What is the best way to avoid common mishaps and communication lapses on post-tensioned building projects?  While every building project needs good communication between all involved parties, there are best practices which can improve the trajectory of a project, especially in PT design and construction.

In the December 2025 SEU session, Carine Leys, from WSP, presented The Design Arc of Post-Tensioning.  Carine explained how to evaluate during the conceptual phase if post-tensioning is a structural solution that meets the project’s performance requirements.  She reviewed ways to develop comprehensive documentation relevant to each phase of the project and identified best practices during construction to ensure safety and durability.

Carine offered many useful tips for providing comprehensive requirements on the project’s PT specifications.  These PT specs should include specifications for installation, stressing procedures, approval of stressing records, as well as requirements for installer and inspector qualifications.  To hear Carine explain some best practices for PT specs, click on this 5 minute video:

Carine noted the importance of including the PT specifications, at a minimum, by the 50% Construction Document phase to ensure maximum time to coordinate with all disciplines. Including specs early on in the design process allows for collaboration and time to address any issues that may arise.

As Carine noted, the PT industry has changed in the last decade, and less experienced installers are more abundant.  PT specifications can help to ensure your projects hire qualified installers and inspectors which will eliminate potential mishaps due to inexperienced contractors.  PT specs can delineate which shop drawing submittals are required for approval to ensure what is provided on-site matches the intended PT design and layout.  Specs should also include requirements for the installation of tendons and standards to follow and include tolerance for any deviations which may occur.  The more clearly these standards are delineated in the PT specifications, the less conflicts should arise during your PT projects.

Scott Russell, SE, PE, Nucor

In February 2026, SEU welcomed Scott Russell, PE, from Nucor, to present ASCE 7-22 Snow & Rain Loading with Suggestions on Joist Specification.  Scott designated Engineers without Borders (Engineers Without Borders) for our SEU Speaker Inspires donation for the month.

Engineers without Borders USA builds a better world through engineering projects that empower communities to meet their basic human needs. According to their website, their highly skilled volunteers work with communities to find appropriate solutions for their infrastructure needs. 

Thank you, Scott, for helping structural engineers with your SEU session, and for your designation of Engineers without Borders as our SEU Speaker Inspires Organization of the Month!

SEU began the SEU Speaker Inspires program in 2015 as a way to “pay it forward”, enabling our speakers to designate a charity/organization of their choice for SEU to make a donation to help improve our world.

How often do you consider the implications of specifying structural materials on projects?  Is it a habit to evaluate the use of locally sourced materials on projects in a new region, or to include alternative cementitious materials in your mix designs?  Are there ways to improve the resiliency of the communities in which we work and live?

In the May 2026 SEU Session, Dave Adams, SE, from BWE, Inc., presented Evaluating Sustainable Materials and Structures.  Dave distinguished the difference between mandatory and optional compliance for sustainable development.  He described sustainable elements of common building materials and examined the suitability of retrofit goals for existing structures.  He illustrated the life cycle assessment issues related to building materials and discussed realistic goals that maximize stakeholder involvement.

NSPE describes sustainable development as the ‘challenge of meeting human needs for natural resources, industrial products, energy, food, transportation, shelter, and effective waste management while conserving and protecting environmental quality and the natural resource base essential for future development.”  Unless required by an adopted code or standard, engineers are not typically required to implement specific sustainable objectives, however voluntary examination and consideration of sustainable objectives are expected and encouraged by our professional organizations, some state licensing board codes of ethics, as well as the general public.  As structural engineers, it is our duty to “hold paramount” the health, safety and welfare of the public, and that duty extends to the case of future generations.

Dave explained the impossibility and complexity of comparing the sustainability of various structural materials directly to one another.  However, it is the duty of structural engineers to be abreast of factors that affect sustainability in our selection of materials, as they work together to perform as a structural system.  He cited a study which concluded that no particular structural system was consistently the lowest in embodied carbon, as shown on the slide below.  However, once a structural system was selected, significant opportunities were apparent through careful specification and efficient design.

What then should structural engineers consider when selecting structural materials?  Dave noted six considerations for engineers during design and specification on a project, as shown in the slide below:

All six of these considerations can affect the sustainability and life cycle of a building material which contributes to the complexity of comparing materials as apples-to-apples.  While timber may score high as a renewable resource, its durability may not compare to that of concrete.  Emissions from the production of cement may lower the sustainability of using concrete as a structural material, however the thermal mass of the concrete structure may reduce future cooling loads for AC equipment compared to that of a steel structure.  Steel structures are typically comprised of recycled content which is beneficial and newer methods are using renewable electricity sources in the production of steel to generate water as waste instead of carbon dioxide.  Masonry also may be a consideration when local, indigenous products are available or unreinforced masonry can eliminate the need for cement-rich grout, thus reducing the carbon footprint.  There are strategies available to reduce the environmental impact for each construction material and the ways in which they are extracted, manufactured, and transported. Engineers should continually educate themselves on emerging trends in sustainability and regional considerations for the betterment of the communities in which they work.  The International Green Construction Code or IgCC is an excellent reference for a “whole systems” approach to increase economic and resource efficiency and reduce effects of climate change through more resilient buildings.  Some state or local jurisdictions may wholly or individually adopt guidelines from the IgCC, and engineers may need to familiarize themselves with these regulations which may be mandatory or optional depending on their jurisdiction. 

Sustainability continues to be an ever-evolving topic within the structural engineering profession and engineers can move toward a more active approach in promoting sustainable options to their clients and community.

Thomas Heausler, PE, SE, Heaulser Structural Engineers

In January 2026, SEU welcomed back Thomas Heausler, PE, SE, from Heausler Structural Engineers, to present Seismic Design for Low Seismic Risk Locations – Seismic Design Categories A, B, and C.  Thomas designated Tau Beta Pi (Tau Beta Pi – The Engineering Honor Society) for our SEU Speaker Inspires donation for the month.

Thomas shared “I chose to donate to Tau Beta Pi because I saw achieving membership in it as being a lofty goal when I started Tulane University Engineering School. Tau Beta Pi was founded in 1885 and their motto is “Integrity and Excellence in Engineering”. I wish to support Tau Beta Pi’s continued success in their mission, which is, to recognize academic and professional excellence, promote a well-rounded education, provide opportunities for leadership development, and cultivate a community of high achievers.”

Thank you, Thomas, for helping structural engineers with your SEU session, and for your designation of Tau Beta Pi as our SEU Speaker Inspires Organization of the Month!

SEU began the SEU Speaker Inspires program in 2015 as a way to “pay it forward”, enabling our speakers to designate a charity/organization of their choice for SEU to make a donation to help improve our world.

New equations are in store for those engineers using ASCE 7-22 to determine design rain loads.  Are you familiar with all of the changes included in Chapter 8?

In the February 2026 SEU Session, Scott Russell, SE, PE, from Vulcraft, presented ASCE/SEI 7-22 Snow & Rain Loading with Suggestions on Joist Specification.  Scott described significant updates to the snow provisions in ASCE 7-22 and identified new provisions for thermal factors, snow drift heights and windward drifts widths and how to apply them.  He also explained the revised rain load calculation methodology in Chapter 8 and reviewed how to specify joists and joist girders for these new changes to ASCE 7-22.

Scott addressed the major update to the modified design rain load calculation which now includes ponding head and uses an updated return period based on risk category.  The most significant change appears in Equation 8.2.1, which includes dp which is a ponding head equal to the depth of water due to deflection of the roof subjected to unfactored rain load and unfactored dead load.  As you can see in the slide below, dp develops after the Primary drain is clogged, the hydraulic head has formed to achieve drainage through the Secondary Drainage System, and the roof deflects under the additional ponding rain load, creating the Ponding Head, dp.

In the past, the Return Period for rain events was 100 years in all cases.  ASCE 7-22 has included changes to the Return Period based on Risk Category.  Risk Category III now uses a 200 year Return Period and Category IV uses a 500 year Return Period, as shown in Table 8.2-1. The hydraulic head, dh, can then be calculated using Tables C8.2-1 and C8.2-3 depending on the type of secondary drain used.

The Ponding Head, dp, can then be calculated through an interactive approach.  Scott recommends using the free and newly updated SJI Ponding Analysis Tool which can be accessed by clicking on the link.  Scott also referenced the research performed by Mark Denavit in 2019 which appeared in Engineering Structures and can guide the user through the amplified first-order analysis.

Scott noted other small changes to Section 8.3 Bay with Low Slope which directs the user where to expect ponding, and Section 8.4 which warns against drainage systems for new construction discharging water onto existing roofs unless the existing roof is re-evaluated and/or modified to support the new loads,

The new changes to the rain loads in ASCE 7-22 provide the method to determine the new Design Rain Load and offer guidance on roofs that may be susceptible to ponding.  Be sure to check out the most recent version of the SJI Ponding Analysis Tool to assist your future roof designs and reduce calculation time for this new iterative analysis.

A new option for a high strength fastener has been included in AISC 360 and engineers may be interested in the benefits of using this new system.  With the possibility of saving on material and labor costs, the new TnA bolt could be a solution on your next project.

In the March 2026 SEU session, Matt Mester, PE, SE from MiTek, Inc. presented Changes to Steel: ASIC 360 and 341 Code Updates.  Matt reviewed when the building code requires the use of AISC 360/341-16 versus AISC 360/341-22.  He noted significant changes in AISC 360 and 341 and described some of the new structural systems and materials/grades that are allowed in the new AISC 360 and 341.

Matt noted the addition of a new bolt in AISC 360 which meets the ASTM F3148 specification.  The torque and angle bolt, or TnA bolt, grade 144 has been added in the A3 section as well as within Chapter J.  The TnA bolt installation process ensures each bolt is installed to an accurate snug tight condition and then is turned to the required angle to reach a precise final tension.  The new bolt offers more reliability than a typical snug tight installation. The TnA bolt grade is 144 which falls between the popular A325 bolt which is grade 120 and A490 bolts which are grade 150.  The higher strength could require the use of less bolts compared to the standard A325, which could reduce costs.  

As you can see in the slide below, this new bolt has a stub on the end which is similar to a Tension Controlled bolt. However, while the TC bolt stub falls off once the bolt reaches the required pretension force, the stub on the TnA bolt remains in place even after the bolt is torqued to a snug tight condition.  This could be a potential downside on jobs where the design tolerances are quite minimal, and the remaining stub could cause a conflict.  However, it also allows for removal of the bolt using the same wrench which could be an advantage, especially in structures that may be temporary in nature.  The addition of the TnA bolt to the specification gives engineers a new option for a fastener with a mid-grade strength.  

Being ethical can be hard.  Professional engineers are tasked with sound engineering judgement as well as protecting the safety and welfare of the public.  Structural engineers often face ethical dilemmas that can be murky waters to navigate.  From whom can engineers seek wise counsel regarding ethical dilemmas?

In the February 2026 SEU Ethics session, Barry Arnold, PE, SE, retired from ARW Engineers, presented 8 Tips to Avoid the Traps of Unethical Behavior.  Barry explained the fundamental purpose and principles of the Code of Ethics. He described 8 tips to build a solid ethical foundation and improve one’s ethical IQ, and identified resources to aid in ethical decision making.

Barry gave an important tip for engineers who are faced with an ethical dilemma.  After confronting and understanding the problem, engineers need to be aware of their own and other’s biases.  To hear Barry explore the importance of this tip, watch this short video:

Seeking advice on ethical dilemmas requires introspection and careful examination of the biases of yourself and others.  In most cases, it would be valid to seek out multiple opinions from trusted sources and unbiased third parties to try to eliminate any conflicts of interest in ethical decision making.  Each instance requires a unique perspective because ethical dilemmas are so varied and nuanced and engineers typically are not well seasoned on dealing with ethical issues, especially newly licensed engineers.  Barry rightfully recommends examining the biases and motivations of those in whom one seeks advice when faced with ethical dealings to avoid self interests or covert coverups.

Sam Rubenzer, SE, PE, FORSE Consulting

In November 2025, SEU welcomed back Sam Rubenzer, SE, PE, from FORSE Consulting, to present Welcome to the New Age of Delegating the Design of Masonry.  Sam has designated the National Military Family Association (Serving Military Families Since 1969) for our SEU Speaker Inspires donation for the month.

Sam designated the National Military Family Association in honor of the recent Veteran’s Day holiday, as well as a tribute to his family members who are veterans and active military members. NMFA meets the immediate needs of America’s military families with programs designed to support their financial security, well-being, and quality of life, as well as advocating for support from our government officials to serve the unique needs and challenges of service members of all branches of our US military.

Thank you, Sam, for helping structural engineers with your SEU session, and for your designation of the National Military Family Association as our SEU Speaker Inspires Organization of the Month!

SEU began the SEU Speaker Inspires program in 2015 as a way to “pay it forward”, enabling our speakers to designate a charity/organization of their choice for SEU to make a donation to help improve our world.

Are you aware of the new concrete filled composite plate shear wall system included in AISC 341-22?  This new structural system could offer significant financial savings on concrete mid- and high-rise structures in high seismic regions where this system would offer the most benefit.

In the March 2026 SEU session, Matt Mester, PE, SE from MiTek, Inc. presented Changes to Steel: AISC 360 and 341 Code Updates.  Matt reviewed when the building code requires the use of AISC 360/341-16 versus AISC 360/341-22.  He noted significant changes in AISC 360 and 341 and described some of the new structural systems and materials/grades that are allowed in the new AISC 360 and 341.

The SpeedCore system consists of coupled composite plate shear walls which are filled with concrete.  The use of steel plates as the form work for the concrete eliminates the use of traditional steel rebar within the shear wall.  The SpeedCore walls are pre-fabricated off site and then brought to the site, welded together, and then concrete is poured into the cavity.  On traditional concrete high rise structures, the forms are built on site, the rebar is placed and tied within the forms, the concrete is poured, and then must cure for a specified time before the forms can be removed and then moved up the building to start the next level.  The SpeedCore system increases the speed of construction by eliminating the use of traditional forms with rebar, and the time needed to cure before construction can move up the building.

To learn more about using the SpeedCore system, you can download AISC Design Guide 38: SpeedCore Systems for Steel Structures which is free for members or available for purchase for non-members.  Also, Structure Magazine highlighted the use of SpeedCore in Seattle’s Rainier Square and the cost savings compared to using traditional concrete construction methods.  

While SpeedCore may not be necessary or the most cost effective solution on every job, there are instances where the use of this new structural system could be a novel solution to increase speed of construction and reduce labor and material costs.

Kimberly W. Kramer, PhD, PE, Kansas State University

In October 2025, Kimberly W. Kramer, PhD, PE, SE, from Kansas State University, presented Designing for Openings in Wood Diaphragms. She nominated ACI Foundation (ACI Foundation > Home) for the SEU Speaker Inspires donation of the month.

Kimberly shared, “I selected the ACI Foundation because concrete is the most widely used building material in the world, and the Foundation is driving the research, innovation, and student support that will shape its future. ACI has played a meaningful role in my own career, and I’ve seen firsthand how their scholarships, mentoring, and technical advancements open doors for young professionals and strengthen our industry. Supporting the ACI Foundation allows me to give back while helping ensure a more resilient, sustainable, and well-prepared generation of concrete leaders.”

Thank you, Kimberly, for helping structural engineers with your SE University session, and for your designation of ACI Foundation as our SEU Speaker Inspires Organization of the Month!

SE University began the SEU Speaker Inspires program in 2015 as a way to “pay it forward”, enabling our speakers to designate a charity/organization of their choice for SE University to make a donation to help improve our world.