STRUCTURE

NCSEA | CASE | SEI JANUARY 2022

CONCRETE

INSIDE: Boston University

New Sciences Building 30
Shear Strength Deficiencies 8
Stamford Media Village 17
Snow and Rain Loads 36
 WE’RE SUPPORTING POSSIBILITIES WITH

THE WORLD’S
LARGEST HSS.
The world’s largest continuous ERW mill is now open, and it’s located right
here in the U.S. That means the biggest HSS available anywhere, made
right here in America with the high quality and fast delivery times you
expect from Atlas Tube. It’s time to start planning big things.

WALL THICKNESS MILL CUT LENGTHS

UP TO 1" UP TO 125'

ROUND RECTANGLE SQUARE

up to

34"
up to up to

28" OD
x 10"
22"

READY TO BUILD BIGGER THAN EVER BEFORE?

GET IN TOUCH. WE’RE READY TO HELP.
atlastube.com/jumbo | 800.733.5683
KEEPING OUR COMMUNITIES RESILIENT
“Degenkolb has a long
history of chasing
earthquakes, learning from
earthquakes, and utilizing
our expertise for the benefit
of our clients.”

— Stacy Bartoletti, SE
Principal and CEO
Degenkolb Engineers
© Rice Fergus Miller

WHAT WE DO
Structural Design
Construction Engineering
Earthquake Reconnaissance
Tsunami Evacuation Structures
Existing Building Evaluations
Seismic Retrofit Design
Forensics Engineering

EXPERTS IN
ASCE 41
Seismic Analysis
Performance Based Design
Multi-Hazard Mitigation
Code Development

www.degenkolb.com 415.392.6952
 ADVERTISER INDEX Please support these advertisers
STRUCTURE ®

American Concrete Institute......................59 KPFF .....................................................4 MARKETING & ADVERTISING SALES

ASDIP Structural Software........................18 Lynch Mykins ........................................40 Director for Sales, Marketing
Atlas Tube ..............................................2 MAPEI ...................................................9 & Business Development
Monica Shripka
Computers & Structures, Inc. ....................60 Max USA Corp.....................................10 Tel: 773-974-6561
DCI Engineers .......................................51 Nucor – Redicor................................... 44 monica.shripka@STRUCTUREmag.org

Degenkolb Engineers................................3 PCS-Structural .......................................27 EDITORIAL STAFF

Dewalt ................................................33 Simpson Strong-Tie ................................. 13
Executive Editor Alfred Spada
ENERCALC ............................................6 Structural Engineering Institute ...................29 aspada@ncsea.com

KLA&A ................................................50 Structural Engineers, Inc. .........................22 Publisher Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
csloat@STRUCTUREmag.org
Erratum
Associate Publisher Nikki Alger
It was brought to STRUCTURE’s attention by a reader that, in the Historic Structures nalger@STRUCTUREmag.org

article, Quebec Bridge, The First Failure, 1907 (November 2021), the inset should have read: Creative Director Tara Smith
Cooper loading E30 designates that each axle has a load of 30,000#. That equates to 15,000# graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org

per wheel. It also specifies a load on the leading truck and another load on the trailing axle,
EDITORIAL BOARD
plus a load for the following freight cars. At the time of the bridge’s design, a loading of E20 was
common, but Cooper specified a loading of E30. Chair John A. Dal Pino, S.E.
FTF Engineering, Inc., San Francisco, CA
chair@STRUCTUREmag.org

Jeremy L. Achter, S.E., LEED AP

YOUR OPINION MATTERS! ARW Engineers, Ogden, UT

Erin Conaway, P.E.

STRUCTURE magazine is always looking for Structural Forum (opinion) articles and AISC, Littleton, CO
Letters to the Editor. We preserve a page at the end of the magazine to print these types Linda M. Kaplan, P.E.
of articles, as space permits. Please send your pieces to publisher@structuremag.org. Pennoni, Pittsburgh, PA

And don’t forget – post questions or comments on the digital versions of articles on the Charles “Chuck” F. King, P.E.
STRUCTURE website. STRUCTURE looks forward to hearing from you! Urban Engineers of New York, New York, NY

Nicholas Lang, P.E.

Masonry Industry Representative

Jessica Mandrick, P.E., S.E., LEED AP

Gilsanz Murray Steficek, LLP, New York, NY

Jason McCool, P.E.

Robbins Engineering Consultants, Little Rock, AR

Brian W. Miller
Davis, CA
TOGETHER WE BUILD SOLUTIONS

Evans Mountzouris, P.E.

Retired, Milford, CT

John “Buddy” Showalter, P.E.

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

International Code Council, Washington, DC

Eytan Solomon, P.E., LEED AP

Silman, New York, NY

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

JVA, Inc., Boulder, CO

STRUCTURE ® magazine (ISSN 1536 4283) is published monthly

by The National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (a nonprofit
Association), 20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 750, Chicago, IL 60606
312.649.4600. Periodical postage paid at Chicago, Il, and at additional
mailing offices. STRUCTURE magazine, Volume 29, Number 1, © 2022

Mukilteo Ferry Terminal

by The National Council of Structural Engineers Associations, all rights
Gold 2021 World reserved. Subscription services, back issues and subscription information
Interiors News Awards tel: 312-649-4600, or write to STRUCTURE magazine Circulation, 20 N.
Mukilteo, Washington Wacker Drive, Suite 750, Chicago, IL 60606.The publication is distributed
2021 ENR Regional to members of The National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
through a resolution to its bylaws, and to members of CASE and SEI paid
Best Project by each organization as nominal price subscription for its members as a
Seattle Los Angeles Chicago benefit of their membership. Yearly Subscription in USA $75; $40 For
ASCE Region 8 Large Tacoma Long Beach Louisville Students; Canada $90; $60 for Canadian Students; Foreign $135, $90
Project of the Year Lacey Orange County Nashville for foreign students. Editorial Office: Send editorial mail to: STRUCTURE
magazine, Attn: Editorial, 20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 750, Chicago, IL
Spokane San Diego Birmingham
60606. POSTMASTER: Send Address changes to STRUCTURE magazine,
ASCE Seattle Section Portland Boise Washington, DC KPFF is an Equal 20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 750, Chicago, IL 60606.
LOCEA Award Eugene Salt Lake City New York Opportunity
STRUCTURE is a registered trademark of the National Council of Structural
Sacramento Des Moines Employer Engineers Associations (NCSEA). Articles may not be reproduced in whole
AIA Honor Award San Francisco St. Louis www.kpff.com or in part without the written permission of the publisher.

4 STRUCTURE magazine
Cover
Feature Contents JAN UARY 2022

30 BOSTON UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR

COMPUTING AND DATA SCIENCES BUILDING
By Nathan Roy, P.E., Irfan Baig, P.E., Jamie Hamelin P.Eng, and Lucy Timbers

The Center building consists of two main portions: the 19-story tower with a two-
story deep basement and a 5-story podium with a one-story basement. It was
determined that a mat foundation would save over $5 million. This decision had
consequences: limiting tower loads by optimizing the concrete core plan size
and wall thickness, and using lightweight concrete slabs on metal deck.

Features Columns and Departments

17 STAMFORD MEDIA VILLAGE 7 Editorial 45 Engineer’s Notebook
By Joe Gencarelli, P.E., and Jim DeStefano, P.E., AIA, F.SEI Wanted: Public Service The Hidden Cost of Copy
A derelict 1920s vintage reinforced concrete factory build- By Brent L. White, P.E., S.E. and Paste – Part 2
ing has been reimagined. For the newly revamped com- By Jason McCool, P.E.
plex, Brownfield challenges, foundation issues typical of 8 Structural Performance
waterfront sites, concrete restoration and fortification, and a
Shear Strength Deficiencies in 46 Historic Structures
requirement for new upper floors gave rise to several innova-
Concrete Columns – Part 1 Niagara’s Upper Falls
tive structural solutions.
By Lawrence Burkett, et al. Bridge Failure
20 UCLA’S MARION By Frank Griggs, Jr., D.Eng, P.E.

14 Codes and Standards

ANDERSON HALL 2021 IBC Significant Structural 49 InSights
By Daniel Tunick, S.E., and Nabih Youssef, S.E.
Changes – Part 3 Building Safety
Expanding the Anderson Graduate School of Management
By Sandra Hyde, P.E., and Assessments Following
presented a clear challenge: the lack of a viable location. The John “Buddy” Showalter, P.E.
solution was to construct the new building entirely upon an the Sparta Earthquake
By Colby Baker, P.E.
existing parking structure. In an area of high seismic hazard,
the new building and the existing parking structure’s retrofit fol- 34 Just the FAQs
lowed the University of California Seismic Safety policy. FAQs on ASCE Standards 50 Business Practices
By Laura Champion, P.E.,
Positioning for Continued
23 SHORING FACILITATING and Jennifer Goupil, P.E.
Success
DESIGN AT 100 STOCKTON 36 Structural Loads
By Kacey Clagett and Tiany Galaskas

By Robert Graff, S.E.

Snow and Rain Loads in
The 100 Stockton Street project reimagines an eight-story 58 Spotlight
ASCE 7-22 – Part 1
former department store into a multi-use building for offices, Edmonton’s Stanley
By Michael O’Rourke, Ph.D., P.E.,
dining, events, and retail. This reimagination of the building and John F. Duntemann, P.E., S.E. A. Milner Library
required significant structural shoring to facilitate the design.

26 HISTORIC ALAMEDA HIGH 38 Structural Design

The Long Road – Part 3
SCHOOL RETROFIT – PART 1 By Matthew Speicher, Ph.D.,
By Nik Blanchette, P.E., Steve Heyne, S.E., and Chris Warner, S.E. and John Harris, Ph.D. In Every Issue
In 2012, the Alameda Unified School District in Alameda, 4 Advertiser Index
California, made the difficult decision to fence off and vacate 41 Structural Analysis 48 R esource Guide – Anchor Updates
all three classroom buildings on the Historic Alameda High 52 NCSEA News
Two-Stage Analysis Loophole
School campus due to seismic safety deficiencies. This article 54 SEI Update
By Steven Shepherd, S.E.,
describes the long process to rehabilitate and restore these and James McDonald, S.E. 56 CASE in Point
nearly century-old buildings.
Publication of any article, image, or advertisement in STRUCTURE® magazine does not constitute endorsement by NCSEA, CASE, SEI, the Publisher, or the Editorial Board. Authors, contributors, and advertisers retain sole responsibility for the content of their submissions.
STRUCTURE magazine is not a peer-reviewed publication. Readers are encouraged to do their due diligence through personal research on topics.

JANUARY 2022 5
 EDITORIAL
Wanted: Public Service
By Brent L. White, P.E., S.E.
B y the time you are reading this, the 2021 election season is behind
us. Although the recent elections did not have national office
implications, offices for elected officials were likely held where the reader
lives. Did you participate in any way? Did you take the opportunity to
vote? Have you ever considered running for elected office?
You may be wondering why I would be writing about this in an
“
engineering magazine directed primarily to structural engineers. It
definitely is not to stir partisan debate. Nor is
it to advance any political agenda. Instead, it
is primarily to ask the question – “What role
should engineers play in public service?” Is this
something you have considered personally as
an engineer, no matter the stage or your career?
How well are engineers represented in the
What role
various areas of public service? Currently, nine
engineers are serving among the 535 members
should
of Congress. Six serving state governors have
degrees in engineering. Is this a representative engineers
swath of engineers relative to the population
as a whole? Based on current estimates, there play in public
are approximately 800,000 P.E. registrants
and 60,000 licensed surveyors in the country.
And some engineers do not have a profes-
service?
sional license. In 2020, there were an estimated
200,000 engineering degrees awarded. Over the past 25 years, over
3 million individuals have received engineering degrees. Engineers
should be represented at levels at least proportionate to the corre-
sponding percentage of the population as a whole.
Without getting into a deep discussion regarding engineers partici-
pating in national politics, do these trends represent engineers at a
local level? More importantly, why do I care, and why am I writing
about this? I do not intend to suggest that the readers of this article
should all have the interest or desire to enter politics on the national
stage – although there may be some that do. I know that, personally,
I do not have that desire. However, at a more local level, engineers
and those with an engineering background have a lot to offer those
around them in the public sphere, not necessarily by holding an elected
office. Engineers that I know typically do not hesitate to become
involved with professional engineering societies. Many engineers
also participate with universities on advisory boards and student
mentoring. Why not consider becoming more engaged in pursuits
not related directly to engineering?
Engineers have specific characteristics that can be helpful in the
area of public service and have much to offer. Engineers are prob-
lem solvers. It is undeniable that many problems need to be solved.
Problem-solving skills developed by engineers can considerably ben-
efit the public at large beyond the civic value from the day-to-day
engineering activities of our jobs. Engineers are used to and skilled at
working in teams and addressing challenging problems. Thoughtful,
methodical problem solving beyond engineering is a trait that can be
very beneficial to the public. The opportunities to be involved and
share these skills are not limited to the elected office but extend to
various opportunities for local involvement.
STRUCTURE magazine
Every community has school boards, planning commissions,
neighborhood/community councils, city councils, county/township
planning boards, various improvement/service districts, and more that
can benefit from dedicated, thoughtful, competent service. Engineers
participating in these settings can provide much-needed insight and
balance to almost any topic and discussion. Prior experience in public
service at any level is not necessary. Engineers often have developed
skills beyond their engineering expertise to
assist them in public service.
An engineering colleague in the eastern U.S.
is currently serving as the mayor of his city.
Here are some of his insights into why he
decided to seek public office, why being an
engineer has been helpful, and advice for engi-
neers considering public service:
“As a small business owner, I was involved
in local political races for years, and I saw the
benefit that the good elected officials brought
to their communities. When the opportunity
presented itself to run for local office, I looked
at the other officials in office and realized that
my experiences were underrepresented. This
was an opportunity to bring my voice to the
people of my town.
Serving in public office is very time-consuming and requires a flex-
ible schedule and the ability to make decisions. Because of that, the
vast majority of elected officials are attorneys. However, engineers are
problem solvers, and consulting engineers work in teams more than
just about any other profession. That experience of working with
other disciplines and commonly working towards solving a project
or a problem uniquely qualifies engineers for public office.
The public is best served when their elected representatives can
listen and improve their communities. The biggest fear people have
about running for office is the criticism they receive… it’s always
there. However, engineers are always scrutinized for our designs and
ideas, but there is no greater satisfaction as an engineer than to say, ‘I
designed that.’ If you have that desire to fix things that need fixing and
the confidence to know when you need to listen to others, running
for office is a very rewarding thing you can do for your community.
If you don’t want to run for office, every town needs more engineers
to sit on local boards and committees. Those are the places that have
the greatest influence on your town’s future, and engineers can always
see the big picture of a project better than any other profession.”
I am not a politician. I am not a polished speaker. However, I appre-
ciate the vast opportunities I have been afforded and have personally
felt compelled to become involved in my community. If anyone
reading this has felt or feels the same way, I encourage you to not
only use your engineering skills to serve professionally but
to use those same skills to serve the community (or state,
etc.) where you live.■
Brent L. White is President at ARW Engineers, Past President, Structural
Engineers Association of Utah, and Current Chair, CASE.
JANUARY 2022 7
 structural PERFORMANCE
Shear Strength Deficiencies in
Concrete Columns
Part 1
By Lawrence Burkett, Joe Maffei, S.E., Ph.D., Abby Enscoe, P.E.,
Marc Steyer, S.E., Mike Wesson, S.E., Ph.D., and Aniket Borwankar

C oncrete buildings with vulnerable columns are some of the

most dangerous structures when earthquakes occur. Since the
1970s, building codes have addressed the detailing of columns that
are part of moment frames in high-seismic regions. Research for the
Portland Cement Association [Blume et al., 1961] and subsequent
studies in New Zealand established the need for close spacing of ties
and a capacity design of frame members for shear strength sufficient
to cause flexural yielding rather than undesirable shear failure.
While these provisions were required for moment frame columns
and beams, in the U.S. it took until the 1997 Uniform Building Code
(UBC) before such provisions were required for “gravity” columns,
i.e., columns categorized by the structural engineer as not part of the
seismic-force-resisting system.
Even in countries with a history of advanced seismic codes, concrete
buildings have collapsed because of vulnerable gravity columns. This
happened in the U.S. in the 1994 Northridge earthquake and New
Zealand’s 2010 Christchurch earthquake. Figure 1. Test column. The central portion represents the column between floor
slabs of the building.

Project Testing
In a recent project at the University of California, San Francisco
(UCSF), the retrofit of the seven-story Mount Zion Housing build-
ing afforded an opportunity for full-scale laboratory testing of a
vulnerable concrete column. In addition to other seismic deficien-
cies typical of a concrete structure from the 1960s, the building
has interior columns that lack a close spacing of ties over most of
the column height. The columns are governed by non-ductile shear
failure, as assessed by ASCE 41-17, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit
of Existing Buildings.
At most interior columns, fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) wrap
could be applied around the entire column perimeter (i.e., all four
faces). This is a typical approach to increasing the shear strength of
existing concrete columns. However, interferences at nearly 30% of
the interior columns prevented access to one column face, driving
the need for a three-sided option. UCSF, the structural engineer
of record (SEOR), and the peer reviewers sought input from FRP
designers about the potential for a three-sided solution. They agreed
that the designer of a three-sided FRP wrap would have to provide
testing validation of the structural effectiveness of the retrofit used.
The group envisioned FRP wrapping on three sides of the column
and FRP through-anchors instead of FRP on the fourth side. A detail
of this type had previously been designed and tested by Aegion/
Fyfe for pilasters.
The FRP subcontractor for the project selected Simpson Strong-Tie
to design and provide the FRP, and Simpson developed a proposed
detail and test program to meet the requirements established by the
SEOR. The testing program included a control column (i.e., with
no FRP) and columns wrapped using the three-sided FRP with FRP
through-anchors. This article discusses the results of the control
column test. The results of the FRP-strengthened column tests will
be discussed in a subsequent article.

Column Testing Program

The testing was carried out at Simpson Strong-Tie’s Tyrell Gilb
Figure 4. Test setup for imposing lateral displacement to the column with fixed-fixed Research Laboratory in Stockton, CA. The testing included one control
end conditions. column specimen, discussed in this article, and two FRP-strengthened

8 STRUCTURE magazine
columns, discussed in a subsequent article. Figure 1 and Figure 2-online the column clear height. The bottom-of-column displacement mea-
show the column design and construction. surements are taken from the same independent reference frame using
a displacement transducer connected at the bottom of the column
Material Properties (Control Column)
clear height. Base slip of the concrete abutment relative to the strong
From the mill certificates of the reinforcement, the Grade 60 #10 floor is also measured with a displacement transducer. Test results
longitudinal bars had fy = 69.4 ksi and fu = 98.8 ksi. The Grade 40 #3 were corrected to remove the small amount of base lateral movement.
ties had fy = 55.0 ksi and fu = 82.5 ksi during field testing. The concrete All measurements are recorded with a central data acquisition system
strength at the time of testing was 2,568 psi, based on the average throughout the duration of each test.
results of six cylinder tests taken over three days (i.e., two cylinders
before, two after, and two on the day of the control column test).
Designing the Control Column
Test Setup and Procedures
For the test program to succeed, the control (i.e., un-retrofitted) column
The columns were tested under imposed lateral force and displace- needed to fail in shear; otherwise, it would not be possible to show that
ment, with fixed-fixed end conditions
(Figure 3-online and Figure 4 ). The fixed
base is achieved by clamping the lower
section of the specimen to a concrete
abutment with a steel plate and threaded
rods. The abutment is, in turn, anchored
to the laboratory’s strong floor.
The upper section of the specimen
is restrained from rotation by two fix- MAPEI
tures that each deliver the lateral load to
the specimen from a horizontal servo- STRENGTHENS.
hydraulic actuator and horizontal HSS
steel tube sections that act as loading
struts. The actuators are coordinated and
controlled to keep a fixed condition at the
top of the column, with the top block of MAPEI
the specimen translating but not rotating.
Each actuator is equipped with a
MAPEI RESTORES.
load cell and internal displacement
PROTECTS.

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

transducer for actuator force and dis-
placement measurements, respectively.
Each HSS loading strut has two strain • Concrete Repair Mortars
gages installed, one on each vertical face, • Corrosion Protection
near the end of the strut adjacent to the • Construction Grouts
test specimen. These strain gages were • Waterproofing
used to record slight differences between • Sealants and Joint Fillers
the summation of both actuator load • Coatings and Sealers
• Epoxy Adhesives
cell readings on the opposite end of the
• Decorative Toppings
HSS struts and the actual applied load • Cure and Seals
measured via the HSS strain gages on the • Densifiers
test specimen end of the HSS struts. The • Structural Strengthening Products
difference in these loads is the friction of
the test system (i.e., the friction in the
HSS struts sliding over its supports via
low friction rails). The friction was also Your single-source provider for restoration,
calculated as the difference in actuator
load readings at displacement reversal strengthening and corrosion protection
points. Such friction was found to be less
MAPEI offers a full range of products for concrete restoration, waterproofing
than 1% of the applied load. and structural strengthening. Globally, MAPEI’s system solutions have been
A cyclic-static history of lateral dis- utilized for such structures as bridges, highways, parking garages, stadiums
placement was applied to the specimens. and high-rises.
Axial load was not applied to the column
specimen. Visit www.mapei.us for details on all MAPEI products.

Displacement Measurement
The top-of-column displacement mea-
surements are taken from an independent
reference frame using a string potentiom-
eter connected one inch below the top of

JANUARY 2022 9
 Figure 5. Comparison of shear strength predictions for the control (un-retrofitted) column using various models. Column end regions at top (3-inch tie spacing);
column center region at bottom (12.8-inch tie spacing).

the retrofit solution prevented shear failure. Accordingly, the authors
were careful to look at the range of possible best estimates of shear
strength and flexural strength to ensure that shear strength would
govern for the control column.
Effect of Axial Load
Although many equations for shear strength (such as Equation 22.5.5.1
of ACI 318-14, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and
Commentary) have neglected the effect of axial loads, presumably for
simplicity, it is well recognized that axial compression increases shear
strength. Similarly, axial compression increases flexural strength for
columns with an axial load below the balance point, increasing the
maximum shear demand under induced displacement. (Maximum
shear demand in this configuration equals twice the flexural strength
divided by the column clear height, 2M/L.)
Previous research on the shear strength and governing behavior
of concrete columns (Kowalsky and Priestley, 2000) concluded
that axial compression increases shear strength to a similar extent
as it increases flexural strength. Tests of columns having different
axial load levels have shown that changing only the axial load
does not change the governing behavior mode from shear to
flexure or vice-versa.

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

BOOTH: W3705
MAX developed the World’s First battery powered rebar tying tool in 1993 and has a
history of manufacturing durable and reliable industrial tools for 80 years. Since then,
MAX rebar tying tools have revolutionized rebar tying work in precast plants and a
variety of other jobsites all around the world.
All MAX products are engineered to perform on professional contractors jobsites
and with MAX’s 200 R&D engineers we have continued to improve upon MAX
proprietary technology, which led to the invention of the TWINTIER® rebar tying
tools. TWINTIER® technology allows the tools to tie 4,000 ties per charge while
delivering just the right amount of wire for greater productivity and cost
savings. These unique innovative features make the TWINTIER® the most
efficient rebar tiers in the industry. Today, MAX manufactures a full line of rebar
tying tools that can tie between mesh up to #9 x #10 rebar.

SCAN HERE TO
SCHEDULE A
DEMO

MAX USA Corp. • 205 Express St. Plainview, NY 11803 • U.S.A. - Phone: (800) 223-4293 • FAX: (516) 741-3272 • www.maxusacorp.com

10 STRUCTURE magazine
 This observation helped justify testing of the column without the
additional variable of superimposed axial load, since the omission of
the axial load was unlikely to change the governing behavior mode.
Estimating Shear and Flexure
In designing the control column to ensure shear failure, it became
evident that, for this column, some methods predicted substantially
higher shear strength than the ASCE 41 equations (Sezen and Moehle,
2004) (Figure 5). The method that the authors evaluated that gave
the highest shear strength for the column was the modified UCSD
method (Priestley et al., 2007).
The most lightly reinforced columns in the building have 4-#7
longitudinal bars. Without axial load, the columns have a flexural
capacity corresponding to a shear demand of approximately 24 kips.
This just exceeds the ASCE 41 shear strength of 23 kips, making them
shear governed by ASCE 41. (The 23 kips includes the Vs contribution
of the ties at 12.8-inch spacing; by the letter of ASCE 41, the non-
conforming tie spacing means that Vs should be neglected, resulting Figure 7. Predictions of moment capacity based on flexural and shear strength used
in an ASCE 41 shear strength of 12 kips.) to evaluate test column behavior mode. Shear strength per the UCSD model.
However, to have a successful test, the authors wanted to ensure
shear failure for the highest predicted shear strength, 39 kips for the shows that with the high shear demand coming from the high flex-
UCSD model. To achieve this, and considering the testing uncer- ural strength, all the equations predict that shear failure in the center
tainties, the flexural strength was increased to ensure shear demand region of the column preempts any flexural yielding that would occur
well above 39 kips. in the end regions.
Increasing the reinforcement from 4-#7 to 4-#11 would create a
Final Column Specimen Design
demand (2M/L) of 41 kips, which was judged not high enough. This
led to a choice between 8-#9 or 8-#10 longitudinal reinforcement. The column specimen was the same as an actual column in the fol-
8-#10 were chosen to reliably ensure shear failure, creating an expected lowing respects:
shear demand of 56 kips (Figure 6 (online) and Figure 7). • Cross-sectional dimensions (14 inches square), concrete cover
While this heavy amount of longitudinal reinforcement did not to ties (1½ inches), and tie size, shape, and detailing (#3 square
occur in the Mount Zion Housing building, the authors have seen perimeter ties with 135-degree hooks)
similar designs with heavy column bars in concrete buildings in • Column clear height (105 inches)
California from the 1960s and 1970s, presumably the result of • Tie spacing at column ends (four spaces at 3 inches o.c.)
working stress gravity design of the columns coupled with a desire to The column specimen differed from an actual column in the fol-
limit the size of the column section. The lowing respects:
heavy amount of reinforcement in the • No axial load other than specimen
test column would lead to higher flexural self-weight
compression strain in the concrete and • Tested with fixed-fixed end condi-
earlier spalling of the cover concrete, but tions, eliminating the
this was expected at deformations suffi- flexibility of floor structures that
ciently larger than those at shear failure. exists for the column in
A concrete mix was chosen that was the actual structure
intended not to exceed f´c = 3,000 psi to fur- • Actual concrete compressive
ther avoid increased shear strength. Overall, strength for specimen, at time of
it was assumed that the column design with testing, equal to 2,568 psi com-
heavy longitudinal reinforcement, low con- pared to specified strength on the
crete strength, and the deficiency of ties existing drawings of 3,750 psi
would provide a more rigorous test of the • Tie spacing over the mid-height
effectiveness of the FRP. region of the column at 12.8
inches (adjusted from the speci-
Shear Strength Predictions
fied 12 inches to avoid adding
Figure 5 shows the predictions of three another tie)
shear strength equations compared to the • Longitudinal reinforcement
shear demand coming from the column of 8-#10 instead of 4-#7
design with 8-#10 longitudinal bars. • Continuous longitudinal bars
The UCSD and ASCE 41 models con- instead of lap splices
sider the degradation of shear strength Lap splices were eliminated to avoid
with displacement ductility, which complicating the objective of the test
applies to the test column only in the because the splices would cause sig-
end regions where the flexural yielding Figure 8. Shear failure in diagonal tension of the control nifi cant congestion with the heavy
occurs. The bottom graph of Figure 5 (un-retrofitted) column and subsequent spalling of cover concrete. bars used. Also, the assessment for the

JANUARY 2022 11
 original building was that slip or failure of the lap splices would
not govern the column behavior. (The authors assessed the lap
splices of the building per ASCE 41 and the recommendations of
Priestley, Seible, and Calvi, 1996. The splices have ties at 3-inch
spacing over most of the splice length.)

Control Column Results

The control column failed in the behavior mode predicted, as desired:
shear failure in diagonal tension in the mid-height region of the
column, which had a tie spacing of 12.8 inches (Figure 8, page 11).
The shear failure preempted any flexural yielding of the column. The
shear failure did not extend into the column’s end regions, which had
a tie spacing of 3 inches. After shear failure, spalling of cover concrete
occurred because of the high compression strain resulting from the
heavy longitudinal reinforcement.
Degradation of strength after the shear failure was immediate and
significant, as shown in Figure 9-online.
Shear Strength
As shown in Table 1, the UCSD model closely predicted the shear
strength, while the ASCE 41 and ACI 318 equations under-predicted
the strength.
All three shear strength equations correctly predicted the actual
behavior mode and its occurrence in the mid-height of the column.
This is partly because the specimen was designed to be clearly and
reliably governed by shear failure.
Findings and Practical Implications
The testing of the control column shows, for this case, that the
UCSD model provides a good prediction of shear strength. The
ASCE 41 and ACI 318 equations under-predicted the shear strength,
by a factor of three in the case of ASCE 41 (12 kips vs. 40 kips).
Therefore, it is worth investigating whether the conservatism in the
ASCE 41 and ACI 318 shear strength equations is applicable to
other situations and whether it may lead to retrofitting to prevent
shear failures that are, in fact, unlikely to occur.
The latter seems to be the case for the Mount Zion Housing
building columns, for which shear demand is limited by moderate
column flexural strength (4-#7 longitudinal bars are typical for
many columns) and by the limited capacity of the floor structure to
induce column bending and shear. Figure 10 shows that the build-
ing’s interior columns (about 190 total) were retrofitted because
they have insufficient shear strength by the ASCE 41 criteria. By
the UCSD criteria, they have sufficient shear strength.
Table 1. Predicted versus actual shear strength (using tested f'c of 2,600 psi).
Figure 10. Column shear demands for the Mt Zion Housing structure, compared
to shear strength criteria.
Based on the test results for this column and the application of the
UCSD model to the properties of the actual building columns, as
shown in Figure 10, the columns without retrofitting would have
been governed by flexure, with good ductility capacity. Therefore,
they would not require the FRP wrapping.
The authors would not have suspected the apparent level of con-
servatism in the ASCE 41 column shear strength criteria had they
not had an opportunity to compare the criteria to a tested column.
It is certainly appropriate to have conservatism in shear strength
requirements for concrete columns, given the potential for shear-
failing columns to cause building collapse. However, a question
worth investigating is whether the ASCE 41 equation is overly
conservative. This includes the question of what spacing of tie
reinforcement should be considered ineffective in contributing to
shear strength.
Part 2 of this article will describe the retrofitting of the Mt. Zion
Housing structure and report on the testing of columns
retrofitted for shear strength using a three-sided FRP wrap
with FRP through-anchors.■
Full references, additional graphics, project team, and an
expanded Table 1 are included in the PDF version of the
online article at STRUCTUREmag.org.

Predicted or actual Lawrence Burkett (lawrence@maffei-structure.com) is a Senior Structural

Shear strength model
ASCE 41-17, Equation 10-3
ASCE 41-17, Equation 10-3,
omitting tie spacing requirement
ACI 318-19, Table 22.5.5.1, omitting
tie spacing requirement per 18.14.3.1
(applicable to SDC B and higher)
UCSD
Test result
Designer, and Joe Maffei (joe@maffei-structure.com) is the Founding
strength
Principal at Maffei Structural Engineering in San Francisco, CA.
12 kips
Abby Enscoe (a.enscoe@tippingstructural.com) is an Associate, and
Marc Steyer (m.steyer@tippingstructural.com) is a Principal, at Tipping
23 kips
Structural Engineers in Berkeley, CA.
Mike Wesson is the Engineering Manager for Tyrell Gilb Research Laboratory
30 kips at Simpson Strong-Tie in Stockton, CA (mwesson@strongtie.com).
Aniket Borwankar is the Senior Development Manager for Composite
39 kips Strengthening Systems at Simpson Strong-Tie in Pleasanton, CA
40 kips (aborwankar@strongtie.com).

12 STRUCTURE magazine
One
end-to-end
solution.
Twice the
expertise.
Simpson Strong-Tie has formed an alliance with
Structural Technologies, a renowned provider of
leading infrastructure strengthening solutions, engineering
support and installation services. Together, we offer
a uniquely integrated and comprehensive range of
knowledge and solutions for concrete and masonry
strengthening and repair. Our singular focus will better
serve the needs of our customers and help ensure
stronger, safer, longer-lasting structures.
© 2022 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. STRUCTTECH2G1
Build a solid foundation for your concrete and masonry
operation. To learn more about how Simpson Strong-Tie and
Structural Technologies can help solve your infrastructure
project challenges, visit strongtie.com/alliance or
call (800) 999-5099.
Smarter
Strengthening
Solutions
 CODES and STANDARDS
2021 IBC Significant Structural Changes
Part 3: Special Inspections (Chapter 17)
By Sandra Hyde, P.E., and John “Buddy” Showalter, P.E.

T his five-part series (Part 1, STRUCTURE,

November 2021, Part 2, December 2021)
includes discussion of significant structural
1704.6.2 Structural observations for
seismic resistance.
1704.6.3 Structural observations for
changes to the 2021 International Building wind resistance.
Code (IBC) by the International Code Change Significance: The new descrip-
Council (ICC). This installment includes an tion in Section 1704.6 is intended to provide
overview of changes to Chapter 17 on special clear direction for the duties of the structural
inspections and testing. Only a portion of the observer. The structural observer is expected to
total number of code changes to this chapter observe, gravity and lateral force resisting sys-
are discussed in this article. More information tems, connection details, and gravity and lateral
on the code changes discussed here can be load paths. The clarification is also intended to
found in the 2021 Significant Changes to the help address a widespread perception of overlap
International Building Code, available from between special inspections and structural obser-
ICC (Figure 1). vations. Special inspections are very detailed
IBC Chapter 17 provides various procedures inspections of components and materials within
and criteria for inspection, testing, and labeling structural systems. Special inspections require
of materials and assemblies. Its key purpose certification and specialized training, but they
Figure 1. 2021 Significant Changes to the IBC.
is to establish where additional inspections/ do not necessarily require an understanding of
observations or testing must be provided and what submittals must how systems are designed to function as part of the overall building.
be provided to the building official. The following modifications Risk Category III includes categories of buildings that represent a
were approved for the 2021 IBC. Changes are shown in striketh- substantial hazard to human life in the event of failure. Given the
rough/underline format with a brief description of each change’s relative risk and hazard, it is appropriate to require that a structural
significance. engineer conduct site visits to verify general conformance to the design
intent for these structures.
In reading the 2021 IBC code text, it may be noted that there are no
Structural Observations longer separate categories for wind and seismic structural observations.
Structural observations are now required for all buildings assigned The requirements for observations were folded into the updated text
to Risk Category III or IV. Additional clarification provides clear within Section 1704.6.
direction for the duties of the structural observer.
1704.6 Structural observations. Where required by the provi-
sions of Section 1704.6.1, 1704.6.2, or 1704.6.3, the owner or
Precast Concrete
the owner’s authorized agent shall employ a registered design Special inspection requirements are added to Table 1705.3 for precast
professional to perform structural observations. The structural concrete diaphragms.
observer shall visually observe representative locations of struc- Change Significance: The American Concrete Institute’s updated
tural systems, details, and load paths for general conformance standard ACI 318-19, Building Code Requirements for Structural
to the design intent as defined in the approved construction
documents. Structural observation does not include or waive the IBC Table 1705.3 Excerpt
Required special inspections and tests of concrete construction.
responsibility for the inspections in Section 110 or the special
inspections in Section 1705 or other sections of this code. Inspection Duration
[unchanged text omitted for brevity]
11. For precast concrete diaphragm connections or
1704.6.1 Structural observations for structures. Structural
reinforcement at joints classified as moderate
observations shall be provided for those structures where one or high deformability elements (MDE or HDE) in
or more of the following conditions exist: structures assigned to SDC C, D, E, or F, inspect such
1. The structure is classified as Risk Category III or IV. connections and reinforcement in the field for: Continuous
2. The structure is a high-rise building. a. Installation of the embedded parts
b. Completion of the continuity of reinforcement
3. The structure is assigned to Seismic Design Category E
across joints.
and is greater than two stories above the grade plane. c. Completion of connections in the field.
3.4. Such observation is required by the registered design
professional responsible for the structural design. 12. Inspect installation tolerances of precast concrete
4.5. Such observation is specifically required by the diaphragm connections for compliance with ACI Periodic
building official. 550.5.

14 STRUCTURE magazine
Concrete and Commentary, has new provisions for designing precast
concrete diaphragms in Section 18.12.11. The new ACI 318 Section
26.13.1.3 requires special inspection of panel placement and reinforce-
ment in precast concrete diaphragms assigned to SDC C, D, E, or F
using moderate or high-deformability connections. These diaphragms
are also required to comply with the requirements of ACI 550.5-18,
Code Requirements for the Design of Precast Concrete Diaphragms for
Earthquake Motions and Commentary. ACI 550.5 has special inspec-
tion requirements for precast concrete diaphragm connections and
reinforcement at joints classified as high deformability elements or
moderate deformability elements.
A special inspector watches the installation of the embedded parts,
checks the completion of the continuity of reinforcement across
the joints, as well as completion of field-built connections when
structures are assigned to Seismic Design Categories C, D, E, and F.
ACI 318 Section 26.13.1.3 also requires that installation tolerances
of precast concrete diaphragm connections be inspected periodically
for compliance with ACI 550.5.
To match these new requirements, the 2021 IBC has added two
requirements to Table 1705.3. Item 11 is added as a conservative
synthesis of the two requirements from ACI 318 and ACI 550.5. A
continuous special inspection is required onsite during the installation
of precast concrete diaphragms for moderate and highly deform-
able joints with a focus on the reinforcement extension through the
joint, verification of embedded part location, and full connection of
the diaphragm elements to one another and the rest of the seismic
force-resisting system. Item 12 mirrors the ACI 318 requirement to
check diaphragm element and connection minimum and maximum
distances against the tolerance requirements of ACI 550.5.
Mass Timber
Installation and connection of mass timber elements in Types IV-A,
IV-B, and IV-C construction requires special inspection.
1705.5.3 Mass timber construction. Special inspections of
Mass Timber elements in Types IV-A, IV-B, and IV-C
construction shall be in accordance with Table 1705.5.3.
Table 1705.5.3 Excerpt
Required special inspections of mass timber construction.
Inspection Duration
1. Inspection of anchorage and connections of mass
timber construction to timber deep foundation systems. Periodic
2. Inspect erection of mass timber construction.
3. Inspection of connections where installation methods
are required to meet design loads.
• Verify use of proper installation
equipment.
• Verify use of pre-drilled holes Periodic
Threaded where required.
fasteners
• Inspect screws, including
diameter, length, head type,
spacing, installation angle and
depth.
Adhesive anchors installed in horizontal or upwardly
Continuous
inclined orientation to resist sustained tension loads.
Adhesive anchors not defined in preceding cell.
Bolted connections. Periodic
Concealed connections.
1705.20 Sealing of mass timber Periodic special inspections of
sealants or adhesives shall be conducted where sealant or adhe-
sive required by Section 703.7 is applied to mass timber building
elements as designated in the approved construction documents.
Chapter 35
ASTM D 3498 Standard Specification for Adhesives for Field-Gluing
Plywood to Lumber Framing for Floor Systems
Change Significance: Special inspection provisions are added to
Section 1705 for mass timber elements in Types IV-A, IV-B, and IV-C
construction. The special inspections are similar to requirements for
other prefabricated systems such as precast concrete and structural steel.
The specific elements requiring special inspection for construction
Types IV-A, IV-B, and IV-C include:
1) Connection of mass timber elements to timber deep founda-
tion elements. These connections are critical to transferring
loads from the mass timber elements to timber piles, particu-
larly lateral loading. Connections to concrete foundations
are addressed in IBC Table 1705.3 for concrete special
inspections.
2) Erection of mass timber elements. Similar to precast concrete,
tall wood buildings utilizing prefabricated elements need
verification that the correct elements are placed in the right
location in accordance with the design drawings.
3) Specialized connections between mass timber products that
utilize threaded, bolted, or concealed connections are similar
to concrete connections. The strength of many connection
designs is predicated on specific screw lengths and installation
angles. Bolted connections require specific diameters and, for
lag screws, specific lengths. Concealed connectors, many of
which are proprietary, must be installed correctly for struc-
tural performance.
4) Adhesive anchorage installed in horizontal or upwardly
inclined positions resisting sustained tension loads requires
a continuous special inspection. This is necessary because of
issues with creep in the adhesives under long-term tension
loading. All other adhesive anchors need only be inspected
periodically.
If, in the judgment of the building official, there are other unusual
items not covered in Table 1705.5.3, the existing text in Section
1705.1.1, Special Cases, requires special inspection of these items as
well. The same section also says the building official can require special
inspections where a manufacturer’s installation instructions prescribe
requirements not contained in the code. For example, field-glued mass
timber beam or panel splices, while currently rare in North America,
may become more prevalent in the future. Section 1705.1.1 would
allow the building official to require special inspection for either
proprietary or non-proprietary field-glued splices. Additionally, many
design engineers specify the need for special inspections for unusual
conditions in their structural notes in the construction documents
and the statement of special inspections.
The new Section 1705.20 requires periodic special inspection of seal-
ants or adhesives where sealant or adhesive required by IBC Section
703.7 is applied to mass timber building elements as designated in
the approved construction documents. New Section 703.7 requires
sealing between mass timber elements in Type IV-A, IV-B, and IV-C
construction to resist the passage of air at the following locations: 1)
at abutting edges and intersections of mass timber building elements
required to be fire-resistance rated, and 2) at abutting intersections
of mass timber building elements and building elements of other
materials where both are required to be fire-resistance rated. Sealants
JANUARY 2022 15

Figure 2. Verification of deep foundation element strength. Courtesy of
Chaiyaporn114.
must meet the requirements of ASTM C 920, Standard Specification
for Elastomeric Joint Sealants, and adhesives must meet the require-
ments of ASTM D 3498.
Special inspection of mass timber sealing requirements does
not apply to “joints” as defined in Section 202. These joints have
their own requirements for the placement and inspection of fire-
resistant joint systems in Section 715 and special inspections in
Section 1705.17. Joints are defined as having an opening designed
to accommodate building tolerances or allow independent move-
ment. Panels and members that are connected do not meet the
definition of a joint since they are rigidly connected and do not
have an opening.
Lastly, some mass timber panels are manufactured under proprietary
processes to ensure there are no voids at intersections. Where this
proprietary process is incorporated and tested, there is no requirement
for a sealant or adhesive.
Structural Integrity of Deep Foundations
An engineering assessment must now be done when installed deep
foundation elements appear to be understrength due to quality, loca-
tion, or alignment.
1705.10 Structural Integrity of Deep Foundation Elements.
Whenever there is a reasonable doubt as to the structural integ-
rity of a deep foundation element, an engineering assessment for
structural integrity shall be required. The engineering assessment
shall include tests for defects performed in accordance with
ASTM D 4945, ASTM D 5882, ASTM D 6760, or ASTM D
7949 or other approved method.
Chapter 35
ASTM D 5882-16: Standard Test Method for Low Strain
Impact Integrity Testing of Deep Foundations
ASTM D 6760-16: Standard Test Method for Integrity Testing
of Concrete Deep Foundations by Ultrasonic Crosshole Testing
ASTM D 7949-14: Standard Test Methods for Thermal
Integrity Profiling of Concrete Deep Foundations
Change Significance: Most foundation failures are caused by inad-
equate soil bearing or lateral capacity. Section 1705.10 addresses a less
common failure – lack of structural integrity in a deep foundation
element due to material defects. Significant defects may affect the
structural strength of deep foundation elements; therefore, the defects
must be detected and corrected prior to the construction above ground.
When the integrity of a deep foundation element is in doubt, for
example, due to issues in alignment during installation, problematic
16 STRUCTURE magazine
soil conditions, or inadequacy of construction procedures, a deep
foundation element should be load-tested during installation to assure
that there are no material defects (Figure 2). The 2018 IBC already
addressed visual special inspection of deep foundations in Sections
1705.7, 1705.8, and 1705.9. In the 2021 IBC, tests are added to
the new Section 1705.10 to provide a means to assess portions of
deep foundation elements that cannot be visually inspected. Testing
may be done by impact, thermal imaging, or ultrasonic tests. The
applicable ASTM standard is used to define the procedures for the
appropriate test.
Steel Storage Racks
Steel storage rack special inspection duties have been clarified with
the addition of special inspection tasks.
1705.13.7 Storage racks. Periodic special inspection is required
for the anchorage of storage racks that are 8 feet (2438 mm)
or greater in height in structures assigned to Seismic Design
Category D, E, or F. Steel storage racks that are 8 feet in height
or greater and assigned to Seismic Design Category D, E, or F
shall be provided with periodic special inspection as required by
Table 1705.13.7.
Table 1705.13.7 Excerpt
Required inspections of storage rack systems.
Inspection Duration
1. Verify materials used comply with one or more of the
material test reports in accordance with the approved
construction documents
2. Fabricated storage rack elements
Periodic
3. Installation of storage rack anchorage
4. At final inspection of the completed storage rack
system, to indicate compliance with approved
construction documents
Change Significance: The design of the components that go into
a storage rack is based on a minimum steel thickness and minimum
yield strength. It is imperative that these minimum properties are
included within the design for fabrication of the components and
considered in storage rack installation. Storage rack systems may have
complex load paths. Installation must comply with approved draw-
ings to create the necessary load paths. Verification must be made
of material minimum quality requirements during fabrication and
proper anchorage during installation.
Changes clarify that periodic special inspection is required for steel
storage racks, regular or cantilevered, that are eight feet or more in
height in Seismic Design Category D, E, or F locations. In Chapter 2,
Definitions, a definition for cantilevered steel storage racks is added
for clarity.
Conclusion
Structural engineers should be aware of significant structural changes
that have occurred in the 2021 IBC. Since structural engi-
neers are often responsible for developing the statement of
special inspection, awareness of these changes is essential.■
Sandra Hyde (shyde@iccsafe.org) is Managing Director, and John “Buddy”
Showalter (bshowalter@iccsafe.org) is Senior Staff Engineer, both with
ICC’s Product Development Group.
Figure 1. Stamford Media Village fronts on a barge canal.
STAMFORD MEDIA
VILLAGE
S tamford Media Village is not just another nondescript five-
story office building (Figure 1).
What is so unique about this project? Everything!
Rewind to 2018 when Wheelhouse Properties acquired a derelict
1920s vintage reinforced concrete factory building located at the South
Figure 2. The crumbling concrete carcass before the transformation.
A Rhinestone in the Rough
By Joe Gencarelli, P.E., and Jim DeStefano, P.E., AIA, F.SEI
end of Stamford, Connecticut – a rhinestone in the rough. The site
is situated along a barge canal adjacent to Long Island Sound and is
surrounded by redeveloped mill buildings.
DeStefano & Chamberlain, Inc. was engaged as the structural engi-
neer for the project. After a detailed condition assessment of the
existing derelict building, the recommendation was “knock it
down!” That was not an option that Wheelhouse Properties
would consider. Instead, they were determined to save the
structure. Their vision was to add three stories on top of this
two-story crumbling carcass of a building and transform it
into something spectacular (Figure 2). To do so would require
innovative structural solutions.
Stamford, Connecticut, has long been known for its cor-
porate office buildings, but today, downtown Stamford is
known more for its “office space for lease” signs which can be
seen everywhere. So why build another office building in a
market with a glut of unleased space? Wheelhouse Properties
had a different vision of how today’s office space should look.
Gone are the days of the cookie-cutter office building with
cubicles, typing pools, and corner offices under acoustical
ceilings and fluorescent lighting. Instead, the new wave of
successful companies craves funky spaces with character. Old
industrial buildings with architecturally exposed structures
are now the rage.
The existing concrete structure was certainly not a gem, but
it could pass for a rhinestone once polished up. Exposing
the restored concrete structure, along with HVAC ductwork
and sprinkler piping, resulted in precisely the kind of unique
space that was desired.
It was important to Wheelhouse Properties that Stamford
Media Village be a fun place to work. All work and no play
JANUARY 2022 17
 make for dull tenants. Office space needed to be adaptable to throw-
ing a party as well as a corporate board meeting.
After a long 12 months of planning, designing, more planning,
more designing, and another 28 months of construction, their vision
turned to reality, like a scene out of a Transformers movie. The newly
revamped 133,000 square foot complex has brought a fresh outlook
to businesses and the work-play environment. Tenants include TV
studios, a dog-friendly microbrewery/restaurant, and an organic
market. In addition, Wheelhouse properties reserved the top floor
for their own offices.

Brownfield Challenges
A site assessment revealed that the soils below the site were con-
taminated with a toxic stew of hazardous and corrosive compounds,
including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), necessitating extensive
and costly remediation.
Stamford’s south end is underlain by a stratum of coarse-grained gla-
cial outwash deposits known as the Rippowam Aquifer. Consequently,
waterborne contaminants found on any site in the area are free to
migrate across the region and into the waters of Long Island Sound.

Foundations
As is typical with waterfront sites in the area, subsoil conditions
consist of uncompacted fill over a stratum of organic silt over
coarse-grained glacial deposits. Test pits revealed that the existing
building was supported on spread footings bearing on the fill layer
above the organic silt. Groundwater was near the bottom of footing
elevation at low tide.
Although the fill and organic silt are not suitable for supporting
foundations, it was determined that in the 100 years since the building
was built, settlement due to primary and secondary consolidation of
the organic silt had run its course. Consequently, where foundations
were not being subject to additional loads, no remedial work was
needed. However, the foundations that would be carrying the load
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org
Figure 3. Custom pile driving rig.
of the additional three stories would need to be underpinned with
deep foundations.
Given the limited vertical clearance, trying to install deep foun-
dations within the building would take some ingenuity. Drilled
micro-piles extending to bedrock were first considered; however, the
contaminated drill spoils would have required costly remediation
and disposal. The underpinning solution settled on concrete-filled
steel pipe piles driven to bedrock. The
piles were spliced every five feet with
compression couplings that eliminated
the need for field welding. The foun-
dation contractor, Norwalk Marine
Contractors, fabricated a custom rig
with a pile hammer secured to the

arm of an excavator that could oper-

ate inside the existing structure with
restricted headroom (Figure 3).

Concrete Restoration
The derelict concrete structure, which is
a one-way concrete joist framing system,
was in rough shape. It was reinforced with
twisted square bars called “Ransome Bars”
after their inventor, Ernest Ransome.
Due to the proximity to the canal, the
crawl space below the building was fre-
quently inundated with tidal water. As
a result, most of the ground floor con-
crete structure was severely spalled and
deteriorated from immersion in seawater.

18 STRUCTURE magazine
This made it an easy decision to demolish the floor to facilitate
removing the contaminated soil under the building and install-
ing the driven pipe piles.
The existing structure was devoid of a lateral load resisting
system. Reinforced concrete shear walls were cast around the
stair and elevator shafts to resist wind and seismic loads.
The column bays were 20 by 20 feet which is somewhat close
for marketable office space. The column bays for the new upper
floors were made 20 by 40 feet to improve the rentability of this
space – consequently, only half of the existing concrete columns
needed to be fortified and underpinned.
The concrete restoration specialists from Structural Technologies
were brought in to perform the column fortification. These
columns, which are octagonal in shape, were jacketed with 3
inches of concrete and reinforced with vertical corner bars and
ties. The concrete floor was cored in the corners of each column
being fortified to install continuous vertical column bars. Self- Figure 4. Concrete columns were reinforced and jacketed to increase capacity.
consolidating concrete (SCC) was pumped into the column
jackets through the core holes (Figure 4).
Where the concrete was spalled and deteriorated, Culbertson
Company of New York, a concrete restoration firm, was brought
in to perform the restoration. High-pressure water blasting,
also known as hydro blasting, was used to remove old paint,
corroded reinforcing, and loose and flaky concrete. Bonding
agents and patching compounds were used to restore concrete
surfaces to their original shape.

Mass Timber Hybrid

The new upper floors needed to be framed with an architectur-
ally exposed structure with character.
Mass timber construction was the obvious choice for the
3-story vertical expansion, which crowns the building. The
20- by 40-foot column bays did not lend themselves to a pure
mass timber solution since very deep glulam timbers would be
needed to span 40 feet.
A hybrid of Architecturally Exposed Structural Steel (AESS)
and Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) panels was proposed. At
Figure 5. Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) panels being erected over a structural steel frame.
the time that the hybrid solution was conceived in 2018, no
hybrid structure of this kind had been built (Figure 5). Upon
completion, Stamford Media Village became the second hybrid
Mass Timber/Structural Steel building in New England.
Using a hybrid system resulted in significant advantages. It
resulted in a lighter structure which in the end saved founda-
tion underpinning costs. The combination of AESS and CLT
panels resulted in a cool-looking, unique structure (Figure 6 ).
Stamford Media Village has been an enormous success that
has exceeded the owner’s expectations, due in no small
part to the innovative structural solutions employed
to meet a host of project challenges.■

Joe Gencarelli is an Associate, and Jim DeStefano is the President of

DeStefano & Chamberlain, Inc., located in Fairfield, CT.

Project Team
Owner: Wheelhouse Properties
Structural Engineer: DeStefano & Chamberlain, Inc.
Architect: CPG Architects
Figure 6. Architecturally exposed hybrid structure awaiting a tenant.

JANUARY 2022 19

UCLA’s
By Daniel Tunick, S.E., and Nabih Youssef, S.E.
Figure 1. Exterior view of the completed building. Courtesy of Paul Turang.
W hen the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) iden-
tified a need to expand their existing Anderson Graduate
School of Management (AGSM), they were presented with a clear
challenge: the lack of a viable location to place a new building on a
campus with limited square footage. The solution was to construct
the new building entirely upon an existing parking structure adjacent
to the School of Management.
The new UCLA Marion Anderson Hall (MAH) is an $80M project
that provides a LEED platinum, 64,000-square-foot, 4-story building
to expand the capacity of the existing AGSM initially built in 1995. The
new building supports large classroom areas, workspaces, offices, and
sizeable auditorium/event spaces. MAH was shaped and cladded to blend
effortlessly with the adjacent complex of the AGSM buildings (Figure 1).
The building presented the unique challenge of being constructed
entirely upon an existing 6-story 430,000-square-foot reinforced
concrete parking structure, which remained partially open throughout
the construction of the new building above. The parking structure
was originally built in 1959 but had seen multiple major structural
updates over the decades. Updates included the complete removal of
an adjacent hillside and associated perimeter retaining walls, voluntary
Figure 2. Longitudinal section across existing & new buildings.
20 STRUCTURE magazine
MARION
ANDERSON HALL
seismic retrofits, and even large floorplate sections removed to accom-
modate the original AGSM construction.
The existing parking structure is constructed on a sloping site, such
that the top two levels are offset from the bottom 4 levels. The MAH
building is constructed directly at this step between the upper and
lower levels. Therefore, the new building has vertical support at two
different elevations of the existing parking structure; each serves as an
entrance – the 4th and the 6th floor of the parking structure. The new
building also ties in horizontally to the 6th floor of the parking structure,
which aligns with the first raised floor of the new building (Figure 2).
Seismic Criteria
The University of California Seismic Safety policy (UCSSP) pro-
vides the governing seismic criteria for all buildings on University of
California premises. The project is located in an area of high seismic
hazard, and seismic design criteria for both the new building and
seismic retrofit of the existing parking structure were per the UCSSP.
For new buildings, UCSSP requires compliance with the current
seismic provisions of the California Building Code (CBC). Because
the new MAH building contained adult education facilities with an
occupant load greater than 500, the building was assigned to Risk
Category III per CBC Table 1604.5. In addition, the existing parking
structure completely supported the new MAH building above, and
consequently, it was also treated as Risk Category III.
For existing buildings, the UCSSP generally refers to the CBC, which
in turn references the American Society of Civil Engineers’ ASCE 41,
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. The ASCE 41 per-
formance objectives for the existing building were “Damage Control”
@ BSE-1N and “Limited Safety” @ BSE-2N. BSE-1N/2N are ASCE
41 hazard levels that correlate to the Design Basis Earthquake (DBE)
and Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) from
ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.
The UCSSP also required an independent seismic peer review which
was conducted for the overall project, reviewing both the new build-
ing and the retrofit of the existing building.
The overall project included a new structure upon an existing
structure, vertical and horizontal combinations of lateral systems
of different types and eras, horizontal connections of new floors to
existing floors, and gravity and seismic demands delivered from the
new structure above to the existing structure below. The seismic cri-
teria also spanned across both ASCE 7 and ASCE 41. A customized
two-tier design/analysis procedure incorporating both ASCE 7 and
ASCE 41 was utilized to accurately capture the structures’ behavior
to accommodate these unique circumstances while also satisfying the
UCSSP requirements for both new and existing structures. The first
tier consisted of a linear dynamic analysis for the new building design
per ASCE 7, using the typical SMRF design coefficients of R = 8,
Ω = 3, Cd = 5.5. This analysis was used to design the lateral system of
the new structure, but the model included the entire existing park-
ing structure below to capture its impact on the global behavior and
demands adequately. The second tier of analysis was a full-building
nonlinear time-history response analysis per ASCE 41. This analysis
was utilized to evaluate and retrofit the existing parking structure
to the ASCE 41 performance objectives
noted above. It also provided supplemental
verification of the new building’s seismic
design to these same objectives when
explicit nonlinear hysteretic behavior was
included in both the new and existing
buildings.
The New Building
The structural system for the new MAH
building consists of concrete-filled metal
deck over steel framing, with a seis-
mic system comprised of Steel Special
Moment Resisting Frames (SMRF)
with Reduced Beam Section (RBS) con-
nections. Moment Frame beams were
typically W30x, with moment frame
columns typically using heavy W24x or
built-up box columns. All columns of the
new building were spaced at a 27-foot x
30-foot typical grid to match the existing
parking structure grid and land directly
upon the existing concrete columns. In
addition, to increase the floor area of the
new structure beyond this grid, multiple
sides of the floorplate provided perimeter Figure 4. Steel jacketing of the existing concrete column at building above. Existing columns seeing
cantilevers typically 15 feet long. the parking structure level.
Figure 3. Deep built-up long-span transfer beam supporting steel moment frame
column above.
Multiple long-span transfer beams were required within the new
building to accommodate the large column-free zones for auditorium/
event spaces. This included the transfer of Special Moment Frame
Columns, resulting in large, deep transfer beams requiring installation
in multiple pieces and field-spliced once installed in place (Figure 3).
The largest of these transfer beams spanned 54 feet while supporting
an SMRF column at its midpoint and was a custom 60-inch-deep
shape that weighed over 800 pounds per linear foot.
The layout also required multiple bi-axial SMRF hollow box columns
that received two or more beams in perpendicular directions. These
box columns were fabricated using electroslag procedures to accom-
modate the typical continuity plates required for RBS connections
inside the boxes.
Retrofit of the Existing Parking Structure
The existing parking structure required a unique and extensive retrofit
to upgrade to current UCSSP require-
ments while supporting the gravity and
seismic demands imparted from the new
building above. The existing structure
consists of 9-inch-thick flat reinforced
concrete slabs with sloping drop caps at
circular columns, along with some inte-
rior and perimeter concrete shear walls.
Some of the shear walls had been seismi-
cally retrofitted over the years with Fiber
Reinforced Polymer (FRP) wrap or shot-
crete. However, these retrofits accounted
only for the parking structure’s own seis-
mic demand and were based on different
performance objectives and a less strin-
gent Risk Category. Additionally, walls
were unevenly distributed throughout the
parking structure due to past renovations.
With the new MAH building constructed
above, the entire seismic base shear of the
new building above would be transferred
into the existing parking structure before
reaching the foundation.
The existing concrete columns required
strengthening to support the demands
delivered from the columns of the new
compression-only loads from above were
JANUARY 2022 21
 Figure 5. Foundation strengthening in the form of combining multiple existing Figure 6. The new Marion Anderson Hall.
spread footings.

strengthened with either FRP or concrete jacketing. Columns seeing
compression/tension loads from above were strengthened with steel
jackets with customized top connection plates to receive the anchor
bolts from the SMRF column above (Figure 4 , page 21).
The existing slabs received significant diaphragm strengthening,
predominantly in the form of FRP on the top and/or bottom of
the slab. FRP application was chosen as the typical diaphragm
strengthening material to maintain head-height requirements of
the parking stories, which were already short in height. This FRP
strengthening was predominantly seismic and was utilized for both
collectors and diaphragm shear strengthening. The slabs also received
a significant connection at the new building’s second floor, essentially
“stitching” the new and existing diaphragms together at this eleva-
tion. This was achieved by chipping out the concrete of the existing
slab while leaving the existing rebar in place and then re-pouring
a heavily reinforced connection zone with new rebar coupled onto
the existing rebar.
The seismic demand was transferred from the parking structure
diaphragm to multiple existing and new reinforced concrete shear
walls. The new walls were constructed by chipping out a slot in the
existing slab to place the new rebar and concrete while leaving the
existing slab rebar in place. During this process, the existing slab
was supported with temporary shoring. Multiple existing concrete
shear walls were also retrofitted with either supplemental FRP wrap
or shotcrete.
The typical existing foundation consisted of square isolated spread
concrete footings. The majority of footings below the new building
and those below new/retrofitted shear walls required strengthening.
The foundation strengthening consisted of increasing individual foot-
ing areas and/or increasing footing depth by adding supplemental
anchors, rebar, and concrete to the perimeter and/or top of footings.
Where demands were largest, or new concrete shear walls were intro-
duced, multiple footings were connected together to create new large
combined footings (Figure 5).
Conclusion
The new Marion Anderson Hall (Figure 6) provided a sizeable expan-
sion to the Anderson School of Management. The location and
exterior façade provide a continuous extension of the original build-
ings, resulting in the perfect blend of the desired function with a
matching aesthetic. The challenges of constructing an entirely new
building on an existing parking structure
were numerous – but close coordination

NEW
INTRODUCING between the design team, con-

FLOORVIBE v3.1
tractor, and client resulted in a
VERSION great success.■
FROM STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, INC.
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

Daniel Tunick is a Senior Project Engineer

It’s like having an in-house floor vibration expert! at Nabih Youssef Structural Engineers
(dtunick@nyase.com).
• Easier to use
• Select connections graphically Nabih Youssef is the Founder and CEO
• New steel joist connections available of Nabih Youssef Structural Engineers
• Complete database of hot-rolled (nabih@nyase.com).
sections and steel joist profiles
• Same great vibrational analysis
• Upgrade from v3.0 to v3.1 is free!! Project Team
• And of course ... technical updates
Owner: University of California
For more information or to order or upgrade, visit sponsored by Structural Engineer of Record:
www.FloorVibe.com Nabih Youssef Structural Engineers
Email tmmurray@floorvibe.com or call 540-239-6355. Executive Architect: Gensler
FloorVibe v3.1 is $475 per copy. Price includes Based on AISC Steel Design Guide 11 and Design Architect: Pei Cobb
technical support. Steel Joist Institute (SJI) Technical Digest 5 Freed & Partners
General Contractor: PCL

22 STRUCTURE magazine
 T he 100 Stockton Street project reimagines
an eight-story former department store into
a multi-use office, dining, event space, and bou-
tique retail building. This reimagination of the
building required significant structural shoring
to facilitate the design.
The building in San Francisco’s historic Union
Square is a 1970s concrete building consisting
of 250 thousand square feet. Modifications to
the building required the demolition of the roof
level, demolition of over one-third of the building
floor plate, removal of half of the gravity columns,
shortening of the existing post-tensioned (PT)
girders, and demolition of the suspended first floor
and the existing perimeter shear walls (Figure 1).
These elements were reconstructed in new
locations, configurations, or to new extents to Figure 2. Completed shoring columns and beams prior to column demolition.
accommodate the design. Degenkolb Engineers
designed the extensive shoring required to meet the needs of the and Blatteis & Schnur. The shoring was closely coordinated with the
project and the vision of the architect Gensler, building Structural design team as well as the general contractor Plant Construction, the
Engineer of Record (SEoR) KPFF, and developers Morgan Stanley demolition subcontractor Silverado, the shoring steel subcontractor
Olson Steel, and the lifting contractor Sheedy Drayage.

SHORING Demolition
The roof level and all penthouses were demolished. A new roof was

Facilitating
constructed using steel and concrete on metal deck. This rebuilt roof
level allowed for a perimeter outdoor terrace for a restaurant and bar
overlooking Union Square. Minimal shoring was needed for this
work, but the structure was evaluated for its ability to support the

DESIGN at
necessary demolition equipment, including excavators and skid steers.
The exterior shear walls and the perimeter of the original floor plate
were demolished. The floor plate was reconstructed, cantilevering out
to new extents at all levels. The newly defined edge of slab accom-
modated a façade consisting of glass

100 STOCKTON
and terracotta, a significant change
from the original nearly window-
less exterior. Within the remaining
seven stories of floor plate, there were
twenty existing 24-inch square col-
By Robert Graff, S.E. umns, of which ten columns and
their foundations were demolished.
The demolished columns each
carried 7 stories of floor plate con-
sisting of PT girder, PT joists, and a
4½-inch reinforced slab totaling over
100 psf. The columns carried 800
kips each, and the combined shoring
load for the ten columns approached
eight million pounds.

Shoring Requirements
Shores to support the loads from the
demolished columns were designed
for a maximum of 500 kips at the
base of the building using two
shoring posts for each building
column. Fabricated structural steel
Figure 1. Demo plan – The red shaded area is demolished. Blue columns were demolished; other black columns remain. was selected for the shoring at most
continued on next page

JANUARY 2022 23
 levels due to the size of the loads. The shores were
designed as 18-inch pipes at the basement level but
tapered in size up the building height. At the upper
two levels, adjustable steel shores were used where
loads were low enough that off-the-shelf shoring
systems were adequate.
The PT girders on the four main column lines at
all levels were de-tensioned. This allowed the gird-
ers to be shortened by a bay at each end and was
accomplished by releasing the tendon stress, chipping
back the girder, cutting the existing tendons, casting
new PT tendon anchorages, and finally re-tensioning
the original tendons. This all was completed to allow
the perimeter of the building to be reconstructed to
new extents for the façade.
In their temporary de-stressed state, the PT gird-
ers could not support the joists and slab with only
the mild steel reinforcement they possessed. Shoring
beams placed on top of the column shores pro-
vided nearly continuous support during the girder’s Figure 3. Setting up for test lift.
extremely weakened state. Shoring beam deflections
were calculated while supporting the load of the slab, joists, and de-
stressed girders. Due to a temporary condition, the deflections would
System Deflections
become locked in when the new columns and walls supporting the slab With all the shoring elements determined, expected deflections of the
were cast. Detailed checks of the steel shoring beams were completed to system were calculated to be between ¾ inch to 1 inch. This resulted
control deflections within acceptable limits resulting in stiff W27×146 from a combination of column shortening, pile settlement, and
beams (Figure 2, page 23). beam deflections. If allowed to occur, this deflection would become
At the base of the shores, the total loads were beyond what could be permanent in the final building when columns and walls were cast.
supported by cribbing which would be a typical temporary shoring Due to the capacity of the existing floor framing, topping the slab to
foundation solution. The project also required the demolition of the correct such deflections was not possible. To compensate, a jacking
existing foundations and excavations for new foundations. This all operation to transfer the building load was developed. Most of these
occurred around the shoring system while it was supporting the build- deflections were eliminated or significantly reduced by transferring the
ing. To support the large loads and load to the shoring prior to column
allow for the necessary excavation, demolition.
12-inch cased micropiles were used. The jacking operation required
The micropiles could be installed in the use of hydraulic jacks at each
the basement and could support the shore to transfer the loads. However,
building load, while the top eleven placing upward loads on PT girders
feet of each pile were exposed due to which were stressed at this phase is
the foundation excavation. In addi- dangerous. The upward force com-
tion, the micropiles had a limited bined with the negative moment
impact on the permanent founda- induced by the PT stress can cause a
tions cast around them, making negative bending failure. Therefore,
them an ideal solution. the girders were evaluated under the
A steel frame or carriage (as the shoring loads and found to approach
contractor named it) was designed failure in the rebar on the top side of
to transfer loads from the shores to the girders. The evaluation included
the micropiles. The carriage con- several conservative assumptions
sisted of 1½-inch-thick triangular about the stresses remaining in the
gusset plates that were slotted into tendons after 50 plus years. The
the shoring column. These gusset original tendon stresses were known,
plates delivered the load of one shore but initial stress losses and losses
down to a rectangular frame of wide due to long-term creep had to be
flange beams. The frame, in turn, conservatively estimated. However,
delivered the load to two piles for the possibility of inducing failure of
each shoring column. The carriage the girders when jacking the build-
served a second purpose which was ing could not be easily disproven.
to link four piles together to provide A section of the building scheduled
additional stability. This stability for demolition was used to test the
was exceedingly important when proposed procedure to prove the
excavating around the piles for the jacking could be completed success-
foundations. Figure 4. Column demolition with bars buckling. fully. The shoring was designed for

24 STRUCTURE magazine
 the new footings exposed around 11 feet of the
previously buried cased micropiles (Figure 5). The
casing provided buckling resistance to the micropile,
which the surrounding soil would typically provide.
The shoring carried all 8 million pounds of load at
this stage, and the shoring system was in its most
vulnerable state.

One Last Challenge

A couple of months later, foundations were poured
around the piles, and stability started to be restored.
However, the project had one last significant shoring
challenge. The exterior sidewalk elevation varies by
9 feet around the perimeter of the building. The
original building, designed as a single department
store, had two main entrances with steps to accom-
modate the change in grade. The renovated building
was designed for individual boutique retail. The
Figure 5. Steel foundation forms installed and building supported on exposed piles. suspended first floor over the basement was demol-
ished and reconstructed with a stepped floor plate
1000 kips maximum per column and had four jacks to lift the load to allow for level entrances to each business.
(Figure 3). The jacks were incrementally increased in load, and the The column shoring system was still supporting the building, and the
building was inspected for signs of damage at each increment. A shoring stopped and started under and over the first-floor girders. The
surveyor monitored the structure for movement, providing real-time concrete girders temporally remained, but the slab and joist of the first
feedback. Arriving at nearly 800 kips, the surveyor recorded that the floor were demolished. By demolishing the first floor, the shores would
building column had moved 1⁄16 of an inch upward, and the shoring buckle without the bracing provided by the floor. A series of steel pipe
system had deflected 5⁄8 inch at the shoring columns. The shores were kickers were anchored to the new building foundations and up to the
shimmed using stacks of steel plates between the shoring column shoring columns to provide bracing (Figure 6 ). The American Institute
and beam to lock in the load before releasing the jacks. The building of Steel Construction (AISC) provides requirements for bracing. The
had no damage, and the full load was bracing loads are relatively small, but
now supported on the shores. With the stiffness of the bracing is equally
the successful test, the remaining bays important and is what drove the design.
could be jacked to transfer the building With the bracing in place, the first-
loads from the columns to the shores, floor demo proceeded.
and column demo proceeded. Once the first floor was removed, the
building as designed by the SEoR could
start to be constructed up and out of
Column Demolition the basement. With every few weeks
Column demo started with a text of the that passed, another floor was re-sup-
picture shown in Figure 4 and a con- ported by the new columns and walls.
cerned call from the demo contractor. Eventually, the new structure topped
He asked if it was ok that the column out. The shoring had done its job, and
bars were buckling out about 2 inches as it was time for it to go. The demo sub
they demolished the concrete column. returned to the job and removed the
Quickly back-calculating, it was deter- shoring, sending it off for recycling.
mined that around ⅛ inch of vertical Shoring is often necessary to facilitate
deflection could cause a 2-inch buckle structural and architectural designs –
in a bar over the story height. A ⅛-inch especially those that reimagine existing
vertical deflection was undoubtedly well buildings. Facilitating a design can be
within expectations of building move- as simple as a few temporary wood
ment when a column is removed. Fears shores or as complex as this project,
of collapse were quelled, and demolition which pushed the limits of
proceeded. what can be done with build-
With columns demolished, they ing shoring.■
removed the old building foundations.
As they excavated, they also removed Robert Graff is a Principal at
the abandoned brick and concrete Degenkolb Engineers and is active
in their Construction Engineering and
foundations of previously demolished
Education practice groups
buildings on this site that predated
(rgraff@degenkolb.com).
the current building. Excavating for Figure 6. Shoring braced with the first floor demolished.

JANUARY 2022 25
 Historic Alameda High
School Retrofit
Part 1: Too Valuable to Demolish,
Too Expensive to Retrofit
By Nik Blanchette, P.E., Steve Heyne, S.E.,
and Chris Warner, S.E.
View of buildings looking down Central Avenue.
I n 2012, the Alameda Unified School District in Alameda, California,
made the difficult decision to fence off and vacate all three historic
classroom buildings on the Historic Alameda High School (HAHS)
campus due to seismic safety deficiencies. These buildings and the
attached auditorium, lobby, gym, and locker room buildings had
A school destroyed by the 1933 Long Beach earthquake.
26 STRUCTURE magazine
stood since 1924. However, the classroom buildings lacked approval
under California’s Field & Garrison Acts, putting the school district
at legal risk (and any building occupants at life safety risk). The long
process to rehabilitate and restore these nearly century-old buildings
had entered its final chapter.
The Structures
The original campus, standing three stories
tall, has an impressive presence spanning an
entire block of Central Avenue adjacent to the
downtown district of Alameda. The buildings
are of neoclassical style with grand concrete
entry columns, emulating the stone columns
of ancient Rome, and elaborate detail work
throughout the exterior.
The buildings consist of cast-in-place rein-
forced concrete exterior walls supported by
shallow foundations. All floors and roofs are
wood-framed, except the second-story corri-
dor floors, which were concrete (and removed
during the retrofit). Reviewing the build-
ings against either ASCE 7, Minimum Design
Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings
and Other Structures, or ASCE 41, Seismic
Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings,
showed that the major elements of the lat-
eral force-resisting system were significantly
deficient, lacking strength, stiffness, and
interconnection.
Key plan of building retrofit history.

and highly fenestrated exterior concrete walls. Horizontal steel truss

The Field Act diaphragms were specified to augment the straight sheathed wood
In the early evening of March 10, 1933, less than 10 years after the
roof diaphragms. Concrete wall-to-diaphragm anchorage was to be
construction of the HAHS campus, a magnitude 6.4 earthquake jolted
improved. Unfortunately, only the locker rooms, gym, and auditorium
Long Beach, California. Widespread damage occurred, primarily improvements were upgraded, presumably due to limited funding.
to unreinforced masonry structures. Among the wreckage were 70 The classroom wings, auditorium lobby, and science building were
destroyed schools and 120 damaged schools, totaling about 75% of not upgraded.
the schools in the Long Beach area. Thankfully, few students and For decades following, students and faculty still occupied all build-
staff were present, though fatalities were not avoided. ings. Based on a study of available documents from the school
The 1933 Long Beach earthquake resulted in creation of the Fielddistrict, this issue had sporadically been discussed among hired
Act for new public school construction in California, one of the structural engineers and the Division of the State Architect. Finally,
early pieces of legislature incorporating seismic standards in building
in 1978, students were moved to a replacement campus down the
design. The Act prohibited unreinforced masonry construction and street, leaving behind the large, underutilized, historic, seismically
required consideration of a seismic design force. The Act also created
deficient buildings. During this time, one of the wings was fully
the Division of the State Architect (DSA)
to oversee the design and construction
of public schools. DSA reviews several
billions of dollars of construction every
year for K-12 schools and community Structural design prowess
colleges throughout California. Since meets architectural vision.
the creation of the Field Act, no public

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

school building has collapsed, nor has
loss of life occurred in a public school
building due to an earthquake. The Field
Act was followed by the 1939 Garrison
Act, which provided criteria for analy-
sis and rehabilitation of existing public
school buildings constructed prior to
the Field Act.

A Retrofit Unrealized
The 1933 Long Beach earthquake was a
“wake-up call,” resulting in the prepara-
tion of seismic rehabilitation drawings
for the HAHS campus. Reinforced
concrete shear walls were specified to Seattle | Tacoma | Portland | pcs-structural.com
supplement the overstressed diaphragms

JANUARY 2022 27
 vacated and remained so until the retrofit was completed
in the 2010s. The other classroom wing and science build-
ing served various uses, such as adult school classrooms, a
public library, and district office space.
In 1977, the community failed to pass bonds to rehabili-
tate the remaining non-upgraded historic buildings, so the
school board voted to demolish the 50-year-old deficient
buildings. However, a group of community leaders rejected
the idea of losing the historic property and rallied to save
the buildings. Also in 1977, perhaps not so coincidentally,
the campus was recognized as a national historic monument
and was placed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Finally, in 1989, the group was able to pass a bond that
paid for rehabilitating the auditorium lobby and seismically
isolating it from the classroom wings. This allowed students
to use the lobby and auditorium, sandwiched between the
deficient classroom wings. Structural debris fence surrounding an abandoned building.
A Path to Rehabilitation
In 2012, at the school district’s request, ZFA Structural Engineers
completed a districtwide review of DSA project certifications. During
this review, it resurfaced that prior rehabilitation work to make the
subject structures compliant with the Field Act was never performed.
Based on this information and consultations with the DSA, the three-
story science building and the two-story classroom wing that had been
in use were abandoned entirely. A structural fence was erected around
the buildings to prevent potential falling debris from harming the
public. The 1977-78 scenario essentially replayed itself: the buildings
presented a financial burden and liability to the school district, while
the community, including the local historical society, saw the value
of the buildings and wanted them preserved.
California voters approved Proposition 1D in 2006, which provided
$199.5 million for critically seismic deficient public school buildings
across the state. Under the Seismic Mitigation Program (SMP), eligible
buildings receive matching funds (i.e., 50% cost reimbursement) from
the state for seismic rehabilitation costs.
The DSA created Procedure 08-03 to outline the SMP process to
stakeholders. The first phase is the Eligibility Evaluation Report
(EER) that quickly screens and confirms the eligibility of buildings
for SMP funding. Next, if the rehabilitation cost is shown to be less
than half of the building replacement value, the building is eligible
for rehabilitation funding; otherwise, if the cost is greater, it is eligible
for replacement funding. The third phase for seismic rehabilitation
is the Evaluation and Design Criteria Report (EDCR). The report
characterizes the building, describes the structural analysis procedure,
and outlines data collection requirements. The fourth phase is the
creation of rehabilitation construction documents subject to review
and approval by the DSA. The fifth and final phase is funding from
the State, which occurs after the project is constructed in accordance
with the DSA-approved plans.
Before involvement with the HAHS project, ZFA Structural
Engineers was one of two firms hired by the State to help create the
EER template as a modified version of ASCE 31, Seismic Evaluation
of Existing Buildings, (now Tier 1 & 2 of ASCE 41) to identify
which critical seismic deficiencies are most likely to trigger the
collapse of the building. The EER is a uniform, straightforward
approach to screen vulnerable buildings. However, some building
types are excluded from eligibility due to inherent redundancy and
documented performance in earthquakes, such as buildings primar-
ily framed with wood. An example of a critical deficiency is wall
28 STRUCTURE magazine
anchorage; if the wall anchorage is deficient, the diaphragm could
separate from the wall, and the building could collapse.
While the EER is a quick look at some aspects of the building, the
EDCR represents a more significant review of the existing construc-
tion. There are numerous sources of uncertainty in the analysis of
existing buildings. Construction standards in structures built long
ago, including quality assurance and quality control, were typically
less rigorous than current industry practice. The EDCR is the time
for the DSA and the design professional to agree on an approach
to analyzing the existing building. The report describes the existing
construction, potential deficiencies, a methodology for calculations,
and data collection.
Data collection is expected to substantiate the material properties
of the existing building to be used in rehabilitation design. The main
form of data collection is material testing in accordance with ASCE 41.
For each building material, ASCE 41 specifies the type and quantity
of testing to perform, such as concrete cores, steel coupons, or visu-
ally grading lumber. DSA reviews and approves the EDCR before
the submittal of the construction documents for the rehabilitation
project. Ideally, the EDCR process leads to a smoother review of the
rehabilitation drawings by the DSA.
The SMP rehabilitation must follow an ASCE 41 Tier 3, Systematic
Evaluation and Retrofit approach. Every component resisting seismic
forces must be analyzed and shown to comply with current code
requirements as if it were a new building. The retrofit is not limited
to the deficiencies identified in the EER. DSA specifies the perfor-
mance objective: a seismic hazard (i.e., demand) and a performance
level (i.e., capacity). The performance objective for a rehabilitation
of this nature is similar to what DSA specifies for new construction.
Accessibility and fire life safety aspects of the building must also be
made to comply with current regulations.
The SMP, along with the community discussions, convinced the
school board that the retrofit of the buildings was viable, and they
went forward to place and pass a bond on the ballot in 2014. This
project was the largest funded in the bond.
A follow-up article will detail the technical challenges and achieve-
ments of retrofitting a nearly 100-year-old structure
under DSA jurisdiction while maintaining the historic
significance.■
All authors are with ZFA Structural Engineers in Santa Rosa, CA. Nik
Blanchette is an Engineer (nikb@zfa.com). Steve Heyne is an Associate
(steveh@zfa.com). Chris Warner is a Principal (chrisw@zfa.com).
 Boston
University
Center for Computing
& Data Sciences Building
By Nathan Roy, P.E.,
Irfan Baig, P.E.,
Jamie Hamelin, P.Eng,
and Lucy Timbers

Figure 1. Building rendering.

L ocated on Commonwealth Avenue, the Center for Computing &

Data Sciences rises dramatically above the central campus of
Boston University. Consisting of a 19-story, 305-foot-tall tower, and
5-story podium, the building is a hub for the campus and a showcase
for the departments of Mathematics & Statistics, Computer Science,
the interdisciplinary faculty of Computing & Data Sciences, and the
Rafik B Hariri Institute for Computing and Computational Science
& Engineering. Designed by internationally renowned design firm
a) b)
Figure 2. a) Building section; b) render of structural systems.
KPMB Architects of Toronto, Canada, the Center for Computing
& Data Sciences capitalizes on its location in the heart of campus
to create an inviting meeting place. The design of the building
encourages collaboration and innovation between disciplines by
creating vertically stacked research “neighborhoods” with staggered
green-roofed terraces, interconnecting feature stairs, and generous
public spaces. The podium houses student-focused facilities and ame-
nities, including much-needed study spaces. The dynamic ground
floor level enlivens and extends the streetscape.
The key sustainability and resilience goals were
fostered throughout BU’s design, resulting in
one of the first large fossil-fuel-free buildings
in Boston, aligning with the campus climate
action plan with a target of LEED Platinum. The
transparency and porosity of the building’s enve-
lope displays the elegance and complexity of the
cantilevered steel structure and acts as a beacon
on the Charles River skyline (Figure 1). Teaming
on the design to bring the building structure to
reality are structural engineering firms Entuitive
of Toronto, Canada, and LeMessurier of Boston,
Massachusetts.
Common to Boston, the site is on reclaimed land
from the second half of the 19th century. Originally
part of the Back Bay, the site is underlaid with
6 to 15 feet of miscellaneous fills located over a
5- to 10-foot layer of organic deposits. Below the
organic layer is a 7- to 16-foot glacier deposited

30 STRUCTURE magazine
sand layer that is a common layer for supporting the
timber piles of historic Boston buildings of the late 19th
and early 20th century. Below the sand layer is 150 to
165 feet of marine deposited clay with bedrock below.
Thus, the site represents one of the deepest locations
in Boston to bedrock.
The building consists of two main portions: the
19-story tower at the west side of the site with overall
plan dimensions of 140 by 140 feet with a two-story
deep basement, and a 5-story podium at the east
side with plan dimensions of 70 by 170 feet with a
one-story basement. Haley and Aldrich conducted
the geotechnical exploratory program and worked
with the design team and Suffolk construction to
select the appropriate foundation system. The analysis
focused on two primary foundation schemes: deep
load-bearing slurry wall elements (LBE) extending
to bedrock and a mat slab foundation. Working with
the construction manager Suffolk, it was determined
that a mat foundation would save over $5 million Figure 3. Tower mat slab construction.
compared to the LBE foundations.
The 19-story tower height was close to the limit acceptable for a mat north-south. The total core height is 338 feet above the top of the
foundation. Tower loads had to be limited by optimizing the concrete mat foundation, with a height-to-width ratio of approximately
core plan size and wall thickness and using lightweight concrete slabs 11 to 1. As noted, the soil conditions required the superstructure
on metal deck to realize the savings with a mat foundation. A 5-foot to be as light as possible to limit short and long-term settlements
mat slab bearing 40 feet below grade on the marine clay, and thicken- and keep the subgrade soil stresses below the allowable values.
ing to 6 to 9 feet under the core walls (Figure 3), was utilized at the Therefore, the core wall was limited to 14 inches thick to help
tower. The building weight was reduced achieve the weight reductions required
to limit bearing pressures under dead and to meet the soil pressure and settlement
live load to a maximum of 6 ksf under limits. High strength, self-consolidating
the core with an average of 4.5 ksf under concrete with a strength fć = 10,000 psi
the tower footprint. A 3.5-foot mat slab at the base transitioning to fć = 8,000 psi
bearing on the sand layer was provided at the top was used for the core.
below the podium. Approximately 1 to 1½ Contrary to conventional construction
inches of elastic settlement and an addi- of cast-in-place framed concrete slabs
tional ½ to 1 inch of long-term settlement within the core, 3¼-inch lightweight
is predicted at the tower mat slab, while ¼ concrete slabs supported by a 3-inch
to ½ inch of total elastic settlement and deep composite metal deck are employed
up to an additional ½ inch of long-term to reduce the total weight. The 5-story
settlement is calculated at the podium. podium has its own lateral force resis-
To address resiliency and the Boston tance system comprised of a structural
University Climate Action Plan, the steel elevator and stair “core” made up
ground floor was set 1 foot above of concentric braced frames.
the project design flood elevation, The lateral loads on the building are
5 feet above the Boston Planning & wind controlled, with Exposure C. The
Development Agency design flood 14-inch shear wall thicknesses necessi-
elevation. Building weight under the tated high-strength threaded #14 Grade
19-story tower was sufficient to resist 105 steel reinforcing at boundary ele-
hydrostatic pressures from the design ments. The large diameter reinforcement
flood elevation. 40-ton tension mini- helped eliminate rebar congestion in the
piles are provided below the 5-story core. In addition, staggered mechanical
podium to resist hydrostatic pressures splices were used for the boundary ele-
from the design flood elevation. ment steel along the height of the core
Responding to the building program- walls, further helping reduce congestion
ming requirements and compact floor and conflicts with various other building
plate, the lateral forces resistance system components, including embed plates.
in the tower consists of a slender con- The three slender north-south walls
crete shear wall core (Figure 4 ). The contained door and MEP penetrations,
core footprint is 52 by 30.5 feet with creating a challenging scenario for the
two 52-foot-long walls in the east-west design of these wall and link beams.
direction and three 30.5-foot-long walls Figure 4. Tower core. Typical link beams occur in the center

JANUARY 2022 31
 a)
Figure 5. Cantilever framing; a)16 t h floor framing with overlay, b) staggered massing, c) steel cantilever framing.
of the wall and contained MEP penetrations to allow services out
of the core. This placed significant constraints on the placement of
rebar within the link beams. In addition, the narrow thickness of
the wall and link beams precluded embedded structural steel sec-
tions in the link beams at the lower levels to help carry the shear/
flexure demands. Instead, 1¼- to 1½-inch-thick grade 50 steel plates
are embedded in the link beams at lower levels to provide adequate
strength and stiffness to the link beam sections. The plates are made
to act compositely with the concrete with headed studs on each side
of the plate. Careful coordination with architectural, mechanical,
and electrical teams was required to place the penetrations through
these plates. The effort and care of planning these link beams paid
off during the construction phase, with few conflicts resulting from
rebar placement and/or wall penetrations.
Figure 6. Truss framing at floor level.
32 STRUCTURE magazine
b) c)
The tower has typical 115- by 115-foot floor plates of five 23-foot
bay modules in the north-south and east-west directions. The floor
plans have footprints that line up with each other vertically for no
more than three floors consecutively. The center four-bay by four-bay
portions of the tower supports all tower gravity loads and includes
a concrete core and columns that run continuous the full height of
the tower (Figure 5a).
The architectural massing of the building uses shifting, free-floating
volumes to create outdoor terraces associated with research “neighbor-
hoods” that capitalize on the spectacular views from all sides of the
tower. The overall building footprint of 138- by 138-foot comprises
floor plates made up of six 23-foot bay modules in the north-south
and east-west directions (Figure 5a). Floor plates shift by one bay in
a counter-clockwise arrangement around the core every two or three
stories. This creates an offset block layout of masses,
with different volumes cantilevering over the floors
below (Figure 5b). Columns in this area do not
extend to grade. Two-story deep trusses made of
wide flange steel and located along the perimeter
support these volumes. Typically, a single truss spans
the full length of the building, which is, in turn, sup-
ported by a truss in the perpendicular direction that
cantilevers a single bay (Figure 5c). This results in a
mixture of traditionally supported and hung floors.
This careful placement of the trusses creates a load
path that guides the gravity loads back towards the
columns that run continuous through the height of
the building. The architecturally exposed steel truss
framing and connections are expressed visually and
are fireproofed with intumescent paint (Figure 6 ).
The cantilever steel framing was superelevated for
80% of the predicted dead load deflections (Figure 7 ).
Suffolk Construction, Prime Steel Erecting, and
their erection engineer, Simon Design Engineering,
worked closely with the design team on the tem-
porary shoring and jacking systems. Full height
shoring was provided to allow for erection of the
steel. Jacking boxes as part of the shoring system were included to
allow for superelevation. Hydraulic jacks were utilized to unload the
shoring and uniformly load the cantilever framing.
Opening in late 2022, the Boston University Center for Computing
& Data Sciences building will foster innovation and collaboration as
a leader in Computing & Data Sciences. The building is set to dem-
onstrate Boston University’s commitment to sustainability, resiliency,
and social responsibility.
Part 2 will focus on sustainability, life cycle assessment, and
opportunities realized to reduce the embodied carbon of the
building structure.■

Nathan Roy is a Principal with LeMessurier (nroy@lemessurier.com).

Irfan Baig is a Principal with LeMessurier (ibaig@lemessurier.com).
Jamie Hamelin is a Senior Associate with Entuitive and is based in its
Toronto, Canada office (jamie.hamelin@entuitive.com).
Lucy Timbers is a Senior Associate with KPMB Architects of Toronto,
Canada (ltimbers@kpmbarchitects.com).

Project Team
Structural Engineers: LeMessurier, Entuitive
Architect: KPMB Architects
Contractor: Suffolk Construction
Steel Fabricator: Canatal Industries
Steel Erector: Prime Steel Erecting Inc
Concrete Contractor: S&F Concrete Contractors
Figure 7. Steel framing. Courtesy of John Cannon.

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

CCU+™
HEAVY DUTY
UNDERCUT ANCHORS
AND
INSTALLATION SYSTEM

IC REGI
SM
ON
I
SE
QU

A
N

LI O
FIC ATI Copyright © 2022 DEWALT. 2609777

JANUARY 2022 33
 just the FAQs
FAQs on ASCE Standards
What You Always Wanted to Ask
By Laura Champion, P.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE, and Jennifer Goupil, P.E., F.SEI, M.ASCE
W elcome to this new quarterly column for STRUCTURE
magazine. These articles will address some of the questions
received (along with responses) about structural standards developed
by the Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) of the American Society
of Civil Engineers (ASCE), such as ASCE 7 and ASCE 41. Questions
received from engineers, building officials, and other design profes-
sionals are often considered for the development of future editions.
Following are some questions received by SEI as well as responses to
clarify the provisions.
ASCE/SEI 7: Minimum Design Loads
and Associated Criteria for Buildings
and Other Structures
Seismic Design for Tanks and Vessels:
Chapter 13 vs. Chapter 15
Q: Would you please clarify when to use Chapter 13 Nonstructural
Components versus Chapter 15 Nonbuilding Structures? For example,
which chapter requirements govern the design of the anchorage for
a small tank to a concrete roof structure:
Chapter 13 (and to apply Table 13.6-1,
Seismic Coefficients for Mechanical and
Electrical Components), or Chapter 15 (spe-
cifically Section 15.7.5, Anchorage)?
A: There is an overlap between ASCE 7-16
Chapters 13 and 15. Tanks are found in Chapter
13, Table 13.6-1, and Chapter 15, Section 15.7,
Tanks and Vessels. Philosophically, Chapter 13
covers relatively small components supported
above grade in a building and Chapter 15 covers
nonbuilding structures (large components) sup-
ported at grade. However, there is an overlap
between the two chapters. Chapter 13 provi-
sions can be applied to components supported
at grade, and Chapter 15 Section 15.3 covers
nonbuilding structures supported by other
structures. The Section 15.3 rules apply to
relatively large nonbuilding structures.
The intent of Section 15.7.5, in conjunc-
tion with 15.7.3, Strength and Ductility, is
to make the anchor the seismic fuse on tanks and vessels. Forcing the
anchor to yield and stretch has proven to be the most effective way
to provide ductility for a tank or vessel and minimize or eliminate
damage during a seismic event. These requirements work well for
moderate to large diameter tanks and vessels but do not work for
relatively small tanks and vessels. The practical anchor size used to
anchor small tanks and vessels precludes the anchor from stretch-
ing and yielding. This is addressed in ASCE 7-22 for small tanks
supported at grade; ASCE 7-22 Chapter 15 permits the design of
34 STRUCTURE magazine
the anchorage using any of the options in the American Concrete
Institute’s ACI 318-19, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete, Chapter 17 Anchoring to Concrete. In this case, small is
defined as a tank or vessel less than or equal to 5 feet in diameter
and less than or equal to 10 feet in height. The definition of a small
tank and vessel was derived by determining the diameter that would
limit the convective mass to 10 percent of the total liquid mass while
holding the height to approximately one story.
For very small tanks supported on the roof of a building, Chapter
13 requirements are likely more applicable than the requirements of
Chapter 15. This is because, as described above, it is unlikely that
the anchorage provided for a small tank would yield under seismic
loads, so the objectives behind the Section 15.7.5 provisions cannot
be achieved.
Can a Site Class Change from F to D on a Liquefiable Site?
Q: Does the exception in ASCE 7-16 Section 20.3.1, Site Class F,
allow the Site Class of a liquefiable site to change from an F to a D for
buildings with fundamental periods equal to or less than 0.5 seconds?
A: Yes, the exception to Condition 1 of Section 20.3.1 does allow
the site class to change from Site Class F
to Site Class D if the fundamental period
of the structure is less than or equal to 0.5
seconds, but ONLY if the soil 1) does not
meet any of the other conditions listed under
Section 20.3.1 for Site Class F, 2) does not
meet the requirements for Site Class E under
the exceptions to Section 20.3.1 Conditions
3 and 4, 3) is not classified as Site Class E
under the requirements of Section 20.3.2,
Soft Clay Site Class E, and 4) is not classi-
fied as Site Class E under the requirements
of Section 20.3.3, Site Classes C, D, and E.
The exception to Condition 1 of Section
20.3.1 does not take precedence over the
other requirements of Sections 20.3.1,
20.3.2, and 20.3.3.
Q: As a clarification, is it the intent of
this standard that the exception in Section
12.13.9, Requirements for Foundations on
Liquifiable Sites, allows foundation ties to
be omitted when all the parameters are met, even if the Site Class
would have been an F?
A: No. The exception under Section 12.13.9 does not allow founda-
tion ties required by Section 12.13.8.2, Foundation Ties, to be omitted
for spread footings founded on Site Class E and F soils. The exception
under Section 12.13.9 simply avoids the ADDITIONAL requirements
for ties in 12.13.9.2.1.1, Shallow Foundation Design, Foundation
Ties, from being applied. Please note that the commentary Section
C12.13.9.2 clarifies this requirement; “Shallow foundations are required
to be interconnected by ties, regardless of the
effects of liquefaction.”
When are “Openings” Open?
Q: Can a building with large overhead
doors on one side be designed as enclosed
instead of partially enclosed. Their assertion
is that the overhead doors are not openings
because they are designed to be closed during
a design wind event.
A: In ASCE 7-10, Chapter 26, Wind Loads:
General Requirements, defines enclosed, open,
and partially enclosed. Overhead doors can
provide the degree of enclosure required to
meet the definition of an enclosed building,
provided that these doors are designed for
the design wind pressures without excessive
deflection. However, there are exceptions to
this general situation. For example, door-
ways must be considered openings for a fire
station because of the requirement that the doors be opened during
the wind event to respond to emergencies. The same situation would
be for ambulance garages or emergency room entrances. The open
area around the doors should be considered when determining the
enclosure classification of the building. In ASCE 7-16, the definition
of enclosed was clarified by specifying the total area of the openings,
Ao, permitted, and the definition of partially open was also added.
Wind Loads on Solar Arrays
Q: In ASCE 7-16 Section 29.4.4, Rooftop Solar Panels Parallel to
the Roof Surface on Buildings of All Heights and Roof Slopes, there
are two factors, γE and γa, that are confusing. The Array Edge Factor,
γE, definition describes the location of the array on the roof and in
relation to other arrays. When does the γE = 1.5 factor not apply?
Also, Figure 29.4-8 includes the Solar Panel Pressure Equalization
factor, γa, which is based on the effective wind area. Is this Effective
Wind Area based on each connection, as determined in Chapter 30,
Wind Loads: Components and Cladding, or does it refer to the total
area of the solar array?
A: The Array Edge Factor, γE, is used to determine how “exposed”
the panel is and, thus, how susceptible the panel is to wind uplift.
Therefore, if the panel is greater than 0.5 × the mean roof height,
h, away from the edge of the roof, but the distance to the building
edge (or to adjacent array), d1, is greater than 4 feet or the distance
between the rows, d2, is greater than 4 feet, then the γE = 1.5 factor
applies. However, if the distances are not greater than 4 feet, a value
of γE = 1.0 can be used instead of γE = 1.5.
To determine the Effective Wind Area, A, refer to the definition
contained in Chapter 26, Section 26.2: “For rooftop solar arrays,
the effective wind area in Fig. 29.4-7 is equal to the tributary area
for the structural element being considered, except that the width of
the effective wind area need not be Less Than One-Third Its Length.”
Wind Tributary Area for Components and Cladding
Q: Regarding components and cladding uplift, Section 30.2.3
Tributary Areas Greater than 700 ft 2(65 m 2), of ASCE 7-16 states,
“C&C elements with tributary areas greater than 700 ft2 (65 m2)
shall be permitted to be designed using the provisions for main wind
force resisting systems (MWFRS).” When using “the provisions for
MWFRS,” does this also mean that the member should be designed
for the interaction of two directions of wind load? When designing
strictly for C&C, the load being designed
for is not directional, so it is unclear if this
comes into effect for “the provisions for
MWFRS” design.
A: Section 30.2.3 describes the situation
where the component or cladding element
has a large tributary area instead of the
small, typical effective wind area. For an
element with such a large tributary area,
the high localized wind pressures associ-
ated with the loading of a component and
cladding element are not present. Thus,
the smaller design pressures used for the
design of the MWFRS may be used in
the design of this component or cladding
element. Further, C&C loading may be
bi-directional; consider a corner window
system, for example. Wind pressures in both
directions should be applied to the corner
window simultaneously.
ASCE 41: Seismic Evaluation and
Retrofit of Existing Buildings
Clarification for Tier 1
Q: Neither ASCE 41-13 nor ASCE 41-17 has a Tier 1 Immediate
Occupancy checklist or evaluation requirements for Building Type C1:
Concrete Moment Frames for High Seismicity Level. I am referring
to the following sections in ASCE 41-13 and ASCE 41-17:
• ASCE 41-13: Section 16.9IO Immediate Occupancy Structural
Checklist For Building Type C1: Concrete Moment Frames
• ASCE 41-17: section 17.11 Structural Checklist For Building
Type C1: Concrete Moment Frames
Why does ASCE 41 not specify an Immediate Occupancy checklist
for Concrete Moment Frames for High Seismicity Level?
A: There is no separate Tier I checklist for Building Type C1
for High Seismicity Level because the checklist for moderate
level is also applicable for high level.■
If you have a question to be considered for a future issue,
send it to sei@asce.org with FAQ in the subject line.
Visit asce.org/sei to learn more about ASCE/SEI Standards.
This article’s information is provided for general informational pur-
poses only and is not intended in any fashion to be a substitute for
professional consultation. Information provided does not constitute a
formal interpretation of the standard. Under no circumstances does
ASCE/SEI, its affiliates, officers, directors, employees, or volunteers
warrant the completeness, accuracy, or relevancy of any information
or advice provided herein, or its usefulness for any particular purpose.
ASCE/SEI, its affiliates, officers, directors, employees, and volunteers
expressly disclaim any and all responsibility for any liability, loss, or
damage that you may cause or incur in reliance on any information or
advice provided herein.
Laura Champion is a Managing Director of the Structural Engineering
Institute and Global Partnerships at the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Jennifer Goupil is Senior Manager of Codes and Standards and Technical
Activities at the Structural Engineering Institute and Global Partnerships at
the American Society of Civil Engineers.
JANUARY 2022 35
 structural LOADS
Snow and Rain Loads in ASCE 7-22
Part 1
By Michael O’Rourke, Ph.D., P.E., and John F. Duntemann, P.E., S.E.

T he American Society of Civil Engineer’s

ASCE 7-22 load standard, Minimum
Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,
A very small fraction of the locations defined
in the Geodatabase indicate that a case study
must be completed to determine the ground
is now available. Substantive changes have been snow load. These case-study regions are now
made to the snow and rain provisions within limited and apply only to locations higher than
the standard. In particular, the ground snow any locally available snow measurement loca-
loads have been revised to reflect more recent tions. Database ground snow load values are still
snow load data and reliability-targeted values. provided to the user, with a warning that the
In addition, the method for estimating drifts estimated value lies outside the range of eleva-
has been revised to include a wind parameter, tions of surrounding measurement locations.
and the procedure for determining design rain Information from local experts, from reports by
loads has been revised to explicitly consider a Bean et al. (2021) or Buska et al. (2020), can
ponding head. Some of the more substantive be used to determine values at these locations.
changes are discussed, along with the reasons for ASCE 7-22 also includes GSL maps for each
these changes. This article is Part 1 of a two-part Risk Category. Each of these maps (and associ-
series and reviews the new ground snow loads ated datasets) is based on reliability calculations
and a new winter wind parameter. Part 2 will that target the reliability objectives of Chapter
include the other more substantive changes to 1 of ASCE 7-22. A copy of the GSL map for
the snow load provisions and the new rain load Risk Category II for the conterminous United
provisions. States is reproduced in Figure 1. (Due to scale,
Figure 1 is included in the online article at
STRUCTUREmag.org.)
Ground Snow Loads The adoption of reliability-targeted design
The previous editions of ASCE 7 included ground snow loads represents a significant
mapped values for ground snow load (GSL) change from ASCE/SEI 7-16 and prior editions,
based on a statistical analysis using National which previously used ground snow loads with
Weather Service snowfall data from 1952 to a 50-year mean recurrence interval (MRI). Due
1992. This map was first included in the 1992 Figure 2. Box plot of the ratio of proposed to climatic differences, reliability-targeted loads
edition of ASCE 7 and was updated with addi- factored loads to previous factored loads. are adopted to address the nonuniform reliabil-
tional information for the 1995 edition. It has Average ratio:1.12. Additional data is included ity of roofs designed according to the 50-year
remained essentially as it was in 1995 for each in the online article at STRUCTUREmag.org. snow load in different parts of the country. For
subsequent edition through 2016. Additionally, example, in some parts of the country, design-
at the time that map was generated, the authors (researchers at the ing for the 1.6 load factor times the 50-year value does not meet the
Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory [CRREL] of reliability targets of the standard (and, in some of these places, failures
the US Army Corps of Engineers) marked as Case Study, or CS, due to an underestimated ground snow load have been observed). In
several significant regions, encompassing large parts of eighteen states, other places, designing for the 1.6 load factor times the 50-year value
where significant ground elevation related changes to GSLs resulted is unnecessarily conservative.
in unreadable maps. The CS regions placed a significant burden on Figure 2 presents a box plot of the ratio of the new factored flat roof
structural engineers to perform snow load hazard analysis, and very load to the factored ASCE 7-16 uniform loads for 65 locations in the
little guidance had been provided on how to conduct such studies. United States. This plot indicates that while some locations changed
The new GSL in ASCE 7-22 is an updated national GSL dataset in drastically, the majority of structures have a roof load ratio (new/
electronic and map form. The new snow loads are also based on nearly current) of 0.91 to 1.30, with an average of 1.12.
30 years of additional snow load data since the previous study and With the change to reliability-targeted values, the load factor on
updated procedures for estimating snow loads from depth-only mea- snow loads has also been revised from 1.6 to 1.0 to represent the reli-
surements. The loads account for site-specific variability throughout ability basis of the values appropriately. Snow importance factors have
the United States in both the magnitude and variation of the annual also been eliminated because values now are provided for each Risk
ground snow loads. Additionally, this approach incorporates advanced Category. The 0.7 factor is intended to provide roughly equivalent
spatial mapping that significantly reduces the number and size of case strength when design follows Allowable Stress Design (ASD) proce-
study regions in mountainous areas and eliminates discontinuities in dures. For some materials, the ratio between design strength given
design values across state boundaries (Bean et al., 2021). by Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) procedures and design

36 STRUCTURE magazine
strength given by ASD procedure is
1.5. For some other materials, the
ratio varies depending on the limit
state being checked. The inverse
of 1.5 was rounded to 0.7 for this
purpose.
The same database and map-
ping scheme was used to prepare a
20-year mean-recurrence interval
map and values for use when evalu-
ating serviceability. The new value,
100 percent of the 20-year MRI
load, is based upon the judgment
of the ASCE 7 Snow and Rain Load
Subcommittee and represents an
increase for ASCE 7, but is less than
the load specified in the International
Building Code (IBC) 2021 (100 per- Figure 3. Map of winter wind parameter W 2.
cent of the 50-year MRI load).
locations with a low W2 of 0.25, the new drift heights are typically
50% to 70% of the old ASCE 7-16 drift heights, on average about
Winter Wind Parameter a 40% decrease. For locations with a high W2 of 0.65, the new drift
Since the late 1980s, snow drift loads in ASCE 7 have been a function height is typically 100% to 150% of the old ASCE 7-16 height, on
of the size of the snow source area as characterized by the ground average about a 25% increase. For locations with an average W2 of
snow load, Pg, and the upwind fetch length of the snow source area, 0.45, the new drift height is typically 75% to 110% of the ASCE
lu. Recent research has shown that the drift load is also a function of 7-16 height, on average about a 10% decrease. As such, one could
the winter wind speeds. The addition of a winter wind parameter is argue that the snow drifts from ASCE 7-22 are, on average, a bit less
intuitively appealing since one expects, with all other things being conservative than those in ASCE 7-16.
equal, that locations with relatively calm wind in winter would have
smaller drifts than locations with strong winter winds.
The new relation for the drift height, hd, in ASCE 7-22 is
Summary
This article summarizes some of the more substantive changes to the
Pg. lu. W2
74 70 1.7

hd = 1.5 √ γ
Equation 7.6-1
where γ, as before, is the snow density. The new parameter W2 is
defined as the percentage of time during the winter (October through
April) when the wind speed is greater than or equal to 10 mph, the
nominal threshold for wind-induced snow drifting. Figure 3 presents
the winter wind parameter for the lower 48 states.
Note that West of the Rockies and in the Southeast, W2 is com-
paratively small (typically 0.25 to 0.45), while in the Midwest and
Northeast, W2 is comparatively large (typically 0.45 to 0.65). As
such, the new winter wind parameter has about as strong an influ-
ence on drift surcharge load (proportional to the square of the drift
height) as the ground snow and upwind fetch parameters. That is,
the new ground snow load, Pg, for the lower 48 states varies from
nominally 12 psf to 120 psf. Hence, its influence is nominally a
factor of (120⁄12).74 or about 5.5. The upwind fetch typically varies
from 100 to 1000 feet, and its influence is nominally a factor
of (1000⁄100).70 or about 5. The winter wind parameter, W2, varies
from 0.25 to 0.65 and hence is nominally a factor of (0.65⁄0.25)1.7
or about 5.1.
An advantage of the functional form of the relation is that there
is no need for a “lower bound” drift size. That is, with the old drift
relation, hd = 0.43 (lu)33 (Pg + 10).25 – 1.5, one calculates a negative
drift height for low values of Pg and lu. With the new functional
form, the drift height is positive for all possible combinations of the
input parameters.
The most frequently asked question about the new drift approach
is whether the drift loads, in general, will increase or decrease. For
snow provisions of ASCE 7-22. The changes to the ASCE 7-22 ground
snow loads are based upon 30 years of additional data, represent a shift
away from uniform hazard to uniform risk, and significantly reduce
the Case Study regions. The addition of a winter wind parameter
accounts for the variability in winter wind speeds on drift loads.
Part 2, in an upcoming STRUCTURE issue, will review other revi-
sions to the snow loads, including a more accurate estimation of the
horizontal extent of windward drifts, revised thermal factors Ct to
account for the current trends in roof insulation and venting, and
guidance on the design loads for snow capture walls. Part 2 will also
discuss a significant change to Chapter 8, including adding
an explicit ponding head to the rain load and a simple rela-
tion for calculation of the ponding head.■
Full references, Figure 1, and additional information are included
in the PDF version of the online article at STRUCTUREmag.org.
Michael O’Rourke has been a Professor in the Civil Engineering Department
at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute since 1974. He served as the Chair of
the ASCE 7 Snow and Rain Subcommittee from 1997-2017 and currently
serves as the Vice-Chair and a Fellow of the Structural Engineering Institute
(SEI) (orourm@rpi.edu).
John F. Duntemann is a Senior Principal at Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates
in Northbrook, Illinois. He is the current Chair of the ASCE 7 Snow and
Rain Subcommittee and a Fellow of the Structural Engineering Institute (SEI)
(jduntemann@wje.com).

JANUARY 2022 37
 structural DESIGN
The Long Road
Advancing First-Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design for Steel Buildings
Part 3: Future Efforts for All Structure Types
By Matthew Speicher, Ph.D., and John Harris, Ph.D.

C apabilities to conduct a
performance-based seismic
design (PBSD) of retrofitted exist-
ing buildings and new buildings
have advanced exponentially over
the past 25 years. This progress has
augmented our knowledge of build-
ing behavior given an earthquake
intensity. Still, we must be cautious Figure 1a. Theoretical range of building performance and relative placement of safety-based and recovery-based goals.
of considering a PBSD as an exact Figure taken from NIST (2021a).
answer; instead, a PBSD gives us
information to support decision-making. There is still much work As an example, assume that an assessment is being conducted for the
needed to support PBSD capabilities, and this depends on the type collapse prevention (CP) structural performance level (SPL) at the
of assessment being conducted. At the same time, a vision for the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER) prescribed
not-so-distant future must also be established. in ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures
The previous two parts of this series on advancing first-generation (2010 edition and later). Furthermore, suppose the collapse risk is
PBSD principles and provisions for steel buildings (STRUCTURE, taken according to ASCE 7. In this case, the question becomes what
October and November 2021) discussed the history of PBSD. They percentage of components needs to fail the CP SPL to achieve a 10
also outlined a project initiated at the National Institute of Standards percent probability of collapse given MCER shaking? Since there is
and Technology (NIST) that evaluated what advancements could be no mechanism to assess risk based on the analysis results, exposure
made. That project started by benchmarking ASCE 41 to ASCE 7 to risk cannot be communicated to shareholders and stakeholders.
to develop a baseline. A mechanism is needed to relate failure (for any performance level)
This third and final article highlights several concepts that could of components based on consequences posed to the building owner,
advance current PBSD capabilities. This article goes beyond steel occupants, service users, etc. An example of such an approach could
buildings and takes a heuristic view of needs for all types of building be that a building poses more than a 10 % probability of not satisfying
construction, non-building structures, and lifeline infrastructure a performance target (based on collapse, economics, loss of function,
(generically referred to here as a system). These concepts can apply etc.) if either of the following occurs:
to both first- and next-generation PBSD and include the following: • more than some percentage of the total structural components in
• intrinsic risk assessment; one direction do not satisfy the target performance level; and
• procedures and metrics to evaluate functional recovery time; • more than some percentage of the structural components
• multi-system coordination; and resisting seismic force or deformation in one story in one direc-
• resilience-based seismic design. tion do not satisfy a target performance level.
These concepts may be initiated by NIST or by any partner agency The challenge would be defining the percentages in a codifiable
in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). manner for policymakers and easily understood by the public. NIST
Realization of these concepts will be dependent upon available GCR 12-917-20: Tentative Framework for Development of Advanced
resources. Seismic Design Criteria for New Buildings (NIST 2012) started evaluat-
ing risk targets for new buildings for adoption by ASCE 7. The same
process can advance ASCE 41 using the methodology given in the
Intrinsically Evaluating Risk Exposure Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) P-58: Seismic
First-generation PBSD principles contained in the latest edition Performance Assessment of Buildings (FEMA 2015), which can explicitly
of ASCE 41: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings evaluate seismic risk in a probabilistic sense.
(ASCE 2017) fundamentally result in a component-level binary pass
or fail evaluation. A consequence of this process is that component
performance and the potential need to retrofit or replace is based
Functional Recovery Time
upon an analysis output rather than the effect that the component A common consequence of an earthquake is interruption of building
performance has on the system's overall performance. Therefore, an functions and operations and community support services (e.g., power
engineer cannot effectively use the assessment results to explicitly or water distribution). These downtimes can range from a few hours
evaluate risk, which is highly dependent upon the degree of redun- to years. Recovery time for a building is impacted by the following,
dancy built into the building. to list a few factors:

38 STRUCTURE magazine
 • the extent of damage to building systems (structural or non-
structural) and the operative contents used for services;
• availability of financial and damage assessment resources;
• demolition and repair processes, including mobilization time;
• construction material availability; and
• recovery of lifelines supporting building function and
operation.
Recovery time may also be tied to community-level indirect losses
such as loss of employment, displacement, and interruptions to edu-
cation, childcare, and community services. This is discussed later in
this article. Anecdotally, after the M7.1 Anchorage, AK, earthquake
in November 2018, a building housing a notable coffee service sus-
tained ceiling damage (non-structural). The business continued the
next day by removing the ceiling to avoid such losses.
There is a need to develop and implement enhanced performance
levels and PBSD guidance that address post-earthquake re-occu-
pancy and functional recovery time. Figure 1-a shows an example
of what the performance continuum may look like within this
performance objective. Comparing Figure 1-a to Figure 1-b (also
included in Part 1 of this series, October 2021) indicates that there
may be cases when functional recovery governs performance and
other cases when collapse prevention governs, but in no instance
shall collapse prevention be overlooked. Within this effort, a set of
distinguishable terminologies must be developed as well as a clear
understanding of the result. For example, function and operation
may be interpreted differently within the same organization. Is
continuity of operations by providing services elsewhere (or in their
parking lot) deemed to satisfy recovery requirements? Does the
case satisfy re-occupancy requirements when the only elevator in
a building is down, and one stair system is operational when the
building may serve users who cannot use stairs? These are just a few
of the multitude of inquires that need to be addressed by architects
and engineers to define the needed metrics. Additional topics can be
found in NIST SP 1269: NIST-FEMA Post-Earthquake Functional
Recovery Workshop Report (NIST 2021b), which summarizes the
feedback received by workshop participants on functional recovery
concepts and options.
Figure 1b. Illustration of building performance when subjected to increased earthquake intensities.
(Part 1, October 2021)
There is a need to enhance
PBSD to support integration
across systems and sectors
beyond prioritization by risk
categories.
In the latest reauthorization of NEHRP (Public Law 115-307,
December 2018), NIST and FEMA were tasked to report on rec-
ommendations for improving the built environment and critical
infrastructure to reflect performance goals stated in terms of post-
earthquake re-occupancy and functional recovery time. Their report,
FEMA P-2090 / NIST SP-1254: Recommended Options for Improving
the Built Environment for Post-Earthquake Reoccupancy and Functional
Recovery Time (NIST 2021a), identified seven recommendations for
design or retrofit of buildings and lifeline infrastructure that would
culminate in a framework to address re-occupancy and functional
recovery time.
Multi-System Coordination
The results from a current PBSD, either using ASCE 41 or FEMA P-58,
tend to focus on assessing the design or retrofit of a single building. This
approach caters to a single isolated building or even an organization
where operations within multiple buildings are mutually exclusive.
However, it does not address interactions among multiple associated
buildings, among multiple lifeline infrastructure sectors,
or between a combination of the two. For example, how
does the performance of one school across town affect
another school with regards to consequences to the school
district? Assume that a school is closed due to earthquake
damage (Figure 2, page 40). In this example, the students
are required to go to another school; however, that school
is too small to handle the increased student population.
Consequently, the school splits classes and holds some on
Saturdays. Further, how does the school district coordinate
with the local Department of Transportation to address
adjusting school operations based on changes in traffic
pattern demands?
There is a need to enhance PBSD to support integration
across systems and sectors beyond prioritization by risk
categories. For example, allowing multiple systems to
provide feedback to other potentially impacted systems
during the design or assessment process enhances risk
assessments and associated decision metrics.
Resilience-Based Seismic Design
The conceptual difference between PBSD and resil-
ience-based seismic design (RBSD) is that the latter
JANUARY 2022 39
 evaluates the performance of a system
with regards to its impact on the per-
formance of a more extensive network
of building and lifeline infrastructure
systems and sectors. RBSD is thus a
potential mechanism to evaluate impacts
on community resilience. With that said,
there may be conditions when the per-
formance of a system does not impact
community resilience, and the prioritiza-
tion of network systems must be made
at the community level. For example,
should a building housing a large con-
struction material retailer be designed Figure 2. Example depiction of consequence decision-making based on PBSD interaction between multiple
as an ordinary building if downtime can associated buildings within an organization.
hinder the recovery progress of the resi-
dential market it serves? economic impacts, to list a few. However, an aspect of resilience that
PBSD can be used to estimate whether a design is highly likely to be is more challenging to quantify is its impact on society.
functional after an earthquake (e.g., sustains less damage). In so doing, The engineering community must be able to communicate risk expo-
the system will contribute to the community’s resilience. PBSD can sure to shareholders and stakeholders. The performance of a building
be augmented to include the impact of utilities and services needed must be able to address the welfare of its occupants or the public that
for the system to regain function and operations, but it is still focused use the services provided to progress. It is straightforward with PBSD
on a system. RBSD can employ PBSD and incorporate prioritized to address physical damage and downtime of the physical structure as
community resilience concepts such as addressing impacts to the a primary indicator of performance. The losses from consequences on
transportation network and, in turn, how that system may impact society such as mental and physiological health, displacement, inter-
other systems and services. Essentially, RBSD can be envisioned as a ruptions to education, work, childcare, and community services play
series of nodal enhanced PBSDs within a network communicating a key factor in estimating the holistic performance needed in RBSD.
with each other.
RBSD must also address compounding consequences from coinci-
dental hazards and/or sequential hazards and the societal responses to
Conclusion
them. In this context, coincidental hazards are one or more hazards This article discussed several future concepts to advance PBSD. These
unrelated to the earthquake hazard that may occur within the same concepts can be somewhat aspirational but nonetheless outline the
response and recovery period. Sequential hazards are one or more needs for progress that, when integrated, build upon each other.
secondary hazards that directly result from the earthquake that may PBSD is not a tool strictly used to circumvent prescriptive building
occur within the same response and recovery period. code provisions or save upfront construction costs, though this has
A metric for earthquake resilience is challenging to define, beyond been a result. Instead, PBSD provides a rational estimate of design
qualitative characteristics – having the ability to withstand, respond performance in a future earthquake. It must also be used to understand
to, and recover from an earthquake and its consequences, and not the associated risks that such a design may pose to the community it
just one earthquake. Moreover, quantitative assessment of resilience serves. Unfortunately, decision-makers generally only see part of the
can only be measured after the impact on a network of systems from picture. Absent appropriate financial incentives, public and private
an earthquake is known because response and recovery are time- organizations tend to invest in measures that they believe protect
dependent functions without pre-defined timelines. Therefore, the their economic welfare, not necessarily those that augment the com-
subsequent resilience score (for the next earthquake) is a function munity’s wellbeing.
of the measurable change in resilience based on mitigation efforts, With the current trend towards defining and implement-
repair or improvements, availability of construction resources, and ing resilience measures and guidance, it is difficult to continue
along the path where new and existing buildings can be
treated differently. In the eyes of the public, there is no dif-
ference in the function and operations of either. It could be
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

possible within the context of RBSD to envision ASCE 41

Join the Unengineering Firm and ASCE 7 as one standard. Seismic safety is a choice based
on risk, and the developed tools need to address these
risks so that users may augment them as needed and set
priorities to benefit the community they serve.■
UN
AN

EN

Full references are included in the online PDF version

GI
’S

of the article at STRUCTUREmag.org.

NE
AT
WH

ER
?

Matthew Speicher is a Research Structural Engineer in the Earthquake

Engineering Group at NIST.

John Harris is the Acting Deputy Director of NEHRP and a Research

Structural Engineer in the Earthquake Engineering Group at NIST.

40 STRUCTURE magazine
structural ANALYSIS
Two-Stage Analysis Loophole
By Steven Shepherd, S.E., and James McDonald, S.E.
E ngineering projects and building code provisions can often seem
like Rorschach tests where two people looking at the same thing
can draw sharply different conclusions. This article reviews the two-
stage analysis procedure in ASCE 7-16, Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures, to consider if the provisions are an
innocent inkblot or possibly may be interpreted differently by some.
Engineers simplify what is too complex to solve and what is too
complex to solve efficiently in practice. The simplification imposes
the obligation to validate that it does not result in a solution that
works for the simplified model but is invalid for the complex realities.
Because simplification is often an imperfect step away from reality,
simplification incurs the obligation of conservatism. The authors’
purpose is to explain how the two-stage analysis simplification can be
applied inappropriately to allow for designs that do not provide the
level of safety intended by the code. This article also offers remedies
to prevent future misuse of this procedure.
A bold and useful simplification in the code’s seismic provisions
is the equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure, predicated on the
assumption of approximately equal deformation distribution in one
dimension over the structure’s height. But an efficient and ubiquitous
building type like podium construction with several stories of light
framing perched on one or more levels of concrete (or concrete with
concrete masonry) framing is not consistent with the assumptions
inherent in the ELF procedure. Using ELF for podium construction
can result in mass from the heavier base being applied as inertial
loads to the flexible upper portion. Rather than subject podium
construction to the rigors and expense of a dynamic analysis, code
authors opted for another simplification to keep the ELF procedure
on the table for the design of podium construction by adopting the
two-stage analysis provisions first introduced in the 1988 Uniform
Building Code (UBC).
Conceptually, the two-stage analysis introduces a reasonable sim-
plification to reflect the physical phenomenon of a rigid base not
amplifying ground motions to more flexible stories perched above.
Further, it appropriately builds in conservatism because analyzing
a single building as two separate shorter buildings results in shorter
periods for individual building portions, and therefore, equal or
greater base shear coefficients for each portion of the structure.
However, as demonstrated by the example building described later,
this conservatism can be insufficient compensation if the two-stage
analysis technique masks the deleterious effects of a base with a
torsional irregularity. The two-stage analysis allows the flexible
upper portion to be designed as a separate structure fixed at its
base using the ELF or modal response spectrum procedure. The
reactions from the upper portion are transferred to the rigid base
(lower portion), amplified, not reduced, as appropriate for relative
seismic response modification factor (R) and redundancy factor
(ρ) values. Consistent with the procedure’s imposition of a static
force at the top of the rigid base, the lower portion is designed
using the ELF procedure.
Figure 1. Example building's finite element model.
Code Provisions
The two-stage analysis procedure provisions from ASCE 7-16, Section
12.2.3.2 are listed below:
a. The stiffness of the lower portion must be at least 10 times the
stiffness of the upper portion.
b. The period of the entire structure shall not be greater than 1.1
times the period of the upper portion considered as a separate
structure fixed at the base.
c. The flexible upper portion shall be designed as a separate
structure using the appropriate values of R and ρ.
d. The rigid lower portion shall be designed as a separate struc-
ture using the appropriate values of R and ρ. The reactions
from the upper portion shall be those determined from the
analysis of the upper portion amplified by the ratio of the R/ρ
of the upper portion over R/ρ of the lower portion. This ratio
shall not be less than 1.0.
e. The upper portion is analyzed with the equivalent lateral force
or modal response spectrum procedure, and the lower portion
is analyzed with the equivalent lateral force procedure.
To the main point, these provisions strain the obligation to validate
the simplification. Only (a) and (b) provide restrictions to apply the
procedure; the other items specify how the procedure is used. While
item (a) imposes a relative stiffness requirement, the stiffness param-
eter is undefined. More importantly, the stiffness obligation does not
mandate that the lower portion have properties that provide support
equivalent to “fixed at the base.” While item (b) imposes a require-
ment to compare dynamic properties of the two portions, the period
comparison does not ensure the lower portion responds rigidly as the
procedure allows the engineer to assume. In the authors’ opinion,
although compliance with item (b) is not uniformly adhered to, the
provision at least helps diligent practitioners and code enforcement
officials keep designs closer to the code intent of a fixed base.
continued on next page
JANUARY 2022 41
 Changes to the two-stage analysis procedure proposed for ASCE
7-22 clarify the application of the ASCE 7-16 provisions but do
not result in significant changes to the procedure or the criteria to
qualify for its use.
While it is necessary to stipulate quantification of the relative stiff-
ness and period, leaving these as the only criteria to qualify for the
simplifying procedure expands eligibility beyond the original intent
to simplify the design of podium construction. In this case, the engi-
neering quest to quantify the dynamic nature of the podium obscures
the requirement rather than clarifying it.
The loosely defined relative stiffness requirement between the upper
and lower portions and the absence of a requirement specifying the
lower portion to provide a fixed base to the upper portion throw open
the gates for misapplication of the two-stage provisions. The following
sections demonstrate some examples of potential misapplications.
Although this article elucidates a flaw in the provisions, a call to
action requires the specter of significant consequences – remedied
with the analysis of an example building.
applies limitations, penalties, and other requirements to structures
with torsional and extreme torsional irregularities, but the two-stage
analysis allows the upper portion of a building to potentially avoid
these requirements even if it is significantly affected by an extreme
torsional irregularity in the base. The code requirements associated
with a torsional irregularity include the following:
• A 25% increase in demands for collectors, collector connections,
and connections of diaphragms to vertical elements of the seis-
mic force-resisting system for buildings in SDC D through F
• The structure must be analyzed using a 3-D model
• The effects of accidental torsion must be amplified per
Section 12.8.4.3
• Structures in SDC D through F exceeding 2 stories must
be analyzed using a dynamic analysis
• In addition to the above requirements, an extreme torsional
irregularity also requires a 30% increase in the horizontal seis-
mic forces through a redundancy factor, ρ, of 1.3 for buildings
in SDC D through F

Height Limit Loophole Example Building

One of the proposed updates for ASCE 7-22 clarifies that the height The authors developed a 3-D finite element model of a 13-story
limits for a given seismic design category (SDC) and building type concrete shear wall building with a large podium level having an
can be applied as measured from the base of the upper portion. So, if
extreme torsional irregularity at the bottom story (Figure 1, page 41)
a special reinforced concrete shear wall is being designed in SDC D to investigate the effects that a torsionally irregular base can have
and is limited to 160 feet per Table 12.2-1, the designer can design a
on the upper portion of a building. The example building is set in a
181-foot-tall building using the two-stage analysis if the bottom 21 feet
location of high seismicity, such as near a significant fault in coastal
are at least 10 times as stiff as the upper 160 feet. Based on parametric
California classified as SDC D with seismic parameters SDS and SD1
studies, this is most likely to be the case for a building of similar con-
of 1.57g and 0.65g, respectively.
struction and where the upper portion is more than seven times the The building has rigid concrete diaphragms (assumed) and four full-
height of the lower portion. At that aspect ratio for such a building,
height core shear walls at the center of the tower plan area. Relative to
the bending flexibility contributes enough to the response to meet the tower, the bottom story has twice the area, a larger unit weight,
the required stiffness ratio. The period of the 181-foot-tall structure
and two additional perimeter shear walls at two orthogonal building
would be within the 1.1 limit of item (b) using the approximate period
edges. These conditions are typical of a tower and base configuration,
equation of ASCE 7. Note that buildings this tall can usually qualify
plaza construction, and construction on a sloping site.
for both requirements (a) and (b) by virtue of their height, even if the
To compare the seismic demands obtained from a single, coupled
base of the structure is not significantly different than the upper stories.
building analysis to those obtained using the two-stage analysis pro-
cedure, the authors also created separate models of the 12-story upper
portion and one-story base, as shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively.
Torsional Irregularity Loophole The building qualifies for the two-stage analysis procedure with a base
The two-stage analysis provisions do not address the effect that a approximately 160 times stiffer than the upper portion and a combined
torsional irregularity in the stiffer model period 1.1 times that of the upper
lower portion can have on the flexible portion. With accidental torsion effects
upper portion. Torsional irregularities included, the largest ratio of maximum
are common in podium construction story drift to average story drift at any
where entry-level architectural features level in the upper portion building
or sloping sites can necessitate an eccen- model is 1.39, giving that model a
tric layout of seismic shear-resisting torsional irregularity per ASCE 7-16,
elements. Table 12.3-1, but not an extreme tor-
A torsional response in the base of the sional irregularity. On the other hand,
structure results in a rotational accelera- the bottom level of the full structure
tion being input into the upper portion. has an extreme torsional irregularity.
Moreover, if the center of rigidity at the Because of the torsional irregularities,
base is eccentric to the center of mass in both the separate upper portion model
both horizontal directions, the response and the coupled full building model are
in the two horizontal directions will be required to be analyzed using a dynamic
coupled for both the lower and upper analysis per ASCE 7-16, Table 12.6-1,
portions. Neither of these effects is cap- and accidental torsion effects need to be
tured in a two-stage analysis, where the included for both models. Both build-
upper portion is analyzed as a separate ings were analyzed using a Response
structure. Furthermore, ASCE 7-16 Figure 2. Example building's upper portion. Spectrum Analysis (RSA) with forces

42 STRUCTURE magazine

Figure 3. Example building's base.
scaled per ASCE 7-16, Section 12.9.1.4, to match the base shear
obtained from an ELF analysis. Effects of accidental torsion are captured
per Section 12.9.1.5 by modeling a center of mass eccentricity in the
dynamic analysis equal to 5% of the diaphragm length.
The shear force in one of the second story core shear walls is exam-
ined to compare the response of the upper portion using a two-stage
analysis to the response from a combined building model, with the
following observations:
• The upper portion building response computed using the two-
stage analysis is not affected by horizontal directional coupling
(HDC) and has a redundancy factor, ρ, of 1.0.
• The response from the coupled analysis, omitting effects of HDC
and ρ, is 23% greater than that obtained from the two-stage
analysis. This increases to 34% when adding in HDC effects using
the 100-30 combination rule and increases to 74% when also
including the ρ of 1.3 required for the coupled analysis.
• Drifts and displacements throughout the structure increased
similarly to the shear wall shear demand.
• For this example, ASCE 7-16, Table 12.6-1 requires an
RSA for the upper portion due to the torsional irregularity.
Performing a two-stage analysis for this building does not sig-
nificantly affect the effort required to analyze the building.
Discussion
The coupled analysis produced significantly greater responses than the
two-stage analysis for this building. Prima facie, the authors accept
the coupled analysis as being more reflective of the code intent. If
such a building were designed using the two-stage analysis and the
framing designed near the code limit states, the limit states would
be exceeded based on an analysis of the same building subjected to
the coupled analysis. Hence, the building, possibly code-compliant
with the two-stage analysis, would not provide the level of safety
intended by the code.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The two-stage analysis procedure was developed to simplify the design
of light-frame residential buildings on top of one or two-story con-
crete or masonry podiums. This simplification was needed because a
coupled dynamic analysis of this building type has historically been
impractical and, due to the significantly heavier base level, a coupled
ELF analysis can significantly overestimate the story shears in the
upper levels. In most cases, the two-stage analysis procedure produces
reasonable, potentially conservative results for this building type.
However, the procedure was written in a way that can be applied to
almost any building type if the building is tall enough.
The two-stage analysis approach is unnecessary for most structures
without light framing as part of the primary lateral load path. This
is predicated on the fact that full-building finite-element modeling
of these building types is already common practice and is not made
significantly more difficult by the presence of a podium. However, this
procedure can be used for such buildings to reduce seismic demands
from what the code intends.
Buildings with extreme torsional irregularities at their base induce
a torsional response in the upper portion of the structure, even if the
upper portion of the structure does not have an extreme torsional
irregularity. As currently presented in ASCE 7-16 and proposed for
ASCE 7-22, the two-stage analysis allows the designer to ignore
torsional effects from the base when designing the upper portion of
the structure. It also allows the designer to bypass the limitations,
penalties, and other requirements associated with this irregularity
when designing the upper portion of the structure.
One of the proposed changes to the two-stage analysis procedure
for ASCE 7-22 clarifies how height limits are to be interpreted for
the procedure but also opens the door for misuse of the procedure
to increase height limits for certain building types.
The authors recommend modifying the provisions for the two-stage
analysis procedure to accomplish the following:
• Limit the procedure so that it can only be applied to light-
frame structures over concrete or masonry bases.
• Impose a maximum period on the base model with the mass of
the upper portion lumped at the top of the lower portion. The
period should be short enough to approximate a rigid dynamic
response and should not be a relative requirement based on the
period of the upper portion.
• Require the designer to account for the effects of torsional
response in the base when designing the upper portion of
the structure, including rotational accelerations, horizontal
response coupling, and other code requirements associated
with torsional and extreme torsional irregularities.
• If the recommendation to limit the procedure to light frame
upper portions is not implemented, require the height limits
of Table 12.2-1 to be measured to the base of the full structure
rather than the base of the upper portion.
• Revise the code commentary to express the intent of a two-
stage analysis.
Closing
The building code is a minimum standard for safety and should not
leave room for interpretations that fail to achieve the code-intended
level of safety. Hoping that conventional interpretations, or what
some would consider reasonable judgment, covers engineering flaws
in the code is professional abdication. Or, returning to the
Rorschach analogy, why would we create an inkblot that
one person could interpret vastly different than another?■
References are included in the PDF version of
the online article at STRUCTUREmag.org
Steven Shepherd is a Senior Consulting Engineer at Simpson Gumpertz &
Heger Inc. in Newport Beach (srshepherd@sgh.com).
James McDonald in a Principal at Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. in
Newport Beach (jamcdonald@sgh.com).
JANUARY 2022 43
BUILD CONCRETE CORES
FASTER, STRAIGHTER,
AND WITH LESS LABOR
Cast-in-place concrete stair and elevator cores are
ideal for strength, fire safety and economy. But
formwork, tolerance and labor issues often add
time and costs to construction projects.

RediCor is a factory-built, modular steel-clad

cast-in-place form system that virtually eliminates
traditional formwork for faster, straighter and less
labor intensive multi-story stair and elevator cores.

› No traditional formwork to set up and strip

› Modules ready for concrete almost immediately

› Most of the required rebar comes preinstalled

in module walls

› Prefabricated embeds support a variety

of structural connections

LEARN MORE BY VISITING REDICOR.COM

Engineered to receive
concrete quickly and easily.
 engineer's NOTEBOOK
The Hidden Cost of Copy and Paste
Part 2
By Jason McCool, P.E.

I n the first installment of this discussion (STRUCTURE,

December 2021), I looked at 3 examples of bad habits in
contract documents that can cause problems later for fab-
ricators. This month, I offer an additional four examples.
“Just get something on paper!” Beware of reusing
details to meet deadlines. Like it or not, your preliminary A typical overly-broad connection design note.
drawings may get used at some point for pricing and –
unfortunately – for fabrication or delegated design. I have questioned details so complex and formula-intensive that only another engineer
fabricators about odd framing, only to find out that there had been can interpret them. In fact, if you have complex formulas in your
several revisions put out by the structural engineer or architect since details (and I have seen “details” that looked more like Mathcad®
the set of drawings they last shared with me. One project did not calcs), you should probably dial it back a bit. Under Option 1
get to what I would call a “complete” set of structural drawings until for connection design in the AISC COSP, they are unnecessary;
Addendum #12. A lot changes as drawings develop, but making the under Option 2, even an experienced steel detailer often will not
drawings look more complete than they really are causes problems know what to do with all of that “engineerese” (as experienced
as people like me start to base their downstream work on what turns steel detailers have told me); and, under Option 3, the connection
out to be mere eyewash. Saying “We will fix it in the addendum” is designer should already know how to design the connection. Most
like saying you don’t have time to do it right. contract documents I have received in some way prohibit the fab-
Incomplete connection information. Delegated design is not what ricator from simply copying the structural drawings to use as their
you do when you have run out of time or budget on a project; it shop drawings; do not do the same with the steel manual or other
takes a fair bit of documentation to convey everything needed for engineering references.
another engineer to do a complete connection design. If you are Misuse of AISC tables. I understand that referencing AISC’s
delegating connection design to the fabricator, remember that, even Uniform Design Load (UDL) tables (e.g., Table 3-6) is a simple
as fellow engineers, we are not mind readers. How much informa- one-line statement to add to one’s drawings or specs that “covers
tion is enough? If you need more information than what you have you,” but does it really? AISC has been discouraging engineers from
shown to solve the applicable connection design equations, so will doing this since at least 1995, but I still see it all the time. However, a
the fabricator’s engineer. Consider the example of transfer forces at capacity table is not a load table. Short beams have the most capacity
braced frames. I see a lot of braced frame elevations with brace forces and (typically) the least load for a given beam size. It does not make
shown, but very few with transfer forces noted. Yet that is required sense to require a 50-kip connection capacity for a W10 infill beam
information for delegated design as listed in the American Institute that is 4 feet long and has less than 1 kip of actual load while only
of Steel Construction’s (AISC) Code of Standard Practice (COSP). requiring a 51-kip capacity on a W21 girder with a 50-kip reaction.
It is also information not possible for the connection designer to Besides leading to wild variations in safety factors, the practice can
determine from a typical “envelope” of member forces without being also underspecify beam reactions of composite beams or beams with
extremely conservative, possibly rendering a connection infeasible. large loads near the beam end. Hence AISC’s description of it as an
AISC’s excellent Design Guide 29 on vertical bracing connections “inappropriate” practice. Another example is when a short, shallow
(in Appendix D) lays out both the need to communicate transfer beam around a stairwell or elevator core is used in a low-seismic,
forces and the difficulties in doing so. Passing design tasks to another wind-controlled braced frame. I might suspect there is only a 10-kip
engineer requires passing on a lot of information. Consider the time beam reaction, at the most, to combine with the vertical component
commitment for adequate documentation when deciding how – or of the brace force, but a 50% UDL directive from the project EOR
whether – to delegate connection design. can easily require me to design that connection for a 40- or 50-kip
Overly broad details and notes. Specificity takes time but is reaction plus the brace force vertical component, thus eliminating
often essential in communicating your intent. Did the Engineer of options that are more than adequate and more straightforward to
Record (EOR) who slapped the note “All steel connections to have fabricate and erect. Most engineers presented with extreme examples
full moment capacity” on the drawings (see Figure) really mean all? from their drawings readily acknowledge this was not their intent,
Even assuming they only meant the actual moment connections, but let’s break the cycle here and now before it becomes a question
would a short cantilever beam supporting a 2-foot wide strip of on your next project.
floor slab really need to develop the full beam moment capacity? We should always be looking for ways to improve our
While definitely erring on the side of caution, the best practice drawings, and next time I will wrap up with three final
is to put the large safety factors into the connections where they ways to do that.■
are warranted, rather than just by blind application.
Jason McCool is a Project Engineer with Robbins Engineering Consultants
There is another way to be overly broad. In the zeal to cover every
in Little Rock, Arkansas (jmccool@robbins-engineering.com).
conceivable variation in typical details, please do not make your

STRUCTURE magazine JANUARY 2022 45

 historic STRUCTURES
Niagara’s Upper Falls Bridge Failure
By Frank Griggs, Jr., Dist. M.ASCE, D.Eng, P.E., P.L.S.

L effert Lefferts Buck (STRUCTURE, December 2010)

had long experiences with bridges across the Niagara
River. First, he replaced wires and added anchorages to
Roebling’s 1855 suspension bridge. He followed this with
replacing the wooden trussing with iron and, still later, he
replaced the stone towers with iron, all of these without
stopping traffic for any extended period. These modifications
took place between 1877 and 1886. With his associate R. S.
Buck, he replaced Edward W. Serrell’s Lewiston/Queenston
Suspension Bridge in 1889. He widened and strengthened
Samuel Keefer’s 1868 Honeymoon Suspension Bridge in
1888. Unfortunately, the deck collapsed in a fierce wind-
storm in 1889, shortly after it opened. He rebuilt it within
two months. In 1895, the owners wanted to widen the
bridge and have it support trolley traffic. Buck was chosen
to design and build an arch bridge under and around his Bridge complete.
bridge in 1897. He chose a braced arch, open-spandrel span
of 840 feet that made it the longest arch span in the world when it and long-continued southwest gale on the lakes. At about 4 PM, the
opened on June 20, 1898. river channel under the ice became choked, and within a few minutes,
In addition to fire, decay, and floods, ice jams had taken out many the water near the head of the ice-field rose to a height of 25 feet or
of the early wooden bridges built in the Northeastern United States. 30 feet above its level at the bridge, three-quarters of a mile below,
History had shown that ice jams were frequent in this part of the and began to pour over the pack for some distance below the Falls.
Niagara River below the falls. Buck placed the abutments on the The pressure caused the whole pack to move downstream. Not only
canyon walls at an elevation he believed to be above any recorded ice was the ice piled up over the masonry abutments, but it was swept
jams. Six months after the bridge opened, large quantities of ice came against the steel-work of the arch as high as the upper chord (panel-
over the falls and formed a large ice pack. Usually, this ice was confined point 2) on each side of the river. As it struck the rib chords, it was
to the center third of the river due to strong eddies moving upstream shaved off as with a knife and deposited in large masses upon the
on the sides. This ice pack reached thicknesses of over 100 feet, with upstream truss members and the lower laterals. The bridge quivered
up to 80 feet being below the surface and 25 feet above the surface. from end to end as the ice ground against it but did not sway. The
Buck wrote, the “high water level and the movement of the ice were pack moved 250 feet in about 10 minutes, after which the channel
investigated before fixing the span of the arch and the elevation of underneath the ice cleared and the water subsided as rapidly as it had
the abutments; according to the worst conditions previously known.” risen. On each side of the river, one main lateral and one sub-lateral,
He described the events of January 22, 1899, as follows, “an ice-jam four members in all, were badly bent. The abutments were uninjured,
took place which exceeded all past experience. The ice field, firmly and no other damage was done.” One account has it that men were
anchored to both shores, then caught a heavy run of ice coming put to work with dynamite to keep the ice away from the steelwork
down the river, the water of which was greatly augmented by a stiff as much as possible.

Plan and profile of the bridge.

46 STRUCTURE magazine
 However, the fates were on his side this time, and he straightened
the bent struts immediately and replaced them in the spring. He
wrote, “in order to guard against similar trouble in the future, heavy
concrete walls were built around the abutments, extending as far out
in front as possible, and the first two panels of laterals in the plane of
the lower chord on each side of the river were changed from latticed
struts to plate-webbed struts.”
The bridge was not threatened again until January 25, 1938, forty
years later, when a 5-day January thaw and major windstorm off Lake
Erie again jammed the river gorge below the falls with ice. The ice rose
to over 50 feet above the river’s mean water level and started to move
at glacial speed down the river. Despite Buck’s 1899 reinforcement, the
ice crumpled the main arch members of the bridge near the skewbacks
resulting in the bridge being closed at 9:15 on the 28th. The bridge,
surprisingly, held together for another day, and, at 4:20 PM on the
29th, the bridge collapsed into the Niagara River. A reporter for the
Evening Review wrote of the failure in the following way,
“Belch may seem a strange term to attach to the death of the long,
slim span, yet that was the sound that thundered up to my ears. It
was as though the great spidery giant was ridding itself of the terrible
pain which had crept up into its bowels, bowels that were struts, spars,
rivets, and all those structural bits that went into its creation. The
sound was too robust for a sigh, more startling than a cry. And death
flicked his grim harp in the echo which fled frantically up and down
the cliffs, finally smothered in the spume of flying snow that jerked
into the air as the shaking sections crashed into the ice.
Those two sections at the ends slowly sloped downward in a shower
of powdery snow, dirt, and tumbling rock. Then the two sections
inside these began to rise as though in a frantic effort to escape that
mangling death below, attempting to soar skyward. It was a last futile
gesture. Slowly – it seemed minutes though it was but split seconds Bridge after the collapse.
– the giant folded into the masses of ice. The result was a giant “W”
for Winter resting on the river ice.” Pieces of the wooden deck were shot into the air from the center of the
Fortunately, the early warning kept people off the bridge, and there wreck as the end came. Loud cracking noises were heard as the bridge
were no fatalities. Since there was no loss of life, there was no Coroner’s twisted and turned with the ice breaking up beneath it. Soon there
Inquest to look into the failure. With that, was nothing left but floating fragments of
over forty years after its opening and thirty the flooring, which were carried down the
years after Buck died, the longest arch span river. It was a spectacular funeral, in keeping
in the world at the time of its construction with the dramatic way in which the bridge
disappeared. The bridge had served its func- In short, he, like the engineers came to its end.”
tion well but had fallen prey to the severe of today, designed for what he The bridge was replaced in 1941 with
weather typical around the Great Lakes. another steel arch bridge designed by
The owners of the bridge immediately considered a worst-case scenario. Waddell and Hardesty. It is located about
blasted it into three parts as it lay on the Unfortunately, however, a unique set 400 feet downstream from Buck’s Bridge
ice. After attempts to salvage the steel, of weather events created an even and is a hingeless steel box arch with a span
they found that they could not remove of 950 feet. It, like its predecessor, is called
any portion of it. So it sat there until, on worst-case scenario, and the bridge the Honeymoon or Rainbow Bridge.
April 12 at 7:10 AM, the ice let loose and failed after a life of 40 years. It may be suggested that Buck should have
the end span dropped into the water to be known the ice could rise this high in the
followed by the sinking of half of the arch area of his arch abutments. He, however,
on the American side. On the following relied upon historical information to place
day, at 3:25 PM, the remaining section them above any danger of the ice taking
of the bridge began to move down the out the bridge. In short, he, like the engi-
river on the ice. As it moved, the “huge ice floe turned pointing the neers of today, designed for what he considered a worst-case scenario.
bridge section like the prow of a freighter as it sailed down the river Unfortunately, however, a unique set of weather events cre-
with the current.” It was described as follows: ated an even worst-case scenario, and the bridge failed after
“It was a most unusual funeral procession. The spectators followed a life of 40 years.■
the progress of the bridge, running along the River Road to keep up
with the floating wreck. It continued down river on its icy bier for what Dr. Frank Griggs, Jr. specializes in the restoration of historic bridges, having
seemed an impossible distance for such a heavy weight until it reached restored many 19 t h Century cast and wrought iron bridges. He is now an
a point just opposite the foot of Otter Street, almost a mile from the Independent Consulting Engineer (fgriggsjr@twc.com).
starting point. Here it sank at 4:05 PM.

JANUARY 2022 47

Adhesives Technologies Corporation
Phone: 754-399-1057
Email: atcinfo@atcepoxy.com
Web: www.atcepoxy.com
Product: ULTRABOND® Anchoring and
Doweling Adhesives
Description: America’s #1 structural adhesive
specialist offers four IBC compliant adhesives.
HS-1CC, the world’s strongest anchoring epoxy.
EPX-3CC high-performance epoxy for high-volume
applications. HYB-2CC hybrid, cures fast in hot and
cold temperatures. ACRYL-8CC cures fast with a
very broad application temperature range. ATC is a
Meridian Adhesives Group Company.
ASDIP Structural Software            Product: VAConnect
Phone: 407-284-9202
Email: support@asdipsoft.com
Web: www.asdipsoft.com
Product: ASDIP STEEL
Description: An advanced software for the
design of steel members and connections,
such as composite/non-composite beams, steel
columns, base plates, anchoring to concrete,
shear connections, and moment connections, per
the latest design codes. ASDIP STEEL comes
with 5 intuitive modules that will substantially
simplify time-consuming calculations for your
structural designs.
DEWALT™ Anchors and Fasteners
Phone: 800-524-3244
Email: anchors@dewalt.com
Web: http://anchors.dewalt.com/anchors
Product: CCU+ Critical Connection Undercut™
Description: DEWALT Anchors and Fasteners
launches a new heavy-duty concrete anchor for
use in critical applications where a robust anchor
with low displacement is necessary. The CCU+
Critical Connection Undercut is ICC-ES qualified
under ESR-4810 for use in cracked and uncracked
concrete. The anchors are Made in the USA.
ENERCALC, Inc.
Phone: 800-424-2252
Email: info@enercalc.com
ENERCALC
Web: https://enercalc.com
Product: ENERCALC Structural
Engineering Library
Description: ENERCALC Structural Engineering
Library's new modules include Flitch Plated Wood
Beam and Steel Base Plate by FEM. Both modules
help designers refine design loads on anchor
rods, common bolts, and framing anchors. Our
subscriptions now provide both installed and cloud
use, plus 3-D FEM and earth retention modules.
Listings are provided as a courtesy, STRUCTURE is not responsible for errors.
48 STRUCTURE magazine
ANCHOR updates
Hohmann & Barnard, Inc.
Phone: 800-645-0616
Email: jenniferm@h-b.com
Web: h-b.com
Product: 2-SEAL Thermal Wing Nut Anchor
Description: An innovative, single screw veneer tie for
metal stud construction. It features a dual-diameter
barrel with factory-installed EPDM washers to seal both
the face of the insulation and the air/vapor barrier, and
unique Thermal Wings designed to decrease thermal
transfer through rigid insulation.
IES, Inc.
Phone: 800-707-0816
Email: info@iesweb.com
Web: www.iesweb.com
Description: Design base plates by AISC Design
Guide #1 and anchorage calculations for ACI 318.
Both, independently, are difficult by hand! With
VAConnect you will get the job done quickly and
accurately. Works alone or with IES VisualAnalysis.
LNA Solutions, Inc.
Phone: 888-724-2323
Email: inquiries@lnasolutions.com
Web: www.LNAsolutions.com
Product: Box Bolt®
Description: A blind bolt fastener that is ICC
ESR-3217 approved for seismic design. It connects
tube steel or where access is restricted to one side of
structural steel and is used with rectangular, square, or
circular sections. Provides fast, easy installation. IAS
certification guarantees load value.
Simpson Strong-Tie®
Phone: 800-999-5099
Email: web@strongtie.com
Web: www.strongtie.com
Product: High Wind-Resistant Construction
Application Guide
Description: This guide discusses the critical
elements of high wind-resistant construction and
helps you locate the connectors and fasteners
you need for designing in high-wind areas. It
also includes information on the effects of wind,
corrosion, and uplift to help ensure safe, strong
structures.
SkyCiv
Phone: 800-838-0899
Email: zoe.liang@skyciv.com
Web: skyciv.com
Product: Reinforced Concrete Design Software
Description: Member Design for ACI 318, AS 3600,
BS 8110, CSA A23, and EN 2. All with powerful,
clean reporting.
The Masonry Society
Phone: 303-939-9700
Email: info@masonrysociety.org
Web: masonrysociety.org
Product: Webinars and Publications
Description: The Masonry Society is a not-for-
profit, professional organization, dedicated to the
advancement of masonry knowledge. The Society
develops standards, guides, seminars, webinars, and
other design resources.
Trimble
Phone: 678-737-7379
Email: jodi.hendrixson@trimble.com
Web: www.tekla.com/us
Product: Tekla Tedds
Description: Automating your every day structural
designs, the Tekla Tedds’ library includes anchor bolt
design per ACI 318 Appendix D. The calculation
includes comprehensive checks for tensile and shear
failure of anchors and is available as part of a free trial
by visiting the website.
Product: Tekla Structures
Description: An Open BIM modeling software that
can model all types of anchors required to create a
100% constructible 3-D model. Anchors can be created
inside the software or imported directly from vendors
that provide 3-D CAD files of their products.
Williams Form Engineering Corp.
Phone: 616-866-0815
Email: williams@williamsform.com
Web: www.williamsform.com
Product: Anchor Systems
Description: Williams Form Engineering Corporation
has been providing threaded steel bars and accessories
for rock anchors, soil anchors, high capacity concrete
anchors, micropiles, tie rods, tiebacks, strand anchors,
hollow bar anchors, post tensioning systems, and
concrete forming hardware systems in the construction
industry for over 95 years.
Not listed?
Our monthly 2022
Resource Guide forms
are now available
on our website.
STRUCTUREmag.org
INSIGHTS
Building Safety Assessments Following
the Sparta Earthquake
By Colby Baker, P.E.

A magnitude 5.1 earthquake struck near

Sparta, North Carolina, on August 9,
2020, at 8:07 a.m. local time. The event was
1886, a magnitude 5.8 earthquake near
Washington, D.C., in 2011, and a mag-
nitude 5.2 earthquake in Buncombe
the strongest North Carolina earthquake County, North Carolina, in 1916.
since 1916, producing “very strong” shaking Additionally, earthquakes on the east
and over 100,000 Did You Feel It? reports coast tend to affect larger areas than
throughout the southern, midwestern, and earthquakes of similar magnitude along
northeastern United States. More than 500 the west coast. For instance, the 2011
residential and commercial structures were earthquake in Washington, D.C., was
damaged during the quake. As a result, North felt up to 600 miles from its epicenter.
Carolina Emergency Management deployed In contrast, the magnitude 6.0 earth-
eight post-disaster building safety evalua- quake in Napa Valley, California, in
tors, including four engineers, to evaluate 2014 was felt just 250 miles from its
the damaged structures for safe occupancy. epicenter. These differences are most
Unsurprisingly, the most visible damage likely due to regional variations in the
was non-structural and included collapsed composition and geologic history of the
ceiling finishes, toppled chimneys, bowed underlying tectonic plates.
or collapsed brick veneer, and displaced Furthermore, many of the larger earth-
contents. Structural damage was gener- quakes in North Carolina occurred
ally limited to those systems known to be when the state was more rural. The
seismically hazardous such as plain (i.e., existence of denser population centers
unreinforced) brick, concrete block, and only magnifies the potential for damage
stone masonry. While most single-family Displacement of unreinforced masonry at an industrial building during future events.
in Sparta, NC, following the August 9, 2020, earthquake.
residences were wood-framed construc- What can structural engineers do to
tion, their foundations were often composed of plain concrete block promote seismic resilience in their communities? A first step might
masonry. In general, short unreinforced masonry stem walls sur- be to become familiar with and promote the use of FEMA P-154
vived with minor cracking; however, deep crawl spaces and walkout Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A
basements suffered considerably, developing wide cracks and lateral Handbook. The methodology described in this document enables
differential displacement within the mortar joints. building owners to identify whether their structures are vulnerable
In total, 17 buildings were red-tagged (i.e., deemed unsafe for re-entry), to earthquake damage. Once potentially vulnerable buildings are
including 10 single-family dwellings, one school, and a handful of identified, the owners can prioritize future earthquake risk reduction
commercial and mixed-use buildings. At least 5 of these buildings were and mitigation efforts.
later razed as a result of the damage. Moreover, 260 additional buildings Additionally, engineers may choose to volunteer their expertise in
were yellow-tagged (i.e., deemed restricted use) due to the potential for the aftermath of an earthquake by providing post-disaster building
falling debris and/or further displacement during aftershocks. safety assessments. These assessments are vital to the expeditious re-
The construction of each of the red-tagged structures pre-dated habitation of affected but otherwise safe structures and the long-term
1978 and consisted of plain masonry foundations and/or exterior recovery of the community at large.
walls. North Carolina building codes of that era generally allowed To become a volunteer post-disaster building safety evaluator, contact
unreinforced masonry in foundation walls up to 7 feet in height, as your Structural Engineering Emergency Response (SEER) Committee
permitted by the building official. Chair. A complete listing of the committee chairs can be found at
To date, little consideration has been given to the seismic retrofit of www.ncsea.com/committees/seercommittee. The requirements vary
buildings along the Eastern Seaboard, particularly residential dwell- by state, but, in general, qualified volunteers must complete a disaster
ings and rural communities. This oversight is almost certainly due to responder training course such as the Safety Assessment Program
the high economic investment required for such retrofits combined (SAP) offered by the California Office of Emergency Services
with a perceived immunity to seismic risk. However, the seismic risk (CalOES) or the “When Disaster Strikes…” Institute offered
may be higher than realized. by the International Code Council.■
The eastern United States has a history of strong earthquakes. Several
Colby Baker is a Forensic Structural Engineer with U.S. Forensic and a
faults along the east coast were created 250 million years ago with
structures specialist with North Carolina Emergency Management. He
the formation of the Appalachian Mountains. These faults caused
co-chairs the NCSEA SEER committee (colby.baker@usforensic.com).
the magnitude 6.7 earthquake in Charleston, South Carolina, in

STRUCTURE magazine JANUARY 2022 49

 business PRACTICES
Positioning for Continued Success
By Kacey Clagett, LEED AP BD+C, and Tiany Galaskas
J anuary typically prompts business planning for a new year.
However, since early 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic has made
business planning and operations much more volatile. While we all
have learned to be more resilient to thrive, it is difficult to gauge
when companies will experience more stable economic condi-
tions. This article offers some insight into economic conditions
and how to position your company to continue to be successful
in the coming months.
Industry-Specific Economic Conditions
Even in regions where there have been fewer governmental pan-
demic restrictions, the economic effects of Covid outbreaks have
been broad, affecting entire market sectors, the availability of design
and construction labor, and supply chains. In 2021, office vacancy
rates in cities like New York and San Francisco approached 20%,
putting further pressure on construction financing and stalling new
building starts. As Barry Sternlicht, CEO of the real estate inves-
tor Starwood Capital Group, said at the time, “It [is] very hard to
underwrite these cities.” Mary Corley of Rosen Consulting Group,
real estate economists, observed, “Covid has been an accelerant
of trends we were already seeing before March 2020, such as the
growth of suburbs and secondary markets, and we expect to see
continued growth there. We don’t know if it’s to the long-term
disadvantage of gateway markets. Gateways have a lot of existing
infrastructure, which is not something to walk away from.” With
such uncertainty, buyers will continue to look for ways to reduce
risk in budgets and schedules.
At the same time, construction has continued robustly in such
markets as residential, industrial, science, and technology. And while
the pandemic has temporarily disrupted the office, retail, hospital-
ity, higher ed, and government sectors, these will bounce back,
likely with some fundamental changes. Many expect that economic
problems will abate soon. In July 2021, Appleseed Strategy surveyed
a national focus group of 39 design and construction companies.
BUILD YOUR
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org
CAREER AT KL&A
We are currently looking for:
• Structural Engineers
• Civil Engineers
• BIM Technicians
• Construction Managers
• Steel Detailer
Please visit klaa.com/open-careers
for more information and to apply.
G O L D E N | L O V E L A N D | C A R B O N D A L E
50 STRUCTURE magazine
Across the
spectrum, expect
opportunities to
retrofit existing
buildings to new
uses.
Asked about their predictions moving to the immediate future,
respondents were largely positive:
• Civic/government, healthcare, higher ed, industrial, mixed-use,
and multifamily were ranked as good opportunities. Science
and technology were seen as particularly strong.
• Corporate/workplace, cultural/nonprofit, and hospitality were
perceived to have headwinds but still offered opportunities. Of
the sectors queried, only retail was seen as struggling signifi-
cantly in the near term.
• Geographically, all major U.S. regions were seen as pre-
senting good-to-strong prospects. Those who worked
internationally felt immediate prospects were good.
New Opportunities
Across the spectrum, expect opportunities to retrofit existing
buildings to new uses. Owners who can find the funding will
reposition buildings in anticipation of a future boom. Underused
shopping malls might be remade into logistics centers and mixed-
use communities, and offices and retail eyed for multifamily.
Some building owners will try to convert to science and tech-
nology tenants. Temporary outdoor dining parklets will become
permanent. Distressed properties will be bought up and reused.
A real boon to design and construction is the recently enacted
$1.2 trillion federal infrastructure bill that ushers new funding
for infrastructure, sustainability, and resilience. The bill provides
$65 billion in clean energy; $50 billion in infrastructure resilience;
$66 billion for Amtrak; $25 billion for airports; and $100 billion
for roads, bridges and other projects. We can expect to see more
federal projects as standalone commissions or as part of indefinite-
| B U F FA L O
quantity, indefinite-definite delivery contracts. However, because
federal spending is proposed to be funded by increasing real estate Keep the focus
taxes, critics argue that the infrastructure plans will depress commercial
real estate. This snag will likely be ironed out. Much federal funding on higher return,
will trickle down as state and local government projects. This presents
excellent opportunities for minority, disabled, and woman-owned lower risk ventures.
businesses and companies who make meaningful actions toward
diversity, equity, and inclusion in staffing and teaming. Build from your
Sustainability and resiliency design will continue to rise due to
public policy, pressure from insurers, and severe weather events. For core strengths.
owners using institutional capital or those who are publicly traded,
the adoption of ESG policies – environment, social, and governance
standards – will increasingly demand that engineering companies
help owners reduce their carbon footprint, use less water and energy,
and avoid red-listed materials. Mary Corley of Rosen Consulting
Group underscored the increasing influence of ESG policies on the
real estate market.
As with retail, technology is accelerating significant changes across
market sectors. Corley noted that remote work has become a significant
force in the real estate strategies of many companies, causing them
to rethink how much physical space they really need. Now, a change • Invest in technologies that advance the disciplines you practice.
management outlook and approach comes before any real estate Think about what will be automated ten years from now, so
decision. Can a company thrive by relying on technology? Smart you can position yourself as a market leader. Be aware that
companies are focusing first on achieving the kinds of behaviors at these will be areas where nontraditional competitors may enter,
work that will reach their desired outcomes. For many, a physical yet this also presents partnership opportunities.
presence will be an option, not a given. • Likewise, get ahead of other industry trends like building
repurposing, net-zero energy and water, design/build, modular-
ization, and ESG/CSR policies. Set the standard, and you may
Questions to Ask be rewarded with better fees and less competition. Remember
The design and construction market will reach equilibrium as the that creativity never gets replaced.
pandemic subsides, but any disruptive event at this scale leaves lasting • If a service or market sector you have relied on will not return
marks, bringing new market demands and ways of working. Make to previous levels, scale back or eliminate it. As hard as it can
your business planning more resilient by taking advantage of the be, do not let sunk costs influence your decisions.
positive aspects of these disruptions. As you develop your plans and • Develop future leaders through mentoring and increasing
budgets, probe whether you are adequately assessing the inherent accountability for company performance.
risks and opportunities in the markets and regions you work in: • Always practice financial resilience. Create a strong safety net,
• What fundamental changes have occurred? streamline operations and expenses, forecast realisti-
• What are the new, positive changes that we should leverage? cally, and build a business development culture across
• How have these changes affected our clientele, and how can we your company.■
help them position to succeed?
• Who should be our new target clients moving forward?
Kacey Clagett (kacey.clagett@appleseedstrategy.com) and Tiany
• How can we leverage technology not just to streamline opera-
Galaskas (tiany.galaskas@appleseedstrategy.com) are Principals of
tions but to advance the discipline of engineering and make us
Appleseed Strategy.
more desirable?

Do This Now ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

We recommend that engineering companies pay increasing atten-

tion to several areas:
• Keep the focus on higher return, lower risk ventures. Build
from your core strengths. If you are heavily concentrated
www.dci-engineers.com

in market sectors or struggling regions, think strategically

about how to reposition. In many situations, you can repur-
START WRITING YOUR DCI STORY
pose what you do with relatively modest efforts. We’re Hiring!
• Survey your clients. Besides the typical check-in questions,
ask them about the opportunities and challenges they face
with their client base. It may give you broad insights into Visit our website
how to position your company and improve customer for more details
service. There will always be demand for companies with
WASHINGTON | OREGON | CALIFORNIA | TEXAS | ALASKA | COLORADO | MONTANA
excellent customer service.

JANUARY 2022 51
 NCSEANCSEA News
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
Congratulations to the 2021 NCSEA Special Awards Honorees
The NCSEA Special Awards are bestowed on individuals who exemplify outstanding service and commitment to the association and to the
structural engineering field. These dedicated servants, committed volunteers, and industry leaders will be recognized and applauded at the
Awards Celebration on Wednesday, February 16, at the NCSEA Structural Engineering Summit. Join us in celebrating this year’s honorees!
Susan M. Frey NCSEA Educator Award
This award, established to honor the memory of Sue Frey, one of NCSEA's
finest educators, is presented to an individual who has a genuine inter-
est in, and extraordinary talent for, effective instruction of practicing
structural engineers.
Michelle Kam-Biron, P.E., S.E., is a California
licensed SE and has extensively provided edu-
cation nationally and internationally on
conventional wood and mass timber construc-
tion. Ms. Kam-Biron brings a unique skill set to
her presentations with a background consisting
of over 25 years as a practicing structural engi-
neer and plan check reviewer, an influencer and
educator with WoodWorks and American Wood Council, and her
current position as a Mass Timber Specialist at Structurlam Mass
Timber Corporation.
She is a Past-President of SEAOSC and was recently inducted into the
SEAOC College of Fellows. She serves on several committees such as
NCSEA Basic Education and ICC Professional Development Council
Education, and she is Past-Chair of ASCE-SEI Wood Education and
SEAOSC Foundation and Women in Structural Engineering.
Robert Cornforth Award
This award is presented to an individual for exceptional dedication and
exemplary service to a member organization and to the profession. The
award is named for Robert Cornforth, a founding member of NCSEA
and treasurer on its first Board of Directors, and a member of OSEA.
Robert H. Durfee, P.E., SECB, is a Structural
Engineer, Vice President, and Chief Bridge
Engineer at DuBois & King in the firm’s Gilford,
NH office. His practice focuses on the design of
bridge rehabilitation and replacement. His spe-
cialty is the restoration of historic covered bridges.
In 1994, Mr. Durfee helped found Structural
Engineers of New Hampshire (SENH) and served
on its Board of Directors as Secretary (1994-1997) and as President
(1998-2000). He has served on several committees, including:
Nominations, Structural Engineering Awards, Scholarship Award,
NCSEA NH Annual Conference, and Public Relations. He has
served as the SENH Delegate to the Annual Conference/Annual
Summit since 1998.
Mr. Durfee is a founder of the Northeast Coalition of Structural
Engineers Associations (NECSEA), serving as the SENH representa-
tive from 2001-2020. He serves on the NH Engineer/Young Engineer
of the Year Awards Committee Jury.
52 STRUCTURE magazine
James Delahay Award
This award is presented at the recommendation of the NCSEA Code
Advisory Committee, to recognize outstanding individual contributions
towards the development of building codes and standards. It is given in the
spirit of its namesake, a person who made a long and lasting contribution
to the code development process.
Ramon Gilsanz, P.E., S.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE,
Hon. AIA NYS, is a founding Partner of Gilsanz
Murray Steficek. In his 40-year career as a struc-
tural engineer, he has worked on a wide range
of new construction and renovation projects,
and volunteered across the world to help com-
munities in need. Ramon has participated in six
post-earthquake investigative teams, hurricane
Sandy recovery efforts, and led the WTC7 collapse analysis on the
national ASCE-FEMA building performance assessment team.
Additionally, Ramon actively contributes to the industry through
several professional societies and committees including ASCE 7-16
and ASCE 7-22, American Concrete Institute (ACI), and the AISC
committee on specifications. Ramon served on the NYC Department
of Buildings’ Structural Technical Committee in 2008 and was Chair
in 2014 and 2021, revising the NYC Building Code. He is also the
Chair for the NYC Existing Buildings Code Development Structural
Technical committee, whose building code is forthcoming.
NCSEA Service Award
This award is presented to an individual who has worked for the better-
ment of NCSEA, member organizations, and the profession, to a degree
that is beyond the norm of volunteerism.
Thomas DiBlasi, P.E., SECB, is the President
of DiBlasi Associates, P.C., in Monroe, CT. He
is a Past-President of NCSEA where he currently
chairs the Code Advisory Committee and also
serves on the Wind Engineering Subcommittee.
He also served on the NCSEA Continuing
Education Committee as well as the ad-hoc com-
mittee that developed the NCSEA Model Code
of Ethics. He has been a director of NCSEA Media since its incep-
tion. He is Past-President of the Structural Engineers Association
of Connecticut (SEAConn) where he chairs the Code Advisory
Committee and the Peer Review Committee. He also serves as the
structural engineering representative to the Codes & Standards
Committee of the State of Connecticut.
 News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
Susan Ann “Susie” Jorgensen Presidential Leadership Award – INAUGURAL YEAR
The Susan Ann “Susie” Jorgensen Presidential Leadership Award is presented to an individual who has demonstrated exceptional leadership potential
through their activities within NCSEA and/or their SEA (even if they did not serve in a formal leadership role). The award is to be bestowed on
candidates who embody Susan’s passion, vision, and legacy of leadership, and it is intended to celebrate increased participation of emerging leaders
and encourage recipients to engage (or continue to engage) in formal leadership.
Katharine (Katie) A. Courtright, P.E., is a project engineer for JVA, Inc. in Denver, Colorado. She joined the Colorado
SEA in 2012 as a student member when she was selected to receive a SEAC Scholarship. During college, Katie served as
the SEAC Young Member Group Collegiate Liaison for the Colorado School of Mines. Upon graduation in 2014, she
joined the Young Member Committee, becoming co-chair in 2016 and chair in 2017. Her service on the YMG Committee
has included coordination of the annual SE/PE Study Group Kick-offs and AASHTO Review Sessions, as well as techni-
cal presentations, mentoring, and outreach events. Katie has been instrumental in encouraging student involvement in
SEAC’s annual Gingerbread Bridge Competition. She is currently serving on the newly formed SEAC SE3 Committee.

THANK YOU TO
OUR SPONSORS

Structural Engineering Summit –

Feel the Love this February
The NCSEA Structural Engineering Summit will be in New York City February 14-17 and online January
31-Feburary 24. The Summit offers unrivaled educational opportunities, an industry-leading trade show,
and unique and fun networking opportunities.
Register for the conference, learn more, and book your hotel room ($219/night at the Hilton
Midtown!) at www.ncsea.com/events/annualconference.

NCSEA Webinars Visit www.ncsea.com/education for the latest news

on upcoming webinars and other virtual events.

January 6, 13, 20 and 27; February 3 and 10 SEAOC and NCSEA Seismic Connections Design Series
January 11 Business Development Moving Forward
January 18 The Structural Engineer's Role in Getting to Net Zero
February 8 Significant Structural Changes to the 2021 International Building Code
February 22 Structural Engineering Considerations for Mid-Rise, Light Wood Frame Buildings

Start your year off right with an NCSEA webinar subscription!

Subscribers receive access to a full year’s worth of live NCSEA
education webinars (25+) and a recorded library of past webinars
(170+) – all developed by leading experts; available
whenever, wherever you need them!
Courses award 1.5 hours of Diamond Review-approved
continuing education after the completion a quiz.

follow @NCSEA on social media for the latest news & events!
JANUARY 2022 53
 SEI Update
Learning / Networking
Happy New Year from the SEI Board and Staff!
Looking forward to all that’s new in 2022
SEI launches a new quarterly “FAQ on ASCE Standards:
What you always wanted to ask” in this issue (see page
34). In addition, look for a new peer-to-peer forum on
standards starting soon on ASCE Collaborate and a
new virtual experience on ASCE’s Future World Vision
during Engineers Week in February.
Join us for a new virtual 5-part SEI Standards series
on ASCE 7-22 that kicks off with the first session (free)
February 10 on the Overview & Changes for ASCE 7-22. The SEI SE2050 database and commitment program continues to expand and
provide educational information to firms to achieve projects’ globally stated goal of net-zero carbon by 2050. Collaborative Reporting for
Safer Structures – CROSS-US – will be presented at three major conferences. We look forward to getting back to in-person conferences and
seeing many of you at Structures Congress April 20-23 in Atlanta and ETS October 2-6 in Orlando!

ASCE Diversity, Equity, Inclusion Best Practices

Check out new resources at www.asce.org/diversity-equity-and-inclusion

SEI Online
SEI Events
www.asce.org/SEIEvents
The 2022 SEI Standards Series will preview ASCE 7-22 as a 5-part series that reviews the changes from ASCE 7-16. This unique program
includes a dialogue between the leaders and experts who develop ASCE 7 and a detailed technical presentation on the specific changes and
three main hazards - Seismic, Wind & Tornado, and Snow/Rain. In addition, information will be provided on the ASCE 7 Digital Products/
Hazard Tool. Attendees are encouraged to join the discussion for the extensive live Q&A portion of the session.
• February 10, 2022: ASCE 7-22 Overview & Changes (FREE)
• May 12, 2022: ASCE 7-22 Seismic
• June 9, 2022: ASCE 7-22 Wind & Tornado
• July 14, 2022: ASCE 7-22 Snow/Rain
• September 8, 2022: How & Why to Use ASCE 7-22 in Your Practice
Learn more and register https://collaborate.asce.org/integratedstructures/sei-standards

Structures Congress – April 20-23, 2022, in Atlanta

View the program and register at www.structurescongress.org.

Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures Conference – October 2-6, 2022, in Orlando
Apply for a student scholarship to participate at www.etsconference.org.

Membership
NEW – Access your SEI Member Certificate Online
At www.asce.org, log in at the upper right of the page and select Manage My Account. You can renew, update your contact info, professional
interests, preferences, bio, education/license details, and download your self-service SEI member certificate now available.

Follow SEI on Social Media:

54 STRUCTURE magazine
 News of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
Advancing the Profession
Newly Updated Minimum Design Loads and Associated
Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-22
Standard Now Available
2022 Edition of ASCE’s Most Widely Used Standard Revises All Environmental Loads, Including
New Chapter for Tornado Provisions and Provides Digital Data for All Hazards
The newly updated ASCE/SEI 7-22 Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings
and Other Structures is now available. This national standard is the American Society of Civil
Engineers’ (ASCE) most widely used standard and is an integral part of building codes in the
United States and around the globe. Structural engineers, architects, and those preparing and
administering local building codes will find the 2022 edition of the structural load requirements
essential to their practice.
“Civil engineers are responsible for the design of the buildings and structures we work, live, and
play in every day, and we must ensure those structures are safe for the public,” said Tom Smith,
ASCE Executive Director. “With weather hazards becoming more extreme, this updated standard
is essential to improve the resilience of our communities.”
“For more than 20 years, U.S. building codes have relied on the ASCE 7 standard as the
authoritative source for specification of loads and related criteria used by engineers to design safe,
economical, and reliable structures. Every six years, hundreds of volunteer professional civil and
structural engineers, researchers, building officials, and construction professionals collaborate to
update the standard, acknowledging new engineering research, evolving construction techniques,
and society’s changing expectations and concerns,” said Ronald Hamburger, P.E., S.E., F.SEI,
Senior Principal with Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., and chair of the ASCE 7-22 commit-
tee. “The 2022 edition includes first-ever criteria for tornado-resistant design and substantial
improvements to the design criteria for atmospheric icing, earthquake, tsunami, rain, snow, and wind.”
The 2022 edition of ASCE 7, which supersedes ASCE/SEI 7-16, provides the most up-to-date and coordinated loading provisions for
general structural design. Informed by past events, including Hurricane Michael in 2018 and the Joplin Tornado in 2011, this standard
prescribes design loads for all hazards, including soil, flood, tsunami, snow, rain, atmospheric ice, seismic, wind, and fire, as well as how to
evaluate load combinations.
ASCE/SEI 7-22 is different from past versions because, for the first time, the digital data is available via open access from the ASCE 7
Hazard Tool so that anyone can view the hazards that are relevant to their local community.
Environmental hazards used for building design were all updated, specifically new wind speeds along the hurricane coastline, improved
tsunami run-up for highly populated west coast locations, increased accuracy of seismic design criteria, new national snow design data,
risk-specific atmospheric ice criteria, and an entirely new chapter for tornado loads. In addition, ASCE 7-22 modernizes design require-
ments for cutting edge mass timber systems and composite concrete and steel systems and big box stores/warehouses, ground-mounted
solar facilities, and elevated buildings.
“The addition of tornado loads represents a nearly decade-long collaboration between NIST and ASCE to significantly advance safety
and resilience for buildings at risk of tornado impacts,” said Marc Levitan, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE, of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), who chaired the ASCE 7-22 Task Committee that developed the new tornado provisions.
In addition to the print version of ASCE 7-22 – available as a two-volume paperback set or as a PDF – ASCE 7 Online is a subscription
service that provides digital access to ASCE/SEI 7-22, as well as to the previous 2016 and 2010 editions, with enhanced features that make
it faster and easier to work in the Standard. Functionality exclusive to ASCE 7 Online includes a side-by-side display of the provisions and
commentary; redlining to track changes between editions; real-time updates of supplements and errata; two-level corporate vs. personal
annotations; and toggling between Customary and SI unit measurements. Corporate subscriptions are available.
For more information, contact asce7tools@asce.org.
To purchase the print or PDF version of ASCE/SEI 7-22, visit www.asce.org/asce-7.
To subscribe to the ASCE 7 online digital platform, visit https://asce7.online.

Errata SEI Standards Supplements and Errata including ASCE 7. See www.asce.org/SEI.
To submit errata, contact sei@asce.org.
JANUARY 2022 55
 CASE in Point
CASE Tools and Resources
What's New in CASE Publications
CASE has a variety of publications and tools to help firms deal with a wide variety of business scenarios. Whether your firm needs to establish
new procedures or simply update established programs, CASE has the tools you need!
This month, you can find updates to the following documents, including a Force Majeure clause developed due to the recent pandemic.
CASE Agreement #1 An Agreement for the Provision of Limited Professional Services ©
CASE Agreement #2 An Agreement Between Client and Structural Engineer of Record for Professional Services ©
CASE Agreement #3 An Agreement between Owner and Structural Engineer as Prime Design Professional ©
CASE Agreement #4 An Agreement between Client and Structural Engineer for Special Inspection Services ©
CASE Agreement #5 An Agreement Between Client and Specialty Structural Engineer for Professional Services ©
CASE Agreement #6 An Agreement Between Client and Structural Engineer for a Structural Condition Assessment ©
CASE Agreement #7 An Agreement for Structural Peer Review Services©
CASE Agreement #8 An Agreement Between Client and Structural Engineer for Forensic Engineering (Expert) Services©
CASE Agreement #9 An Agreement Between Structural Engineer of Record and Design Professional for Services©
CASE Agreement #10 An Agreement Between Structural Engineer of Record and Geotechnical Engineer of Record ©
CASE Agreement #11 An Agreement Between Structural Engineer of Record and Testing Laboratory©

You can purchase these and other publications at www.acec.org/bookstore.

Wanted: Engineers to Lead, Direct, Engage

with CASE Committees!
If you are looking for ways to expand and strengthen your business skill set, 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 – The Committee is responsible for developing and
maintaining contracts to assist practicing engineers with risk
management.
Guidelines – The Committee is responsible for developing and
maintaining national practice guidelines for structural engineers.
Programs – The Committee is responsible for developing program
themes for conferences and sessions that enhance and highlight the
structural engineering profession.
Toolkit – The Committee is 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 (mkroeger@acec.org), subject line CASE Committee:
• 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.

56 STRUCTURE magazine
 News of the Coalition of American Structural Engineers
UPCOMING EVENT
2022 ACEC Coalitions Winter Meeting – San Diego, CA, February 10-11, 2022
The Winter Meeting is open to all CASE members and is an excellent opportunity to
network with your peers and engage in meaningful dialog about the state of the industry.
Directly following the Coalitions Winter Meeting is the Small Firm Coalition (SFC)
Workshop, Small Firms and Human Resources – Developing the Workforce for the
Future; a workshop designed to address the HR Challenges of the small firm as we design
the workforce of tomorrow.

AGENDA
Thursday – February 10
1:30 pm – 3:00 pm CASE ExCom Meeting
3:30 pm – 5:00 pm CASE and CAMEE (Coalition of Mechanical and Electrical Engineers) Roundtable,
moderated by the Chairs of CASE and CAMEE
5:00 pm – 6:00 pm Coalitions Reception

Friday – February 11
8:30 am – 12:00 pm Educations Sessions – (PDH’s offered)
• Remote Monitoring using Today’s Technologies – How new remote sensing technologies are changing
the way civil engineers work.
• Navigating the Challenges of Distance Work – Managing legal, financial, and human resource activities
for out-of-state employees.
12:00 pm – 1:15 pm Lunch
1:30 pm – 5:00 pm CASE Committee Meetings
Contracts – develops and maintains contracts to assist practicing engineers with risk management.
Guidelines – develops and maintains national guidelines of practice for structural engineers.
Programs – develops program themes for conferences and sessions that enhance and highlight the structural
engineering profession.
Toolkit – develops and maintains the tools related to CASE’s Ten Foundations of Risk Management program.
1:30 pm – 5:00 pm Small Firm Coalition Workshop ($$ Paid Event) – (PDH’s offered)
• Small Firms and Human Resources – Developing the Workforce for the Future.
(This workshop continues Saturday morning, February 12, 2021.)
Registration is now open. To register, go to http://bit.do/coalition-winter-22.
Questions? Contact Michelle Kroeger at mkroeger@acec.org.

It's Time to Give Back…

At ACEC’s 2021 Fall Conference, the Coalition of American Structural Engineers (CASE) awarded Celeste Carmignani a $2,500 CASE
Scholarship. Ms. Carmignani is working on a bachelor’s degree in structural engineering from the Colorado School of Mines.
CASE is currently seeking contributions for the structural engineering scholarship for the upcoming 2022-2023 school year. The CASE
scholarship, administered by the ACEC College of Fellows, is awarded to a student seeking a Bachelor’s degree, at minimum, in an ABET-
accredited engineering program. Since 2009, the CASE Scholarship program has given $37,000 to help engineering students pave their
way to a bright future in structural engineering.
We have all witnessed stiff competition from other disciplines and professions eager to obtain the best and brightest young talent from a
dwindling pool of engineering graduates. One way to enhance students’ ability to pursue their dreams to become professional engineers is
to offer incentives through educational support.
Your monetary support is vital in helping CASE and ACEC increase scholarships to those students who are the future of our industry.
In addition, all donations toward the program may be eligible for a tax deduction, and you do not have to be an ACEC member to donate!
Do you know a deserving student who would like to apply for the CASE Scholarship? They can find out more by visiting
www.acec.org/awards-programs/acec-scholarships-program.

JANUARY 2022 57

Edmonton’s Stanley A. Milner Library
Creativity in Design and Execution
A landmark of its time, the Stanley A.
Milner Library has lived in the civic
heart of downtown Edmonton since 1967.
For the expansion and renovation of the
monolithic concrete library, the design team
was challenged to modernize its Brutalist-
style for the 1.2 million visitors it receives
every year. Transforming the original concrete
façade into a floating, streamlined structure
would be no small task. Fast + Epp responded
by completely replacing the existing façade
with a geometrically complex structure at the
north face of the building and incorporating
a new lateral system for the building.
The geometrically intricate expansion pushed
the design team to the limits of structural
inventiveness. Building upgrades were further
constrained by existing conditions and finan-
cial pressures, emphasized by the challenge to
design around delicate areas like an existing
theatre – while cantilevering two new floor
expansions over 40 feet from the base of the
building. To accomplish this feat, the team
responded with an interwoven array of three
steel trusses. For scale, two of these trusses
were almost the length of a city block, while
the other truss was over five stories in height.
Analyzing the existing structure, Fast + Epp
determined that upgrades would be minimal
if trusses were tied back to the building col-
umns – one of the few structural elements
with additional capacity. Several iterations
were required to fine-tune the design, but
solutions emerged through this process to
address each constraint with efficiency and
elegance.
To enhance visibility and brighten up spaces
throughout the library, large openings were cut
into the floors of the existing structure. This
proved to be a distinctively intricate challenge,
compounded by missing original structural
drawings of several critical floors. Nevertheless,
ingenuity between the limited information
available, complex site investigations, and cre-
ative use of the existing structure made these
openings possible.
An architectural feature unique to the build-
ing was the visually lightweight reading ramp.
This structure underwent several design itera-
tions to achieve the architectural slenderness
desired while also meeting serviceability
requirements for vibration – allowing a space
58 STRUCTURE magazine
that simultaneously accom-
modated people’s movements
and the need for undisturbed
stillness for reading. To
dampen the ramp’s vibration,
Fast + Epp engaged all aspects
of the new and existing struc-
ture, utilizing the truss, two
floors of structure, and hang-
ers from the new concrete
beams integrated with the
existing concrete.
The existing building’s lateral
system, built in the 1960s, was grossly defi-
cient by modern code standards. Fast + Epp
introduced a completely new lateral system
to the existing concrete structure to address
this deficiency. The solution was deceptively
simple: a collared connection. This detail
made use of readily available materials, such as
steel pipe and threaded rod, and was iterated
to its final constructible design through a col-
laborative process with the design teams, City
engineers, and the Contractor’s experience.
The collared connection enabled Fast + Epp
to harness the additional capacity of the exist-
ing concrete columns and allowed for steel
braces to keep spaces open and sightlines
clear within the floors. A similar idea was
used to anchor the steel trusses back to the
existing structure. This detail also provided
flexibility as the columns were heavily rein-
forced; anchoring into the existing column
was simplified. The anchors could be drilled
through the existing spiral ties with confine-
ment provided by the collar.
A cornerstone of Fast + Epp’s design intent
was minimizing existing structure and foun-
dation upgrades to reduce construction costs.
This resulted in using steel as the material of
choice, which was optimized to accommodate
the high capacities needed while minimizing
structural weight. This also meant that many
structural elements served multiple functions.
For instance, the steel trusses supported the
roof, two floors of concrete, the ramp, ribbons
of glazing, and secondary components such
as drainage systems.
Flexible solutions and constructability
were prioritized to minimize labor. Steel
connections were slotted or designed for
field modification. Concrete connections
SPOTLIGHT
had collars or were detailed to minimize
investigative work and conflicts with the
existing reinforcing. With incomplete draw-
ings, several of these connections became
custom details determined concurrently with
construction.
While connecting to the existing concrete
characterized much of the design and con-
struction strategies, the most significant
challenge was engineering the installation
of the steel trusses. This required close coor-
dination with the steel suppliers and their
engineers. Several truss members were cam-
bered for final loading conditions, which were
significantly heavier than the self-weight con-
struction condition.
The steel installers, therefore, had to install
curved beams to tight tolerances. Preloading
the steel beams and regular construction
monitoring was used to track the observed
site conditions against modeled values and
guide the installation process.
The revitalized library celebrated its grand
opening on September 17, 2020. Serving as
the main branch of the Edmonton Public
Library, the Stanley A. Milner Library receives
over 1.2 million visits each year. It is a mul-
tipurpose community hub, encompassing
expanded reading and public spaces,
a Makerspace, a high-tech theatre, a
daycare, and more.■
Fast + Epp was an Award Winner for
the Stanley A. Milner Library Renewal
project in the 2020 Annual Excellence in
Structural Engineering Awards Program in the
Category – Forensic/Renovation/Retrofit/
Rehabilitation Structures over $20M.
JANUARY 2022
Concrete Resource Subscriptions

ACI Collection Online

ACI offers digital Includes nearly 50 codes and
specifications plus 200+ practices

and on-demand (including all guides and reports).

ACI University Subscription

access to popular Offers all-access to ACI University
webinars and 260+ on-demand courses.

bundles of the ACI Concrete Repair Subscription

Includes 65+ codes, specifications,
Institute’s leading guides, and reports; 16+ educational
publications and documents; 33+ on-
technical and demand courses through ACI University;
and 25+ symposium volumes.

educational ACI Symposium Papers

Subscription
content. Provides access to over 6000 papers
published since 1962—including new
papers that are published.

www.concrete.org