Tuesday, January 29

“Special Systems” Provisions within ACI-318 and Possible Ticking Time Bombs

The ACI-318 allows for data to be presented by sponsors of “special systems” to be approved that have been shown by successful use or by analysis or test, but which do not conform to or are not covered by the ACI-318 to be considered for use. But what happens when this procedure is not followed and the special system is not based on engineering fundamentals? This seminar will take the attendees from collapses to arbitration ruling of two sudden brittle collapses of precast double tees reinforced with a carbon grid, and a summary of the third collapse. It will include multiple photos and a high definition video of one of the collapses and an update of 100−200 examples of this type of structure throughout the east coast. We will discuss engineering fundamentals and ethical questions.

Bill Gamble, University of Illinois 

Jason Reigstad, Reigstad & Associates

Tuesday, February 5

The Winona Bridge Rehabilitation – A Tale of History, Collaboration, and Internal Redundancy

February 5 Presentation PowerPoint

The $60M rehabilitation and reconstruction of the 2,290 foot-long historic Winona Bridge over the Mississippi River is MnDOT’s first use of the Construction Manager General Contractor (CMGC) project delivery method for bridge rehabilitation. Preserving the historic character of the bridge while extending its service life for 50 years presented a significant challenge. This presentation will discuss how the project team worked with stakeholders to preserve the bridge’s historic character while meeting the goal of preserving the existing structure by adding internal redundancy to fracture-critical truss members.

Kent Zinn, Vice President, Michael Baker International

Keith Molnau, PE, Major Bridge Projects Engineer, Minnesota Department of Transportation

Tuesday, February 12

Part 1- Delegated Design: Connection;
Part 2 - Delegated Design: Cold Formed Steel

February 12 Presentation PowerPoint

Part One of this session will analyze common pitfalls in the use of delegated connection design, which lead to more expensive structures, difficulties in construction, and delays in schedule. EORs will learn best practices for presenting design requirements to the connection engineer, such as transfer forces, as well as reasonable and practical design load criteria. Part Two of the session will provide insights from an EOR's and Deferred Submittal Engineer's perspective, and will summarize the IBC deferred submittal requirements. We will discuss the benefits and challenges with the deferred submittal process for cold formed metal framing, as well as review a case study of the award-winning University of Arizona Biomedical Sciences Partnership Building.

Matthew Huber, PE, Associate and Manager, Steel Fabricator Services, Meyer Borgman Johnson

Lindsey Schultz, S.E., Office Leader - Phoenix, and Senior Structural Engineer, Meyer Borgman Johnson

Tuesday, February 19

Failures: Some Fatal, All Embarrassing, and Most Preventable

February 19 Presentation PowerPoint

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. While some of these examples happened long ago, understanding the root causes of these failures, such as improper specifications, inattention to detail, and inflated egos, will help prevent you from repeating these mistakes. The New London, TX school explosion in 1937 killed 300 people. It is still the worst school disaster in history, and it changed the law for engineers in Texas. The Great Galveston Storm of 1900 killed between 6,000 and 12,000 and is still the worst natural disaster in US history. Other failures received less publicity but proved embarrassing to engineers, contractors, or architects. Examples of failures in specifications include a university classroom building constructed with self-consolidated concrete structural walls and a concrete runway and a failure in attention to details, including stairs, parking garage floors, and temporary supports of an entry roof.

David Fowler, PhD PE, Dr., Joe J. King Chair in Engineering Emeritus, Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas at Austin

Tuesday, February 26

A Perspective of Masonry’s Spectrum

February 26 Presentation PowerPoint

The afternoon is divided into two presentations on masonry building enclosures. The first presentation focuses on construction observation in new and existing construction. Look through the eyes of masonry observers to see what is acceptable and meets code, including special inspections of masonry. The second presentation concentrates on masonry maintenance of existing buildings from repairs to preservation. Learn about the various levels of masonry fixes, specifications, and actual processes in the field. Three local masonry aficionados will impart their experience in the field with photos and anecdotes that incorporate masonry standards, codes, and best practices.

Pamela Jergenson, CCS, CCA, BECxP, CxA+BE, Senior Building Enclosure Consultant, Inspec, Inc.

Louis Longmire, Structural Masonry Special Inspector and other ICC Certificates, Construction Inspector, American Engineering Testing, Inc.

Philip Waugh, AP, Historic Preservation Specialist, LHB, Inc

Tuesday, March 5

Wind Design with ASCE 7-16 and IBC 2018

This seminar will provide an overview of the wind design provisions of ASCE 7-16, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, and its integration with the 2018 International Building Code. Design criteria and procedures will be presented, significant changes will be discussed, and short example problems will be worked to promote a general understanding of the new wind design provisions.

Ed Huston, PE, SE, Principal, Smith & Huston, Inc