Issue #9
This week’s StructEd Bulletin highlights major updates across codes and standards—including new ACI guidance on nonlinear finite‐element analysis and open public‐comment periods for ASCE 61 and ICC 600—alongside a research spotlight on concrete reuse showing that current coring practices may significantly overestimate in‐place strength. We also cover a construction‐phase collapse case study on the 1955 New York Coliseum disaster and its lessons for falsework design, plus a slate of free upcoming PDHs and quick‐hit industry news, including FEMA’s ongoing funding freeze, SEI’s progress toward 2027 I‐Code flood‐resilience provisions, and the kickoff of Structures Congress in Boston.
1. Code & Standards Watch
Updates & New Releases:
Working Sessions, Public Comment, & Balloting:
Latest Errata:
2. Research Snapshot
Researchers examined current practice in in-situ sampling of concrete compressive strength in existing elements being considered for reuse, and their conclusions are somewhat troubling: they surmised that current methods often overestimate the compressive strength of existing elements by 1-10 MPa (about 150 - 1500 psi) due to smaller-than-appropriate sample sizes.
While this work is preliminary, it’s a strong step towards a more robust future standard. This study suggests that a more appropriate sample size for coring of existing elements is 12-15, rather than the current 3-6 recommended in most jurisdictions in the US and EU.
Key Takeaways: Low sample sizes should always be suspect in structural design, which is something the industry has unfortunately become desensitized to by a prevailing “convenience and cost” challenge in testing large elements in the literature. Watch for more development in this area, and expect costs associated with this sort of characterization to increase in the future.
3. Tools & Workflow
4. Case Study of the Week
Recommended by LinkedIn
Approximately 10,000 square feet of falsework and workers fell over twenty feet to the story below when a collapse occurred during the concrete pour of a large, main hall floor. Dozens of workers were injured, luckily with no fatalities, and rescue efforts involved hundreds of emergency personnel.
Technology had evolved, and falsework design wasn’t rechecked. The massive waffle slab pour demanded huge amounts of concrete over a large area, and motorized buggies became the technology of choice for placement. Unfortunately, the dynamic loads of these heavy buggies and their large payloads of wet concrete were much higher than the falsework was designed for, especially laterally.
Key takeaways: Falsework design is one of the most overlooked aspects of concrete structure construction, with collapses still occurring today (a small bridge falsework collapse happened this past week in Oconomowoc, WI, dumping concrete into a river below). Especially as construction technologies evolve, assumptions and designs must be rechecked to confirm they accurately reflect the true loads during construction, not just the historical assumptions.
5. Upcoming Free Live PDH
6. Quick Hits
👋 From the Editor
I’m Eric, the engineer behind the StructEd Bulletin. I dig through stacks of journal articles and software patch notes to find useful information for practicing engineers and keep an eye on the scattered code updates & errata for you. I’m just getting started, so if you find this useful, the best way to support the newsletter is to share it with a colleague or post it on LinkedIn. It helps more than you’d think!
📬 Subscribe & Share
If someone forwarded this to you, you can subscribe here: 👉 https://structedbulletin.com
Know someone who’d appreciate this? Forward this post or share the link above.