EDITORIAL

Editorial new trends, new techniques and current industry issues How You Can Help ICC Adoption of ASCE 7-16 By Ronald O. Hamburger, S.E., SECB

Please assist us in supporting the I-Code adoption of ASCE 7-16 and opposing the attempt to block the update to the 2016 edition of ASCE 7 Minimum Design Loads & Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures for the International Building Code (IBC), International Residential Code (IRC), and International Existing Building Code (IEBC).

Background

At the April International Code Council (ICC) Structural Committee Hearings in Louisville, KY, a coalition lead by the American Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA) and the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), opposed the adoption to the 2016 edition of ASCE 7. The coalition put forward a successful assembly motion that will result in an automatic public comment at the ICC Final Action Hearings in October. This public comment will move to modify proposal ADM-94 that, among other actions, administratively adopts ASCE 7-16 in place of ASCE 7-10. The public comment will move to retain ASCE 7-10 instead of ASCE 7-16, and, if successful, will create a significant problem for structural engineers and building officials as well as the ICC.

Why Help is Needed

The updated 2016 Edition of ASCE 7-16 includes new seismic, snow and wind hazard maps, and site coefficients which have been coordinated with the 2018 IBC. If the 2016 Edition is not approved, the 2018 IBC will have an uncoordinated and confusing mixture of requirements: some based on ASCE 7-10 and some on ASCE 7-16. This will create significant enforcement problems for building officials and general confusion for anyone attempting to follow and use the code.

How to Help

The next step in the code adoption process will occur at the Public Comment Hearings, in Kansas City in October, when ICC Governmental Members will vote yea or nay on this and other public comments. We urge ICC Governmental Members to vote against the public comment to the ADM-94 challenging adoption of ASCE 7-16. We also urge engineers who know building officials and other ICC Governmental Members to contact them and urge them to vote against this public comment opposing the adoption of the ASCE 7-16, and support adoption of the 2016 Edition of ASCE 7.

Technical Issues

ARMA launched this challenge over concerns that ASCE 7-16 wind pressure coefficients for low-slope roofs “substantially” increase wind pressure design requirements for buildings 60 feet or less in height. Indeed, ASCE 7-16 does modify and increase the wind pressure coefficients at eaves, edges, and ridge lines, as well as increase the width of these zones for low-slope roofs. However, in most regions, this is balanced by a reduction in mapped wind speeds, resulting in no net design increase for roofs and substantial reductions in main wind force resisting systems. Net pressure increases are primarily limited to coastal hurricane zones within 600 feet of the shoreline (Exposure D). Both research and empirical evidence indicate that increase is warranted. Beyond the wind coefficient issues, NAHB also opposed the update to ASCE 7-16 over concern that seismic design requirements in some portions of the country increase with the new standard. ASCE 7-16 may increase seismic design requirements for some sites and some buildings because of the adoption of new maps, and because of a change in site class coefficients. A review of 34 cities in areas of high seismicity indicates that, in most cases, the changes are typically less than +/-20%. In fact, in two-thirds of these cities the changes are less than +/-10%, and on average the new standard will result in a slight decrease in ground motion relative to the ASCE 7-10 maps. As with the wind maps, significant reductions occur in Southern California. An increase does occur in the region surrounding Las Vegas, Nevada, and the basis for the increase was developed and supported by the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology. The new site class coefficients have a small effect on short period buildings of most interest to home builders but can result in significant increase in base shear coefficients for tall buildings with long periods located on Class D or E sites. ASCE 7-16 requires site-specific spectra for such buildings, which has been common practice for many years. While concern over increased construction costs is understandable, it is also important to recognize the significant improvements in ASCE 7-16 including the following: • New wind speed maps that result in reduced wind speeds for much of the country and clarify the special wind study zones; • New regional snow data generated by state Structural

Engineers Associations in Colorado, Oregon, New

Hampshire, Washington and other mountainous states, that is now directly referenced and eliminates many, older sitespecific Case Study zones; • Entirely new chapter with tsunami design provisions.

Take Action Now

Contact building officials and other ICC Governmental Members and urge them to vote against this public comment opposing the adoption of the ASCE 7-16 and support adoption of the 2016 Edition of ASCE 7.▪

Ronald O. Hamburger is a Senior Principal at Simpson Gumpertz & Heger in San Francisco. He presently chairs the ASCE 7 Committee. If you have comments, contact SEI at sei@asce.org.

American Concrete Institute ............. 2, 46 Anthony Forest Products Co. ................ 29 Applied Science International, LLC ....... 75 ASDIP Structural Software .................... 54 Bluebeam Software ................................ 49 Cast ConneX........................................... 4 Clark Dietrich Building Systems ........... 45 Construction Specialties ........................ 37 Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute ...... 43 CTP, Inc. ............................................... 35 CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp........ 50 Dayton Superior Corporation ............... 28 Dlubal Software, Inc. ............................ 65 Ecospan Composite Floor System ........... 6 Geopier Foundation Company .............. 55 HALFEN USA, Inc. .............................. 64 Hohmann & Barnard, Inc. .................... 23 Integrated Engineering Software, Inc. .... 66 Integrity Software, Inc. .......................... 31 ITT Enidine, Inc. .................................. 62 KPFF Consulting Engineers .................. 58 Legacy Building Solutions ..................... 25 MMFX Steel Corporation of America ... 56 NCEES ................................................. 13 Powers Fasteners, Inc. ............................ 60 RISA Technologies ................................ 76 Simpson Strong-Tie......................... 21, 33 Structural Technologies ......................... 17 Trimble ................................................... 3 USG Corporation ................................. 59

Should We Adjust Curriculum Recommendations?

Does the recommended National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA) Structural Engineering Curriculum need an update? Is a matrix methods course still necessary? Should structural analysis courses de-emphasize “hand” calculation methods to allow more time for students to analyze structures using computer programs? Should the recommended curriculum include design courses for other materials such as cold-formed steel? Do we recommend an appropriate number of courses, too many, or not enough? Th ese are only a few of the questions that the NCSEA Basic Education Committee (BEC) has considered over the past 14 years. A group of concerned practitioners was the impetus behind the development of the recommended curriculum, and the practitioner will again be the motivation behind any changes. Th e NCSEA BEC requests your participation in the NCSEA Structural Engineering Curriculum Practitioner Survey to assist in determining if we are making the curriculum recommendations necessary to begin a successful career as a Structural Engineer. Please go to www.surveymonkey.com/r/NCSEAcurriculum to participate in the practitioner survey. (See the Education article on page 10 for a review of the recommended structural engineering courses off ered at schools based on a recent curriculum survey.)

SECB Education Certifi cate

NCSEA and the Structural Engineering Certifi cation Board (SECB) monitor practitioner needs through contact with structural engineers, schools and universities providing instruction for structural engineers, and professional organizations in order to monitor practitioner needs. For several years, a sub-committee of NCSEA members and SECB certifi cate holders have been working with schools and universities in the preparation of a program that can be used by schools, students, and industry to recognize those students who, over time, fi nd a greater interest in structural engineering than what is provided in a broad-based civil engineering program. Th e result of this eff ort is the SECB Education Certifi cate, a two-part certifi cate intended to encourage students to acquire the academic credentials practitioners feel necessary for a successful career in structural engineering. Th e SECB Education Certifi cate program is now available to students and universities to recognize the academic fulfi llment. All schools interested in learning more about the education certifi cate program and its implementation, should contact Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECB at cbarnes@cbiconsultinginc.com.

ERRATUM

In the August 2016 Software Advertorial by Larry Kahaner, the company ASDIP Structural Software’s website address was inadvertently listed wrong. Th e correct web address is www.asdipsoft.com. 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 jvogelzang@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 Barry K. Arnold, P.E., S.E., SECB ARW Engineers, Ogden, UT chair@structuremag.org

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

John A. Dal Pino, S.E. FTF Engineering, Inc., San Francisco, CA

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., S.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

September 2016, Volume 23, Number 9

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.