The Georgia Engineer June-July 2013 by Luke Clark

G E O R G I A

ENGINEER

INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGY 速

Volume 20, Issue 3 JUNE | JULY 2013

INNOVATIVE APPROACHES FOR MAKING TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS

GeorGia enGineer

G E O R G I A

ENGINEER Publisher: A4 Inc. 1154 Lower Birmingham Road Canton, Georgia 30115 Tel.: 770-521-8877 • Fax: 770-521-0406 E-mail: p.frey@a4inc.com Editor-in-Chief: Roland Petersen-Frey Managing Editor: Daniel Simmons Art Direction/Design: Pamela PetersenFrey Georgia Engineering Alliance 233 Peachtree Street • Harris Tower, #700 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Tel.: 404-521-2324 • Fax: 404-521-0283 The Georgia Engineer Editorial Board Thomas C. Leslie, PE, Chair Michael L. (Sully) Sullivan, ACEC Georgia, President Gwen D. Brandon, CAE, ACEC Georgia, Chief Operating Officer GSPE Representatives Tim Glover, PE

Lee Philips ASCE/G Representatives Daniel Agramonte, PE Steven C. Seachrist, PE GMCEA Representative Birdel F. Jackson, III, PE ITE Representatives Daniel Dobry, PE, PTOE John Edwards, PE ITS/G Representatives Bill Wells, PE Shaun Green, PE Kay Wolfe, PE WTS Representative Angela Snyder ASHE Representative Jenny Jenkins, PE SEAOG Representative Rob Wellacher, PE

ACEC/Georgia Representatives B.J. Martin, PE

The Georgia Engineer is published bi-monthly by A4 Inc. for the Georgia Engineering Alliance and sent to members of ACEC, ASCE, ASHE, GMCEA, GEF, GSPE, ITE, SEAOG, WTS; local, state, and Federal government officials and agencies; businesses and institutions. Opinions expressed by the authors are not necessarily those of the Alliance or publisher nor do they accept responsibility for errors of content or omission and, as a matter of policy, neither do they endorse products or advertisements appearing herein. Parts of this periodical may be reproduced with the written consent from the Alliance and publisher. Correspondence regarding address changes should be sent to the Alliance at the address above. Correspondence regarding advertising and editorial material should be sent to A4 Inc. at the address listed above.

JUNE | JULY 2013

Advertisements A4 Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 AEI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Atkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Ayres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Burns & McDonnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Cardno TBE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Columbia Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 CROM Prestressed Concrete Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Eco-Wise Civil Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Engineered Restorations Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Facility Design Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 GEL | Geophysics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Georgia Power Company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Back Cover Go Build Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Hayward Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Back Cover Hazen and Sawyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 HDR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Heath & Lineback Engineers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 HNTB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Innovative Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 JAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 M.H. Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Middleton-House & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Photo Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Pond & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Prime Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Reinforced Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 RHD Utility Locating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Rosser International. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 RS & H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 S&ME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Schnabel Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Stevenson & Palmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 STV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 T. Wayne Owens & Associates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Terrell Hundley Carroll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 THC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 TTL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 United Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Front Cover Wilburn Engineering LLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Willmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Wolverton & Associates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Woodard & Curran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

GeorGia enGineer

T a b l e

o f

GEORGIA ENGINEER June | July 2013

CONTENTS 7

Innovative Approaches for Making Transportation Improvements

Conference Report: P3 Summit

The Affordable Care Act

How the Employer Mandate May Result in Independent Contractor Classification Challenges and Employee Retaliation Claims

Engineers & Techies: Their Work Speaks for Itself… or does it?

Engineering More Sustainable Stormwater Solutions A Review of the New City of Atlanta Stormwater Ordinance

16 31

Donald Leo Named Dean of UGA College of Engineering

Georgia Engineering News

ACEC Georgia News

ASCE Georgia News

GSPE Georgia News

ITE Georgia News

ITS Georgia News

WTS Georgia News

JUNE | JULY 2013

High-precision Water Distribution Simulations Using Gwinnett County’s Hydraulic Model

GEF Awards $68,000 in Scholarships

The I-5 Skagit River Bridge Collapse

Power Plants

Shaping Our Future with Sustainable Energy: A Direction from Young Engineers

10 5

Visit: thegeorgiaengineer.com

GeorGia enGineer

Innovative Approaches for Making Transportation By Christopher Hill, Student, Southern Polytechnic State University & Daniel B. Dobry, Jr., P.E., PTOE, Croy Engineering, LLC

he transportation industry’s lament for the last several years has been that there are insufficient funds for not only maintaining the existing infrastructure but it is also woefully inadequate to construct needed projects to address the continued growth in vehicular and freight traffic. Plus, Georgia has the added struggle for funding highway improvements given the format by which the gasoline tax is applied, or not applied, to the growth in inflation. Although not quite desperate times, the challenges call for new and

JUNE | JULY 2013

Improvements

innovative techniques to find capital for new construction as well as providing the necessary funds for operation and maintenance. The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) is about to pave a new way to address these transportation challenges through implementation of two managed lanes projects. “Moving forward,” says State Transportation Planning Director Toby Carr, “managed lanes will be about having new transportation options that are built and managed to be reliable permanently—as they should be. Unlike building another general

purpose lane, these managed lanes will not be choked with the same congestion as the other lanes within a brief period of time. Projects to add new priced managed lanes in metro Atlanta within the next few years are currently being developed in Clayton, Henry, Gwinnett, Cobb, and Cherokee counties.” To allow needed capital for construction and to increase the values of the transportation dollars invested, this year GDOT will open bids for the managed lanes on I-75 north of the Perimeter applying the Public Private Partnership (P3) technique and the managed lanes on I-75 south of the Perimeter as a Design-Build. Managed Lanes Projects Description I-75 and I-575 Northwest The configuration that was arrived at for the programmed managed lanes on I-75 and I-575 north of the Perimeter is to accommodate the highly directional peak period commuting traffic in a more efficient manner. Instead of building an equal number of lanes for both directions of travel, which is even more costly, reversible lanes are being added to meet the peak period directional traffic demand: southbound in the morning and northbound in the afternoon. The overall project includes approximately 15 miles on I-75 and 11 miles on I-575. What motorists can expect are two lanes on the outside and to the west of the existing general purpose lanes along I-75 between I-285 and I-575. These barrier separated lanes will be a mix of at-grade, on walls, and elevated structures. At the I-75 and I-575 interchange, the configuration will change resulting in a single reversible managed lane on each Interstate. Along I-75 north to Hickory Grove Road, the lane will be at-grade and in the median. Along I-575 north to Sixes Road, the lane will also be at-grade and in the median. The current total project cost is $951.2 million. In conjunction with the managed lanes, access connections are also designed along the sections of I-75 and I-575 to improve traffic circulation and allow for access to the reversible-lane facility. For I-75, access connections are planned at Terrell Mill Road, Roswell Road, Big Shanty Connector, and Hickory Grove Road. For I-575, access connections are proposed at Big Shanty Road, Shallowford Road, Dupree Road, and Sixes Road. I-75 South In the Atlanta region, managed lanes are not just limited to north of the Perimeter. In addition to improvements mentioned previously, I-75 south in Henry and Clayton counties will see a major transportation improvement with construction of a reversible, barrier separated tolled managed lane system. The managed lanes will originate at the I-75 Bridge over SR 155 and end at the I-75 southbound entrance ramp from SR 138 and at SR 138 on I-675. The managed lane system consists of one reversible lane from SR 155 to approximately one mile south of Mt. Carmel Rd, and two reversible lanes from this location to the project’s northern termini. A managed lane only interchange will be constructed approximately 2000 feet south of Jonesboro Road with the ramp tying into Jonesboro Road at Foster Drive where a new traffic sig8

Roswell Road Ramp: Northbound in Evening nal will be installed. The current total project cost is $150 million. More detailed information about these projects, including actions related to environmental evaluation, public outreach, etc., can be obtained through the GDOT Web site at http://www.dot.ga.gov/travelingingeorgia/expresslanes/I75expresslanes. Procurement Methodologies Public Private Partnership a/k/a P3 The component of the transportation system that accommodates the most traffic is the Interstate system. And when it comes to the Interstate, everything is big: the right-of-way is big; the volumes of vehicular and truck traffic are big; the impact on the environment is big; the effect on economic development is big; and the cost to provide it is uber-big. Individually and collectively, these components can delay delivering the capacity to keep the transportation network functioning reliably well while decreasing congestion, delays, and incidents. In an effort to provide financing options, legislation was enacted in 2010 allowing the state through GDOT to enter into a public private partnership. For Georgia, the P3 delivery option provides a powerful tool to incorporate thoughtful risk sharing in certain projects’ delivery. Whereas the state normally might assume certain risks on a routine fashion and accomplish them well, the private sector can bring needed innovation and expert management and delivery skills in a properly structured contract for a ‘larger than usual’ scope of work. From a financing perspective, the developer can also bring a significant component of the project financial plan that helps make the project happen sooner rather than later. This can be structured and scaled in a way that makes the most sense for the state’s investment, while also providing a healthy private sector interest in the on-time and on-budget delivery accountability. In the northwest corridor project, the P3 procurement will incorporate a Design Build Finance contract in this fashion that still leaves the state in full ownership of its long term operations and decision making, GeorGia enGineer

while taking advantage of key innovation, design, and construction risk management by the private sector. P3s are underway around the country and it’s Georgia’s turn. The rules have changed for providing mobility enhancing projects from the last quarter of the 20th century. “We simply cannot continue to add more general purpose lanes in metro Atlanta to address the congestion and mobility issues facing our expressways,” Georgia DOT Chief Engineer Russell McMurry notes. “That is an untenable strategy, both from a financial and a practical standpoint.” The magnitude of the cost of the Northwest Managed Lanes project and the ability to deliver this improvement do not lend themselves to traditional procurement techniques. This summer, GDOT will have its first P3 project underway, and its success will provide the framework for pursuing projects in a similar format. Design-Build Procurement for the managed lanes south of the Perimeter will be by using the Design-Build methodology. According to the DesignBuild Institute of America (DBIA), the design-build form of project delivery is a system of contracting whereby one entity performs both architectural/engineering and construction under one single contract. Under this arrangement, the design-builder warrants to the contracting agency that it will produce design documents that are complete and free from error (design-builder takes the risk). The selection process under design-build contracting can be in the form of a negotiated process involving one or more contracts, or a competitive process based on some combination of price, duration, and proposer qualifications. Portions of the overall design or construction work can be performed by the design-build entity or subcontracted out to other companies that may or may not be part of the design-build team.

Windy Hill Road Interchange Looking South Proponents of design-build contracting proclaim a number of advantages over typical contracting which include: • Time savings through: 2 Early contractor involvement incorporating construction engineering considerations 2 Fast-tracking with concurrency of design and construction phases for different segments of the project and 2 Elimination of a separate contractor bid phase • Cost savings from: 2 Communication efficiencies between design, construction engineering, and construction team members 2 Reduced construction engineering and inspection (CEI) 2 Fewer change and extra work orders 2 Reduced potential for claims and litigation after project completion and 2 Shortened project timeline • Improved quality through: 2 Greater focus on quality control and quality assurance through continuous involvement by design team and 2 Project innovations uniquely fashioned by project needs and contractor capabilities. “Georgia—every state for that matter—faces a future in which it is going to have to develop more of its own transportation mobility solutions,” says GA DOT Commissioner Keith Golden. “We are going to have to become more innovative and more self-reliant; federal funding is not going to be sufficient to our task. Managed lanes, public private partnerships, and prudent use of design-build are some of the tools upon which we will need to rely.” Expanding the option of innovative techniques to address transportation congestion and mobility challenges and laying the foundation for future projects through managed lanes and innovative procurement methods get kick-started for the state of Georgia this summer.v

JUNE | JULY 2013

By Thomas C. Leslie

Conference Report: P3

Summit

t seems clear that a relatively new way to deliver all manner of public works projects is rapidly growing in popularity. According to experts at the May 14th Public-Private Partnerships (P3) Conference, the boost in this project delivery method is due primarily to political constraints on traditional funding methods and high marks for effectiveness (e.g., onbudget, on-schedule, fewer disputes, and attainment of project goals).

The second annual P3 Summit Conference was held at the Americas Mart in Atlanta. The American Council of Engineering Companies of Georgia’s organizing committee was led by Gregg Bundschuh and included John Heath, Rob Lewis, Sully Sullivan, and Jim Willmer. Institutional Sponsors included the following associations: Associated General Contractors, American Institute of Architects, American Society of Civil Engineers, Georgia Association of Water Professionals, Council for Quality Growth, and Associated Builders and Contractors. An initial panel was titled, “Testing Traditions: Assessing the Added Value of P3s in Today’s Economic Climate.” The moderator, Dan Sherman, stressed that the ‘perspectives’ of team members are very important for each P3 transaction. Success requires an entirely different mindset than for traditional projects; everything must be relearned. There must be a period of honest, sincere discernment among team members, including both public and private parties. Barbara Coffee, the Economic Development Director of the city of College Park spoke of her very high regard for P3s—she stressed that the city got better projects that more effectively achieved primary and secondary goals. GeorGia enGineer

Elizabeth LaVack Miller is a lobbyist that has represented parties in a variety of P3 deals. She observed that there are political risks with P3s in Georgia—an apparent reference to the Georgia DOT’s start-stop approach to early P3s. She felt that their ‘mega’ projects were the wrong ones to start with. Instead, Georgia should have begun with smaller projects and ensured their success as a strategic approach to building confidence and expertise. Traditional contractors have been cautious about P3s, but they are growing to embrace them—largely because large international P3 firms hire local contractors (“they don’t bring heavy equipment from overseas, they hire locally”). Public partners must practice outside-the-box thinking—accept risk sharing, look for win-win solutions, etc.—and need good people to actively represent their interests (which may dictate special hires). P3s work best with the ‘right’ projects (e.g., land acquired, environmental assessments completed, etc.). Finally, the public partner must have business processes that the private partners are comfortable with. The implication was that this is not an uncommon problem, and that public partners struggle with this adaption. Senator Brandon Beach, former DOT board member, reiterated the fundamental need for additional financial resources to meet transportation needs. He noted that other states are looking at all options for transportation funding, not only toll roads. Some have even embraced an increase in the gas tax (to be clear, Beach did not endorse an increase in gas tax—his comment seemed to be a device to emphasize the funding shortfall). Sen. Hunter Hill spoke about SB 255, a bill he introduced late in the 2013 General Assembly, which addresses state P3s relating to vertical construction. A study committee is being appointed to look at the bill during the remainder of 2013 in anticipation of serious consideration in the 2014 General Assembly. Tim Lowe, speaking as Chair of the Georgia World Congress Center, addressed the P3 delivery of the new stadium for the Falcons football team. He spoke of the remarkably brisk decision making for this very complex project. Chris Tomlinson, Executive Director of the State Road and Toll Authority, spoke of its role in the I-75 JUNE | JULY 2013

left: Sully Sullivan; rt. Jeff Lewis Northwest Corridor P3. Even though GDOT has a very significant role in the project, SRTA will collect the tolls and hold financial responsibility because they have far more flexibility than state law provides to GDOT. This dual SRTA/GDOT role is uncommon for P3s. In addition, the private party will be fully compensated and out of the deal at the successful conclusion of a twoyear warranty period. Jeff Lewis, former legislator, current GDOT Board member, and chair of its P3 committee, spoke at lunch about significant cultural changes at GDOT: “GDOT should get to ‘yes’ on most questions rather than being an agency of ‘no.’ P3 is a big change for GDOT, but it is being embraced. He said, “New things in the 20th Century may not work well in the 21st Century (just as some in the 19th Century did not work so well in the 20th Century). P3 is a ‘new thing’ and is something we need to employ in the 21st Century.” There was an excellent array of concurrent, breakout sessions that addressed topics in greater detail—too many to speak to individually. Here is the rundown on these topics: 1. Outsourcing Government Services – Sandy Springs, Brookhaven, and Milton 2. Ohio River Bridges

3. Water/Reservoir/Wastewater Infrastructure 4. Turnkey Development of Office Buildings, Courthouses, and Jails for Cities and Counties 5. SmartPorts and Multi-Modal Development 6. The Road Forward – Georgia DOT P3 Overview The final panel of speakers consisted of veteran contractors, an engineer, and a concessionaire, all with experience in P3 projects. Although they got into the weeds on P3 structure, they each agreed that it was valuable to get the relationships carefully defined, both formally and informally. Working hard at the beginning to achieve clarity and trust among all team members is of paramount importance. It is doubtful that Don Gillis of Walsh Construction (their local office is Archer–Western) intended to have the final say in the conference, but my notes close with his unambiguous prediction: In two to five years, almost all big jobs will be P3 or design-build; but smaller jobs will remain mostly traditional design-bid-build. If he is right, and the trend seems in that direction, we have a very good reason to look forward to the next edition of the P3 Summit in the spring of 2014. v 11

How the Employer Mandate May Result in Independent Contractor Classification Challenges and Employee Retaliation Claims By Warren Kingsley | Arnall Golden Gregory | Employee Benefits Partner & Diane Lukin | Employee Benefits Associate

ost employers are aware that the Affordable Care Act added a requirement for certain sized companies to offer employer-sponsored group health coverage to full-time employees and dependents. However, employers may not be aware that the employer mandate also may create new opportunities for federal and state governments to challenge the company’s classification of some workers as independent contractors. In addition, employers also may be unaware that the Affordable Care Act includes protected rights for employees that engage in certain activities, which rights recently have been fortified with a final interim rule enabling employees to file complaints against the employer if they suspect retaliation. A summary of the Affordable Care Act employer mandate, the relevance of independent contractor status in relationship to

Minimum value means the medical coverage must pay covered benefits at 60 percent or more of covered costs. Also, because it is unlikely that employers will know their employees’ household incomes, most employers will have to rely on one of three safe harbors provided under IRS regulations to determine whether coverage is affordable for the employee’s share of premiums for employee-only coverage. [The employee’s share of dependent premiums is not subject to affordability requirements under the employer mandate.]

Warren Kingsley the employer mandate, and an overview of employee-protected rights under the Affordable Care Act are summarized in the following article. The Employer Mandate Overview Beginning January 1, 2014, companies that employ an average of 50 or more full-time employees and/or full-time employee equivalents in the preceding calendar year are subject to the employer mandate. Referred to as the ‘applicable large employer’ determination, controlled group and affiliated service group members are treated as a single employer for purposes of making the determination. Employees employed an average of 30 or more hours per week or 130 hours per month are considered full-time. Companies that qualify as applicable large employers must offer full-time employees and their dependents (excluding spouses) employer-sponsored group health coverage that covers major medical benefits. In addition, the requisite coverage must also provide ‘minimum value’ and the employee’s share of premiums for employeeonly coverage must be ‘affordable,’ i.e., no more than 9.5 percent of the employee’s household income.

Diane Lukin Employers that fail to offer the required medical coverage run the risk of incurring one of two penalties. The first penalty is incurred if a company fails to offer required medical coverage to at least 95 percent of its full-time employees, and as a result of that failure, an employee purchases health insurance through a state exchange and receives a premium tax credit or a cost sharing subsidy. The first penalty is based on the company’s number of full-time employees, minus 30, multiplied by $2,000 for the calendar year or $166.67 for each month coverage is not offered. The second penalty applies if a company offers coverage without affordable employee-only premiums or offers coverage that fails to provide minimum value, and the full-time employee purchases health insurance on the state exchange and receives a premium tax credit or cost sharing subsidy. If the second penalty applies, the employer pays the lesser of (1) the first penalty or (2) $3,000 per year ($250 per month for each month that the requisite coverage is not offered) multiplied by the number of fulltime employees who obtain a premium tax credit or a cost sharing subsidy through the state exchange. GeorGia enGineer

If employees or independent contractors attempt to purchase health insurance on a state exchange, they will be required to provide proof of income (e.g., Forms W-2 or 1099) to determine whether they are eligible for premium tax credits or cost sharing subsidies. It is through this means that government officials may challenge a company’s decision to classify some individuals as independent contractors. If this happens, companies that attempt to avoid applicable large employer status by classifying employees as independent contractors, or that fail to offer requisite coverage to independent contractors who are actually employees, may find they are subject to the employer mandate and assessed significant penalties. Independent Contractor Classification Before the employer mandate, a company may have been motivated to classify workers as independent contractors due to temporary staffing needs or the desire to save on expenses associated with hiring employees (e.g., payroll taxes and employee benefit plans). To assist companies with making these determinations, the Internal Revenue Service (‘IRS’) compiled a series of factors and tests developed by the courts to distinguish whether workers should be classified as common law employees or independent contractors, with the most significant factor weighing in favor of employee status being the company’s control over the worker. See IRS Revenue Ruling 87-41. Historically, a company defended its independent contractor classifications during IRS or state audit, which also provided the company the opportunity to negotiate lower payroll taxes and penalties if independent contractors had to be reclassified as employees. However, now companies also must consider the risks and expenses associated with misclassifying their workers under the employer mandate. If a company incorrectly relies on independent contractor classification either to avoid applicable large employer status under the Affordable Care Act or to avoid offering full-time employees and applicable dependents company-sponsored group health coverage, the company could find itself subject to significant employer mandate penalties. In addition, due to emJUNE | JULY 2013

ployee protections provided under the Affordable Care Act, companies should carefully consider adverse decisions they make against their employees, including workers they may have misclassified as independent contractors. Affordable Care Act Employee Protections Under the Affordable Care Act, employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who engage in certain activities. The employee protected activities include: (1) purchasing health insurance on the state exchange and receiving a premium tax credit or cost sharing subsidy; (2) reporting what the employee reasonably believes to be Title I Affordable Care Act violations (e.g., reporting an employersponsored group health plan or health insurance issuer violating prohibitions on preexisting conditions, lifetime or annual limits, etc.); (3) testifying, assisting or participating in proceedings related to reported Title I violations; and 4) refusing to participate in activities the employee reasonably believes are Title I violations. Under a final interim rule, employees may file complaints of employer retaliation with the Assistant Secretary of Occupational Health & Safety Administration. For pur-

poses of the interim final rule, an employee includes current and former employees and employee applicants. Arguably, the definition of employee is broad enough to encompass an independent contractor who should have been classified as a common law employee. In addition, employers should be very careful when taking adverse employment action against employees who engage in any of the above-listed protected actions. In order to bring a complaint, employees only need a subjective, reasonable good faith belief based on an objective, adverse action taken by the employer that the employee is being discriminated against for engaging in a protected activity. Summary The employer mandate requires companies to reevaluate their labor forces and evaluate decisions to classify some or all workers as independent contractors. In addition, employers should cautiously monitor both planned and unintended adverse employment actions they take against employees who engage in any protected activities under the Affordable Care Act. v Penalty one will not be assessed if a company fails to offer the greater of five percent or five of its full-time employees coverage. If the company is a member of a related group of companies, the company must prorate the 30 exception among the group’s members.

Engineers & Techies: Their Work Speaks for Itself… Or Does It? Do communication skills really matter in engineering and technical organizations? By LaShanya Aikerson Sullivan

t’s a new truth in today’s business world: “In spite of our technological advances, our competitive advantage lies in our ability to work effectively together.” (Roger K. Allen, Ph. D.) Yet few professionals receive formal communication skills training, especially in engineering and technical professions, and many leaders do not know how to establish a culture that fosters and benefits from strong communication skills. Besides, technical people are hired for their technical skills, so it’s a fair question: do communication skills really matter? In a word, yes. In any organization, two aspects contribute to success: the work and the people. Once upon a time, traditional organizations could focus primarily on the work. People would stay with a company through thick and thin, often putting up with difficulties in silence. But today’s economic realities mean we’re often trying to get more done with fewer people. Organizations cannot afford to keep people they don’t need, and individuals change jobs often (by choice or necessity). Organizations today must transition into high performance in order to succeed. This requires a focus on people and their ability to communicate with each other. When you compare traditional organizations to high performance organizations, one startling fact reveals itself: organizations are perfectly designed to get the results they are getting. Do you have a traditional or a high performance organization? Traditional organizations—many of which are now struggling to survive—focus on tasks, embody a highly bureaucratic structure, cultivate departmental silos, and view 14

employees as tools for getting work done. In a traditional organization, communication breakdowns lead to costly re-work, expensive mistakes, employee frustration, and even critical information kept secret from those who need to know. Often, engineers and technical professionals in these organizations spend too much time trying to get their facts right before sharing anything, communicate only within their departmental silos, and use the chain of command as a communication barrier. But when you see organizations that consistently realize their goals and business objectives, you notice they follow the new ‘high performance’ paradigm. High performance organizations focus on people, embody self-regulating teams, cultivate values across departmental boundaries, and view employees as partners. In a high performance organization, effective communications lead to financial savings from informed business decisions, time-saving work ideas, and highly engaged employees. And in the best of these, engineers and technical professionals are empowered to share information as it becomes available, communicate across departmental silos, and replace their chain of command concept with a collaborative team mindset.

nication skills. In order to create and sustain success, organizations must develop strong communication skills across all levels of the organization. This requires a fundamental shift at the level of organizational culture, a new paradigm that values and rewards effec-

Communication skills matter You can tell within minutes of walking into any organization whether the people operate in a culture of empowerment and open communication or a culture of permission-seeking and fear of visible mistakes. So what makes the difference? It’s one of the main challenges engineering and technical organizations face: most of their people never learned advanced commuGeorGia enGineer

tive communication skills. Leaders play the most crucial role—people look to them to set the tone and determine behavioral norms. When it comes to organizational performance, “15 percent of our success comes from our technical skills, 85 percent from our ability to deal effectively with people.” ~ Brian Tracy, author and speaker When people do not deal effectively with each other, the organization fails. To survive in today’s professional landscape, engineering and technical organizations must develop their ability to communicate. So what are the steps to create and sustain powerful communication skills in your organization? Step One: Leadership support. A leader must learn and demonstrate effective communication skills before expecting effective communication from the organization. Leaders must also support their people as they grow into powerful communicators. Step Two: Measure results. You can’t manage what you don’t measure. You must first assess your current level of communication

effectiveness, then chart a path toward a specific goal. Benchmark the performance you desire so you have a way to measure how close you are to realizing success and to ensure that your communication goals support your organization’s vision, mission, and objectives. Step Three: Get training. Learn the advanced communication principles practiced by high performance organizations. It isn’t magic—it’s a teachable skillset following a specific formula. Poor communication comes not from a lack of ability, but rather a lack of knowledge and practice executing the fundamental principles. Make sure to hire a firm that understands firsthand the complexities of working in a technical organization and specializes in training technical organizations. What are your strategic priorities as an organization? Effective communication doesn’t just happen—it has to be made a priority. High performance organizations first set their strategic priorities around communication skills and

high performance. From there, they prioritize their actions to support success. The number one way to determine an organization’s success: look at the way people in the organization communicate with each other. On a scale of one-to-ten, would you rate communication effectiveness within your organization high (ten) or low (one)? Why did you give your organization this rating? Are you happy with status quo, or would you prefer a higher rating? What are you willing to do to help your engineers and technical teams make this happen? About the Author LaShanya Aikerson Sullivan is the CEO and Founder of Aikerson Consulting Group Inc. Her firm’s largest division, GeeksCan Speak.com, provides high performance training to engineering and technical professionals. Her programs focus on leadership and communication skills as the foundation for creating sustainable high performance organizations. To get her monthly newsletter packed with actionable tips and techniques, visit www.GeeksCanSpeak.com. v

Contact Daniel Simmons: dsimmons@a4inc.com JUNE | JULY 2013

Engineering More Sustainable Stormwater Solutions A Review of the New City of Atlanta Stormwater Ordinance By Pamela Little, PE, LEED AP BD+C

he city of Atlanta has stepped up protection of our groundwater, streams, and rivers by passing and implementing a new stormwater ordinance as of February 13, 2013. The new ordinance promotes ‘green’ infrastructure practices over more traditional methods including underground vaults and aboveground extended detention ponds. Most civil and transportation engineers in Georgia are familiar with the ‘Blue Book,’ more formally known as the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual and the Coastal Stormwater Supplement. These guidance documents are referenced throughout the state and recommend eleven minimum standards to treat stormwater runoff. The primary components of the recommended practices are water quality, channel protection, flood protection, extreme flood protection, and downstream analysis. The new city of Atlanta ordinance replaces the water quality requirement with a runoff reduction requirement. The first 1.0” of runoff from new projects (including single-family residential homes and additions over 1,000 square feet) must be captured onsite before that volume is reused, infiltrated, or evaporated on the property. Channel protection will continue to be required per Georgia Stormwater Management Manual guidelines, and detention for events up to and including the 25-year design storm will be required based on a formula incorporating the percentage of impervious area already existing on-site prior to development or redevelopment. The detention requirement replaces the City’s previous requirement of 30 percent reduction in runoff for the one-year through the 100-year storm events for all sites regardless of character or composition. The 1.0” runoff reduction is intended to more closely mimic natural hydrology and allow designers to take credit for ‘green’ practices implemented on site. Potential treat16

ment to achieve a 1.0” runoff reduction includes: green roofs, rain gardens, dry wells, rainwater harvesting, dry swales, permeable pavements, and other designs. For sites where the 1.0” reduction cannot be met due to poor soil conditions, high groundwater, and/or other site constraints, the development will be required to meet the 1.2” water quality treatment goal as set forth in the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual. Cory Rayburn, the Environmental Program Manager within the Department of Watershed Management of the city of Atlanta said, "Atlanta's decision to implement the use of green infrastructure to manage stormwater runoff has the potential to improve water quality in our streams, reduce the severity and magnitude of flooding, and provide additional greenspace that can enhance developments and surrounding communities." Some of the ‘green’ technologies referenced in the guidance documents may not be familiar to engineers used to more traditional design methods. Rainfall harvesting is the practice of collection and storage of

rain water for later use. Water collected can be used for irrigation or other non-potable system functions. Steve Williams, ARCSA AP, LEED AP O&M with Water Management Inc., a company that provides water efficiency solutions including rainwater harvesting design and installation as well as other stormwater mitigation programs, said, “Rainwater harvesting can be used as both a stomwater management tool and a water source making it a great tool for sustainable development.” He believes that the best stormwater solution includes rainwater harvesting as one of several methods to collect and reuse rainfall rather than relying on a single treatment type. Additional requirements in stormwater planning for developments within the city limits include attendance at a conceptual meeting prior to land disturbance plan submittal and percolation tests for any previously developed sites or sites exhibiting urban soil characteristics. The city spent over a year formalizing the first draft of the ordinance and approximately another ten months working with

Pervious concrete sidewalk at Southface Energy Institute

GeorGia enGineer

Vegetated swale at Southface Energy Institute

JUNE | JULY 2013

Upgraded stormwater cistern and green roof at Southface Energy Institute, Photo courtesy of Water Mangaement Inc. stakeholders revising the ordinance and creating guidance documents prior to officially submitting the ordinance to City Utilities Committee, which ultimately recommended the ordinance to the city council for approval. The city did work with consulting firm AMEC to develop guidance documents for homeowners and builders and brought in experts to provide training for the plan review and inspections staff. Throughout the process of creating the ordinance and the guidance documents, the city of Atlanta reached out to various stakeholder groups and created a technical advisory committee including the Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, Southface, and a number of local engineering firms. Kenneth Wood, PE, LEED AP of Planners and Engineers Collaborative Inc. (PEC) was one of the engineers on the technical advisory committee. Regarding the committee input into the process, Wood said, “The group was very instrumental in collaborating with the city to make sure the new ordinance was an innovative step in the right direction of sustainable stormwater solutions, but also keeping in mind how it affects development, existing sites, and infrastructure projects. We (PEC) have implemented several projects through design with the new ordinance, and it has been a great way to involve green practices to urban construction with different options to design from.” Concerns from professional designers and individuals in related fields include the recommendation to use the Coastal Supple18

ment to the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual for a non-coastal region and that review staff would be dictating site design during the conceptual pre-design meetings. While the Coastal Supplement was developed by the Chatham County-Savannah Metropolitan Planning Commission and included input from other coastal communities, the supplement does provide guidance for design and application of runoff reduction techniques in areas with soil types consistent with those in the metro-Atlanta area. The city chose to reference the supplement because it provides more treatment options for runoff reduction and guidance on ‘green’ practices that are not included in the original manual. The conceptual meetings have been required prior to permit submittal since March and have served as a method to inform developers and their design professionals about

the changes in the regulations as well as facilitate an early discussion about hydrologic features on and surrounding the site. Rayburn said,” Upfront coordination has been a real benefit for staff and the engineering community. Holding a meeting to discuss the concept and layout of the development prior to the engineer creating a complete hydrology study and full blown stormwater management plan ensures that everyone is on the same page with regard to the new requirements. Even though this is an extra step in the permitting process, we feel that this 30-minute meeting can save days if not weeks during the plan review and approval process.” Many city of Atlanta residents and property owners welcome the changes which have been implemented to reduce the impacts of urban runoff on our streams and rivers. Susana Chavez is the Executive VicePresident of Parking Company of America (PCA) and a resident of the city of Atlanta. PCA owns and operates a number of parking lots in Atlanta and 17 other cities. Chavez indicated her support for the new ordinance saying, “Property owners in Atlanta should take responsiblity for stormwater runoff from their land. It is our responsibility to reduce the amount of pollutants that are dumped into our local streams and rivers by reducing the amount of stormwater flowing into the sewer systems. This legislation gives us options. It isn’t always easy or inexpensive to treat stormwater runoff but it is important. The more we work on ways to deal with stormwater runoff, the healthier the city and our water will be.” v

Vegetated swale and emergency overflow structure for large storms at Southface Energy Institute. GeorGia enGineer

High-precision Water Distribution Simulations Using Gwinnett County’s Hydraulic Model By Steven C. Seachrist, P.E., M.ASCE

n the water industry, computerbased hydraulic models have been used for decades to diagnose Level of Service (LOS) issues and to predict the response of water distribution systems to proposed infrastructure improvements. Even before computers took on the task of performing the very complex mathematics involved in hydraulic analysis, electronic ‘breadboard’ models were used to simulate the movement of water through a distribution system. These primitive tools provided coarse results that had limited value, but in some cases were more economical than performing seemingly endless hand calculations. Today’s powerful computer processors allow utilities to code very complex simulated pipe networks into proprietary model algorithms that dynamically step through the changes that occur during typical diurnal demands. Future demands can also be estimated by municipal or county planners, and the effects on LOS can be evaluated. Also, interruptions to service by construction projects can be predicted and countermeasures can be designed to maintain LOS. Finally, models can be used to help design improvements to the distribution system by demonstrating the benefits of greater transmission capacity. Most hydraulic modelers work in the planning groups of their respective utilities, because models are most often thought of as design tools. In Gwinnett county, Randy Rosbury sees modeling from an operations perspective. This allows the county to use the model to test proposed operational changes that may or may not result in a capital investment. “When I first saw the model, the first thing that popped into my head was that I wished I’d had this when I ran operations,” says Rosbury, who came to the modeling world after many years in the pump business. “While we were calibrating the model, I noticed that the model predictions and the field readings were completely different, so I JUNE | JULY 2013

breached the pressure zones in the model. Then, the model and field readings agreed. So we made a list of all of the perimeter valves that should be closed, and went into the field to check. After three months of checking, digging up and closing the appropriate valves, our field readings agreed with the model and now we have well defined pressure zones.” Gwinnett county maintains a ‘full-pipe’ model, which includes all sizes of pipes in the

distribution system. There are 3,655 miles of pipe in the county’s system, along with 38,200 isolation valves, seven storage tank sites, and eight pressure-relief valves. This level of detail requires one of the fastest commercially-available computer processors to run the model in a reasonable time—typically about eight minutes for a continuous, 24hour simulation. According to the county’s modeling consultant, Gwinnett county’s model is the largest water distribution hy19

draulic model being used in the world today. The benefits of the county’s full-pipe model are many. In 2011, it was recognized that better control of the system’s pressure envelope could positively impact the frequency of pipe breaks. Various measures were put into place that stabilized pressure variations and reduced incidents needing attention from field crews. No new infrastructure was needed for these operational changes, and the model accurately predicted results to within two psi at critical locations. Additional operational and infrastructure improvements are being analyzed using the model in 2013. It is likely that new pressure zones will be established, and the fullpipe model is indispensable in designing these important changes. Having so much detail in the model allows engineers to try subtle changes and finely tune the results, with high levels of confidence that the model will represent the response of the actual distribution system. Some would question the need for such a high level of detail when a typical Capital Improvement Project (CIP) would modify relatively large system components. But the county often uses the model to predict the system’s reaction to operational changes that have subtle but important effects on smaller elements of the system. For example, the use of booster pumps during periods of high demand might affect LOS in a small group of houses served by a two-inch diameter water line. Each customer has a unique circumstance relative to their water service, and it is important to be able to know that all customers are being served adequately for domestic use and fire service. In fact, Gwinnett county’s hydraulic model is so well proven that it is accepted by ISO—the primary data source used by insurance companies—when it calculates fire risk and insurance rates. In 2011, a Pressure Management Team was established at Gwinnett County DWR to monitor and improve the pressure envelope of the water distribution system. So far, with the help of the hydraulic model, this team has: 1.) discovered and corrected pressure zone breaches caused by open isolation valves, 2.) discovered non-functional pressure reducing valves and repaired them, 3.) accurately predicted the incidental effects of 20

construction projects and provided temporary measures that maintained LOS, 4.) simulated proposed operational improvements and modified distribution system operations to provide much steadier pressures, and 5.) simulated proposed physical system improvements and aided in the sizing of pipes and other design issues. Gwinnett county has established a hierarchy of level-of-service and related priorities. First and most important is water quality, followed closely by controlled pressures and fire flow. A third priority is to deliver water in the most energy-efficient and economical fashion. The hydraulic model will allow rigorous analysis of various options to reduce pumping and capitalize on nearly 400 feet of topographic fall from the highest

water plant to the lowest customer. It is even possible that the pressure gradient will be high enough to generate a small amount of electricity that can be returned to the grid. In any case, the hydraulic model will be used to conceptualize and refine the various power-saving scenarios and will undoubtedly result in lower energy consumption. v

GeorGia enGineer

Georgia Engineering Foundation Awards $68,000 in Scholarships Wow! On November 8th, 2012, at The Renaissance Waverly Hotel in the Cobb Galleria, GEF hosted another record setting Scholarship Awards Banquet giving 42 engineering students $68,000 in scholarships! The Georgia Engineering Foundation was chartered in 1971 to benefit young people desiring engineering or engineering technology careers. Special legacy gifts include the David Smith Memorial, Doris Lavoie Memorial, Paul Weber Memorial, Mr. Simons Honorarium, and the Kenneth Taylor Memorial. GEF’s assets now total over $700,000, and GEF is looking forward through an aggressive fundraising campaign, to soon exceed the $1 million mark in endowed scholarships. In addition to the legacy gifts GEF receives each year, scholarships are also provided from GEF Life Members, Professional Engineering Societies, Engineering Companies, Corporate Businesses, and individuals which GEF awards in the name of the donor. Member Organizations • Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering • American Council of Engineering Companies of Georgia • American Society of Civil Engineers, Georgia Section • American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and A/C Engineers • Georgia Power Engineering Association, Atlanta Branch • Georgia Society of Professional Engineers (State) • Georgia Society of Professional Engineers Chapters: Metro-Atlanta, Augusta, Cobb, NE, NW • Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Atlanta Section • Society of American Military Engineers, Atlanta Post • Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers Associate Member Organizations • Georgia Institute of Technology • Mercer University • Southern Polytechnic State University • University of Georgia

JUNE | JULY 2013

Obtaining, selecting, and evaluating applications each year is a huge task headed the last two years by John Ford, Chairman of the Scholarship Committee. John reaches out each year to the engineering community for volunteers to assist with this energizing effort. This past year 245 applications were received, of which 100 of the top students,

were interviewed by Scholarship Committee volunteers at Mercer University, Southern Polytechnic State University, the Georgia Institute of Technology, and by telephone. Then the Scholarship Committee met to select the 42 awardees based on all the data collected. The committee must match the awardees to the award criteria established by 21

Sponsors of the GEF Banquet

Row 1 (left to right): John Prien, Jr, PE, JD / Michael Horwitz, CCE / William H. Pennington, PE Row 2: Steven T. Poole, PE / Arthur G. Bendelius, PE / Roger Austin, PE

2011-2012 Officers Past President: Jeffrey N. Amason, P.E.; President: Dr. James R. Wallace, P.E., PhD; President-Elect: James R. Crowder, P.E.; Vice President: Raymond J. Wilke, P.E.; Treasurer: Roseana D. Richards, P.E.; Secretary: Mark G. Cundiff, PSP 22

GeorGia enGineer

the scholarship donors. This often gets very difficult as some scholarships have very specific criteria.

JUNE | JULY 2013

GEF depends upon new donors each year to be able to grow and financially support the scholarships, engineering clubs, and

engineering, math, and science programs it works with. New scholarships and programs needing support are identified annually. Contributions by engineering firms, corporations, and individuals as small as $10 per month are gratefully accepted and increase GEFâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to help more students in the state of Georgia seek accredited engineering and technology degrees. If you can give more, GEF can help more students. Go to www.gefinc.org to get information on how to contribute. All contributions are tax deductable. GEF wishes to thank all the volunteers that participate each year in this tremendous mentoring opportunity, especially Steve Poole and Beth Harris of the Banquet Committee. Many volunteers come from the organizations listed on page 19 Thanks to all! And come join us to help us reach our $1M endowment goal. www.gefinc.org. v

The I-5 Skagit River Bridge Collapse By Daniel Simmons

he I-5 bridge over the Skagit river in Washington seemed to have a lot of dangerous qualities that contributed to its collapse on May 23, 2013. It was over 50 years old, had a less-than-perfect safety rating, and it was built as a ‘fracture critical’ bridge, meaning that if one part fails, the entire bridge fails. But, despite widespread speculation over the inherent danger of fracture critical bridges and outcries against the bridges with only adequate safety ratings, the bridge was doing just fine until a truck ran into it. Let’s look at a few of the bridge’s seemingly negative characteristics that have come under scrutiny since its collapse: its design, safety rating, and age. There are roughly 18,000 fracture critical bridges in the U.S., and the vast majority of these are truss bridges. These bridges use what’s called a truss, i.e. a beam usually made of steel, to distribute weight across the bridge by transferring compression and tension forces from beam to beam all the way to the ground on either side. Since these forces are transferred to the ground by way of a kind

of chain, each piece pushing or pulling on another, the failure of any one of them would effectively stop the transfer and result in failure. In the case of the I-5 bridge, the truck struck an overhead curved beam called a sway brace that provides lateral stability and resistance to wind but is still a part in the aforementioned chain and thus resulted in the section collapsing. This type of construction requires relatively little material and can be built more cheaply and more quickly than other types of bridge. This is not to say that truss bridges are cheap or a ‘quick fix,’ it just means that there are different solutions to different problems. Not every bridge needs to be atop a concrete arch or supported by steel cables; if this were the case, given the significantly higher price tag, there would be far more room to complain about government waste than there is currently reason to complain about structurally deficient bridges. For shorter spans, in cases with a small or medium sized budget, a truss bridge is an efficient and effective solution. As to its inspection history and safety, two of the most prevalently cited factors used to demonstrate the bridge’s unfitness are its ‘structurally obsolete’ designation and its sufficiency rating of 47 out

GeorGia enGineer

of 100. But neither of these facts is really as damning as they sound. The DOT defines structurally obsolete bridges as, “...NOT structurally deficient, but their design is outdated. They may have lower load carrying capacity, narrower shoulders or less clearance underneath than bridges built to the current standard.” It is important to note that in order to receive a ‘structurally obsolete’ rating, the bridge must NOT be structurally deficient. That means it exceeds the min-

imum safety requirements despite its age. In other words, this designation simply meant that the bridge was old. But what about that 47 percent sufficiency rating? Again, this is not as bad as it seems. Let’s look at how this score is broken down. A bridge’s sufficiency rating is scored out of 100: 55 percent of the score is based on on the structural evaluation, 30 percent on the obsolescence of its design, and 15 percent on its importance to the public. So this is not the equivalent of saying that the bridge is only 47 percent safe. Instead it means that the bridge is old (for which it loses 30 percentage points) and otherwise is of average structural soundness, the state average being 80 percent according to an Associated Press analysis. So the bridge was old. We can see that from a few different angles now. But interestingly, its age was not enough to earn it a ‘structurally deficient’ rating, nor was it enough to bring its sufficiency rating beyond the lowermost threshold. So the I-5 bridge’s (partial) collapse should not be an occasion for anyone to launch a reformatory campaign against bridges with quality ‘x,’ or for America to ‘wake up’ from any sort of dormant unawareness of an otherwise glaring structural deficiency affecting her bridges. A truck ran into something and it damaged it, as tends to be the case when trucks run into things. But the I-5 bridge over the Skagit river was by no means an accident waiting to happen. v

Power Plants By Daniel Simmons

e all know that plants take energy from the sun and turn it into a form of energy that they can use, namely, sugar. But recently scientists have been experimenting with ways of putting them to work for us and having plants produce a form of energy that’s a little bit more valuable to humans, that is, electricity. Given that electricity, simply speaking, is just moving electrons, photosynthesis is already an electrical process to begin with. The chlorophyl in plants’ leaves use the power of the sun to separate hydrogen and oxygen, thereby freeing up electrons, which they use in the synthesis of sugar. Ramaraja Ramasamy, assistant professor at the UGA College of Engineering, along with graduate student Jessica Calkins and post-doctoral associate Yogeswaran Umasankar are working towards developing a way of stopping this process before it gets to the point of sugar manufacturing and just harnessing the electrons straight away. In order to do this, the scientists first immobilize the thykaloids (which is a small compartment within the chloroplast where photosynthetic reactions actually take place) from a spinach plant by binding it to a carbon nanotube structure. Then, by manipulating certain proteins within the thykaloids they can interrupt the production of sugar, which leaves them with free electrons. These electrons are then carried away via an electrode that is also mounted on the carbon nanotube structure and become electricity. While this is nothing new strictly speaking, Ramasamy and his team have managed to produce energy yields some two times greater than anyone before had been able to achieve with this process. v

JUNE | JULY 2013

Shaping Our Future with Sustainable Energy: A Direction from Young Engineers

t is broadly accepted that current energy systems should become more sustainable in both a global and local context. However, setting common goals and shared objectives and determining the appropriate means by which to get there is the subject of heavy debate. Therefore, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and the German Association of Engineers (VDI) initiated a joint project aimed at providing a young engineer’s perspective to the global energy conversation. The young engineer project teams set a common goal of assembling a completely sustainable energy system for the U.S. and Germany by 2050. This includes not only the electricity market but the overall energy system. Based on the current global energy paradigm, a completely sustainable energy system seems very ambitious. However, multiple analyses show that this path is possible and would in the medium to long run not only be desirable but also competitive in the market. This future ‘energy puzzle’ consists of many important pieces, and the overall picture must be shaped by an overarching strategy of sustainability.

Introduction In early 2011, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and the German Association of Engineers (VDI) initiated a joint project aimed at providing a young engineer’s perspective to the global energy conversation. After having agreed upon a consistent definition for sustainability, the project group identified four fields of action where the United States and Germany could actually work together in order to push the idea of a 100 percent sustainable energy system by 2050. Naturally, the energy systems of the United States and Germany are hard to compare, but the rational use of energy, the balancing of electricity demand and generation, cost efficiency and competitiveness, and public acceptance are clearly four key areas of action for both countries on their way to a completely sustainable energy system. The results of the joint project group work were presented at the World Engineering Convention in Geneva in September 2011 and were further discussed at the ASME Sustainability Conference 2012 in San Diego, based on this paper.

Nomenclature CCPP Combined Cycle Power Plants CSP Concentrated solar power plants CHP Combined heat and power DOE US Department of Energy EEG German Renewable Energy Law (Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz) EU European Union FACTS Flexible AC transmission systems; type of power electronics for the electricity grid LEC Levelized electricity cost MENA Middle East and North Africa PV Photovoltaics RE Renewable energies US United States of America

Sustainability According to the Brundtland Commission (UN, 1987), “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Looking at the energy systems of today, this aim is by far not reached, although everybody seems to wish to become more sustainable. Furthermore, there are many interpretations of what sustainability means in concrete. Sustainability seems to be rather an idea comparable to ‘liberty’ or ‘justice’ (Blewitt, 2008). In consequence, when discussing energy sustainability, we must at first define what we really mean. Our American and

German team came up with a joint definition as summarized in Figure 1, which is based on a definition developed in Trieb, 2006. The energy system is described by the confluence of security of supply, economic development, ecological conservation, and social responsibility. Security of supply is the basis for industrial and developed countries. Especially for Germany, the availability of base-load electricity was its industrial backbone, starting in the 1950s until now. However, for longterm security, energy carriers should origin from diversified and redundant sources. The current US and German system is mainly based on oil, coal, gas, and nuclear—only four energy carriers. Additionally, a large part of them is imported from countries that might politically abuse their energy exporting power. Expanding the energy system to natural, regenerating resources like water, wind, solar irradiation or geothermal energy is not only politically wise, it is an obligation to use them, since they are the only recourse that will be available for generations to come. Hoping for new technologies to appear will not help in the long run but only postpone necessary steps towards a secure system.

Figure 1: Characteristics of a sustainable energy system GeorGia enGineer

Ecological aspects are omnipresent. First and foremost is the discussion about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. But not only carbon dioxide or methane emissions should be avoided. Emissions also include noise, e.g. from planes or factories, chemical substances, e.g. air pollutants or effluents, or nuclear waste. Conserving an enjoyable environment and the diversity of eco-systems for all is the overarching premise for ecological sustainability. Social aspects gain more and more importance for the organization of the energy system. The equality of access seems to be taken for granted in industrial countries, but unfortunately it is not that self-evident in other countries. Inequalities are seldom compatible with sustainability and must be avoided. Derived from that argument, there should be a low risk associated with the energy system. Risk by itself is never quantifiable, and although measures might indicate a low risk, the ‘feeling’ of risk in a society should be taken seriously. The current energy system is far away from being sustainable. The transition to a sustainable one will therefore take time and reduce privileges. In consequence, energy technologies should not only be measured by cost per unit of energy but rather by its cost for society and by its ability to help achieve a sustainable energy system. Rational Use of Energy A sustainable energy system will most likely depend on volatile energy sources such as wind and sunlight. In order to cope with the volatility of these sources, large surplus power capacities, numerous energy storage systems, and a smart and powerful energy distribution grid are necessary. The potentials Besides efficiency potentials on the generation side, i.e. increasing the conversion efficiency of power units and plants, large energy saving potentials are on the demand side. In Germany, the biggest saving potential can be found in private households, transportation, and the industry sector due to very high-end energy consumption (Figure 2). In private households in Germany most of the final energy (>70 percent) is used for JUNE | JULY 2013

tems, reconverted into electricity or re-fed into the system to preheat the material. In alternating processes, i.e. accelerate/brake; up/down (elevator, cranes) etc. mechanical energy can be perfectly recuperated. As well, the installation of motor-speed controlled engines and the maintenance and optimization of pressurized air systems are intelligent easily implementable solutions to save energy (Prognos, 2007). Figure 2: Final energy consumption by sectors (AGEB, 2011). space heating (Prognos, 2007). This energy consumption is caused by an inadequate insulation, and poorly designed air circulation systems in combination with the orientation of the building and its heat absorption. Including the trade and services and industry sector, about 40 percent of the overall German final energy use is dedicated to heat buildings. If all buildings were constructed as passive houses, about 80 percent of space heating energy could be saved (FVEE, 2010; Allendorf, 2011), that is about one third of the total German end energy demand. Besides the above-mentioned points, current fuel-fired heating can be replaced by efficiently working heat pumps in combination with solar or geothermal systems. Natural gas or oil can be used more efficiently to generate dispatchable electricity than for space heating. The electricity in turn can be used to operate the heat pumps or solar and geothermal systems which consume very little energy. Due to an increasing mobility of the people and increasing freight traffic, the traffic sector will even become more important. Most effective saving methods are the introduction of shared driving systems, i.e. two to four people per car instead of one, the utilization of public transportation, bicycles or even walking, especially for short distances. This relies amongst others on a habitual change of people which is already observable in Germany and is promoted by the application of mobile technologies like ‘smart phones.’ Also freight traffic should be shifted from the roads to more efficient systems such as trains or ships. In industry processes, heat recovery and mechanical energy recovery systems should be installed. Exhaust heat at all temperature levels can be stored in thermal storage sys-

The implementation In order to raise the public awareness for energy efficiency and conservation, several actions are proposed. • Installation of a nationwide action plan including consultancy as well as technical and financial support; •

Labeling of consumer goods regarding the energy consumption for production and transportation of the product;

•

Implementation of efficiency benchmarking in all areas and constant adaptation to most efficient processes;

•

Introduction of a mandatory ‘integrated energy, material, and process management’ for industry.

In a nationwide action plan all people are to be sensitized by advertisments, informative seminars and reports etc. Information about existing incentive programmes and arrangements to increase the energy efficiency easily have to be spread to all people. Low cost appropriation (smart meters, current consumption measures) has to be offered. Also, low cost consultation for municipalities and individual persons is to be provided to reveal hidden efficiency potentials and to develop

integrated energy concepts for houses, buildings, villages, and municipalities. These consultancy programs and seminars can be organized on the municipality level cooperating with local public utility companies. All relevant information concerning the topic should be collected and easily shared, for example via a Web page. Finally, the rational use of energy is to become a part of school education in the form of project days and competitions with other schools. People’s awareness can be raised further by a mandatory labeling of food and consumer goods considering the energy consumption for production and transportation to the supermarket as well as possible fuel/energy consumption during its life-time. This labeling can be done by indicating the consumption of energy and water and the emission of greenhouse gases in the form of traffic lights. The classification will help the customer to compare similar products quickly. Balancing Electricity In the U.S., about 18 percent of end energy is electricity, surpassed only by natural gas and petroleum (LLNL, 2011). In a sustainable energy system: • Natural gas and oil for heat will be substituted by electricity to a large degree. •

Transportation fuels will shift from fossil based fuels to biofuels or electric drives.

In consequence, the major share of end energy in a future energy system will be provided by electricity. The importance of balancing electricity Permanently available energy has been the key success factor for our industrial societies. Since the industrial revolution, fossil fuels, including coal, natural gas, and petroleum, have been used exclusively to satisfy the increased energy requirement of the modern society. One of the main reasons for such high demand for fossil fuels comes from the fact that the fossil fuels are an ideal form of chemical energy for storage, which can easily be transported and converted into other forms of energy. Although the production of 28

electricity can match the instantaneous energy demand satisfied by fossil fuels, there is inherent problem when dealing with electricity; electricity is difficult to store compared to fossil fuels. More specifically, if there is no immediate demand for the surplus electricity, it is immediately lost. One potential approach to this problem is to come up with an electrical grid which consists of electricity generation, power transmission, and distribution. For the electricity generation in the grid, it is not a major problem if the complete portfolio of power plants based on nonintermittent resources such as fossil and nuclear are adapted, because such power resources can promote the steady flow of electricity output. However, with new power plants based on renewable energy (RE) using intermittent resources like wind for electricity generation, the creation of steady electricity output will become a challenge. That is, a thorough study on the intermittency of various power sources is a must for the smart generation of electricity, and its load management will gain an important role in a future energy system. Consequently, electricity management will become a major part of a country’s security of supply and energy sustainability. The current status in the US and Germany In the U.S. about 3900 TWhe of electricity are generated (LLNL, 2011), which is more than six times the German generation of about 600 TWhe (AGEB, 2011). The portfolio of power plants in Germany is divided into three main classes of plants: base load, mid load, and peak load. The categories are derived from the plants’ overall cost structure. Plants with high investment and low fuel cost (lignite and nuclear) are used as base load plants. Almost 50 percent of electricity production is in this category (cf. Table 1). If the demand is higher than the base load capacity, mid-load plants (hard coal) are switched on. At peak demand during noon or in the evening hours, peak load plants (e.g. gas turbines) are used, which are characterized by a rather low investment and high fuel cost. This situation is shown in Figure 3. The sources for the electricity production in the U.S. are also shown in Table 1.

Comparing the U.S. numbers to German numbers, they are in the same order of magnitude. There is slightly more dependency on coal, natural gas, and water (hydro) in the U.S. On the other hand, there is less dependency on nuclear, wind, and biomass in the U.S. electricity production. Overall, the numbers seems somewhat close to each other. Most of the potential RE technologies to be used in Germany depend on the fluctuating availability of resources, e.g. wind power or the application of photovoltaics (PV). When the resources are available, electricity from RE can be produced. This production, however, is independent from the real demand, which is illustrated in Figure 4. There will be times of overproduction, in which the exceeding electricity could be used to charge electric storage systems (pumped hydro, adiabatic compressed air storage, and batteries) or produce synthetic fuels like hydrogen or methane (power to gas). For an efficient energy system, the overproduction should be used as efficiently as possible during later times of underproduction. Dispatchable electricity can be produced by discharging storage systems or by the use of flexible plants like combined cycle power plants (CCPP), which have, besides their flexibility, the highest efficiency in the field of fossil fired power plants (up to 61 percent). In a future power plant portfolio with high shares of fluctuating RE, conventional power plants will only be used during Source

U.S. Germany 2010 2009 (LLNL, 2011) (AGEB, 2011) 3884 TWhe 597 TWhe

Lignite Hard coal Natural gas Nuclear Oil and diesel Water Wind Biomass Photovoltaic Others

48% 19 % 21 % 1% 6% 2% 1% <1% <1%

25 % 19 % 13 % 23 % 1% 3% 6% 5% 1% 4%

Table 1: Shares of gross electricity production in the US and Germany GeorGia enGineer

Figure 3: Ideal scheme of electricity demand and base, mid, and peak load production.

Figure 4: Scheme of electricity demand and fluctuating electricity production.

times of underproduction. German utilities currently operate predominantly inflexible base load and midload power plants. If the total amount of installed RE capacity is low, this does not cause major problems. Expensive peak load plants are not needed any more during times of high demand because RE can bridge the gap to mid and base load plants. In the U.S., the summer peak hours for example correspond well to the highest PV production. If the share of RE further increases, its production replaces more and more mid and base load from the grid. At first, these plants must reduce its production to a minimum. If further RE electricity is fed to the grid, the base load plants must sometimes shut down. However, this is only possible to the degree up to which the stability of the grid is not endangered. For instance, thermal power plants are designed to stabilize very shortterm disturbances in the grid, while PV currently is not. If the RE share is too high, RE must be curtailed from the grid. Situations like these already occur very often in Germany, such that the grid operator must take action and curtail wind turbinesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;predominantly in the north of Germany. Possible solutions for sustainable electricity supply To allow higher shares of RE, the thermal power plants must become more flexible. JUNE | JULY 2013

Also, RE technologies must be designed for stabilizing the grid through the careful observation and prediction of their intermittency and dispatchability. Furthermore, storage capacity should be built in order to limit the times when base load plants must be shut down. The energy sources for grid-stabilizing thermal plants do not necessarily have to be fossil or nuclear. That is, geothermal, biomass or solar-thermal/concentrated solar power (CSP) plants can also provide the same grid services and dispatchability as every other fossil or nuclear plant. However, the potential for these plants is very limited for Germany. Drillings for geothermal plants should be quite deep; biomass plants are built, but will reach their potential due to the alternatives of biomass usage for gas, fuels or pellet heating; direct solar irradiation is too low for CSP. One solution for Germany is the large-scale import of dispatchable electricity from countries with more potential. Ideally, electricity from CSP plants is transferred from North Africa to Germany via high voltage direct current (HVDC) lines. These point to point connections would serve in Germany as substitution for other conventional power plants and could be connected at locations where currently nuclear plants are connected to the German grid. This idea was analyzed by Trieb, 2006 and led to the foundation of the Desertec Foundation. Electricity losses during transport from North Africa to Germany would be relatively low (< 15 percent) and the potential is far beyond the future demand (Trieb, 2006). In the U.S., about half of electricity was generated by coal. Out of the domestically produced energy, renewable energy is low at about 11 percent (DOE/EIA, 2011). By stabilizing the energy grid and increasing the percentage of RE, the dependency of electricity production on coal will be reduced. One important aspect of balancing electricity is that the RE production technologies must be harmonized and should not be judged by their isolated levelized electricity cost (LEC), i.e. generation costs per kilowatthour. Denholm and Mehos (Denholm, 2011) demonstrated that for the solar case of PV and CSP. They set up a model of the Cal-

ifornian electricity grid to check its ability to include solar electricity production. Without further measures, only about 15 percent to 20 percent of the electricity could be generated by PV due to economic and grid limitations, where PV was applied first because it showed lower LEC than CSP. With the continued growth expected for the share of electricity produced from solar energy, CSP with its available thermal storage and baseload capabilities must be applied. To this end, the solar share, which consists of half PV and half CSP, could be increased to more than 50 percent. Since CSP is both renewable and baseload compatible, its share could be increased further. In conclusion, the sole view on current costs and share may not necessarily lead to the most economic overall energy system in the future; therefore, thorough research on electricity balancing must be completed, which then must be taken into account by policy makers. Comparison Between the US and Germany There are a lot of issues that could be compared between the U.S. and Germany. Only a few are listed and explained here. Both countries have their specifics, but both can

also learn from each other. The exchange of knowledge and best practice experience is therefore a first major step towards a sustainable future. Similarities • In principal, both countries could be energy self-sufficient by domestic RE potentials. Only for Germany, the provision with cost-efficient and dispatchable power will need to be backed by electricity imports, e.g. from the south of the EU or North Africa. •

•

The regional potential is not distributed equally along the country. This makes efficient energy transport necessary. People are used to traditional ‘handling’ of energy, and the current energy system has developed slowly in both countries. But the transition to a sustainable system requires a resolute change of the current habits.

•

The four major points discussed in this paper are the same for both countries – and most other industrial countries. Although certain differences exist, the main paths are the same and need country-specific ways of implementation.

•

National biomass strategy: biomass can be used in a variety of sectors like electricity production, fuels for vehicles or planes, or in industrial processes. However, the domestic potential is limited in both countries and demands an overall strategy for biomass utilization—as well as for possible biomass imports that should correspond to the requirements of sustainability in the exporting countries.

Differences The main differences between the countries for consideration of a sustainable energy system arise from different cultures. The U.S. is very economy and market oriented, while Germany tries to combine the market with tighter social/political limits. This leads to different developments of research funding or RE incentives. The German Renewable Energy Act (Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz, 30

EEG) funds RE technologies with a constant feed-in tariff for each energy unit (kWh). Differences are made depending on each technology and the already installed capacity to adapt tariffs by reacting on current market conditions. This arises from the opinion that short-term subsidies are needed to establish a market with various players that can decrease costs by economies of scale and learning curves. In the U.S. there is no common law like the EEG. Every state can decide on its own, leading to a variety of rules and discrepancies in the RE shares of the states. Funding is concentrated on research for demonstration projects or to foster break-through technologies like in the ‘Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy’ (ARPA-E) programme. These funds can lead to further steps towards the competitiveness of RE technologies. By the U.S. approach, only the cheapest technologies are deployed, independent from their later use for a sustainable system, and without market development for important future technologies. This partly leads to inefficient investments and causes a delay of the transition phase. By the German approach on the other hand, the overall system could be considered (if a strategy existed), but is dependent on political will and expertise. A mixture of both should be the goal for future energy policy makers. Regarding the size, energy demand, and RE potential, the U.S. seems to be rather comparable to the European Union (EU). Furthermore, the U.S. states are more selfcontained than the German federal states and more resemble countries in the EU. However, energy structures and major challenges are completely comparable. Conclusions The design and organization of a sustainable energy system is complex, and there are many things to work on in parallel. This compilation has been developed by a joined U.S./ASME and German/VDI team of young engineers to illuminate some major parts to tackle and to define a common understanding of the goal. The U.S., Germany, and all other developed nations face similar problems when it comes to creating a sustainable energy system. Since in this ‘energy puzzle’ many things are important, our list

of conclusions is by far not complete, but exemplary: • Not one single renewable energy technology can solve the global energy challenge. An overall system approach, which obeys the critical conditions of sustainability, is essential. This requires the implementation of a nationwide energy strategy. •

Without an increase in energy efficiency and conservation, there will be no sustainable energy system. Potentials for these efficiency gains are huge.

•

The continuous increase in energy costs will go on with conventional/fossil energy carriers. Only early investments in RE technologies will enable countries to stabilize the costs in the middle to long run.

•

The balancing of electricity is the key to integrate growing renewable energy generation into the grid. RE production technologies must be harmonized and should not be judged by their isolated levelized electricity cost, but by their overall system contribution.

•

Comprehensive information and early involvement of affected persons will increase public acceptance to create a sustainable energy system.

•

Comprehensive enlightenment about chances and risks of technological opportunities and alternatives will become a key responsibility of engineers. To create acceptance for complex large-scale technologies, standardized evaluation factors can help during the process of involvement.

•

Binational or multinational joint R&D and manufacturing projects will help to deploy the economies of scale quicker and advance renewable technologies.

•

The exchange of knowledge and best practice experience must be fostered internationally. v GeorGia enGineer

Donald Leo Named Dean of UGA College of Engineering Donald Leo, a Virginia Tech vice president and former associate dean, has been named dean of the University of Georgia College of Engineering. Leo is a professor of mechanical engineering and vice president and executive director of the National Capital Region operations of Virginia Tech. He previously served as associate dean for research and graduate studies at the Virginia Tech College of Engineering. The appointment was announced by Jere Morehead, senior vice president for academic affairs and provost. The deans of the 17 schools and colleges at UGA report to the provost. “This is a critically important position, not only for the University of Georgia but for the state of Georgia,” said UGA President Michael F. Adams. “The College of Engineering at UGA was established last year to meet the clear need for more Georgia-trained engineers. I am confident that Dr. Leo is the right leader at this time for our engineering program.” Leo’s appointment is effective July 1. “Dr. Leo’s experience as an associate dean of one of the nation’s largest and most well-regarded engineering programs makes him well positioned to lead the UGA College of Engineering,” Morehead said. “His success in growing the research enterprise at Virginia Tech while creating partnerships with government and industry underscores the institution’s land-grant mission of service to the state, and he will play a similar role in enhancing UGA’s research and outreach as a land-grant institution.” The search committee was chaired by Svein Oie, dean of the College of Pharmacy, and was assisted by the search firm Witt/Kieffer. As vice president and executive director of the National Capital Region operations of Virginia Tech, Leo integrates and coordinates the activities of Virginia Tech in the greater Washington, D.C. area. From 2007-2011, he served as associate dean for research and JUNE | JULY 2013

Donald Leo graduate studies for the Virginia Tech College of Engineering, which has approximately 8,000 students and whose undergraduate program is ranked 15th in the nation by U.S. News and World Report. As associate dean, he led Virginia Tech in its collaboration with the University of Virginia and the government of the Commonwealth of Virginia in the founding of the Commonwealth Center for Advanced Manufacturing. The applied research center accelerates the transition of research from the laboratory to commercial use by pooling resources to pursue university research authorized by member companies. The public-private partnership is an important economic development activity in the state and currently has 15 corporate members from five nations. From 2005-2007 and in conjunction with his position at Virginia Tech, Leo served as a program manager for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, a unit of the Department of Defense, where he created programs in the field of biologically inspired materials and systems and managed a portfolio of approximately $50 million in interdisciplinary research. Leo joined the faculty of Virginia Tech in 1998. His research focuses on so-called “smart materials” that respond to external stimuli, and he has served as principal investigator on 50 research grants and contracts with approximately $12 million in extramu-

ral funding. He has authored or co-authored more than 200 research publications and recently founded the Biomolecular Materials and Systems Laboratory, which explores how biological materials and signaling processes can be used to develop engineering devices. He is the author of the textbook “Engineering Analysis of Smart Material Systems” (John Wiley and Sons, 2007), which is used at the senior undergraduate and graduate level at several colleges and universities. He created a course on active materials and smart structures that is based on his textbook and continues to be taught at Virginia Tech. Leo is a Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, a recipient of the Virginia Tech Dean’s Award for Excellence in Research and in 2004 was named Outstanding Recent Alumnus of the highly ranked University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Aerospace Engineering Department. He earned a master’s degree and a doctoral degree in mechanical and aerospace engineering from the University of Buffalo. He earned his bachelor’s degree in aeronautics and astronautics engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “I would like to thank President Adams and Provost Morehead for the unique opportunity to be the first permanent dean of the College of Engineering,” Leo said. “It will be a privilege to lead the development of a new engineering college at a top-ranked public institution, and I look forward to working with the students, staff and faculty to grow the college and build upon the considerable strengths of the University of Georgia.” The creation of the College of Engineering was unanimously approved by the University Council in April 2012. The college is organized without departmental boundaries to promote advanced studies at the interface of disciplines and to prepare students for careers devoted to the integration of discoveries from multiple fields. For more information about the UGA College of Engineering, see www.engr.uga.edu/. v 31

GEORGIA

ENGINEERING NEWS

Parsons Brinckerhoff

S. Bijoy Ghosh

ASHE

Joe Riddle

National Engineering Forum kicks off regional dialogues Movement focuses on engineering to secure America’s future prosperity The National Engineering Forum (NEF) is opening a nationwide conversation on how to ensure the engineering profession is ready to lead America into a secure and prosperous future. NEF follows its inaugural event in New York with a series of national dialogues beginning April 18 at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) near Knoxville, Tennessee. NEF brings together stakeholders to develop solutions to three challenges (3C’s) facing engineering in America: • Challenge of Capacity – Growing the nation’s technical talent • Challenge of Capability – Preparing the U.S. engineering workforce for the 21st century • Challenge of Competitiveness – Securing America’s leadership in an increasingly innovation-focused global economy Lockheed Martin, the Council on Competitiveness, and the National Academy of Engineering launched NEF, which now has a growing roster of partners from academia, industry, the national laboratories, and professional associations. Participants share a common vision for transforming the way Americans perceive, experience, and prioritize engineering. “The competitiveness of the United States depends on a skilled workforce of engineers and innovators who are equipped to design solutions to our nation’s most critical 32

ASHE

Al Bowman

Ryan Graves

needs,” said Dr. Ray O. Johnson, senior vice president and chief technology officer at Lockheed Martin. “Throughout history, our nation has turned to superior engineering and technology to solve our most difficult challenges.” NEF’s 2013 dialogue series will be held in cities across America with a prominent role in shaping the nation’s engineering heritage and its future. The Knoxville area was selected for April’s dialogue based on the pivotal role of East Tennessee in American engineering as the home of ORNL and the Tennessee Valley Authority, along with the University of Tennessee’s 175 years of engineering education. “America’s future productivity, prosperity, and security are a function of the roles engineers and the engineering professional play in our society,” said Deborah L. WinceSmith, president and CEO of the Council on Competitiveness. “In an era of turbulence, transition, and transformation, engineering leadership will be critical in building a strong foundation for America’s long-term growth and competitiveness.” Upcoming regional dialogue sites include Albuquerque, May 29; Los Angeles, June 11; Detroit, July 8; and San Diego, October 10; with other cities to be announced soon. The regional dialogues will create a countrywide conversation culminating in a national event next year. v S. Bijoy Ghosh Joins Parsons Brinckerhoff S. Bijoy Ghosh has been named a Vice President of Parsons Brinckerhoff, a global infrastructure strategic consulting, engineering,

Pile Dynamics

Frank Rausche

Garland Likins

and program/construction management organization. Mr. Ghosh will be based in Parsons Brinckerhoff’s Atlanta office and will serve as a Senior Engineering Manager, helping to build the firm’s water practice throughout the United States. Mr. Ghosh has over 25 years of experience in providing technical and management solutions to public and private entities in the water and environment market sectors. His experience includes development of large water conveyance projects that encompassed structured financing; program/construction management for water and sewer projects; water reclamation facilities improvements and expansions using design-build-operate (DBO); and delivery of professional services including master planning for water and sewer projects, and design and construction management for water and water reclamation facilities. Prior to joining Parsons Brinckerhoff, Mr. Ghosh served as an executive with two large engineering and construction firms and held leadership roles for business strategy development and profitable growth, client relationship management, and geographic operations management. Mr. Ghosh earned an M.S. in environmental engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology, an M.E. in civil engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology, and a B.E. in civil engineering from Birla Institute of Technology and Science in India. He is a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Water Works Association, the Water Environment Federation, and the Georgia Association of Water Professionals.v GeorGia enGineer

ASHE Happenings~ April 2013 Please note ASHE Georgia’s new Web address! www.georgia.ashe.pro ASHE Poker Tournament On March 21, ASHE held its annual poker tournament at United Consulting. 77 ASHE members participated in this popular event, which was made possible by our generous sponsors. Royal Flush ($300) • AECOM • T.Y. Lin International • ARCADIS Four of a Kind ($100) • Edwards-Pitman • CH2M Hill • Pond & Company • ECS Southeast, LLC • Terracon Consultants • Heath & Lineback Engineers Inc. • Gresham, Smith and Partners Results 1st Place: Joe Riddle 2nd Place: Al Bowman 3rd Place: Ryan Graves

Most Knockouts: Pervel Iqbal Top Female: Beth Ann Schwartz Pile Dynamics People News Pile Dynamics Inc. proudly announces the recognition by the engineering community of the outstanding achievements of its technical leaders: Frank Rausche, PhD, PE, founder of GRL Engineers Inc., its president for many years and currently a principal and consultant JUNE | JULY 2013

to Pile Dynamics Inc., has been conferred the title of Diplomate, Geotechnical Engineering, by the Academy of Geo-Professionals. The Academy of Geo-Professionals was founded in October 2008 by the members of American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Geo-Institute, with the goal of providing advanced certification to geotechnical engineers. An engineer becomes a Diplomate through achieving advanced experience, licensure, and education. Frank’s certification was presented at a ceremony during GeoCongress 2013 in San Diego, California on March 4, 2013. Garland Likins, PE, President of Pile Dynamics Inc. has been announced as the winner of this year’s Robert B. Cummings Distinguished Leadership Award from the Cleveland Technical Societies Council (CTSC).

CTSC was founded in 1942 and represents 21 area professional societies and organizations that serve the scientific, technical, engineering, and education professions in Northeast Ohio. “The Robert B. Cummings Distinguished Leadership Award is bestowed annually upon an individual who is or has been closely associated with engineering or technical work, and who has contributed greatly to the advancement and welfare of the engineering or technical professions. The individual must have achieved true and lasting prominence over a period of years, and must also have shown community spirit and leadership in worthy non-professional activities. The legendary Frederick C. Crawford received the first such award in 1947”, reads the CTSC Web site. Garland’s award will be presented on Monday, May 6th during the 67th Annual CTSC Scholarship and Achievement Awards Dinner. During that event, CTSC will also present $20,000 in scholarships to the brightest Northeast Ohio students—as chosen by their teachers—who plan to pursue science-based careers. The Cleveland Section of ASCE is funding a portion of scholarship in Garland’s honor. PDI has manufactured systems to assure the quality of deep foundations since 1972. A research effort started in 1964 at Case Western Reserve University evolved into PDI, now a 50+ employee company that invests heavily in research and development. PDI engineers hold several patents, and multiple PDI instruments have won innovation awards. PDI is known in all continents for the quality of its state-of-the-art products. Pile Dynamics and its worldwide representatives are committed to providing exceptional customer technical support. For more information visit www.pile.com/pdi. v Don Del Nero Joins Stantec as Practice Leader for Tunnels and Trenchless Technologies Industry leader in tunnel installations across North America Don Del Nero, PE, CDT, has joined Stantec as the Tunnels and Trenchless Practice Leader. In this role, Del Nero will lead North America-wide programs related to developing underground infrastructure that supports water 33

Stantec

Thomas & Hutton

Wolverton & Assoc.

Don Del Nero

Sam McCachern

Jay Wolverton

conveyance and transportation facilities. He is based in Atlanta, Georgia. Del Nero’s engineering and construction management experience encompasses more than 50 major projects and 40 miles of tunnel and trenchless installations representing more than $1 billion in capital improvements. He is a recognized leader in the underground industry and has designed and led projects involving tunnel and trenchless technologies for sanitary sewers, storm sewers, raw water lines, finished water lines, recycled water lines, storm sewer overflow (SSO) and combined sewer overflow (CSO) tunnels, highway tunnels, pedestrian tunnels, and large diameter piping in sensitive areas. Del Nero’s experience includes design for tunneling in a wide array of challenging ground and groundwater conditions across the US and Canada, including the cities of Atlanta, Cincinnati, Tampa, Denver, Vancouver, San Francisco, and Toronto. A registered professional engineer and certified contract documents technologist, Del Nero has lectured and published widely on the topics of design, construction, and risk management associated with tunneling and trenchless technology. He is a member of the board of directors of the North American Society for Trenchless Technologies (NASTT) and a NASTT course instructor. At the Colorado School of Mines, Del Nero is an instructor for Micro-Tunneling and Tunneling courses. Stantec’s Water and Transportation sectors include more than 2,500 professionals. v Thomas & Hutton Names Sam McCachern ~ New Company President Thomas & Hutton, a leading professional engineering and consulting firm, has officially announced that Samuel G. McCachern, P.E., has been elected president of 34

Burns & McDonnell

Arnold Olender, Oko Buckle, Tom Price, Mike Talboy

Thomas & Hutton. Board chairman John G. Lientz made the announcement at the company’s board meeting earlier today. “Sam will provide the leadership and guidance to help Thomas & Hutton grow strategically,” said Mitchell Bohannon, who has served as president and CEO of Thomas & Hutton since 2008 and will continue to serve as CEO. “His unwavering loyalty, impressive commitment to excellence, strong work ethic and powerful connection to the community make him uniquely qualified to take Thomas & Hutton to an even higher level of success.” McCachern originally joined the company in 1985, shortly after graduating from North Carolina State University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering. Over the past 28 years, he has served as principal and project manager on a number of Thomas & Hutton projects including Haig Point and Melrose on Daufuskie Island, South Carolina, and Sun City Hilton Head and Palmetto Bluff in Bluffton, South Carolina. Before being named president, he served as the senior vice president and chief financial officer at Thomas & Hutton. In addition to project and client service, much of McCachern’s experience at Thomas & Hutton centers on the business aspects of consulting engineering including new business development, human resources, recruiting, training, risk management, and real estate matters. McCachern is a registered engineer in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina and a LEED-accredited professional. He is a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Urban Land Institute, National Society of Professional Land Surveyors, and American Council of Engineering Companies. McCachern is a member of Isle of Hope

United Methodist Church and a dedicated community leader. He served as the 2012 campaign chair for the United Way of the Coastal Empire and currently serves on the boards of the Savannah Chamber of Commerce, the United Way of the Coastal Empire, and Savannah Christian Preparatory School. He also is a member of the Savannah Economic Development Authority advisory board, past president of Rotary Club of Savannah, and a Leadership Savannah graduate. “It is truly an honor to be named president of this exceptional company,” said McCachern. “I look forward to expanding Thomas & Hutton’s reach in all of our key markets.” v Jay Wolverton, Jr., P.E., Elected President of the Board of Design Professionals Risk Control Group Jerry (Jay) C. Wolverton, Jr., P.E., CEO and President of Wolverton & Associates Inc. (W&A), has been elected President of the Board by the Design Professionals Risk Control Group (DPRCG). Prior to his appointment as president, he served on DPRCG’s Practice Management & Education Committee, Risk Management Committee, and Convocation Committee. Jay served as Chair of the DPRCG Loss Prevention Convocation, an exclusive, annual industry event co-sponsored by the Design Professional unit of XL Group. DPRCG is a long-standing, risk management group that enables architectural and engineering firm members to network and share information on practice and risk management. Members have access to professional liability insurance, risk management services, and specially designed educational programs to meet their unique needs. DPRCG’s members include some GeorGia enGineer

of the most recognized names in the North American A&E design industry. v Congressman Tom Price (R-Georgia) Visits Burns & McDonnell - Southeast Engineering Firm Shares Decade of Continuous, Positive Growth, Congressman Shares News from Washington Congressman Tom Price, R-Georgia, Visits Top-Rated Engineering Firm Burns & McDonnell - Southeast. Pictured on page 34 from left to right, Burns & McDonnell Southeast Vice President Arnold Olender, Oko Buckle, Representative Tom Price, Mike Talboy. Before heading back to Washington, Congressman Tom Price visited the offices of top engineering firm Burns & McDonnell in north metro Atlanta. During the May 2 meeting, he met with the firm’s leadership and learned more about how this private sector company has managed ten years of positive growth through a culture of employee ownership, collaboration, and commitment to client success. Rep. Price met with the Burns & McDonnell Southeast’s growing team of professional engineers and staff to share updates from Washington, including the current sequester and budget issues. Recognized as one of Georgia’s ‘Best Places to Work’ by the Atlanta Journal Constitution and ‘Best Engineering Firm’ by the Atlanta Business Chronicle, the accolades reflect the company’s dedication to all of its employee-owners and to its clients. Additionally, Burns & McDonnell was ranked

JUNE | JULY 2013

18th on FORTUNE magazine‘s annual list of ‘100 Best Companies to Work For’ (up from 26th last year), the 2012 ESOP (Employee Stock Ownership Plan) Company of the Year from the ESOP Association, and for the last three years, Burns & McDonnell has been selected as one of eight architecture, engineering, and construction firms nationwide

to receive the Premier Award for Client Satisfaction from the Professional Services Management Journal. The Southeast regional office is part of the full-service engineering firm Burns & McDonnell, based in Kansas City, Missouri. Learn more or start the conversation at www.burnsmcd.com. v

ACEC Georgia Edgar G. Williams, PE President ACEC Georgia

For the past year, ACEC Georgia has been focused on our three part Value Proposition:

News Engineering Firm Operations: Staff Development, Best Practices, and Technology Advocacy, Business Development, and Firm Operations, and each of our events and endeavors have targeted one or more of these components. Firm Operations is probably the part of the Value Proposition that gets the least amount of press but there are lots of things going on currently and in development that relate to this aspect of the strategy. As the frequently used slogan says, ‘Our People are Our Best Asset’ in Firm Operations. ACEC Georgia provides many opportunities for continuing education and staff development in our monthly meetings

and special programs like Future Leaders. Having the most polished and best trained professional staff is good. But if your tools for accomplishing the work and the strategies for running your business are not up to current standards, the success of your business will suffer. Upcoming Firm Operations initiatives will include promotion of ‘Best Practices’ to improve member firms’ quality of work and enhance success as a business venture. Future Firm Operations events will include presentations and workshops on business operations topics such as staff recruiting,

Political Advocacy

The Value of ACEC Georgia Serving your firm’s business interests through:

• Advocating at all levels of government to advance policies that impact the business of engineering in Georgia. • Monitoring the regulatory issues and government agency actions that affect engineers. • Working for a more pro-business climate and defending against unfair business practices. • Fighting to protect the professional engineering practice.

Business Development • Providing networking opportunities, meetings, and programs that put you in contact with potential clients, industry peers, and the leaders of the engineering profession. • Hosting the Georgia Engineers Summer Conference, Transportation Summit, P3 Summit, and other programs that expand your professional knowledge and network. • Offering informative and relevant seminars, programs, and webinars with presentations from leaders who affect our industry and community.

Firm Operations

For additional information on ACEC Georgia, please visit our Web site: www.acecga.org or call our office: 404-521-2324. 36

• Providing a forum for the exchange of business and professional experiences. • Offering programs and resources on best business practices for member firms. • Sponsoring the Future Leaders Program to build the next generation of leaders within member firms and the engineering profession. • We provide executive development training for emerging leaders and firm management.

GeorGia enGineer

(404) 521-2324 acecga.org

President & CEO, Michael Sullivan (404) 537-1337 sully@acecga.org

Secretary, Roseana Richards Pond & Company richardsr@pondco.com

Chief Operating Officer, Gwen Brandon (404) 537-1415 gwen.brandon@acecga.org

Vice President, Charles Ezelle Thomas & Hutton Engineering Co. ezelle.c@thomasandhutton.com

Member Services Manager, Kathy Belcher (404) 665-3539 kathy.belcher@acecga.org

Vice President, John Heath Heath & Lineback Engineers Inc. jheath@heath-lineback.com

Accounting Manager, Mia Wilson (404) 537-1275 mia.wilson@acecga.org

Vice President, David Wright, Neel-Schaffer Inc. david.wright@neel-schaffer.com

Chair, Eddie Williams Keck & Wood Inc. ewilliams@keckwood.com

National Director, Rick Toole W. R. Toole Engineers Inc. rtoole@wrtoole.com

Chair-Elect, Jay Wolverton Wolverton & Associates Inc. jay.wolverton@wolverton-assoc.com Treasurer, Darrell Rochester Rochester & Associates Inc. dkrochester@rochester-assoc.com

Director, Don Harris, URS Corporation don_harris@urscorp.com Director, Rob Lewis, HNTB Corporation rtlewis@HNTB.com Director, David McFarlin, Long Engineering Inc. dmcfarlin@longeng.com Director, Richard Meehan Lowe Engineers LLC meehan@loweengineers.com Director, Margie Pozin STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates margie.pozin@stvinc.com Director, Doug Robinson Walter P Moore and Associates Inc. drobinson@walterpmoore.com

Director, Jim Case, Uzun & Case Engineers jcase@uzuncase.com

Past President, Jim Hamilton Southern Civil Engineers Inc. jhamilton@sce-atlanta.com

Director, Scott Gero, AECOM scott.gero@aecom.com

ACEC GEORGIA MEMBER FIRMS Board of Directors Eddie Williams, Chairman Jay Wolverton, Chairman-Elect Darrell Rochester, Treasurer / Roseana Richards, Secretary Charles Ezelle, Vice Chair / John Heath, Vice Chair / David Wright, Vice Chair Rick Toole, National Director / Jim Hamilton, Past President Jim Case / Scott Gero / Don Harris / Rob Lewis / David McFarlin / Richard Meehan / Margie Pozin / Doug Robinson

Staff Committees Darrell Rochester, Government Affairs/ PAC David Wright, ACEC PAC Champion Jim Hamilton, Nominating Rob Lewis, Programs Richard Meehan, Seminars Rob Lewis, Future Leaders Program Doug Robinson, A/E/C Leadership Charles Ezelle, Membership John Heath, Communications Roseana Richards, R. Berl Elder Memorial Scholarship Don Harris, Technology Enhancement

JUNE | JULY 2013

Michael â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Sullyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Sullivan, President & CEO Gwen Brandon, Chief Operating Officer Kathy Belcher, Member Services Manager Mia Wilson, Finance Manager

Forums Bill Griffin, Building Systems Corky Welch, Environmental Chris Marsengill, Transportation Brannen Butts, Leadership

ACEC consists of 5,000 firms nationwide and represents approximately 500,000 employees. ACEC Georgia consists of 206 firms and represents approximately 6,050 employees.

accounting software, health insurance, financial management/banking, social media in the workplace, office communications/ IT, and trends in design technology. Our Affiliate Members are experts in many aspects of Firm Operations and we plan to include them in prominent roles in these programs. We are all painfully aware that it is hard to get ahead of the curve in evaluating and adopting the technological tools on which we depend. As an aid to planning for future events and services, ACEC Georgia developed a survey to provide insight into the trends, issues, and challenges of implementing technology in the business of consulting engineering. The survey results will be used in planning a Firm Operations Summit or Executive Roundtable this fall and other future events. Thank you for participating in the survey and helping us

save Date! The Spa & Lodge at Callaway, Pine Mountain, GA June 13 – 16, 2013

cultural trends have resulted in the need to develop policies for their use in the workplace. Is it OK to issue a Work Directive to a contractor through Facebook? Are there new issues in ‘document retention’ that have liability implications? Do you allow full access to all social media through your company network? In the old days, engineers were often required to provide their own triangles and scales. Are we headed towards a culture of ‘bring your own device’ whether smart phone, tablet, or desk top PC?

plan events relevant to your needs! Here are some examples of potential topics: Our membership includes firms in several different practice areas, and we use a wide range of design software products operating on different platforms. Likewise, there are multiple options for time-and-billing and accounting software. Firm size and practice area are major drivers in choosing the best accounting software for your firm. As the economy improves and we return to a growth mode, many firms will be looking for expansion capital. What are the issues in dealing with banks in the new economy?

Health Insurance will be an issue for all of us as new rules come into play in 2014. Recent news stories have predicted very large rate increases resulting from the new law. However, recent information from ACEC National suggests that ACEC members may have a unique opportunity to purchase quality and affordable health insurance for their employees through the association sponsored plan.

Changes in social and technological trends lead to new paradigms for business operations. The popularity of new technological tools and the resulting

2013 GeorGia enGineers summer ConferenCe

The upcoming ACEC Georgia events will provide the opportunity to explore answers to questions like these from experts in the various fields and fellow practitioners. Check the ACEC Georgia Web site frequently for upcoming discussion related to enhancing your firm’s operations. v

Solving Subsurface Problems Since 1981 • • • • • • •

Subsurface Utility Engineering (sue) Underground utility locating Subsurface mapping and profiling Concrete imaging and inspection Geophysical exploration 3D subsurface imaging Geophysical borehole logging

Ga: 770-980-1002 sC: 843-769-7379 nC: 919-406-1808 www.gel.com 38

GeorGia enGineer

ASCE Georgia Lisa S. Woods, P.E., President American Society of Civil Engineers, Georgia Section www.ascega.org lisa.woods@jacobs.com

Greetings! As we settle into summer, I hope you take some time off to enjoy yourself and spend time with family and friends. ASCE National Fly-In I was lucky enough to attend the ASCE National Fly-In in Washington, DC this year March 19-20 along with Melissa Wheeler, Rebecca Shelton, James Emery, and Ray Wilke. Every spring, ASCE holds its Legislative Fly-In Program in Washington, DC, an intensive program that provides participants with an inside look at the political process. We visited our elected officials and held a Congressional Reception on Capitol Hill. This year was most important because

JUNE | JULY 2013

News the 2013 Report Card for Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Infrastructure was released on March 19. Please see the report card at http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org. Skills USA/Career Expo The Skills USA/Career Expo Competition was held at the Georgia International Convention Center (GICC) March 21 and 22. Thanks to our wonderful volunteers that reached out to 4,000 middle school, high school, and college students. A special thank you goes out to Keith Cole for coordinating our volunteers and for setting up and breaking down our display. Girl Scout STEM Expo Thanks also to the wonderful volunteers that helped out with the Girl Scout Stem Expo April 27. Over 2,000 girls of all ages explored Science, Technology, Engineering,

and Math (STEM) through fun and educational activities. We were in the Engineering and Math Section and girls stopped by to build a gumdrop/toothpick geodesic dome and to learn about water filtration. Special thank yous go out to Richard Morales and John Lawrence for their tireless volunteer efforts. Report Card We are ramping up to begin another update to our Georgia Infrastructure Report Card, slated for a January 2014 release! Rebecca Shelton and Dan Agramonte are leading this effort so please contact them if youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re interested in getting involved. ASCE Georgia Section 2012-2013 Annual Meeting and Awards Ceremony Mark your calendars! We will be hosting our ASCE Georgia Section Annual Meeting and Awards Ceremony at Zoo Atlanta during lunch on Friday, September 13th. Cost for the banquet will include admission to the zoo for the day. Applications for awards are out and due July 15. Check our Web site or contact Ernie Pollitzer for more information.

In closing, please e-mail me at any time if you have questions, concerns, suggestions, or would like to volunteer! Take care! v “Gort! Klaatu Borada nikto.”

(770) 521-8877 USE A COMPANy yOU CAN TRUST wITH yOUR TRANSlATION PROjECT, because a little mistake in another language can have unpleasant results.

Remember… Please join us at our remaining Section meeting this year - June 7! Please check out our new Web site, www.ascega.org, for more information. I would like to extend a sincere thank

you to our sponsors—Belgard Hardscapes, JACOBS, Hayward Baker, AECOM, Heath and Lineback, ASCE Region 5, ASCE Foundation, LB Foster, Evonik, Applied Technology Group, CH2MHILL, and John Group International. Please contact me if you are interested in becoming a sponsor.

ASCE/GEORGIA SECTION 2012 - 2013 BOARD OF DIRECTORS President Lisa S. Woods, P.E. JACOBS lisa.woods@jacobs.com President-Elect Katherine McLeod Gurd, P.E. AECOM Katherine.Gurd@aecom.com Vice President Rebecca Shelton, P.E. Gwinnett County DWR rebecca.shelton@gwinnettcounty.com

Treasurer Dan Agramonte, P.E. O'BRIEN & GERE daniel.agramonte@obg.com External Director Keith Cole, P.E. keith.cole@mindspring.com Internal Director Christina Vulova, P.E. URS Corporation christina.vulova@urs.com Secretary Ernie Pollitzer, MS P.E.

Sierra Piedmont epollitzer@bellsouth.net Technical Director Richard Morales, M.Sc., P.E. LB Foster Piling RMorales@LBFoster.com Younger Member Director Julie Secrist, P.E. Lowe Engineers Julie.Secrist@loweengineers.com Savannah Branch Director C. J. Chance

NE Georgia Branch Director Matthew Tanner, P.E. Breedlove Land Planning Inc. mtanner@landplanning.net South Metro Branch Director Greg A. Wombough, P.E. Universal Engineering Sciences gwombough@universalengineering.com Past-President James R. Wallace, Sc.D., P.E. AMEC (retired) jrwhaw@comcast.net

GeorGia enGineer

GSPE Georgia David W. Simoneau, P.E.,. President Georgia Society of Professional Engineers

“The time has come,” the Walrus said, “To talk of many things: Of shoes and ships and sealing wax, Of cabbages and kings, And why the sea is boiling hot, And whether pigs have wings.” Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1865) Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (aka Lewis Carroll)

Sometimes, when discussing engineering with the unenlightened (non-engineers), we may think the walrus had it right. But actually we need to do a better job of understanding others so we can communicate appropriately. As I finish my year as president, I think about the times that miscommunication has caused problems for me and those around me. One of the ways we learn to improve communication is through repetition. So I want to repeat some things that I feel are important. First among those is that engineers need to be involved. If you remember in an earlier column, I said that engineers need to be involved in at least three different groups. They need to be involved in the technical society that represents their career choice. They need to be active in a civic group that gives back to the community. And, of course, they need to be involved with the society that represents their profession, the National Society of Professional Engineers. If we all did at least these three things the world JUNE | JULY 2013

News we live in would be greatly improved. For some of you, there is also a desire to do more; politics, church work, business organizations, professional emphasis groups, etc… You have my blessing to pursue all that you can handle. Just be involved. The next of my reiterations is volunteering. Falling on the heels of the comments above you can see that it is important for us to help and encourage those around us. In this case, I am specifically talking about volunteering for groups that help and encourage young people to be involved in the technical fields. This is now often called STEM (science, technology, engineering and math). If you cannot find a place, consider the following: MATHCOUNTS, Future Cites, Exploring Engineering Academy, Science Olympiad, other regional programs and individual presentations in classrooms across the state. Once you take to heart these first two it leads you to the inevitable topic of ethics. So we as engineers should “Conduct ourselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.” If you scratch your head and wonder how I can make that leap, think about those ‘stars’ that have disappointed so many. As engineers we are in the public eye often, and when we get involved even more so. The connection is

clear. However, we do not do the right thing just because we are seen. True integrity is doing the right thing even when no one else can see. And the last of my ruminations is about the good and bad side of technology. To do your best and ethically perform you must work with accuracy that you are confident about. When my last column was printed, a friend called to say that he was glad that I had written about the possible pitfalls of technology. I was glad that he found it useful and passed it along to others. He even sent a further reference. In his book Route Location and Design Thomas F. Hickerson wrote “The engineer will never be replaced by the computer. Quite the reverse; the computer, by freeing him from routine labor, now challenges the engineer to grow into the scientific maturity our fast-moving technological society demands.” This was written in the fifth edition of the book in 1964. Almost 50 years ago the same theme was being taught. So learn how the technology works and control it. I hope this has not been boring, but rather a continued encouragement. As we move forward, I thank you for your support and ask that you continue to help and encourage the new officers as they take over. Remember that you are the ones we represent. v

ITE Georgia Dwayne Tedder, PE Georgia Section, Institute of Transportation Engineers

By Dwayne Tedder and John Edwards Thank you for choosing to read an update from the Georgia Section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (GA ITE). We continue to pile up activities and opportunities for our members this year. As President, I see it as my job to make sure our readers understand that we want them to attend and get all the benefits of membership in GA ITE. This is also an outreach opportunity to invite you readers that aren’t members to become members. We have several events coming up in the next couple of months, so please read below. I’ve also written down a few of our accomplishments this year, so please see those below, as well. I’ll provide some highlights of a couple events here because this is your chance to get in on the fun. • 2013 ITE Summer Seminar ~ It's never too early to begin preparations for the best statewide ITE seminar in the country! The dates are July 21st through July 24th. Reserve your rooms now at the King & Prince Beach & Golf Resort, St. Simons Island, Georgia. These rooms fill up quickly because this seminar is so

News popular! Make your hotel reservations by calling 1-800-342-0212. Registration for the conference is open on GA ITE’s Web site www.gaite.org. We hope to see you there! •

Monthly Meetings ~ Our monthly meetings, which are typically on the second Thursday of every month, are the regular chance for GA ITE members to showcase technical presentations while also providing lunch and networking opportunities. Check our Web site and get in on our e-Blast list to receive updates on upcoming meetings.

Recently GA ITE has put together several outstanding events of which we are quite proud. The GA ITE 50th Anniversary Gala The Georgia Section members of ITE celebrated fifty years of operation at a March 2013 gala luncheon held at Maggiano’s Little Italy Restaurant in Marietta, Georgia. One hundred twenty members, founders, affiliates and students gathered at this famous restaurant to review the history of the Section, to recognize the founders, to hear of some of the

humorous ‘tales of the early days’ and to participate in the Traffic Bowl by Georgia Tech and Southern Poly students. The Georgia Section began as the Atlanta Association of Traffic Engineers in 1963, then became the Georgia Division, and ultimately the Georgia Section of the Southern District of ITE. GA ITE has enjoyed great success and has had many highlights beginning with just ten members in 1963 and now with over 420 members. Presentations by the founding members included several humorous events including: Archie Burnham’s tales of experiences being jailed by upset mayors over traffic signal permits; Pat Rose’s recitation of his ‘welcome hug’ of the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders on their visit to Chattanooga while he was mayor, (and repercussions at home later). Bob Rosaveare talked of his experience as being the first county traffic engineer and John Edwards talked of being accused of being a ‘Yankee whipper-snapper’ (whatever that is…) when he arrived in Gainesville as the first traffic engineer. Todd Long, Chairman of the Past Presidents Committee, was the moderator of a series of comments by past presidents from each

Founding Members. l to r: Bob, Pat, Archie, and John 42

GeorGia enGineer

decade: 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000. They spoke of the significant events of their time and how the Section progressed during their tenure. An impressive list of technical programs, technical papers, awards from district and international ITE were reviewed and some popular programs such as the Summer Seminar, the Leadership Program, the Mentoring Program, and other service programs were covered. Most appropriately, the presentations by the founders and past presidents were followed by the Traffic Bowl Competition with students from Georgia Tech and Southern Poly. Most of us ‘older guys’ would have had trouble answering the questions but the students seemed to have little hesitation in their answers. Southern Poly won and represented the section in the district competition. The 2013 SDITE Annual Meeting This meeting was held in Charlotte, North Carolina, this year from April 7th to 10th. The theme, ‘Partnerships for Vibrant Communities,’ focused on the changing environment in which we work to fulfill the new expectations of transportation engineers and planners. This meeting had an excellent attendance from our Georgia Section with 57 GA ITE members participating. Awards are mentioned below and include our own Georgia Section winning runner-up in the Best Section Award for larger sections.

Southern Polytechnic State University Team Members. l to r: Josh Conrad, Cody Owenby, David Peters Student Papers: 1st Place – Tai Kwon Une – University of Tennessee – Knoxville 2nd Place – Brian McGill – UT Knoxville 3rd Place – Virginia Ann Wise – Tennessee Best Section Awards: Large Sections Winner – North Carolina Runner-up – Georgia JUNE | JULY 2013

Small Sections Winner – Alabama Runner-up – South Carolina • Herman J. Hoose Distinguished Service Award – John Van Winkle • Marble J. Hensley Individual Activity Award – Jeffrey Hammond • Joseph M. Thomas Young Member Award – Linsay Walker and Kimberly L. King • John Exnicios Public Service Award – Cindy Pionke • Excellence in Transportation Engineering Education – Wayne Sarasua • President’s Award – Richard Caudle April Monthly Meeting at Georgia Tech On April 19th, GA ITE had its annual joint meeting with the student chapter of the Georgia Institute of Technology. The student chapter arranged an excellent speaker, Dr. ,Randy Guensler, professor at Georgia Tech.

Past Presidents l to r: Walt, Don, Todd, and Martin His topic was I-85 HOT Lanes Research Findings and his presentation provided a description of the excellent cutting edge research and technology that is a part of the recent HOT lane project on Interstate 85 in Atlanta, Georgia. Almost 90 attendees braved the rain and were treated to burgers and hot dogs coordinated by the student chapter. This annual event serves as the Georgia Tech student chapter’s key fundraising activity. James Wong, the student chapter president, accepted a donation from GA ITE. v

Board Position President Vice President Secretary/Treasurer Past President District Representative District Representative District Representative Affiliate Director

Member Dwayne Tedder Jonathan Reid Andrew Antweiler John Karnowski David Low Carla Holmes Jim Tolson Patrick McAtee

E-mail dwayne.tedder@urs.com reid@pbworld.com aantweiler@roswellgov.com jkarnowski@foresitegroupinc.com dlow@roswellgov.com carla_holmes@gspnet.com jtolson@dot.ga.gov pmcatee@thompsonengineering.com

Phone 404.406.8791 404.364.5225 678.639.7540 770.368.1399 770.594.6422 678.518.3654 404.635.2849 404.574.1985

Committee Activities Annual Report Audio/Visual Awards/Nominations Career Guidance Clerk Comptroller Engineers Week Finance Georgia Engineer Magazine Georgia Tech Liaison Historian Host Legislative Affairs Life Membership Marketing Membership Monthly Meetings Newsletter Past Presidents Public Officials Education Scholarship Southern Poly Liaison Summer Seminar Technical/Web site Winter Workshop

Chair(s) Jim Tolson Mark Boivin John Karnowski Brendetta Walker Elizabeth Scales Jim Pohlman Steven Sheffield

E-mail jtolson@dot.ga.gov markboivin@alltrafficdata.net jkarnowski@foresitegroupinc.com bhargro@bellsouth.net escales@thompsonengineering.com pohlmanj@bellsouth.net stevenwsheffield@gmail.com

Phone 404.635.2849 404.374.1283 770.368.1399 404.364.5235 404.574.1985 770.972.9709

Dan Dobry Paul DeNard Charles Bopp Vamshi Mudumba Bill Ruhsam Don Gaines Shannon Fain Sunita Nadella Jonathan Reid Vern Wilburn Todd Long Scott Mohler Mike Crawford Bryan Sartin Sean Coleman France Campbell Larry Overn

ddobry@croyengineering.com pdenard@dot.ga.gov charles_bopp@hotmail.com vamshim@laiengineering.com bruhsam@maai.net dgaines@gcaeng.com shannon.fain@stantec.com sunita.nadella@parsons.com reid@pbworld.com vwilburn@wilburnengineering.com tlong@dot.ga.gov scott.mohler@urs.com mike.crawford@jacobs.com bryan_sartin@gspnet.com sean.coleman@kimley-horn.com france_campbell@gspnet.com larry.overn@stantec.com

770.971.5407 404.635.2843 678.380.9053 770.423.0807 678.728.9076 404.355.4010 770.813.0882 678.969.2304 404.364.5225 678.423.0050 404.631.1021 678.808.8811 678.333.0319 678.518.3884 404.419.8781 678.518.3952 770.813.0882

ITS Georgia Scott Mohler, P.E. ITS President

Why should our organization be a member of ITS Georgia? That is a frequently asked question and one that I really enjoy answering, because I then get to talk about something hard to come by today—real value. First, let’s discuss how membership is structured. ITS Georgia membership is based on company, agency or institution rather than the individual. So, for example, all of the approximately 5,100 employees of GDOT enjoy full rights afforded members for one fee. That works out to about 6 cents per employee, per year. No matter the size of your organization, everyone enjoys the benefits of membership. Those benefits include savings on fees for monthly luncheons, workshops, and our annual meeting, plus first access to sponsorships and exhibit opportunities. The membership structure also allows for each full-member organization to have an equal voice in governance. Each full member has one vote when it comes to electing officers and directors and when making changes to bylaws. We also offer a reduced rate for smaller local public sector agencies with no voting rights but access to Our monthly meeting dates for the remainder of 2013 are: June 27 July 25 August 29 44

September 14-17 Annual Meeting October 31

News all other benefits, so an agency can choose its level of participation. What else is part of the ITS Georgia value proposition? The board and officers of ITS Georgia listen to membership and respond. We poll members each year to make sure we are meeting member expectations and are fulfilling our mission, At least ten times a year we arrange for our members to gather for networking, learning about solving problems with ITS technology, and professional development. We also provide opportunities to engage with state policy makers at the highest levels, including the governor, legislators, GDOT

board members and top GDOT staff. We also hold a two-day annual meeting and exhibition that is a model for other state ITS chapters. This year we are also holding a halfday workshop in east Georgia. Our monthly meetings are fast-paced, informative, and one of the best places to reach out to customers, colleagues, and other agency staffers that can help you make something happen. We guarantee that you will walk away from our meetings and workshops having

ITS Georgia Mission We believe that ITS is a valuable tool for improved management of any transportation system, regardless of the inherent complexity of the system. ITS can help operate, manage, and maintain the system once it has been constructed. We believe that ITS should be systematically incorporated into the earliest stages of project development, especially into the planning and design of transportation projects. We believe the best way to achieve this systematic incorporation into the process is through a coordinated, comprehensive program to ‘get out the word’ on ITS to constituencies that might not otherwise consider the relevance of ITS to their transportation system.

President Scott Mohler, URS Corporation

OUR 2013 SPONSORS Control Technologies Metrotech Temple Arcadis Gresham Smith and Partners HNTB World Fiber Technologies Atkins Delcan Kimley-Horn and Associates Sensys Southern Lighting and Traffic Systems URS Telvent Cambridge Systematics Grice Consulting Wolverton & Associates

ITS GEORGIA CHAPTER LEADERSHIP

Vice President Tom Sever, Gwinnett DOT Secretary Kristin Turner, Wolverton and Associates Inc. Treasurer Christine Simonton, Delcan Immediate Past President

Marion Waters Gresham Smith & Partners Directors Mark Demidovich, GDOT Susie Dunn, ARC Eric Graves, City of Alpharetta Carla Holmes, Gresham Smith & Partners Winter Horbal, Temple Inc. Keary Lord, Douglas County DOT Michael Roberson, GDOT David Smith, Dekalb Co. Transportation Prasoon Sinha, ARCADIS Grant Waldrop, GDOT State Chapters Representative

Shahram Malek, Arcadis Ex Officio Greg Morris, Federal Highway Administration Andres Ramirez, Federal Transit Administration

GeorGia enGineer

learned something, come up with a new solution or worked on an important issue with a fellow transportation professional—and some Professional Development Hours credits too. For example, at a recent monthly meeting, we learned about how the city of Sandy Springs transportation department is leveraging public safety camera assets to expand their reach of coverage and improve traffic operations without having to install a duplicate system. Bringing these types of solutions back to city councils and boards of commissioners helps to save taxpayers money, improves efficiency and safety, and demonstrates the value of your department. There’s that word again, value. Join us today. Visit itsga.org/contactjoin.html and become a member organization of ITS Georgia. Please join us at our monthly meetings and bring a friend. We’ll keep you posted on times and locations on our Web site and by e-mail. If you are not on our email list, then visit www.itsga.org. v

JUNE | JULY 2013

wTS Georgia Angela Snyder, P.E. President, WTS Atlanta

WTS Atlanta is proud to announce that another one of our local scholarship winners was selected on the international level! Margaret-Avis Akofio-Sowah, President of the Georgia Tech Student Chapter of WTS, was selected as the WTS International recipient of the CH2MHILL Partnership Scholarship worth $10,000. She will be honored at the annual awards banquet this year at the National Conference in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Margaret-Avis was the recipient of the WTS Atlanta Chapterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Helene M. Overly Graduate Scholarship worth $2,000 in October of 2012. As a recipient of this scholarship, she was recommended to WTS International for consideration for their scholarship. The requirements for these scholarships put a strong emphasis on career goals as well as a commitment to transportation as demonstrated by extracurricular activities and work experience. The applicants are evaluated based on their writing skills, curriculum, and grades. Margaret-Avis exceeds expectations in all of these key criteria. Living most of her life in Ghana, Africa, Margaret-Avis has experienced life with an inadequate transportation system. Based on the impact to peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s quality of life that she has witnessed, her goal is to improve the transportation systems for fellow Ghanians and the residents of other developing countries. She also feels very strongly that there is a need in those developing countries, as well 46

News as here in the United States, to increase the female participation in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields. She recognizes that the best way to change policy, and influence the younger generation, is to pursue a position in academia. Because of these high-reaching goals, Margaret-Avis will be a 2015 graduate at Georgia Institute of Technology with a Ph.D in transportation systems. To demonstrate her passion for increasing female participation in STEM, she is currently an active participant in the Transportation YOU program within the WTS Atlanta chapter. This program was a joint initiative between the USDOT and the WTS International organization that seeks to provide a hands-on, interactive, mentoring program that offers young girls ages 13 to 18 an introduction to a wide variety of transportation careers. Locally, WTS Atlanta members, including Margaret-Avis, have been matched with Grady High School Robotics team students to form a Big/Little Sister mentorship pairing. Margaret-Avis does not just say that she cares about STEM and making change, she actually lives it.

In addition to being the WTS Student chapter president, she is also very active in International Road Federation (IRF), Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Society of Women Engineers (SWE), Black Graduate Students Association (BGSA), National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE). v

Congratulations to Margaret on this outstanding achievement!

WTS ATLANTA 2013 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Angela Snyder, P.E. President Wolverton & Associates Inc. Marissa Martin, P.E. Vice President, Membership Gresham, Smith and Partners Tonya Saxon Vice President, Programs MARTA Kirsten Berry Secretary HNTB Corporation Jennifer Stephan, EIT Treasurer Gresham, Smith and Partners Beth Ann Schwartz, P.E. Director-at-Large Michael Baker Corporation Helen McSwain, P.E. Director-at-Large Atkins Regan Hammond Director-at-Large Atlanta Regional Commission Shelley Lamar Director-at-Large Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport Jennifer King, P.E. Immediate Past President HNTB Corporation

angela.snyder@wolverton-assoc.com marissa_martin@gspnet.com tsaxon@itsmarta.com kberry@hntb.com Jennifer_stephan@gspnet.com baschwartz@baker.com hmcswain@matcjv.com rhammond@arc.com Shelley.Lamar@atlanta-airport.com jjking@hntb.com

GeorGia enGineer