Should We Be Concerned about resiliency?

Editorial new trends, new techniques and current industry issues Should We Be Concerned About Resiliency? By Carrie Johnson, P.E., SECB

The concept of resiliency has been a topic of interest in a lot of emails I have received lately. There are two definitions on Dictionary.com for resilience (or resiliency). 1) The power or ability to return to the original form, position, etc., after being bent, compressed, or stretched; elasticity. 2) Ability to recover readily from illness, depression, adversity, or the like; buoyancy. I find these definitions thought-provoking when considering what we need to do to make our communities resilient. Although the first definition applies more to structural principles and addresses some of the concepts we need to use to make our communities more resilient, it is really the second definition that rings true to me. I have been involved several times with assessing structures that were affected by natural disasters, and the ability to recover readily is key. The words illness and depression don’t really apply, but the concept of dealing with adversity certainly does. It often involves very unfamiliar adverse conditions. It can be devastating to communities if there isn’t the infrastructure and ability to quickly recover. At the NCSEA Structural Engineering Summit, we had a very interesting panel discussion on current efforts to provide new ordinances to address resilience. The panelists were all from the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), and the ordinances they are working on focus on resilience for seismic events. The topics they discussed covered building rating systems, performance based design, and renewed efforts for retrofit ordinances. The discussion was lively. There has been a wave of discussions, innovations, and political involvement by California’s structural engineering community. Efforts are underway to establish a rating system that can be used to describe the performance of buildings during earthquakes and other natural hazard events. The concept of developing resilient communities to resist natural disasters certainly doesn’t stop with seismic events. They can include both natural disasters like tornadoes, hurricanes, snowstorms and floods (both from Hurricanes and Tsunamis) and man-made disasters such as electrical outages, water contamination, wildfires, and explosions. Each of these types of disasters will require a new set of considerations. It also doesn’t stop with buildings. I remember the first time I fully realized how complex the issues involved with resiliency are. It was after an earthquake in South America. One of the engineers I met had visited the area in the aftermath and said that, while most of the buildings fared fairly well, the roads and bridges did not. Prior to this, my thoughts were focused mostly on buildings during disasters. People were sitting, waiting for food and supplies in buildings that were essentially intact. Without roads and bridges to bring in supplies, it took months and even years to get back to what would be considered normal. The tsunami in the Indian Ocean in 2004 raised awareness about the need to address both warning systems for tsunamis and the unique recovery requirements. The damage recovery involved cleaning huge volumes of debris and dealing with contaminated water and soils, as well as extensive damage to the infrastructure. Another popular presentation at the Summit was a session by Gary Chock where he presented the new ASCE 7-16 Tsunami Loads Design Standard. The states of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, and Hawaii are most at risk for experiencing a tsunami event, and this standard will help address a need for missing information on what loads should be anticipated. Hurricane Katrina uncovered issues with our aging infrastructure. Portions of the coast were designed for hurricane wind and wave forces, but proved to be inadequate. It also raised many questions about the ability to quickly get basic necessities such as electricity and water into damaged areas. Hurricane Sandy on the east coast in 2012 brought to light the weakness of our infrastructure in response to flooding in urban environments. Most of the current codes are really not applicable for urban conditions. Engineers from the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) have been involved with efforts to help cities and agencies develop criteria for what is appropriate. They are in the process of assessing how different types of construction responded and making recommendations for how to rebuild so the recovery happens more quickly. There are tornados each year that should also be considered when designing for resilient communities. When wind forces in excess of 250 mph strike an area, there are multiple issues that have to be dealt with during recovery. Like tsunamis, the amount of debris can be overwhelming. Flooding is common and the need to restore electricity and clean water are issues that must be addressed. In Oklahoma, recent tornados have accentuated the need for quality special inspections. Buildings that were essential facilities, and should have been able to resist the winds better than surrounding structures, did not. Investigators found problems with the construction quality that should have been addressed with special inspections. These are just a few examples of the long list of issues that need to be considered as we move forward with improving our communities to be more resilient. My resounding answer of “should we be concerned about resiliency?” is YES! We should be concerned and we should be willing to get involved. The concept of developing resilient communities will require structural engineers to team with other branches of engineering and community leaders to develop communities that are adaptable enough to respond quickly after a natural disaster. I think structural engineers are poised to lead the charge. We have been working with the concepts of designing structures to withstand disasters for years, and we should be ready and willing to take the lead as these efforts move forward.▪

Carrie Johnson is a principal at Wallace Engineering Structural Consultants, Inc., Tulsa OK, and a Past President of NCSEA.

American Concrete Institute ................. 10 Applied Science International, LLC ....... 67 ASDIP Structural Software .................... 28 Bentley Systems, Inc. ............................. 54 CADRE Analytic .................................. 49 Cast ConneX........................................... 4 Clark Dietrich Building Systems ........... 36 Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute .. 8, 31 Design Data ............................................ 6 Dlubal Software, Inc. ............................ 45 Enercalc, Inc. .......................................... 3 Hardy Frame ......................................... 29 Independence Tube Corporation ............. 2 Integrity Software, Inc. .......................... 21 Integrated Engineering Software, Inc. .... 27 Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis Sol. ... 53 JVA Incorporated .................................. 57 KPFF Consulting Engineers .................. 39 Legacy Building Solutions ..................... 42 New Millennium Building Systems ....... 25 Ram Jack Systems Distribution ............. 47 RISA Technologies ................................ 68 Simpson Strong-Tie........................... 9, 19 Structural Engineers, Inc. ...................... 57 StructurePoint ....................................... 58 Struware, Inc. ........................................ 56 Tekla ................................... 13, 15, 17, 23 USG Corporation ................................. 33 Wood Products Council ........................ 50

Get YOUR name on this list!

Visit our website to see what advertising opportunities are advertising opportunities are right for you! www.STRUCTUREmag.org

Expand your knowledge of old to new...

Vintage structural concrete systems.

Vintage Steel Reinforcement in Concrete Structures identifies early steel reinforced concrete systems.

$99.95 Non-member/$74.95 Member Use code VINTAGE-15 and save 15% at www.crsi-webstore.org.

24/7 distance learning.

CRSI’s blended e-learning makes continuing education easy and convenient.

Visit www.crsi-learning.org for a list of topics.

Get FREE technical and informational downloads at www.crsi.org!

933 North Plum Grove Road, Schaumburg, IL 60173 p: 847.517.1200 • f: 847.517.1206 • e: info@crsi.org Region offices located nationwide. ADVERTISING ACCOUNT MANAGER

INTERACTIVE SALES ASSOCIATES sales@STRUCTUREmag.org Eastern Sales Chuck Minor 847-854-1666 Western Sales Jerry Preston 480-396-9585

EDITORIAL STAFF

Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE execdir@ncsea.com

Editor Christine M. Sloat, P.E. publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org

Associate Editor Nikki Alger publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org

Graphic Designer Rob Fullmer graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org

Web Developer William Radig webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org

EDITORIAL BOARD

Chair Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB Burns & McDonnell, Kansas City, MO chair@structuremag.org

John A. Dal Pino, S.E. Degenkolb Engineers, San Francisco, CA

Mark W. Holmberg, P.E. Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc., Marietta, GA

Dilip Khatri, Ph.D., S.E. Khatri International Inc., Pasadena, CA

Roger A. LaBoube, Ph.D., P.E. CCFSS, Rolla, MO

Brian J. Leshko, P.E. HDR Engineering, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA

Jessica Mandrick, P.E., LEED AP Gilsanz Murray Stefi cek, LLP, New York, NY

Brian W. Miller Davis, CA

Mike Mota, Ph.D., P.E. CRSI, Williamstown, NJ

Evans Mountzouris, P.E. The DiSalvo Engineering Group, Ridgefi eld, CT

Greg Schindler, P.E., S.E. KPFF Consulting Engineers, Seattle, WA

Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. BergerABAM, Vancouver, WA

John “Buddy” Showalter, P.E. American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA

C3 Ink, Publishers

A Division of Copper Creek Companies, Inc. 148 Vine St., Reedsburg WI 53959 Phone 608-524-1397 Fax 608-524-4432 publisher@structuremag.org

November 2015, Volume 22, Number 11

ISSN 1536-4283. Publications Agreement No. 40675118. Owned by the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations and published in cooperation with CASE and SEI monthly by C3 Ink. The publication is distributed free of charge to members of NCSEA, CASE and SEI; the non-member subscription rate is $75/yr domestic; $40/yr student; $90/yr Canada; $60/yr Canadian student; $135/yr foreign; $90/yr foreign student. For change of address or duplicate copies, contact your member organization(s) or email subscriptions@STRUCTUREmag.org. Note that if you do not notify your member organization, your address will revert back with their next database submittal. Any opinions expressed in STRUCTURE magazine are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily refl ect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C3 Ink, or the STRUCTURE Editorial Board.

OPTIMIZE

Your Design Solutions for Light-Frame Multi-Story Construction

Seismic and wind events pose serious threats to the structural integrity and safety of structures. Building structures with a continuous load path can mean the difference between withstanding these types of natural disasters – or not.

All wood-framed buildings need to be designed to resist shearwall overturning and roof-uplift forces. For one- and two-story structures, structural connectors (straps, hurricane ties and holdowns) have been the traditional answer. With the growth in light-frame, multi-story wood structures, however, rod systems have become an increasingly popular load-restraint solution.

Simpson Strong-Tie ® Strong-Rod™ continuous rod tiedown systems are designed to restrain both lateral and uplift loads, while maintaining reasonable costs on material and labor. Our continuous rod tiedown systems include the Anchor Tiedown System for shearwall overturning restraint (Strong-Rod™ ATS) and the Uplift Restraint System for roofs (Strong-Rod™ URS).

Strong-Rod ATS for Overturning Restraint

Strong-Rod ATS solutions address the many design factors that need to be considered to ensure proper performance against shearwall overturning, such as rod elongation, wood shrinkage, construction settling, shrinkage compensating device deflection, incremental loads, cumulative tension loads, and anchorage.

Strong-Rod URS for Uplift Restraint

Strong-Rod URS solutions address the many design factors that need to be considered to ensure proper performance against roof uplift, such as rod elongation, wood shrinkage, rod-run spacing, wood top-plate design (connection to roof framing, reinforcement at splices, bending and rotation restraint), and anchorage.

Strong-Rod Systems have been extensively tested by engineers at our state-of-the-art, accredited labs. Our testing and expertise are crucial in providing customers with code-listed solutions. The Strong-Rod URS solution is code-listed in evaluation report ICC-ES ESR-1161 in accordance with AC391, while the take-up devices used in both the ATS and URS solutions are code-listed in evaluation report ICC-ES ESR-2320 in accordance with AC316.

Because no two buildings are alike, Simpson Strong-Tie offers many design methods using code-listed components and systems to help you meet your complex design challenges.

Let us help you optimize your designs. For more information about our Strong-Rod continuous rod tiedown solutions or traditional connector solutions, call (800) 999-5099 or download our new Strong-Rod Systems Design Guide at strongtie.com/srs.