STRUCTURE magazine

Figure 3. Left, Oblique of 5-ply CLT panel from exposed, ATF Test #3; Right, Cross-
section showing char removed and remaining laminations.
construction, which has no limitations on height or number of sto-
ries (Type I-A), the maximum height and number of stories for the
tallest Type IV-A building are limited to 270 feet and eighteen (18)
stories. For an 18-story building constructed out of mass timber, a
three-hour fire-resistance rating is required for the primary structural
frame. As an example, in a Type IV-A Business occupancy building
constructed of mass timber, the primary structural frame members
will need three (3) layers of 5⁄8 inch, Type X drywall for 120 minutes
of fire resistance, plus an additional 60 minutes of fire resistance from
the increased section of the mass timber itself. These requirements are
especially crucial to the structural engineer or other design profes-
sionals because, depending on the structural support system, it may
be possible to reduce the FRR of the secondary structural members
to two (2) hours.
Both of the taller types of mass timber buildings (IV-A and IV-B)
mandate the use of a minimum one-inch-thick noncombustible
floor topping. In the new 2021 IBC, Table 601 Fire-Resistance Rating
Requirements for Building Elements (Figure 4 ), the
various requirements for both the primary structural
frame and the floor construction and associated sec-
ondary members is evident. The new Tall Mass Timber
construction performance requirements more closely
resemble the Type I-A and I-B FRR than the tradi-
tional Type IV-HT classification, which must only
meet the minimum dimensions associated with the
construction type.
Design Example
This example demonstrates calculations for the required section
dimensions for a 2-hour structural fire resistance time when subjected
to an ASTM E119 fire exposure test. ASTM E119 uses a standard
time and temperature curve that is repeatable in the laboratory and
is the referenced standard fire exposure for determining fire resistance
ratings in the IBC.
A CLT bearing wall with an unbraced height of L = 120 inches
loaded in compression in the strong-axis is analyzed.
The design loads are:
Live load = wlive = 14,000 plf
Dead load (including estimated self-weight) = wdead = 6,150 plf
Walls above are supported on a CLT floor slab and aligned with a
CLT wall below. Sealing of wall joints with fire-rated caulk restricts hot
gases from venting through half-lap joints at the edges of CLT panel
sections (another new requirement for mass timber construction).
Compression Design
Wall loads:
Pdead = 6,150 lb/ft of width (dead load)
Plive = 14,000 lb/ft of width (live load)
Ptotal = Pdead + Plive = 20,200 lb/ft of width (total load)
From ANSI/APA PRG 320-18, select a 7-ply CLT panel made from
13⁄8-inch x 3½-inch lumber boards (CLT thickness of 95⁄8 inches). For
CLT grade E1, tabulated properties are taken from ANSI/APA PRG
320-18 Tables A1 and A2.
Fc,0 = 1,800 psi Reference compression stress
(PRG 320 Table A1)
FbSeff,0 = 18,375 ft-lb/ft of width Reference bending moment
(PRG 320 Table A2)

Fire Design
Compliance with the upcoming 2021 IBC provisions
necessitates providing the required FRR for all mass
timber elements. In the 2021 IBC, Type IV-C con-
struction will allow fully exposed mass timber elements
in buildings up to 85 feet in height, while requiring a
2-hour FRR for the structural frame. The NDS gives
provisions for the calculation of fire resistance for
exposed wood members, including cross-laminated
timber (CLT), in Chapter 16. NDS Table 16.2.1B
(Figure 2) provides effective char depths for CLT
manufactured in accordance with ANSI/APA PRG
320: Standard for Performance-Rated Cross-Laminated
Timber. NDS Chapter 16 is referenced in the IBC as
an acceptable method of determining fire resistance
and contains many important provisions for doing
so. The NDS provisions for fire resistance calcula-
tions are only conducted using allowable stress design
(ASD), since ASD is the primary method covered in
ASTM E119. Figure 4. Updated building element fire resistance table per 2021 IBC.

JUNE 2020 BONUS CONTENT

 EIeff,0 = 1,089 x 106 psi/ft of width Reference bending stiffness Pc = Fc0 ⋅ Aparallel = 59,400 lb/ft of width (NDS 10.3.1)
(PRG 320 Table A2)
Calculate Apparent Wall Bending Stiffness
GAeff,0 = 1.4 x 106 lb/ft of width Reference shear stiffness, lb/ft
of width (PRG 320 Table A2) Using NDS Eqn. 10.4-1, the apparent bending stiffness can be cal-
L = 120 in. Wall length culated. Assume pinned-pinned end fixity.
Calculate Effective Wall Compression Capacity EIe f f 0
EIapp = = 95.4 .106 psi/ft of width
Area parallel to grain for a 7-ply panel is based on 4 plies @ 13/8-inch- K s .EIe ff 0
1+
thick, per foot of panel width (NDS 10.3.1). GAe ff 0 .L2
Aparallel = 4 * 1.375 * 12 = 66 in2/ft of width The method of adjustment of EIapp per NDS Appendix D and
Pc = Fc0 ⋅Aparallel = 118,800 lb/ft of width Effective Wall Appendix H to determine EIapp-min is unchanged.
Compression Capacity EIapp-min = 0.5184 EIapp = 49.5 × 106 psi/ft of width
(NDS 10.3.1) Using the general form of the Euler buckling equation, with the “f ”
subscript denoting fire design. (NDS C3.7.1.5):
Calculate Apparent Wall Bending Stiffness
(π2) EIapp_min
Using NDS Eqn. 10.4-1, the apparent bending stiffness can be cal- PcE_ f = 2.03 = 68.8 .103 lb/ft of width (NDS C3.7.1.5)
L2
culated. Assume pinned-pinned end fixity.
Pc_f * = 2.58*Pc = 153,300 lb/ft of width (NDS C3.7.1.5)
Ks = 11.8 Shear deformation adjustment factor
αc = PcE_f /Pc_f * = 0.4 (NDS C3.7.1.5)
(NDS Table 10.4.1.1)
c = 0.9 (NDS C3.7.1.5)
EIe f f 0
√( )( )
2
EIapp = = 665.106 psi/ft of width (1+αc) (1+αc) (α )
K s .EIeff 0 Cp = − − c = 0.419 (NDS C3.7.1.5)
2.c 2.c c
1+
GAeff 0 .L 2
Pf´ = Pc_f * × CP = 64,200 lb/ft of width
EIapp is adjusted per NDS Appendix D and Appendix H to Pf´ > Ptotal so capacity is sufficient
determine EIapp-min (NDS C10.4.1) Initially, the wall is assumed to be loaded concentrically; however, as
EIapp-min = 0.5184 EIapp = 345 x 106 psi/ft of width one side of the wall chars,the load becomes eccentric. The eccentricity
in this example is half the difference in depth between a 7-ply CLT
Calculate Adjusted Allowable Wall Capacity
member and a 3-ply member.
Assume all NDS adjustment factors equal 1.0 (CD = Ct = CM = 1.0). e = (9.625 – 4.125) / 2 = 2.75
EIapp_min
PcE = π2⋅ = 236⋅103 lb/ft of width (NDC3.7.1.5) Calculate Resisting Moment
L2
Pc*= Pc ⋅ CD ⋅ CM ⋅ Ct = 118,800 lb/ft of width (NDS C3.7.1.5) Assume all applicable NDS adjustment factors = 1.0
αc = PcE / Pc* = 2 (NDS C3.7.1.5) CL = 1.0
c = 0.9 (NDS C3.7.1.5) M´f = 2.85 . FbSeff0 . CL = 12,900 ft-lb/ft of width = 154,755 in-lb/

√( )( )
(1+αc) (1+αc)
2
(α ) ft of width (NDS 16.2.2)
Cp = − − c = 0.9 (NDS C3.7.1.5) Using the general form of NDS Eqn. 15.4-3 for wood columns:
2.c 2.c c
Pc´ = Pc* × CP 109,400 lb/ft of width
( ( ))
(Ptotal .e). 1+0.234 Ptotal
Pc´ > Ptotal so capacity is sufficient Interaction :=( )
Ptotal 2
+
PcE_f
= 0.64
Fire Design
Pf́
( ( ))
(Mf́ ). 1−
P total
PcE_f
Mass loss due to charring will be neglected, so loading is unchanged. The interaction equation is less than 1.0, so the design is sufficient.
Calculating char depth per NDS Table 16.2.1B gives an aeff = 3.8 in.
For this example, char penetrates the first three laminations, includ-
ing the first two strong axis laminations. The contribution of the
Conclusion
uncharred crossing layer to buckling resistance is minimal, so it will In summary, the changes to the IBC will permit mid- to high-rise
be neglected. The post-char wall can be designed as an eccentrically buildings to be constructed for all occupancy types, provided that the
loaded 3-ply CLT column. stringent fire-resistant construction details and active and passive fire
3-ply panel properties for CLT grade E1 panel are in ANSI/APA protection are installed following the 2021 IBC. The addition of the
PRG 320-18 Annex A. new construction Types IV-A, IV-B, and IV-C will provide designers
Fc,0 = 1,800 psi Reference compression stress with the flexibility to use new materials to engineer buildings that are
(PRG 320 Table A1) safe, efficient, and sustainable.
FbSeff,0 = 4,525 ft-lb/ft of width Reference bending moment For additional information on Tall Mass Timber and the Tall Wood
(PRG 320 Table A2) Building Ad Hoc Committee, as well as additional informa-
EIeff,0 = 115 x 106 psi/ft of width Reference bending stiffness tion on the rigorous fire testing performed at the ATF, please
(PRG 320 Table A2) refer to www.awc.org/tallmasstimber.■
GAeff,0 = 0.46 x 106 lb/ft of width Reference shear stiffness, lb/ft
Lori Koch is the Manager of Educational Outreach for the American
of width (PRG 320 Table A2)
Wood Council.
Area parallel to grain is equal to breadth (b) x depth (d) of the
Matthew Hunter is the Northeast Regional Manager for the American
remaining two strong axis plies. Wood Council.
Aparallel = 2 * 12 * 1.375 = 33 in2/ft of width (NDS 10.3.1)

STRUCTURE magazine
Building partners.
Building better.
WORKING TOGETHER TO ENSURE YOUR PROJECT’S SUCCESS
You know the RFI process is costing you big time. Fix it by building your team with our
specialists in structural steel building systems. Together, we’ll streamline the design and
specification of the optimal building system to meet your project needs. We’ll help
accelerate your project timeline and reduce project costs. We’ll collaborate proactively
to remove problems before they appear. Let’s build a better steel experience. Together.

[ GET OUR 3-PART GUIDE:

newmill.com/RFI-fix
PART 2 of 3

PART 1 of 3
Confront the RFI problem PART 3 of 3
Addressing the information gap
Say goodbye to RFIs An RFI-free world
Together, we can build it better Take these steps to avoid round after round of RFIs