GeorgiaEngineer TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING
Volume 19, Issue 3 | June | July 2012
VOTE YES for T-SPLOST
The GeorGia enGineer
GeorgiaEngineer Publisher: A4 Inc. 1154 Lower Birmingham Road Canton, Georgia 30115 Tel.: 770-521-8877 • Fax: 770-521-0406 E-mail: GeorgiaEngineer@a4inc.com Managing Editor: Roland Petersen-Frey Art Direction/Design: Pamela Petersen-Frey Georgia Engineering Alliance 233 Peachtree Street • Harris Tower, #700 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Tel.: 404.521.2324 • Fax: 404.521.0283 Georgia Engineering Alliance Gwen Brandon, CAE, Executive Director Thomas C. Leslie, PE, Director of External Affairs Carolyn M. Jones, Outreach Services Manager Georgia Engineering Alliance Editorial Board Jeff Dingle, PE, Chairman GSPE Representatives Sam L. Fleming, PE Tim Glover, PE Jimmy St. John, PE ACEC/G Representatives Robin Overstreet Carley Humphreys ASCE/G Representatives Daniel Agramonte, PE Rebecca Shelton, PE GMCEA Representative Birdel F. Jackson, III, PE ITE Representatives Daniel B. Dobry Jr., PE, PTOE John Karnowski ITS/G Representatives Bill Wells Shaun Green, PE WTS Representative Angela Snyder ASHE Representative Ed Culican, PE SEAOG Representative Kurt Swensson, PE
The Georgia Engineer is published bi-monthly by A4 Inc. for the Georgia Engineering Alliance and sent to members of ACEC, ASCE, ASHE, GMCEA, GEF, GSPE, ITE, SEAOG, WTS; local, state, and Federal government officials and agencies; businesses and institutions. Opinions expressed by the authors are not necessarily those of the Alliance or publisher nor do they accept responsibility for errors of content or omission and, as a matter of policy, neither do they endorse products or advertisements appearing herein. Parts of this periodical may be reproduced with the written consent from the Alliance and publisher. Correspondence regarding address changes should be sent to the Alliance at the address above. Correspondence regarding advertising and editorial material should be sent to A4 Inc. at the address listed above.
JUNE | JULY 2012
Advertisements AECOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Albany Tech. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Atkins/PBS&J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Ayres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Burns & McDonnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Brown & Caldwell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Cardno TBE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 CDM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Chastain & Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 CROM Prestressed Concrete Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Cummins Power South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Eaberly & Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Edwards Pitman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Engineered Restorations Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 G. Ben Turnipseed Engineers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 GEL | Geophysics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Georgia Concrete Paving Association. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Georgia Power Company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Back Cover Greater Traffic Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Hayward Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Back Cover Hazen and Sawyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 HDR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Heath & Lineback Engineers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 HNTB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 JAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Middleton-House & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Oâ€™Brien & Gere. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Photo Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Pond & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Power Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Prime Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 RHD Utility Locating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Rosser International. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 RS&H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Schnabel Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Silt-Saver Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Southern Civil Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Southern Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Stevenson & Palmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 STV/Ralph Whitehead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 T. Wayne Owens & Associates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Terrell Hundley Carroll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 TTL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 United Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Front Cover Wilburn Engineering LLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Willmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Wolverton & Associates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Woodard & Curran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
The GeorGia enGineer
THE GEORGIA ENGINEER June | July 2012
Countdown to T-SPLOST Vote
Boeing Study of Future Aircraft Technologies Expands Envelope of Possibilities
New Broad Area Satellite Imagery Source
Going Underground ~ The Growing Appeal and Practicality of Tunnels
Energy Management on the Move in Georgia
Moving Transit in the Atlanta Region Forward
Bernard Roth, Robot Design Expert to Receive 2012 IEEE Robotics & Automation Award
STV Celebrates 100 Years
A Brief Overview of Georgia’s New Industrial Stormwater General Permit
The Wicked Problem Whisperer
What’s in the News
eorgia Institute of Technology is part of the Boeing Subsonic Ultra-Green Aircraft Research (SUGAR) team that is identifying commercial transport concepts for NASA that may be viable between 2030 and 2050. Boeing, with the help of Georgia Institute of Technology, is leading a SUGAR study that is adding some extra sweetener to the mix for NASA. See story on page 10. v
JUNE | JULY 2012
The GeorGia enGineer
2012 Georgia Section ITE Summer Seminar July 15th through 18th at the King & Prince St. Simons Session Topics: • Managed Lanes • Coastal GA Projects • Lessons Learned
• • • •
Planning the Future Safety Programs Regional Transit Updates Panama Canal Expansion
Be among Georgia’s transportation leaders!
Fun for the whole family!
JUNE | JULY 2012
• Next Big Thing in Transportation • History of GAITE
Take part in the annual golf challenge!
Interact with peers.
For more info, log-on to: www.gaite.org/2012_SummerSeminar.html
Countdown to T-SPLOST Vote By Thomas C. Leslie | Georgia Engineering Alliance | Director of External Affairs
f you haven’t heard, there is a vote on transportation in July. It is a very important vote with enormous consequences for Georgia. It is about mitigating traffic congestion, creating jobs, making Georgia and its regions economically competitive with other areas of the country and world, and lots more. If you already know all this, then the final message is VOTE ‘Yes’ on July 31st. If you plan on a vacation at the end of July, vote early or vote by absentee ballot. Leading up to this historic vote, there are many other things to do, including: Hold
approved a Transportation Investment List. 75 percent of the revenue from the sales tax must be spent on projects on the investment list and cannot be spent on anything else. The remaining 25 percent of revenue is allocated, by formula, to local governments within the region for the sole purpose of transportation, with particular projects left to the discretion of local government officials. For Metro Atlanta, 85 percent of revenue goes to Investment List projects and 15 percent to local governments. All revenue collected within a region must be spent on projects within the region.
July 31, 2012, is the next appointment for the current generation to continue the string of audacious transportation investments that distinguish our state and its regions in a new competitive world. a Lunch ‘n Learn at your company to explain the referenda. Quite frankly, we have never had a vote like this in Georgia. When people fully understand the details of the vote, they tend to support the investment. Help educate colleagues, co-workers, friends, neighbors, and family about the referenda and urge ‘yes’ voters to go to the polls. Volunteer your time to assist the ‘yes’ campaigns around the state. Above all else, VOTE on July 31st. There is much more to the vote, however. To complete the story, here are some of the details. The Deal The Georgia General Assembly authorized regional votes on imposing a one percent sales tax for up to ten years for the purpose of funding transportation enhancements. There are 12 regions, and each will vote on July 31, 2012, on whether to approve the regional T-SPLOST (so named because it is entirely devoted to Transportation and is a Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax). For each region, locally elected officials have 8
The deal is set and cannot be changed (the General Assembly could change the underlying law, but chose not to do so earlier this year, and the vote will occur before they convene for the 2013 session). For the voters, the only choice is whether to vote ‘yes,’ ‘no,’ or not vote. The votes are tallied on a regionwide basis. For example, in Metro Atlanta, all the votes cast in ten counties in the region are added together and if the ‘yes’ votes exceed the ‘no’ votes, then the sales tax is enacted in all ten counties. The Problem Georgia is the third fastest growing state in the country, but our per capita expenditure on transportation is 48th out of 50 states. In Metro Atlanta, the ten-county region is expected to grow by three million people by 2040. It currently has one of the longest commute times in the country—an average of over an hour round trip. The primary source of federal and state transportation funding is gas tax, which is declining and is expected to continue that trend as vehicles move to more fuel-efficient models. Over the next 30 years, 70 percent of this revenue will be devoted to mainte-
Thomas C. Leslie nance of the existing transportation system; and only 30 percent is available for new and expanded capacity. Without approval of the regional TSPLOSTs, the transportation problems will only get worse and/or our economic vitality will decline. There is no Plan B on the horizon. The Investment Lists There are 1,000s of projects on the 12 Investment Lists which amount to upwards of $19 billion (including the formula allocations to local governments and expressed in terms of year of collection—or $16 billion in 2011 $s). For Metro Atlanta, $6.14 billion is for 157 specific projects on the Investment list, and $1.08 billion is allocated to local governments (in 2011 $s). The projects on the lists were selected by Regional Transportation Roundtables, composed of the county commission chair of each county in the region plus a mayor from each county selected by a caucus of all mayors in the region. The Mayor of Atlanta was designated to sit on the Metro Atlanta Roundtable. Surprising to many, the 12 regional roundtables adopted their Investment Lists with only three dissenting votes out of a total of 319 votes. The transportation projects were selected solely by locally elected officials and, where the referenda pass, will be funded by money derived from the region, and this money may not be spent on projects outside the region. The GeorGia enGineer
The Consequences According to the Federal Highway Administration, every $1 billion invested in highway improvements supports 27,823 jobs and generates $2.5 billion in direct and indirect economic activity. Many of those jobs are on the front end of the ten-year taxing period in the form of planning and engineering. But transportation investments have always affected land use and economic development that have consequences far beyond the direct transportation investments. With better mobility, Georgia will be more economically competitive, creating more follow-on development of buildings and other infrastructure (e.g., water and sewer). For Metro Atlanta, the Atlanta Regional Commission modeled the transportation system for their adopted plan for the year 2040 with and without the TSPLOST investments (but both scenarios included projects expected to be funded by state and federal sources). Here are some of their conclusions: • Decreased delay: 24 percent average decrease in future travel delays for roadways improved with referendum funding •
Improved air quality: benefits will be equivalent to taking 72,000 vehicles off the roads daily.
JUNE | JULY 2012
Transit trips: 580,000 daily transit trips in 2025, compared to 417,000 today
Accessibility to job centers by cars: 18 percent more workers can reach jobs in the Cumberland-Galleria area by car within 45 minutes; other job centers will see up to eight percent increase in accessibility
Accessibility to job centers by transit: 700 percent more workers can reach Emory by bus or rail within 45 minutes; 42 percent for Southlake and 61 percent for Town Center.
Georgia has invested in transportation and economic development since the very beginning. Augusta built a canal along the Savannah River in 1848 to power new textile mills rather than simply being a transportation hub for raw cotton. Surveyors drove a stake in the ground in 1838 in a wilderness in Georgia’s interior to designate the point where three railroads would meet. That point in downtown Atlanta is in the center of a region of five million people. In 1925, an automobile racetrack owned by Coca Cola founder Asa Candler was converted to a municipal airport with dirt runways. From those
humble beginnings, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport has grown to be the busiest airport in the world. Delta Airlines Headquarters building sits on the infield at the northern end of Asa Candler’s former racetrack. In 1948, the Georgia Ports Authority bought a 407-acre site from the US Army and created the beginnings of its Garden City terminal. It has become the country’s fastest growing port, is the largest on the East and Gulf coasts, and is poised for even greater things with the deepening of the Savannah River channel. During the 1950s to 1970s, Georgia built the Interstate Highway System that crisscrosses the state and cemented us as the hub of the Southeast. In 1972, MARTA was created by referenda, which passed in DeKalb and Fulton counties. MARTA was certainly instrumental in helping capture the 1996 Centennial Olympics and has helped propel the region to world-class status. July 31, 2012, is the next appointment for the current generation to continue the string of audacious transportation investments that distinguish our state and its regions in a new competitive world. v
Boeing study of future aircraft technologiesâ€Ś
This artistâ€™s rendering shows the SUGAR Freeze advanced commercial transport concept, which would use liquefied natural gas as a fuel. One noticeable design feature is a tail engine. SUGAR Freeze is one of several notional concepts that a Boeing-led team, which includes Georgia Institute of Technology, is studying for NASA as part of the Subsonic Ultra-Green Aircraft Research (SUGAR) project. (Boeing graphic) 10
The GeorGia enGineer
…expands envelope of possibilities Georgia Institute of Technology is part of the Boeing Subsonic Ultra-Green Aircraft Research (SUGAR) team that is identifying commercial transport concepts for NASA that may be viable between 2030 and 2050.
oeing, with the help of Georgia Institute of Technology, is leading a SUGAR study that is adding some extra sweetener to the mix for NASA. SUGAR, which stands for Subsonic Ultra-Green Aircraft Research, is a contract that NASA has awarded Boeing to see what’s out there in regard to technologies that might be viable for subsonic commercial aircraft to meet environmental requirements in the years 2030 to 2050. This year, the SUGAR team, which includes Boeing Research & Technology, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, General Electric, and Georgia Institute of Technology’s Aerospace Systems Design Laboratory, has told NASA that the list of possibilities is longer than anticipated when the study began four years ago. “I think we have identified that there are a lot more options than we thought when we started,” says Dr. Marty Bradley, Boeing principal investigator for the SUGAR project. “Even though we don’t know for sure which technologies will end up being used in the future, we have greater confidence that we will be able to continue to make significant improvements in each successive generation of commercial aircraft.” A report the team submitted to NASA in late February 2012, titled “N+4 Advanced Vehicle Concept Study,” describes the team’s work in looking at the performance of a methane-fueled aircraft concept and the technology development of several advanced fuel and energy technology options for the 2040 to 2050 timeframe. These include hybrid battery-gas turbine propulsion, fuel cells, fuel cell-gas turbine hybrid propulsion systems, cryogenic fuels (liquefied natural gas/methane and hydrogen), cryogenically cooled engines and associated technologies, advanced batteries, and open rotor/turboprop technologies. The team has found that “liquefied natural gas (LNG), though not an obvious choice for a future aviation fuel, does offer lower fuel burn and emissions as well as potential cost and availability benefits.” The report goes on to say that “cryogenic LNG also would enable fuel-cell hybrid electric propulsion and would be a step toward clean liquid hydrogen fuel. However, there are environmental issues with methane emissions from LNG production, as well as safety and infrastructure issues. For these reasons, we recommend further study.” JUNE | JULY 2012
Dr. Marty Bradley, Boeing Research & Technology principal investigator for SUGAR (Subsonic Ultra-Green Aircraft Research), says Boeing’s study of potential future commercial aircraft technologies for NASA has identified “a lot more options than we thought when we started.” (Boeing photo)
The report shows that it will be possible “to design a pretty nice LNG-fueled aircraft (in 2040 to 2050) and that it could have some significant advantages in reducing emissions and potentially fuel cost,” says Bradley. “The cost to add LNG infrastructure is probably the biggest challenge. We hope this will inspire others to do more detailed studies that look at cost and infrastructure impacts.” The SUGAR team also has looked at hydrogen as a potential fuel for commercial aircraft in 2040 to 2050 and has found great potential but also significant challenges in regard to leakage, material compatibility, density, and the need to use a lot of energy to make hydrogen fuel. “Natural gas only needs a few steps to purify and liquefy it to make LNG for aviation use, which is simpler and cheaper,” Bradley says. “So we think that liquid natural gas can be ready sooner, while hydrogen has more difficult technical, cost, and environmental challenges.” In Phase 1 of the SUGAR study, which looked at technologies for the years 2030 to 2035, the team reported that hybrid electric engine technology was a “game-changing technology” and a “clear winner” because it could potentially improve performance relative to all of NASA’s environmental goals to reduce fuel burn, greenhouse gases, nitrous oxide emissions, noise, and field length. That concept is still getting a close look during Phase 2 of the SUGAR study, which will continue for another two years, Bradley says. “We continue to work on the hybrid electric propulsion concept in Phase 2 and will be looking at energy cost and po12
tential noise reduction later this year,” he says. “We have talked to a fair number of people in the battery technology community. There is a lot of uncertainty as to how good batteries will be in 2030 to 2050. But we are quite encouraged to see battery companies starting to show real products with much higher performance.” Bradley emphasizes that the purpose of the SUGAR study is to “start the industry thinking about and planning technologies that future vehicles will need in 2030 to 2050. While Boeing is interested in developing environmentally progressive vehicles, it would be premature to conclude that any of the concepts we study under this contract will replace any of Boeing’s commercial products.” What Boeing is providing NASA is information “on which technologies have high
potential and a technology plan roadmap that tells what steps need to be taken to get the technologies ready for applications on future aircraft,” Bradley says. “And NASA has already started this technology development process.” And, for Boeing, “we have opened up new design space by quantifying potential payoffs of new concepts and aerodynamic structures, systems, propulsion, fuel, and operations technologies,” Bradley points out. “You can look at hard challenges and say, ‘If we can get this to work, there will be a significant benefit to future aircraft.’ That helps justify and sell the idea of investing now for the future potential payoff.” v
The GeorGia enGineer
New Broad Area
Satellite Imagery Source
By Steve Raber
atellites have been providing imagery of the earth for more than 50 years now, initially supporting the federal governmentâ€™s space programs, and defense and intelligence
communities. For more than 30 of these years, satellite imaging technology has also supported the scientific, natural resource management
communities, with commercial satellite image providers coming on-line in the 1980s (e.g., Franceâ€™s SPOT Image Corporation). With the advent of commercial providers such as GeoEye (formerly Space
Corporation) and DigitalGlobe (originally EarthWatch) in the 1990s, very high spatial
made available, rivaling the high-resolution imagery of traditional aerial photo providers. The engineering community, long-time users of aerial photography, have taken advantage of high-resolution commercial satellite imagery for a number of years now, in areas where it is difficult to acquire imagery with aircraft, particularly in areas outside the continental United States. But for large areas, high-resolution satellite and/or aircraft-based imaging tends to be prohibitive due to data management and processing challenges, as well as cost. For this reason, broad-area analysis and mapping has tended to rely on lower resolution, more cost effective imagery sources such as Landsat or SPOT, but the ability to provide detailed information analysis from these sources has suffered. A newer provider of commercial satellite imagery, RapidEye, based in Brandenburg, Germany, is now offering a unique alternative to earth imaging technology, and Photo Science Inc. (Photo Science) plans to take advantage of this through its recently formalized partnership with the satellite company. JUNE | JULY 2012
Steve Raber is a Program Manager with Photo Science. With more than 20 years of experience in the remote sensing field, he manages contracts with the companyâ€™s federal government clientele in the western United States, and focuses on the development of solutions that integrate information from various remotely sensed datasets.
DigitalGlobe WorldView 2
No. of satellites
Image swath width (at nadir)
>3 days (at 20˚ off-nadir)
Ground sample distance (at nadir)
No. of panchromatic bands
No. of spectral bands
Blue (450-515 nm)
Blue -- 440-510 nm
Coastal -- 400-450 nm
Green (525-605 nm)
Green -- 520-590 nm
Blue -- 450-510 nm
Red (630-690 nm)
Red -- 630-685 nm
Green -- 510-580 nm
NIR (750-900 nm)
Red Edge -- 690-730 nm Yellow -- 585-625 nm
SWIR (1550-1750 nm)
NIR -- 760-850 nm
Red -- 630-690 nm
Thermal (10400-12500 nm); 60 m GSD
Red Edge -- 705-745 nm
SWIR (2090-2350 nm)
NIR1 -- 770-895 nm NIR 2 -- 860-900 nm
Photo Science, a full-service geospatial firm based in Lexington, Kentucky, with a regional office in Norcross, Georgia, has been utilizing satellite imagery, as a supplement to its own aircraft-based imaging assets for many years now, supporting international and domestic clients at all levels of government and the private sector. Photo Science’s remote sensing division has been using Landsat imagery for years in the production of derived datasets that support natural resource management planning and modeling applications such as regional land cover/land use and change detection, forest mapping, coastal mapping, and other vegetation analyses. The company routinely integrates the specialized infrared information of Landsat data with higher spatial resolution imagery to provide a ‘best of both worlds’ solution. Until recently, no other satellite imagery source could compare to Landsat, in terms of its infrared sensitivity, which is critical to vegetation analysis, but its moderate spatial resolution (30 meters) has traditionally prevented more detailed analyses. Now, with RapidEye’s constellation of identical satellites designed for large area acquisition, with good infrared sensitivity and its five-meter spatial resolution, Photo Science and others are able to provide imagery and derived products that meet the needs of low-cost image solutions for both traditional Landsat-based applications as well as for more precise/detailed applications. This will lead to more informed 14
decision-making and better landscape monitoring of change processes. With Landsat 5 now off-line and Landsat 7’s health declining significantly, an alternative but comparable image source is critical for certain vegetation analyses. The RapidEye constellation consists of five identical satellites that record light energy in five different wavelengths, with an image swath width of 25 km, and the ability to discern objects as small as five meters (also considered resolution or ground sample distance, GSD). The constellation allows a single point on the earth to be re-imaged once every day from directly overhead (at nadir), with no oblique look angles, making RapidEye a perfect solution for site-specific moni-
toring of disaster areas, periodic monitoring of coastal change areas, small-area change detection, and for more rapid coverage of large areas. The above table provides a comparison of the RapidEye satellites with other popular satellite providers. Note the differences in revisit times, ground sample distances, and spectral band wavelengths. In its agreement with RapidEye, Photo Science will now be able to offer new image alternatives to its clients at affordable prices, which will allow for the development of new monitoring solutions and more detailed derived datasets. Photo Science looks forward to providing these new alternatives to its forest and land management clients, as well as its international environmental clients. v
The GeorGia enGineer
Going Underground The Growing appeal and practicality of tunnels Industry advances make subsurface structures more feasible for space-constrained urban centers
he United States is experiencing a geographic shift in population. Once a predominantly agrarian society, the country now is urban-centric. People are migrating to cities in droves for jobs and accessible transportation. The most recent data show 82 percent of America’s population resides in cities and their suburbs, up from about 75 percent in the 1990s. One only has to look as far as metro Atlanta to see this shift in action. From 2001 to 2007, the region added nearly one million people. Some forecasters predict Atlanta might have 9.5 million people by 2050. How might Atlanta accommodate the transportation needs of millions more when urban space already is at a premium?
Tunnels are a space-saving solution Tunnels offer cities and government agencies a space-saving solution to convey people, vehicles, utilities, and materials quickly and conveniently underground. Subsurface structures are increasingly appealing because they: • Don’t encroach on developed areas or prime development land. • Free up land for new development. • Accommodate transit systems with underground stations such as the MARTA system in Atlanta. • Allow construction of major highways through mountains and beneath rivers. • Provide an alternative mobility and infrastructure By Nasri Munfah, P.E. | Chairman Tunnel Services | HNTB Corporation solutions.
In fact, the Georgia Department of Transportation recently completed a feasibility study on a 13-mile highway bypass to downtown Atlanta, which included more than six miles of twin tunnels. But let’s not limit the benefits of tunnels to transportation. Tunnels can help cities provide reliable power, deliver water, divert wastewater and house communications systems. And, they now can accomplish all of it with minimal impact to individuals, structures and surface facilities. JUNE | JULY 2012
Tunnels are longer, larger, and less disruptive Tunneling is experiencing a renaissance thanks to a number of industry advances in the past 30 years: Bored tunnels ~ With the advancement of technologies in equipment and materials, the industry has amassed significant expertise in constructing large bored tunnels using sophisticated tunnel boring machines (TBM),
making this a highly feasible option. Collaboration ~ Owners, designers, and contractors have heightened the level of teamwork. One of the most critical outcomes of increased collaboration is a sophisticated risk management and mitigation process. With these tools, owners are more likely to deliver a successful tunnel project on time and on budget. 15
Technology ~ Today, tunnels are excavated with more technologically advanced tunnel boring machinery. Specialized equipment allows tunnels to be excavated in complex soils, closer to the surface with limited impact on the surface and facilities.
ues to break its own world records. The tunnel boring machine’s maximum tunnel diameter has grown from 25 to 30 feet in the 1990s to as much as 60 feet today. And, it’s not unheard of for a tunnel to stretch up to ten or more miles in length.
Experience ~ The industry has amassed significant experience working with this machinery. Because of these advances, the industry is designing and constructing longer, larger diameter tunnels in less time and with less risk.
Less disruptive ~ Tunnel’s long-term effects are much less intrusive and more environmentally friendly than a surface structure’s would be. For example, in tunnels, traffic noise and vibration will not be noticeable to the public. through its ventilation, a tunnel can control and direct the dissemination of vehicle emissions away from residents and sensitive receptors.
Larger dimensions ~ The industry contin-
Visually appealing ~ Because tunnels are hidden from sight, they do not intrude on an area’s aesthetic beauty. Seattle chose to construct the Alaskan Way Viaduct as a bored tunnel, in part, to preserve the beauty of the city’s waterfront and to eliminate unsightly barriers. Minimal surface disruption ~ With the use of the state-of-the-art tunnel boring machines, tunnels can be constructed with minimum cover; and they can be placed adjacent to existing structures or utilities with little settlement or disruption to the surface above. Nearby traffic, businesses and people can go about their daily lives
The GeorGia enGineer
• The California Department of Transportation is completing construction of the Devil’s Slide Tunnels through the San Pedro Mountains. The twin subsurface structures will replace a rockslide-prone section of Highway 1 built in 1937. In addition, the Presidio Parkway project in San Francisco includes three cut-and-cover tunnel sections. Transit ~ • Sound Transit in Seattle is building two tunnels to extend its transit system to Washington University.
barely aware or inconvenienced by the massive undertaking below them. Safer ~ In the early 20th century, tunneling averaged one worker fatality for every mile of construction. Today, with advances in safety standards and tunnel boring machine technology, tunnel are constructed safely. Other advantages of tunneling include: • Superior environmental control • Isolation from extreme weather conditions • Reduced power consumption • Safety and protection from extreme events, such as earthquakes • Increased productivity compared with surface transportation • Less maintenance than a surface facility • Longevity Agencies, cities dig in ~ As a result of those advantages, cities and transportation and water-related agencies are more willing to invest time and money to investigate tunneling alternatives as studies increasingly indicate tunnels may be appropriate solutions. In fact, interest in tunnels is on the upswing in many market segments:
• Several tunnel feasibility studies are underway along California’s high-speed rail corridor. Aviation ~ • Airports in Washington, D.C., Minneapolis, New York, San Francisco, and other airports throughout the US have completed or completing tunnels for light rail systems. Water • Cincinnati is designing a large combined sewer overflow tunnel. • New York is about to complete the 3rd water tunnel to meet its residents’ needs throughout the 21st Century. • The city of Dallas is designing tunnels to divert stormwater and prevent flooding. • The California Department of Water Resources is planning a $12B dual conveyance tunnels that will transport water through the central valley to southern California.
Life-cycle costs are a critical deciding factor ~ Despite the numerous advantages tunnels offer, owner agencies still may find themselves focused largely on the initial capital investment, which can be significant. However, tunnels can be as cost-effective as surface developments when owners consider the life cycle cost including anticipated life span maintenance cost, energy savings, and facility productivity. Longevity is a critical point of differentiation Tunnels can operate for hundreds of years. In fact, there are tunnels still operating today that were built in the 1800s. Thus, when evaluating potential tunnel projects, owners should base their decisions on life-cycle costs that scrutinize the longterm investment benefits rather than initial capital costs. From that perspective, tunnels are economically superior. In fact, one could argue that although tunnels are more expensive to build than surface structures, they are more durable and less expensive to maintain. Managing future growth with tunnel vision ~ Industry experience and expertise have evolved with advances in technology, allowing the limits of tunneling to be pushed. Today, a significant number of tunnels— longer, larger, and less disruptive substructures—are being designed and constructed across the country. The future has never been brighter for the tunneling industry or for growing cities seeking alternative solutions to development. In fact, the answer to managing future urban growth could be right under their feet. v
Highways ~ • The Washington State Department of Transportation plans to replace the earthquake-damaged, 1950s-era State Route 99 Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall with the world’s largest soft-ground bored tunnel. The tunnel will be 57.5 feet in diameter and will transport six lanes of traffic on two stacked roadways. JUNE | JULY 2012
The GeorGia enGineer
Energy Management on the Move in Georgia Albert Thumann, PE, CEM | Executive Director | Association of Energy Engineers Bill Kent, CEM | Program Director | Association of Energy Engineers
he Association of Energy Engineers (AEE) is a nonprofit professional society and was founded in Atlanta, Georgia, thirty five years ago. The Association of Energy Engineers now includes 16,000 members in 87 countries and is working with Georgia partners to develop the energy management and alternative energy infrastructure in Georgia. In keeping with AEE’s Mission Statement “to promote the scientific and educational interests of those engaged in the energy industry and to foster action for Sustainable Development,” AEE has partnered with public and private groups in Georgia to provide energy efficiency and renewable energy training and certification programs. Professional engineers in Georgia have the opportunity to participate in numerous energy efficiency initiatives as a result of federal initiatives and state legislation. In February 2011, President Obama announced the Better Buildings Initiative to make commercial buildings 20 percent more energy efficient by 2020 and accelerate private sector investment in energy efficiency. Through the Atlanta Better Buildings Challenge (http://www.atlantabbc.com/), the city of Atlanta has united with the metropolitan business and nonprofit community to implement a comprehensive energy upgrade program for downtown buildings to meet the goal of improving energy performance a minimum of 20 percent by 2020. The effort is underway with a benchmarking initiative for Atlanta's 400 block downtown area, including City Hall, the Civic Center, and other landmark downtown buildings. Going forward, project partners will work with banks, funds, energy service companies, and others to enable substantive retrofits of buildings from the university, healthcare, municipal, and commercial sectors. Enrolled buildings participating in substantive retrofits combine for 16 million square feet of JUNE | JULY 2012
WEEC 2011 in Chicago space, with broader participation expected from buildings actively monitoring and managing their energy use. Engineers with expertise in benchmarking, auditing, commissioning, and performance contracting will be required to support the activities of the Atlanta Better Buildings Challenge Program. Georgia voters approved a state constitutional amendment in November 2010, known as Amendment 4, that makes it possible for state agencies to sign multiyear energy performance contracts. Under such contracts, commercial property owners pay energy service companies to retrofit buildings in exchange for guaranteed cost savings from energy bills. Most states have long reaped the benefits of performance contracting for state-owned building, but until the amendment passed in Georgia, the state constitution had restricted state agencies from entering into almost any multiyear contracts. The Georgia Environmental Finance
Authority (GEFA), following on the approval of Amendment 4, has announced the selection of companies for the Guaranteed Energy Savings Performance Contracting (GESPC) prequalification list. Companies on the prequalification list are eligible to compete for future GESPC solicitations issued by the state of Georgia. The initial GESPC prequalification list includes: AECOM, Chevron Energy Solutions, ConEdison Solutions, Constellation Energy, Eaton-EMC, Energy Systems Group, Honeywell, Johnson Controls, Linc Mechanical, NEXTera Energy Solutions, Noresco, Pepco Energy Services, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and Trane. With the passing of Amendment 4 and the selection of the performance contracting prequalification list, opportunities once again exist for auditing, commissioning, benchmarking, and performance contracting professionals. GA Power, the largest subsidiary of 19
Certified Energy Manager (CEM) Training Participants, Atlanta, February 2011 Southern Company and one of the nation’s largest generators of electricity, has standardized on AEE training and certification programs. The training of Utility Account Managers is part of an initiative to insure that GA Power gives the highest quality of service to its commercial, industrial, institutional, and residential customers. Programs included in the GA Power training program for technical and key account management groups include: (visit www.aeecenter.org for program details) Certified Energy Manager (CEM) Certified Energy Auditor (CEA) Residential Energy Auditor (REA) Business Energy Professional (BEP)
Continuing AEE’s commitment to energy efficiency in Georgia, The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Competitive Grant Program, administered by the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA), awarded an Industrial Energy Effi-
ciency Grant to AEE. The grant, now complete, was used to award Certified Energy Manager®(CEM®) scholarships to more than 260 members of Georgia’s industrial community. The Energy Efficiency and Renewable
In addition to providing training for practicing energy professionals, AEE is working with the workforce community to provide training to dislocated workers or those seeking to enter the energy field. AEE, working with the Atlanta Regional Commission, is an approved Eligible Training Provider for the state of Georgia work. Numerous candidates from the metro Atlanta area have participated in AEE training programs with funding provided under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) program or American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). 20
The GeorGia enGineer
Energy Competitive Grant Program was launched in July 2009 and funds 16 projects as a result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The CEM® training program and certification facilitates GEFA’s objectives of implementing projects focusing on long-term, strategic initiatives that develop industrial energy efficiency in Georgia and apply energy-saving measures to industries across the state. “Georgia has made a strong commitment to conservation through a number of initiatives, including the Governor’s Energy Challenge,” said Phil Foil, GEFA Executive Director. “Training and educating knowledgeable Certified Energy Managers® to assist businesses, schools and other organizations on how to adopt and maintain energy-saving best practices is key to meeting and sustaining these goals.” AEE recently partnered with GA Tech and was awarded a contract in response to a DOE RFP to provide CP EnMS training beginning in 2012. The Certified Practitioner in Energy Management Systems (CP EnMS) is part of a new DOE program—Superior Energy Performance (SEP). SEP is a certification program that provides industrial facilities with a roadmap for achieving continual improvement in energy efficiency while maintaining competitiveness. The program will provide a transparent, globally accepted system for verifying energy performance improvements and management practices. It’s vital that we also work to expand the energy industry in the state. To that end, AEE has partnered with Georgia Innovation to promote and encourage the expansion of energy businesses in the state. Georgia Innovation will be a sponsor of the 35th World Energy Engineering Congress and will provide a conference session on energy economic development in the state. The World Energy Engineering Congress (WEEC)’s will be held October 31 through November 2 at the Georgia World Congress and commemorates AEE’s 35th anniversary. The 35th WEEC will feature 250 speakers, including Opening Session speaker General Colin L. Powell, USA (Ret.) and Keynote Luncheon speaker Ted Koppel. Gen. Powell, former US Secretary of State and Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of JUNE | JULY 2012
Staff, will speak about leadership during crisis and change. Ted Koppel, Special Correspondent, NBC News’ Rock Center, contributing columnist for The New York Times, and legendary Anchor of ABC News’ Nightline, will address how current events in the Middle East will impact energy prices and how the results of the presidential election will influence future energy policy. The WEEC is hosted by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) and is presented by AEE featuring association leader, the Alliance to Save Energy, along with U.S. EPA ENERGY STAR, platinum sponsors Georgia Power, A Southern Company, Trane, and other sponsors. The WEEC will feature a large, 14track conference agenda, a full line-up of seminars on a variety of current topics, and
a comprehensive 100,000-square-foot exhibition of the world’s most promising new technologies. The WEEC is the nation’s largest energy efficiency conference and exposition and addresses new advances in lighting, HVAC, and energy management technologies. Subjects include: energy policy, high performance buildings, and energy management ‘best practices’ for the federal, commercial, institutional, and industrial marketplace. Stimulus funding updates, green jobs, and financing are covered in detail. For more information: www.energycongress.com Meeting the needs of the energy efficiency and renewable energy industries for 35 years, AEE is pleased to call Georgia home. AEE will continue to work in the state to meet the needs of our members and
1152 Century Place Suite 202 Atlanta, Georgia 30345
LAND PLANNING ) CIVIL ENGINEERING ) LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ) (770) 452-7849
Moving Transit in the Atlanta Region Forward Janide Sidifall & Jason S. Morgan, AICP | MARTA | Office of Planning
n recent years, the Atlanta metropolitan region has consistently ranked among the worst areas in the nation for traffic congestion. In addition to clogged roadways and lengthening commutes, the region continues to suffer from deleterious environmental consequences, particularly poor air quality. The need for transportation alternatives to mitigate these environmental impacts and improve mobility and accessibility to jobs and housing is critical to this fast-growing area of the Southeast. The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) has recently taken important steps to expand transportation choices in the region by adopting Locally Preferred Alternatives (LPAs) for two regionally significant transportation programs â€”the I-20 East Corridor and the Clifton Corridor Transit Initiatives.
Systematic Thinking The transit initiative concept represents a programmatic way of developing transit projects as components of a larger multimodal system rather than as standalone projects. Accordingly, the I-20 East and Clifton Corridor LPAs have been prepared with an eye toward integrating multiple transit modes, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and land use development policies in a mutually supportive manner. MARTA staff and consultants seek to accomplish these comprehensive objectives while maintaining eligibility for federal funding sources, an arduous project development process that can easily stretch over ten years. The I-20 East Corridor The study area for the I-20 East Corridor, which extends from downtown Atlanta to
southeastern DeKalb county, has experienced significant population and employment growth over the past several decades. These trends are expected to continue over the next 25 years. The transportation system within this corridor has been unable to keep pace with the demands placed on it by this growth. As congestion has steadily increased, mobility has worsened, creating longer travel times for commuters and reducing access to residential and employment centers. Recommended I-20 East Concept The LPA concept for the I-20 East Corridor involves a 12-mile extension of the existing MARTA heavy-rail line from the Indian Creek Station to several new stations along the interstate in southeastern DeKalb county. The service will enable passengers to reach downtown Atlanta from as far away as the Mall at Stonecrest without having to transfer. The LPA also includes Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service along I-20 from the existing MARTA Five Points Station in downtown Atlanta to a transfer station along the proposed, heavy-rail line at Wesley Chapel Road. This BRT service will provide frequent, all-day express service with branded, low-floor buses and level platform boarding. The BRT will
I-20 East Corridor study area extends from downtown Atlanta to southeastern DeKalb County 22
The GeorGia enGineer
the LPA will increase access and mobility for almost 165,000 persons living within two miles of proposed transit stations who are not within two miles of an existing MARTA rail station. An estimated 61,300 additional jobs would be located within two miles of proposed LPA transit stations, significantly increasing access to employment within the corridor.
Diagram of I-20 East Corridor Adopted LPA serve transit stations rather than typical bus stops and enter and exit the I-20 High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes via transit-only access ramps at key interchanges. In addition, the I-20 East LPA will support emerging growth and improve the link Clifton Corridor Study Area
between the communities and planned employment centers along the interstate. The LPA is consistent with, and supportive of, local future land use plans, which call for nodal, mixed-use development at the majority of the proposed station areas. By 2030,
The Clifton Corridor Nearly 155,000 people live in the general Clifton Corridor study area. By 2030, the corridorâ€™s population is expected to reach over 183,000. The number of jobs is also expected to rise to over 156,000 by 2030. The employment growth is particularly driven by the continued expansion of both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and nearby Emory University. In fact, the employment density along Clifton Road is expected to exceed 19 jobs per acre by 2030, making it one of the densest future job centers in metropolitan Atlanta. The Clifton Corridor spans one of the most congested areas within central metropolitan Atlanta. Every weekday thousands of commuters bound for the DeKalb Medical Center, CDC, Veterans Administration, Emory University, and the Emory University Hospital complex stream into the wedge of land that lies between the city of Atlanta, in Fulton county, and the city of Decatur, in DeKalb county. These commuters flood into the Clifton Corridor area on two and fourlane undivided arterial roadways. Transit
Peak hour traffic on Interstate 20 bound central Atlanta JUNE | JULY 2012
Diagram of Clifton Corridor Adopted LPA service within the corridor is limited to bus service which must navigate the same limited roadway network as private passenger vehicles. To make matters worse, there are few major roadway capacity or intersection improvements programmed in the current regional transportation plan for the area. Recommended Clifton Corridor Concept The Clifton Corridor LPA concept includes an 8.8-mile, light-rail line connecting the Lindbergh Center MARTA rail station in the city of Atlanta with the Avondale MARTA rail station in the city of Decatur. The proposed rail line will provide direct connections to the CDC, the Emory University Main Campus and Clairmont Campus as well as the DeKalb Medical Center. Several shopping centers that are planned for redevelopment by DeKalb County and the city of Decatur will be served. Implementing the light-rail service in this area will be an extremely complex undertaking given the varied terrain the alignment must traverse and proximity to established neighborhoods and natural resources. Complicating matters, CSX also operates a Class I freight-rail line directly adjacent to portions of the proposed light-rail alternative. Project engineers will have their work cut out for them as they design the recommended three bored tunnels and three aerial structures that will link the proposed three subway stations, one elevated station, and six at-grade stations.These design features will enable the light-rail line to bypass and reduce potential impacts to sensitive areas while providing improved transit service for residents and commuters. 24
Clifton Corridor Security and Evacuation The presence of the CDC will continue to present special design challenges for the project team from a security standpoint. MARTA will coordinate with the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration to ensure the safety of passengers, employees, and students at the CDC and neighboringEmory University as the light-rail service is constructed and opened. Part of this coordination will involve disaster planning for potential use of the light-rail line as a highcapacity means of emergency evacuation. By the Numbers
In the Future… As resources and space to build and maintain road infrastructure dwindle, the need for more transit options will become ever more pressing. A typical light-rail train carrying 384 passengers can add the equivalent capacity of 1.7 traffic lanes in each direction on an arterial road within a corridor like Clifton. Furthermore, both the Clifton and I-20 East Corridors are linked at the Avondale Station enabling passengers to travel easily between both corridors, thereby maximizing the investment in each. Going forward, these types of investments will enable metropolitan Atlanta to not only grow, but develop in a way that protects the environment and sustains quality-of-life for generations to come. v For more information on these transit efforts, please visit the project Web sites or look them up on Facebook: I-20 East Corridor Transit Initiative – www.itsmarta.com/I20-eastcorr.aspx Clifton Corridor Transit Initiative – www.itsmarta.com/CliftonCorr.aspx
I-20 East Corridor
Bus Rapid Transit and Heavy Rail
12 (heavy rail); 12.8 (bus rapid transit)
Annual New Riders
Auto Miles Driven Reduced by
Over 21 million
Over 12 million
Tons of Pollutants Reduced by
Gallon of Fuel Consumed Reduced by
The GeorGia enGineer
Bernard Roth, Robot Design Expert to Receive 2012 IEEE Robotics & Automation Award Pioneered Concepts That Have Shaped the Field of Robotics and Impacted Today’s Articulated Robotic Devices
ernard Roth, a leader in the field of robotics and automation whose pioneering contributions to robot kinematics and design shaped the field and provided the foundation for the advanced capabilities seen in today’s robotic devices, is being honored by IEEE with the 2012 IEEE Robotics and Automation Award. IEEE is the world’s largest technical professional association. The award, sponsored by the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society, recognizes Roth for fundamental contributions to robot kinematics, manipulation, and design. The award will be presented on May 16, 2012, at the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation in St. Paul, Minnesota. With a career that has spanned practically the lifetime of the robotics field, Roth’s steadfast commitment to advancing robotics has influenced and provided inspiration to generations of robotics researchers around the world. Roth’s landmark work at Stanford University during the 1960s on kinematics and manipulation of computer-controlled devices provided many of the formulations used for designing and controlling today’s robotic systems. Robot kinematics is the study of robot motion concerning the position, velocity, and acceleration of the links/movable parts of a robotic device, such as within a manipulator arm. Roth has continued to evolve the field with innovative theories and applicable hardware, including the first concept of a snake-like robot, robotic arms for industrial use, and grasping concepts for multifingered robotic hands. Roth’s foundational work on spatial linkage synthesis in 1967 provided a comprehensive theory that would impact robotics design. This award-winning work can today be visualized via virtual reality to spatially reveal critical geometries of fixed and moving congruencies of a device. This work led to deJUNE | JULY 2012
Bernard Roth velopment of the spatial curvature theory for mixed-motion design specifications for application to robots. In 1979, Roth co-authored (with O. Bottema) “Theoretical Kinematics,” which still serves as a solid reference on robot kinematics. Considered by one reviewer to be the best kinematics book of the century, this book also introduced robotics researchers to screw theory, which had important implications for improving compliant motion in robotic devices. Roth and his students at Stanford have made many important contributions to scientific and industrial applications of robotics. With D.L. Pieper, he developed methods fundamental to the coordination software used for industrial robots. With J. Rastegar and V. Scheinman, he developed the first continuous curvature (snake-like) robot. Roth supervised Scheinman’s development of the Stanford Arm, which led to commercially successful industrial robots. Working with K.J. Salisbury and J.J. Craig, Roth developed the original grasp matrix for multifingered hands, which resulted in the development of the Stanford/Jet Propulsion Laboratory Hand in 1981. Roth’s most recent work focuses on design and coordination of manipulators with kinematic and
dynamic isotropic properties and new generations of human-friendly robot design. Roth has been honored with numerous awards including the Joseph F. Engleberger Award for Robotics (1986), the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Melville Medal (1967), Machine Design Award (1984), Outstanding Design Educator Award (2000), the IEEE Pioneer in Robotics Award (2000), the Applied Mechanics & Robotics Conference Lifetime Achievement Award, and five bestconference paper awards from ASME. Roth received his bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from City College of New York, New York, and his master’s and doctorate degrees in mechanical engineering from Columbia University, New York. Roth is currently the Rodney H. Adams Professor of Engineering at Stanford University, California, and the academic director of Stanford’s Hasso Plattner Institute of Design. About IEEE IEEE is dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. Through its highly cited publications, conferences, technology standards, and professional and educational activities, IEEE is the trusted voice on a wide variety of areas ranging from aerospace systems, computers and telecommunications to biomedical engineering, electric power and consumer electronics. Learn more at http://www.ieee.org. v
STV Celebrates 100 Years
The Brookwood Interchange was completed by RWA in 1986. The project involved 33 turnouts, four permanent bridges, two temporary bridges, 1,290 linear feet of concrete retaining walls and alterations to passenger station facilities. his year marks the 100th anniversary of STV, a full-service engineering and architectural firm providing an array of services for world-class transportation, infrastructure, and building projects. From the firm’s humble beginnings as a structural engineering company, the firm has grown considerably since 1912, with offices throughout the United States and Canada, including two offices in Georgia. STV’s quality work means it consistently ranks among the top engineering and architectural firms in the country. Ralph Whitehead Associates (RWA), which STV acquired in 2006, opened its Atlanta office in 1973. The office initially focused on working with the Southern Railway and the
Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT). Eventually, RWA branched out to serve local governments, such as Cobb, Gwinnett, Cherokee, Bibb, and Hall counties. It opened an office in Duluth in 2003. “STV’s century of success is built upon the foundation of its core values,” said G. Stuart Matthis II, P.E., vice president of STV and a senior engineer with more than 30 years of experience in the planning and design of major highway, railway, and mass transit projects. “From RWA’s earliest days in Georgia, we were driven to provide our clients with quality service and to serve as leaders in our industry and communities. This is an exciting time for STV, as we look forward to our next 100 years.” One of the early major projects out of the RWA Atlanta office was the Norfolk
Southern Railway Bridge over I-75/I-85 and Pryor Street in Atlanta, a $9.3 million railway structure for the Georgia DOT. Completed in 1985, it is one of the largest railroad bridges in the Southeast. The span carries six parallel tracks over 16 lanes of highway or street traffic. RWA completed final construction plans for the permanent structures and track staging plans, allowing frequent rail traffic to continue on a minimum of three tracks over heavy vehicular traffic during the staged expansion of Atlanta’s South Expressway. George T. Zimmerman, P.E., project manager and senior engineer who has been with STV/RWA for 33 years and manages the freight rail business for Norfolk Southern, called Norfolk Southern Railway “a key client and a key reason to open the Atlanta The GeorGia enGineer
office.” Work on the heavy rail transit system along the railway’s right of way started in 1973 and lasted through the mid 1990s. RWA also completed work on the Brookwood Interchange in 1986. The firm prepared construction plans, including detour tracks and permanent changes to the Norfolk Southern Railway main line, and track staging plans and detours for Atlantic Steel Company’s lead and yard tracks. The project involved 33 turnouts, four permanent bridges, two temporary bridges, 1,290 linear feet of concrete retaining walls and alterations to passenger station facilities. In 1987, RWA became the on-call contract engineer for Norfolk Southern’s public projects. “Since that time, we have done 1,400 projects, some small, some very large,” said Zimmerman. Taking pride in every job, no matter what size, was something that Whitehead instilled in his engineers years ago. “Even when I was working for Mr. Whitehead many years ago, the firm’s commitment to being driven and creative was important to every project,” Zimmerman said. “A quality product was always turned out, no matter what. If you look back at the plans from the early 1960s, before the advent of CAD, you would never know they were hand-drawn. The work product was always good. We were always driven to be the best we could be.” Over the last 40 years, the Atlanta office has grown and a second office in downtown Atlanta opened in November 2011. The firm has completed a number of highway transportation projects for GDOT and surrounding municipalities, such as services on the GDOT Big Bridge program, SR 3/I-75 interchange in Whitfield county, Hiram-Lithia Springs Road in Cobb county, and SR 20 at East Cherokee Drive in Cherokee county. Current projects in Georgia include Spout Springs Road in Hall county, a $50 million roadway widening project six miles in length. The office’s transportation group also has completed multiple safety and operational roadway improvements for local counties in the metro area. The firm has memberships in the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) Georgia chapter, the American SoJUNE | JULY 2012
The Norfolk Southern Railway Bridge over I-75/I-85 and Pryor Street in Atlanta, a $9.3 million railway structure for the Georgia DOT. Completed in 1985, it is one of the largest railroad bridges in the Southeast. ciety of Highway Engineers, the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-ofWay Association (AREMA) and the Women’s Transportation Seminar. Marjorie ‘Margie’ S. Pozin, P.E., senior project manager, is entering her second year on the ACEC GA chapter Board of Directors. Pozin and members of the Transportation Group also volunteer at Ferguson Elementary School, located directly across the street from STV’s office. They tutor at-risk fourth and fifth grade students in math one hour a week before school. “It’s awesome to see these kids in their ‘light bulb’ moments,” Pozin said. STV employees have held toy and clothing drives for Ferguson Elementary, as well as collected money for their families in need. “It’s all done by the employees personally,” she said. “It’s a school population in need, with 90 percent of the students receiving assistance.” STV began volunteering and partnering with the school as soon as it opened, according to Pozin, who is now a member of the school’s counseling advisory committee.
In addition to its volunteer efforts for Ferguson Elementary, the office also supports additional local organizations and holds annual food drives for local food banks during the holiday season. Through STV’s work in Georgia, as well as through its professional associations and volunteer work, the firm has made a lasting commitment to the growth and prosperity of the state. As we celebrate our 100th anniversary, we look forward to continuing to play a key role in the state’s future, as Georgia will certainly play an important role in STV’s future. v Midtown Office 1201 Peachtree Street NE Suite 1001 Atlanta, GA 30361-3503 T: (678) 735-7650 F: (404) 898-1025 Duluth Office 3505 Koger Boulevard Suite 205 Duluth, GA 30096 T: (770) 452-0797 F: (770) 936-9171 27
A Brief Overview of Georgia’s New Industrial Stormwater General Permit Daniel E. Agramonte, PE | O’Brien & Gere
n April 16, 2012, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (Georgia EPD) issued the 2012 Industrial Stormwater General Permit, GAR050000 (2012 IGP). The 2012 IGP sets forth the requirements that most regulated facilities must implement to comply with the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972. The CWA introduced the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to reduce/eliminate the release of toxic substances into water. NPDES regulates storm water discharges from a broad range of industrial facilities. In Georgia, administration of industrial storm water discharges as required by NPDES is the responsibility of the Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
Background On July 31, 2011, the 2006 General Storm Water Permit (2006 IGP) expired. Coverage for regulated facilities was extended under this permit until the 2012 IGP takes effect on June 1, 2012. The new general permit is significantly different from the 2006 IGP. What follows is a brief summary of the major changes. The 2012 IGP is Georgia’s approach to satisfying the requirements in the federal 2008 Multi-Sector General Permit (2008 MSGP). To ensure compliance with federal requirements, Georgia EPD issued the 2012 IGP, which requires 10 categories of industries to obtain coverage. Regulated facilities either “attach” themselves to the state’s general storm water permit by completing a Notice of Intent (NOI) or submit a “No Exposure Exclusion” for exemption from permit requirements. Submittal of an NOI
Overgrown detention pond; note partically exposed overflow structure
obligates the regulated facility to abide by the terms of the general permit. Systemic Changes Organization The organization of the 2012 IGP has been changed to more closely align it with the federal permit (2008 MSGP). In doing this, the new permit organizes regulated facilities into 27 sectors plus one sector for non-classified facilities (Sector AB). Classification of a facility is based on its Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code. For example, a beer brewery would be classified as SIC 2082, which would cause it to be regulated as a Sector U facility. Permit Requirements A regulated facility is subject to general requirements, set forth in Parts 1 through 7, and sector-specific requirements, set forth in Part 8 of the 2012 IGP. These sector-specific requirements may include best management practices and/or analytical sampling (i.e., benchmark monitoring). For example, per Part 5, all facilities covered by the permit are required to implement an industrial storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). Any facility involved in the manufacturing of food and kindred products (including beverages) has a sector-specific requirement to inspect loading and unloading areas for all significant materials, storage areas, including associated containment areas; waste management units; vents and stacks emanating from industrial activities; spoiled product and broken product container holding areas; animal handling and holding areas; staging areas; and air pollution control equipment. Additional Requirements The 2012 IGP also has changes affecting the following: A new requirement to verify that there is no non-storm water discharge entering the storm sewer system has also been implemented. Appropriate verification methods The GeorGia enGineer
include dye, smoke or equivalent testing; TV surveillance, or analysis of as-built drawings/schematics. • Target values have been established for benchmarks (these were not provided in the 2006 IGP). • A mechanism is now provided for a facility to establish its own benchmark. This was not provided in the 2006 IGP. •
Numeric effluent limitations now affect seven types of discharges (the 2006 IGP only had six).
Analytical sampling results performed during the term of the 2006 IGP must be summarized and retained by the facility.
Records pertaining to the 2012 IGP must now be kept for at least three years following coverage termination.
The requirement to perform routine facility inspections (including quarterly inspections and annual sampling) no longer applies to inactive/unstaffed facilities.
the pollutant of concern is not exposed and/or not present at the facility, •
If the POC in the facility’s discharge is expected to be less than the water quality standard or there is sufficient waste load allocation for the POC based on the total maximum daily loading for the POC
The facility was previously required to conduct impaired stream segment sampling per Part III.C. of the 2006 Industrial Storm Water General Permit
The POC is present in the discharge to the impaired stream segment
Other requirements specific to impaired streams have also been implemented in the 2012 IGP, including clarification regarding distance to impaired streams, appropriate sampling parameters for fecal coliforms and handling of benchmark/pollutant of concern exceedances.
Additional provisions when a pollutant of concern (POC) causes an impairment to a stream that is located within one mile of the regulated facility. These provisions clarify benchmark sampling requirements and provide four options for the regulated facility:
Specific Sectors ~ an Example Regulated facilities will be classified into one of the 27 sectors in the 2012 IGP. Specific requirements may apply in the various sectors, including best management practices (BMPs), inspections and sampling. These changes are numerous and it is suggested that facility-specific sectors be consulted in the 2012 IGP. For example, the 2006 IGP required annual analytical sampling for facilities in 21 sectors. The 2012 IGP has added six sectors, bringing the total to 27 specific industrial sectors. Consistent with the federal 2008 MSGP, many of these requirements are at the sub-sector level. For example, all “Food and Kindred Products” (Sector U) facilities are subject to the following supplemental requirements: • The drainage area site map must indicate the location of vents and stacks from cooking, drying and similar operations; dry product vacuum transfer lines; animal holding and handling area; spoiled product; and broken product container storage areas if they’re exposed to precipitation or runoff
The regulated facility may certify that
Facilities exceeding benchmark values must now address the exceedance with changes to existing BMPs or make a determination that a further benchmark reduction is neither feasible nor economically practicable.
Facilities exceeding numerical effluent limits must now implement corrective action and follow-up monitoring (minimum frequency is quarterly).
Analytical results not prepared on-site must now be performed by an accredited analytical laboratory.
JUNE | JULY 2012
The SWPPP for the facility must docu-
ment food and kindred product processing-related industrial activities, as well as application and storage areas for pest control chemicals used at the facility •
The following must be inspected at least quarterly if potentially exposed to storm water: loading and unloading areas for all significant materials; storage areas, including associated containment areas; waste management units; vents and stacks emanating from industrial activities; spoiled product and broken product container holding areas; animal handling and holding areas; staging areas; and air pollution control equipment
Within Sector U, additional requirements may also apply to specific areas within the sector, known as “subsectors”: • Facilities performing animal processing are subject to specific operational (e.g., procedural) and structural BMPs •
Benchmark monitoring applies to the following categories (subsectors) within Sector U: m Subsector U1: SICs 2041 – 2048, grain mill products m Subsector U2: SICs 2074 – 2079, fats and oils m Subsector U3: SICs 2011 – 2015, meat products
Facilities in Subsector U3 with discharges from material storage piles are also subject to additional benchmark monitoring requirements. The nature and complexity of the requirements dictate that facilities be aware of their primary SIC code in order to fully understand applicable requirements. In Closing The changes to the 2012 IGP are indeed far reaching in their efforts to comply with multitude requirements, including: The federal permit (2008 MSGP), EPD Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control and EPD’s anti-degradation policy. Regulated facilities are advised to read and understand the new permit. If needed, technical consultation should be considered in order to ensure compliance and reduce potential environmental liability. v 29
The Wicked Problem Whisperer Dr. Ruth Middleton House & Doris I. Willmer, PE, FACEC, LEED® AP
ot so long ago most human illness was regarded as the result of evil spirits, so, when people got sick, the fix was to let the evil spirits out, for example by drilling holes in their heads. It wasn’t very effective but— within that system of thought—it was rational. These days when big projects run into problems, we hold emergency meetings then fire the consultants or rearrange the organization chart. It isn’t very effective, but it’s a rational response to fragmentation…if you believe that the problems result from human failing, i.e. poor performance or incompetence. (Conklin, 2006, p. 36) Under pressure to deliver success in the midst of high uncertainty and high anxiety, it is easier to blame than it is to learn. But what if “they” didn’t do it? What if the problem is not a person? What if the problem is an approach that is ill-suited to the situation? The traditional technical mindset of logic, linearity, command, and control may have served you well in the past. In some situations it will continue to do so. You can still attack a Tame Problem and deliver the solution. A Wicked Problem, however, simply isn’t vulnerable to attack. When you find a Wicked Problem at your doorstep, remember that you will be living with it for a long time. Invite it in, sit with it, listen to it, talk to it, offer it a cup of tea. And be prepared for a crowd. Wicked Problems travel in packs. Besides that, they may bring along an entourage of diverse problem solvers. That means you are facing Wicked Problems and Social Complexity at the same time. And if you are already dealing with Technical Complexity when they call, then you have all the necessary players to concoct a bona fide mess. Wicked Problems come with no agreedupon formula to arrive at the right answer— no agreed upon formula, in fact, even for arriving at the best solution. And if your team of problem-solvers is diverse, each team member is likely to see the problem differ30
ently, to follow a different set of ground rules, to move at a different pace. And different behaviors aren’t the only complications. Different meanings attributed to the same behaviors complicate matters further. (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 2012, p. 17). Uh-oh. How can you schedule and control a situation like that? You can’t. At the end of the day, addressing a Wicked Problem is a social process not a technical one. And to be successful you must deal with as it is. You can disguise a Wicked Problem, but you can’t tame it. You’ve probably seen someone try by… Redefining it as something they can solve. They get a very neat and irrelevant deliverable. They can check the deliverable off the list, alright. But the real problem just won’t go away. Simply telling people it’s already been solved. The more authority a person has the better able they are to pull this off. Just the same, somebody’s going to notice.
Selecting a concrete measure of success that they know they can meet. Of course, whatever they measure becomes the de facto problem. Great looking scorecard. But what does it mean? Telling people this problem is just like one that has already been solved. No big deal. Just do what’s been done before. An easy and worthless solution. Settling. They just keep their head down and stay under the radar. Maybe someone can clean up the mess next year…or next generation? Insisting that there are only a few possible courses of action, then advocating for one of them. It’s simple: Either X or Y or Z. Pick one. (Conklin, 2006, pp. 21-22). Better if you don’t help the Wicked Problem go undercover. “Whisper” to it instead. How? First, share space with your Wicked Problem and your diverse group of problemsolvers. Shared space face-to-face and on-the-
The GeorGia enGineer
ground is ideal. But the space isn’t necessarily either one. One successful group kept posters on the wall of a situation room where people came to write and draw out their ideas as they occurred. Another successful group used an online meeting room (like Moodle) to share thoughts, documents, and even work collaboratively using a wiki. Whatever the location or the layout of the space, you’ll need to help people deal with their feelings before they can move forward. So when someone brings up an emotional issue, be sure to… Put yourself on hold. Screen out distractions. (Including your watch and that voice in your head!) Give the dialogue some time to sink in. Summarize both the feeling content and the factual content of the dialogue. (House, 1988, pp. 148-152). Repeat this process until each person in the dialogue could tell another—to the other’s satisfaction—what he or she felt or believed and why. Second, as your dialogue continues, draw a picture of it. Share a graphic display of the interaction. All the better if you can develop the graphic collaboratively as you go. (Conklin, 2006, pp. 46-47; Pacanowsky, 1995, p. 41). You can display some ‘organizer’ graphic like a SWOT chart. A facilitator might fill in the blanks as people make suggestions; participants might fill in the blanks individually or in small groups and then build a composite. You can use some mapping device— much more flexible than a form—that records content (factual and feeling) and the direction of the interaction. Mind-mapping, domain-mapping, and dialogue mapping are among the options. Third, manage the physical, social, and symbolic environment of the exchange. (Pacanowsky, 1995, p. 43). We remember one meeting in a federal building conference room in which we encouraged people to openly share their feelings and concerns. People shifted uneasily in their chairs, discretely looked at the portrait of the president on the wall, and then looked down at the conference table. Mute. Only a shift to the JUNE | JULY 2012
coffee shop opened up the conversation. Taking these three steps to build shared understanding will take you right up to the point of shared commitment: energy merging in a single vector moving in the right direction. At some point, you need to take action. With a wicked problem you may never feel ready for it… “Ortega y Gasset once remarked that ‘Life is fired at us point blank.’ We cannot say: ‘Hold it! I am not quite ready. Wait until I have sorted things out.’ Decisions have to be taken that we are not ready for; aims have to be chosen that we cannot see clearly.” (Schumacher, 1977, p. 6) But act you must. Instead of learning and then acting, you will be learning and acting at the same time. Concerted action won’t be easy, though, will it? After all, you have no agreed upon formula for a solution and you have a diverse project team. How can you move forward together? See the next issue for “A Sous Chef, a Schoolteacher, and a Civil Engineer Walked into a Problem.” v
Project Management. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Pacanowsky, Michael. (Winter 1995). Team Tools for Wicked Problems. Organizational Dynamics, 23(3), pp. 98-106. Schumacher, E.F. (1977) A Guide for the Perplexed. New York: Harper Perennial. Trompenaars, Fons and Hampden-Turner, Charles. (2012). Riding the Waves of Culture. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Conklin, Jeff. (2006). Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. House, Ruth. (1988) The Human Side of
W h a t ’ s
t h e
NEWS ASCE, APWA and ACEC Honored by the National Association of Clean Water Agencies Cited for Creating the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure and its Rating System The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has received the 2012 National Environmental Achievement Special Recognition Award by the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), for ASCE’s work on creating the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure, along with the American Public Works Association and the American Council of Engineering Companies. The three organizations were instrumental in creating the Envision Sustainable Infrastructure Rating System, which is designed to help evaluate the sustainability of infrastructure, set realistic priorities, and foster improvement in the sustainable performance and resilience of physical infrastructure. Through a holistic approach, the Envision system rates all types and sizes of civil infrastructure projects and does so in terms of the triple bottom line—environmental, economic, and community benefits. The Envision approach provides a complete framework of assessment, covering all major civil infrastructure project types, scales, contexts, and project phases. Infrastructure owners, engineers, contractors, and regulators can address all major infrastructure project stages: planning and design, construction, operations and maintenance, and decommissioning. The award to ASCE, and the other organizations, honors their collaboration in the formation of the ISI and their commitment to infrastructure sustainability. The Award was presented during the NACWA’s National Environmental Policy Forum in Washington, D.C. v 32
2012 World Energy Engineering Congress to Be Held in Atlanta, October 31 through November 2 What: AEE is very pleased to celebrate the 35th anniversary of the World Energy Engineering Congress (WEEC) at Atlanta’s Georgia World Congress Center, October 31 to November 2, 2012. The WEEC is well recognized as the most important energy event of national and international scope for end users and energy professionals in all areas of the energy field. This year’s keynote speakers will include General Colin Powell and legendary newsman Ted Koppel. The WEEC will feature 14-track conference agenda, a full line-up of seminars on a variety of current topics, and a comprehensive 100,000 square-foot exhibition of the world’s most promising new technologies. Topics will include energy policy, high performance buildings, and energy management ‘best practices’ for the federal, commercial, institutional, and industrial marketplace. Stimulus fund-
Solving Subsurface Problems Since 1981 • • • • • • •
ing updates, green jobs and financing will be covered in detail. For more information, please visit http://www.energycongress.com. Where: Georgia World Congress Center, Atlanta, Georgia. When: October 31 to November 2, 2012. Who: The Association of Energy Engineers (AEE) is your source for information and networking in the dynamic fields of energy engineering and energy management, renewable and alternative energy, power generation, energy services, sustainability, and all related areas. As a growing professional association, AEE’s overall strength is augmented by its strong membership base of over 14,000 professionals in 83 countries and its widely recognized energy certification programs. Its network of 70 local chapters, located throughout the U.S. and abroad, meet regularly to discuss issues of regional importance. Learn more at http://www.aeecenter.org. v
Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) Underground utility locating Subsurface mapping and profiling Concrete imaging and inspection Geophysical exploration 3D subsurface imaging Geophysical borehole logging
GA: 770-980-1002 SC: 843-769-7379 NC: 919-406-1808 www.gel.com The GeorGia enGineer
Boeing Honors Georgia Institute of Technology With Supplier of the Year Award Georgia Tech among 14 companies, two universities to receive awards for exceptional performance. Boeing honored the Georgia Institute of Technology on Wednesday evening for its exceptional performance and contributions to Boeing’s overall success during 2011. Atlanta-based Georgia Tech was one of 14 companies and two universities to receive a Boeing Supplier of the Year Award, presented during a ceremony at Chicago’s Field Museum. “In today’s challenging business environment, an agile supply chain that continuously delivers excellent performance is critical,” said Jack House, vice president of Supplier Management for Boeing Defense, Space and Security and leader of Boeing’s companywide Supplier Management program. “The partners have demonstrated outstanding commitment to providing our customers with the best-value, highest-quality products and services, while meeting the customers’ requirements and anticipating their needs for the future.” Boeing annually purchases more than $50 billion in goods and services from a global network of more than 28,000 suppliers that collectively employ more than 1.2 million people. “I am very pleased that Boeing has expressed their confidence and support in Georgia Tech by providing the resources to conduct research and development on manufacturing problems of critical significance to their business,” said Steven Danyluk, Professor and Morris M. Bryan, Jr., Chair in Mechanical Engineering for Advanced Manufacturing Systems at Georgia Tech. “Our faculty are excited and energized by the Supplier of the Year Award, and we’ll continue to excel in developing the tools and processes that will keep the U.S. in a lead position in manufacturing sciences.” The selection of the winning suppliers is based on statistical measurements of quality, on-time delivery, post-delivery support, cost and their ability to anticipate and respond to changing customer requirements. Georgia Tech was honored in the category of Academia, which recognizes outstanding performance as a strategic university. For more information on Georgia Tech, visit its official Web site. v JUNE | JULY 2012
General Colin Powell and Ted Koppel to Headline 2012 World Energy Engineering Congress in Atlanta, October 31 through November 2 Nation’s largest energy efficiency conference and exposition to highlight the impact of new technologies and energy policy The Association of Energy Engineers (AEE) is pleased to announce the World Energy Engineering Congress’ (WEEC) return to Atlanta. This year’s event will be held October 31 through November 2 at the Georgia World Congress Center. The 35th WEEC will feature 250 speakers, including opening session speaker General Colin L. Powell, USA (Ret.) and keynote luncheon speaker Ted Koppel. Gen. Powell, former U.S. Secretary of State and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will speak about leadership during crisis and change. Ted Koppel, special correspondent, NBC News’ Rock Center, contributing columnist for The New York Times, and legendary anchor of ABC News’ Nightline, will address how current events
in the Middle East will impact energy prices and how the results of the presidential election will influence future energy policy. The WEEC is hosted by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) and is presented by AEE featuring association leader the Alliance to Save Energy, along with U.S. EPA ENERGY STAR; platinum sponsors Georgia Power, A Southern Company; Trane; and other sponsors. The WEEC will feature a large, 14track conference agenda, a full line-up of seminars on a variety of current topics, and a comprehensive 100,000 square-foot exhibition of the world’s most promising new technologies. The WEEC is the nation’s largest en-
ergy efficiency conference and exposition and addresses new advances in lighting, HVAC, and energy management technologies. Topics will include energy policy, high performance buildings, and energy management ‘best practices’ for the federal, commercial, institutional, and industrial marketplace. Stimulus funding updates, green jobs, and financing will be covered in detail. For the conference program, go to http://www.energycongress.com/program/2012weec/program.html. For more information on the World Energy Engineering Congress, please contact Megan O’Neil at (770) 447-5083 x229 or email@example.com. v
The GeorGia enGineer
James R. Hamilton, PE President ACEC/G
“Good is the enemy of Great. And that is why one of the key reasons why we have too little that becomes great. We don’t have great schools, principally because we have good schools. We don’t have great government, principally because we have good government. Few people attain great lives; principally it is just so easy to settle for a good life. The vast majority of organizations never become great, precisely because the majority become quite good- and that is the main problem.” Jim Collins, Good to Great A few years ago, long before the Great Recession, our company set a plan for growth and prosperity. We evaluated our strengths, weaknesses, and mostly our potential. We described vividly where we would plant our flag on the hill and charted our path to get there. We set four clear goals. We determined
JUNE | JULY 2012
our Critical Success Factors and defined the Barriers to our Success—mostly so we could avoid them. Then came the hard part: Execution. We did not meet or exceed all of our BHAG (Big Hairy Audacious Goal) but we did achieve a lot. We increased our revenue, we upgraded the office, we increased benefits, and- low and behold our client list increased and our clients scored us higher on our satisfaction questionnaire. During the Great Recession the plan has helped us survive and get ready for the Great Recovery. It is incredible what a plan does. Having no plan yields failure, or at best, mediocrity. A great plan can yield success, and if you execute well with needed course corrections— greatness! It all starts with asking the question: “How can we be better?” At ACEC/G, our board has not only asked the question, but we studied the answer and from that, ACEC/G continues our quest to greatness. Our board defined what it
will take for us to be the best organization for engineering firms in Georgia. Our board made a courageous decision to take decisive steps to certain a Great Future. The execution of the plan for the new ACEC/G is now in process. A great execution plan has been crafted by our board and President-Elect Eddie Williams that will carry us to our flag on the hill. ACEC/G is a priority of the best engineering firms in Georgia seeking: •
Best business practices
Best education source for the business of engineering
Source of emerging trends
Best representation at the Georgia Legislature and on Capitol Hill
Best value proposition
Best source seeking information for technology innovations for businesses
Incredible speakers, programs, and conferences that provide information that will transform and propel their businesses through all economic cycles
Our robust and energized (in-house) staff will respond to your business real time- each and every day. If you practice the business of engineering in Georgia or provide services to engineering businesses in Georgia- we are, in one word, your advocate. As the new year begins I look forward to full engagement as past president. I owe much gratitude to all member firms to allow me the privilege to have an incredible board that has made the right decision at the right time to not only achieve relevance but a huge value for engineering firms throughout Georgia. Many thanks to the GEA staff in supporting what we do at ACEC/G and for their support in ACEC/G change initiatives. I wish to expressly thank Tom Leslie, PE and Gwen Brandon. Their continued commitment and contribution to ACEC/G is always an inspiration. v ACECG Board of Directors 2011-2012 First Name
Southern Civil Engineers Inc.
Keck & Wood Inc.
Wolverton & Associates Inc.
firstname.lastname@example.org (770) 447-8999
Rochester & Associates Inc.
Thomas & Hutton Engineering Co.
Pond & Company
W. R. Toole Engineers Inc.
Rosser International Inc.
Heath & Lineback Engineers Inc.
Engineering Design Technologies Inc. Richard.Mays@edtinc.net
Lowe Engineers LLC
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
Walter P. Moore and Associates Inc.
Prime Engineering Inc.
The GeorGia enGineer
Jim Wallace, P.E., President American Society of Civil Engineers, Georgia Section | e-mail: email@example.com STEM: An acronym you should know and care about Until recently I did not recognize the acronym STEM, and, therefore, I could not care about it, whatever it might represent. Then one day I received an e-mail from one of our Georgia Section members, Keith Cole, who has been, and continues to be, a leader in Georgia in outreach to the pre-college students in subjects related to engineering. In his e-mail Keith was recommending that the Georgia Section become involved with the the Marietta Center for Advanced Academics (MCAA) and their STEM program. He explained that STEM stands for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. In an effort to understand a little more about this subject before I brought it to the Section Board of Directors, I did a lit-
tle research into the topics of STEM and discovered that there is a large national effort ongoing to support the development and improvement of our education system relative to STEM. One of the first articles that I read regarding STEM was the ASCE President’s Note in the January 2012 issue of Civil Engineering; the article was entitled “Reach Out Today for a Better Profession Tomorrow,” and was written by Andrew W. Herrmann, the National President of ASCE. President Herrmann began his article with the following statement: “Of the many outreach activities in which ASCE members are engaged, none are more important--or more rewarding—than those that involve championing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education at the K-12,
or precollege, level…ASCE member are committed to sharing their passion for civil engineering with students of every age. From classroom visits to competitions to scholarships, ASCE sections and branches are doing much to ensure that K-12 students are inspired to join the ranks of the next generation of civil engineers.” After discovering this strong national level support for being involved in STEM education, there was only one more step that I needed to take before recommending the Section’s involvement in the MCAA program; this step was to learn something about MCAA. The MCAA Web page offers a lot of information about the program there, but a brief summary of this information is: “The Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) magnet academy at
2011 - 2012 BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRESIDENT Jim Wallace, PE firstname.lastname@example.org
SECRETARY Ernie Pollitzer, PE email@example.com
INTERNAL AFFAIRS Keith Cole, PE firstname.lastname@example.org
PRESIDENT-ELECT Lisa Woods, PE Lisa.email@example.com
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Dan Agramonte, PE firstname.lastname@example.org
VICE-PRESIDENT Katherine McLeod Gurd, PE Katherine.email@example.com PAST-PRESIDENT Jo Ann Macrina, PE jmacrina@AtlantaGa.Gov TREASURER Rebecca Shelton, PE firstname.lastname@example.org
JUNE | JULY 2012
Northeast Georgia Branch: Paul Oglesby, PE email@example.com Savannah Branch: C. J. Chance, PE firstname.lastname@example.org South Metro Branch: James Emery, PE email@example.com
YOUNGER MEMBERS Julie Secrist, PE firstname.lastname@example.org TECHNICAL GROUPS John Lawrence, PE John.email@example.com www.ascega.org
Marietta Center for Advanced Academics provides third through fifth grade students an integrated, rigorous academic program. Based on the Georgia Performance Standards (GPS), the comprehensive, STEM magnet program uses a balance of text and technological resources to provide an education that is challenging at higher levels, and faster paced, then most traditional elementary learning environments.”Armed with this and additional information from MCAA’s Web page, I was almost convinced that the Georgia Section should support this educational program when I learned that MCAA had received word that their program was to be certified by the Georgia Department of Education. This convinced me that this was a worthy effort and one that the Section should support. The Section Board agreed and on March 8, 2012, the Georgia Section was well represented at a ceremony at the school when Dr. John Barge, State Superintendent of Georgia schools, formally announced this certification. He said that the Marietta Center for Advanced Academics, the first STEM-certified school in Georgia, is a model for other Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math magnet schools across Georgia to emulate, and that other schools will eventually receive STEM certification from the state Department of Education, but the Marietta school distinguished itself enough in the application process to be the first.During the ceremony on March 8, ASCE became a formal Partner in Education with MCAA and signed an agreement to ”…pursue a mutually fulfilling relationship designed to enrich and extend the opportunities for Marietta City schools insomuch as the quality of a community is defined by the strength of its schools.” Partners In Education (PIE) is sponsored by the Cobb Chamber of Commerce, the Marietta City Schools, and the Cobb County School System. Other organizations that signed the partnership agreement were Southern Polytechnic State University (SPSU) and Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. ASCE will support the MCAA program in several ways, some of which will depend on the imagination and creativity of our membership. The first activity with the children took place the day after the ceremony. 38
On the afternoon of March 9th, three volunteers from the ASCE Georgia Section and SPSU (John Lawrence, Suzanne Pylant, and Tim Bittner) visited MCAA. Two civil engineering experiments were conducted with approximately 90 students at the fourth grade level; these experiments illustrated how engineering impacts everyday life. Students assembled their own ‘dirty water’ filters and tested them for removing common contaminants. Other students used toothpicks and gum drop candies to assemble model bridges. An atmosphere of friendly competition added to the chaos and fun. “This is a great way to challenge the thinking of young students, and demonstrate how integral civil engineering is to our everyday life,” said Mr. Lawrence. “The ultimate goal is to influence these bright students to pursue civil engineering as a career.” ASCE would like to thank the school principal, Jennifer Hernandez, and the four classroom teachers who participated. ASCE hopes to expand this outreach to other schools in the area. The Georgia Section understands that partnerships with STEM schools such as MCAA is an active way that our more experienced engineers can mentor and support our youth in becoming more proficient in
the sciences and mathematics all the while demonstrating their application in each of our everyday lives; something civil engineers do by nature. It also allows our membership to give something back to the community and help expose our youngest and brightest to the exciting world of engineering in hopes of opening some minds, igniting a spark, and ultimately recruiting our next generation of engineers. ASCE Georgia Section will continue to partner with additional schools across the metro Atlanta area and the state of Georgia to continue to help promote the importance of STEM. v
The GeorGia enGineer
Jennifer King, PE, President Women in Transportation Seminar WTS Atlanta and the White House WTS International is constantly looking for ways to provide opportunities to enhance chapter programs and events. Recently, the organization established a Speaker’s Bureau, which works to link high-level speakers with chapters as part of their scheduled travels. Within the last few months, WTS Atlanta has benefitted twice from this program. In November, WTS was asked by the White House to host a roundtable discussion with Anne Ferro, Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration at the U.S. Department of Transportation. In April, the USDOT Acting Under Secretary of Transportation Policy, Polly Trottenberg, participated in another roundtable held by our chapter. As requested by the White House, 20-25 of Atlanta’s most influential women in the transportation industry were invited to participate in these intimate conversations. The facilitators led discussions on the key issues impacting our industry, including the funding outlook, workforce development, and the future of transportation. Legislative Luncheon WTS Atlanta held a legislative luncheon in February, an event which we hope will become an annual occurrence. Speakers for this event included State Transportation Board Member, Dana Lemon, House Transportation Committee Chair, Jay Roberts, and House Transportation Committee Vice Chair, Donna Sheldon. The event drew attendance from many potential new members including senior executives at various private firms and leadership from many public agencies. Other honored guests in attendance included GDOT Commissioner, Keith Golden, State Transportation Planning DiJUNE | JULY 2012
rector, Toby Carr, members of the State Transportation Board, members of the House Transportation Committee, and various elected officials. We thank all of our guests for helping make this event a success. Transportation YOU WTS Atlanta Chapter, in support of the WTS Transportation YOU program, held a “Girls Rock Technology and Engineering Forum” with Grady High School students to discuss transportation careers and identify mentoring opportunities.WTS members will be paired with girls ages 13-18 to help promote interest in transportation career options, encourage study in STEM disciplines, and engage in challenge activities. WTS Atlanta is proud to announce that we are teaming up with the Grady High School Robotics Program to support this initiative! Thanks again to our Corporate Sponsors, who enable us to host such events. We are currently accepting sponsorships for 2012. Please contact Jennifer King at firstname.lastname@example.org or (404) 946-5727 with any questions or if interested in sponsoring.v
Jennifer King, PE HNTB
email@example.com Vice President-Programs firstname.lastname@example.org
Laurie Reed, PE HNTB
Vice President-Membership email@example.com
Tonya Saxon MARTA
Secretary Angela Snyder, PE firstname.lastname@example.org Wolverton and Assoc Treasurer Marissa Martin, PE email@example.com Gresham Smith Partners Director at Large
Beth Ann Schwartz, P.E.
firstname.lastname@example.org The LPA Group Director at Large Heather Alhadeff, AICP email@example.com Perkins + Will Director at Large Jennifer Harper, PE Jennifer_harper@urscorp.com URS Corporation Director at Large Helen McSwain, PE firstname.lastname@example.org PBS&J Immediate Past President Emily Swearingen, PE URS Corporation Emily_swearingen@urscorp.com Thanks to our 2012 Corporate Sponsors: Platinum Level
Bronze Level Atkins
Environmental HNTB JAT Consulting Thompson Engineering
McGee Partners Reynolds, Smith & Hill Southeastern Engineering Inc. (SEI) Stantec
Donna Sheldon, House Transportation Committee Vice Chair, makes remarks at our Legislative Luncheon
Jim Wallace, P.E., President Georgia Engineering Foundation Want to give or receive a scholarship? Now is the time. Applying for Scholarships The Georgia Engineering Foundation (GEF) is now receiving applications for scholarships. GEF is pleased to offer scholarships to college freshmen, upperclassmen, and graduate students who are residents of Georgia and attending eligible engineering and engineering technology programs. Eligible programs include current ABET-accredited undergraduate programs in engineering and engineering technology, and graduate programs in engineering. (Please note: to receive one of the GEF scholarships you must be a resident of Georgia, but it is not necessary for the school you are attending to be located in Georgia.) The application process is quite simple. Go to GEF’s Web site (http://www.gefinc.org/) and click on the link “Apply for Scholarship,” complete the application, submit it electronically, and then mail in the supporting documentation. Applications will be received through August 31st and those that pass the initial screening will be invited to attend an interview.Scholarships will be presented at the GEF Awards Banquet on November 1, 2012 and are generally in the range of $1,000 to $5,000. Providing Scholarships The acceptance of donations is open year round. GEF would be pleased to discuss with any potential donor the conditions, if any, which the donor would like to place on the scholarship. GEF scholarships typically can be categorized as: New Scholarships, Endowments, and Annual Gifts.
The current membership is composed of the following organizations: MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS
Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering
American Council of Engineering Companies of Georgia
American Society of Civil Engineers, Georgia Section
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
Georgia Power Engineering Association, Atlanta Branch
Georgia Society of Professional Engineers (State)
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Atlanta Section
Society of American Military Engineers, Atlanta Post
Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers
ASSOCIATE MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS
Georgia Institute Of Technology
Dr. Larry Jacobs
Dr. Edward O’Brien
Southern Polytechnic State University
Dean Jeff Ray
University of Georgia
Dr. Stephan A. Durham
OFFICERS/COMMITTEE CHAIRS Past President
Ways & Means
Jim Remich The GeorGia enGineer
New Scholarships In 2011 the following two scholarships were in the New Scholarship category: Gordon Dalrymple Scholarship Joanne Francis (Eppard) Prien Memorial Scholarship The Dalrymple Scholarship was given by former employees of Law Engineering to recognize the contributions to society of their former company president, Gordon Dalrymple. The Prien Scholarship was established in memory of Joanne Prien to preserve her long standing desire to aid the education of young people. The scholarships in this category may be awarded on a one-time basis or they may be renewed annually. Endowments The initiation of an endowment represents a gift of significant magnitude such that it may be invested, and the earnings from the investments are potentially sufficient to provide for the funding of an ongoing scholarship. GEF utilizes Merrill Lynch as a financial advisor to manage the endowment funds. The endowments are invested in a conservative portfolio of stocks and funds. In addition, some endowments are increased by subsequent gifts after the endowment is created. The following endowments were active in 2011: • ACEC Georgia R. Berl Elder Memorial Scholarship • C.B. & Olive Gambrel / GSPE Scholarships • Dan Duwell Memorial Scholarship • David L. Smith Scholarship • Doris Lavoie Memorial Scholarship— GSPE Auxiliary • GEF Life Members Scholarships • GEF Honorary Director’s Scholarship • George W. Bankston Memorial Scholarship • McEachin Memorial Scholarship • Paul Weber Scholarship • Rogers, Dusenbury, Wylder (RDW) Scholarshiop • Simons Environmental Scholarship • Steven DeLaTorre Memorial Scholarship Annual Gifts Each year, several engineering societies and JUNE | JULY 2012
firms, some engineering and some other than engineering, provide funds for one or more scholarships. These societies and firms have found the selection process used by GEF to satisfy their individual needs and specifications and to be efficient. The organizations providing annual gifts for scholarships in 2011 were: • A&G Consultants • American Society of Civil Engineers (2) • ASHRAE —Atlanta Chapter, George B. Hightower Scholarship • Applied Technology Services Inc. (2) • Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering • GeoRay Inc./ASCE Scholarship • The Georgia Power Engineering Association Scholarship • Geosyntec Consultants Scholarship • Kenneth G. Taylor, P.E. Scholarship • Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers-Atlanta Section Scholarships (3) • Metropolitan Atlanta Transit Consultants Scholarship • Pond & Company Scholarship • Society of American Military EngineersAtlanta Post (8) • United Consulting Scholarship • Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC Scholarship If you need financial help to reach your goal of gaining an engineering degree or if you are able to help a future engineer achieve his/her goal, GEF is eager to serve you. GEF has provided assistance to engineer-scholars from
Georgia through its programs and scholarships for more than 40 years. To contact GEF, go to our Web site and click on the appropriate contact information. In closing, I would like to thank all the individuals who have contributed to the ability of GEF to support the engineers of tomorrow. Those of you who are members of the organizations mentioned above should be pleased and proud that your organization has been generous and contributed resources to aid future engineers v “Gort! Klaatu Borada nikto.”
(770) 521-8877 Use A CompAny yoU CAn trUst With yoUr trAnslAtion proJeCt, because a little mistake in another language can have unpleasant results. 41
John Karnowski, PE Georgia Section, Institute of Transportation Engineers Engineers are weird. I realize that I’m writing this in a publication specifically for engineers and, because many weird engineers are comically challenged, I’ve just alienated a certain population of readers. My particular weirdness comes naturally. I’m the son of a civil engineer, who is also the son of a civil engineer. Vastly different civil engineers, mind you. My grandfather did vertical design; my father was a construction engineer at coal and nuclear power plants; I’m in transportation. The distinction, of course, is only relevant to weird engineers—the rest of the world doesn’t care. Weird engineers consider themselves well dressed if their socks match—as opposed to planners who feel that socks are purely optional. I personally have never been concerned with fashion. My daughters have failed to see this deficiency in me and still ask me, “How do I look, Daddy?” “Umm… clothed?” I can tell you the second law of thermodynamics before I can tell you my shirt size. Weird engineers have beards because it is more efficient that way. If they are genetically hairy men they may choose not to shave because they are just going to have to do it again the next day—or in the case of some, later that same day. If they are genetically hairy women then they went to MIT— which isn’t germane but may still be true nonetheless. Weird engineers repair their own lamps, cell phones, garbage disposals, and carburetors just because they can figure it out. To my wife: “That pulley is connected to this belt which is activated by the pumping mechanism and controlled by something I can’t see but must have a screw loose because it is warbling—and that’s why it is making a slight 42
noise. I can fix that.” My wife: “Do you know what you are doing?” and “What are those extra bolts for?” They like legos… still. My sister is an Orthopedic PA. One day a patient came to see her with some back pain. As soon as she entered the exam room, he proceeded to inform her that his back pain was result of added stress because of a bone spur in his right foot that forced him to limp a little to the left and that she needed to prescribe such-and-such medicine and physical therapy. While he was still self-diagnosing, she interrupted him and asked if he was an engineer. This made him stop and look at her (because up to this point, he was looking at his feet) and ask how she knew. Weird engineers generally lack the humor genome. If you are debating the veracity of that theorem then you are proving my point. They prefer sitting in a lecture on the technical specifications of version 3.01 of [insert random device here] over Larry the Cable Guy’s sardonic routine. Engineers have different objectives at a
mixer. ‘Normal’ people expect to accomplish several things from social interaction: stimulating and thought-provoking conversation, important social contacts, and a feeling of connectedness with other humans. In contrast, weird engineers have rational objectives for social interactions: get it over with as soon as possible, avoid getting invited to something unpleasant, and demonstrate mental superiority and mastery of all subjects. Dating is never easy for weird engineers. Fortunately, engineers have an ace in the hole. They are widely recognized as superior marriage material: intelligent, dependable, employed, honest, and handy around the house. While it's true that many normal people would prefer not to date an engineer, most normal people harbor an intense desire to mate with them, thus producing engineerlike children who will have well-paying jobs long before their first date. Todd Long, Deputy Commissioner for the Georgia Department of Transportation likes to tell the story that he and his wife met at Georgia Tech. He said that for his wife, the odds were good that she would meet her future hus-
The GeorGia enGineer
band there but the goods were odd. To prove my point, I handed a draft of this article to a co-worker who promptly corrected some ‘key’ points. Now all this is to say that I have tremen-
dous respect and pride in my fellow weird engineering brethren and cisterns. (Say it out loud… it’s funnier that way.) I am especially proud of my son who will be attending GA Tech next year and, while he doesn’t know it
yet, will probably be a civil engineer. You just can’t escape genetics. And, yes, he is a weird engineer already—he just doesn’t have the degree, yet. Go Jackets! v
2012 Intl Meeting
Georgia Engineer Magazine
Georgia Tech Liaison Historian
Public Officials Education
Southern Poly Liaison
JUNE | JULY 2012
Scott Mohler, P.E. ITS President
HOT Lanes: Increased Usage Means Growing Acceptance The number of motorists using the I-85 High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes through Gwinnett and DeKalb counties is steadily rising along with the number of people buying the Peach Pass transponders needed to use them. That’s according to Steven Sheffield of the State Road and Tollway Authority (SRTA) and others who briefed a capacity crowd at the April ITS Georgia chapter meeting. The HOT lanes are a 15.5 mile section of the I-85 Express Lanes (HOV) that is dynamically priced based on congestion levels. The section became operational in October 2011, with 75,000 Peach Pass holders. A number of ITS Georgia member organizations were involved in the planning, construction, and continued operations of the lanes. In addition to SRTA, those include GDOT, World Fiber Technology, Atlanta Regional Commission, Georgia Regional Transportation Authority, Georgia Tech, MARTA, The Federal Highway Administration, and Gwinnett county. Despite spending $1 million on public relations and advertising and having 75,000 registered users when the lanes first opened, they appeared abandoned, and traffic in the unmanaged lanes and alternate routes was heavily congested. SRTA and others involved in the project took a lot of heat and Gov. Nathan Deal lowered the fees in response. Since that difficult opening period, the numbers tell a story of growing acceptance. The number of Peach Pass holders has more than doubled and the number of trips in the HOT lanes is up to 18,000 per day from 3,200 per day in October 2011. The number 44
of Express transit riders using the HOT lanes is also up over the period, according to SRTA. This is an encouraging statistic as each new transit rider typically means one less car on the freeway. SRTA has made other changes to increase usage and acceptance. They have actively sought public feedback and made operational changes such as increasing the number of entrance and exit points to the HOT lanes, and they lowered rates further during off-peak hours. Did you know that if you are stuck in the HOT lane due to congestion caused by an incident, you will get a refund of your toll for that day? SRTA is actively monitoring the HOT lanes from their operations center where they take actions to keep the lanes moving, and on the rare occasions the lane becomes completed congested, they refund their customers’ tolls for that period. SRTA also recently learned that the radio traffic reporting media can have a big
impact on lane usage. ITS Georgia Shackelford Scholarship winner from 2009, Carlos Campo, who is now the SRTA Operations Center manager, told the meeting of what is called the ‘Mark Arum Effect.’ Arum, a traffic reporter with WSB radio, told listeners one day that the pricing of the HOT lanes at that moment seemed like a good deal. According to Campos, the lanes were immediately flooded with vehicles. He said that listening to radio and TV traffic reports is now a standard operating procedure in the operations center as a means of antic-
The GeorGia enGineer
ipating changes in motorists’ behavior. By listening to motorists concerns and making operational improvements, the HOT lanes will continue to gain acceptance by the public. Please make plans to join us September 9 – 11 for the ITS Georgia 2012 Annual Meeting and Exposition at Callaway Gardens. The Annual Meeting theme is “Connecting the DOT’s … Connecting People to Technologies.” The range of topics includes: 1. Future Infrastructure and Vehicles 2. Managing Expectations of Infrastructure Technologies 3. Innovative ITS Applications in Georgia and the U.S. 4. Regional Perspective of ITS Applications 5. Traffic Control Center Operations Visit www.itsga.org to register today. To keep up with the latest ITS Georgia news, please visit our Web site
(www.ITSGA.org) or follow us on twitter @ITSGA. v
Our 2012 Sponsors Temple Arcadis Gresham Smith and Partners Traficon Atkins World Fiber Technologies Serco Utilicom Southern Lighting and Traffic Systems URS Kimley-Horn and Associates Control Technologies Telvent Delcan Cambridge Systematics Stantec Grice Consulting Sensys Networks Daktronics
ITS GEORGIA CHAPTER LEADERSHIP President Scott Mohler, URS Corporation Immediate Past President Marion Waters, Gresham, Smith and Partners Vice President Tom Sever, Gwinnett DOT Secretary Kristin Turner, Wolverton and Associates Inc. Treasurer Christine Simonton, Delcan Directors Mark Demidovich Susie Dunn Kenn Fink Eric Graves John Hibbard Carla Holmes Patrece Keeter Keary Lord DOT Bayne Smith Grant Waldrop
GDOT ARC Kimley-Horn City of Alpharetta Atkins Gresham Smith DeKalb County Douglas County URS GDOT
State Chapters Representative Kenny Voorhies Cambridge Systematics Inc. Ex Officio Greg Morris Federal Highway Administration Jamie Pfister Federal Transit Administration
JUNE | JULY 2012
Kurt Swensson, PE, SE President The Structural Engineers Association of Georgia
SEAOG’s 2011-2012 year was a good one. Support of the organization and attendance at educational seminars and meetings has been great. Membership continues to be strong and steady even as the construction market in the area struggles to rebound. Our fiscal year began on July 1, and we are expecting more activity and growth for 20122013. As a reminder, if you are interested in membership please go to www.seaog.org and join to enjoy a full year of benefits. The following membership meeting topics are planned for the fall: • September 20 – Prequalified Steel Moment Connections for Seismic Design • October 18 – Use of Laser Scanning and Surveying • November 15 – Project Spotlight: GT’s Alexander Memorial Coliseum Replacement Other topics planned for this year include the use of shape memory alloys in building construction, renovation of post-tensioned concrete, and underpinning/shoring of existing buildings. Thanks to Wilbur Bragg and the Programs Subcommittee for their vital work in organizing these opportunities for education. In addition to the membership meeting presentations, SEAOG will begin providing training for the new 16-hour licensing exam required for structural engineers. We will have two classes ready for the fall. One series will provide information relating to the application of the AASHTO specification. The other will cover the design of structural wood elements, systems, and connections. Details are 46
still being confirmed but the classes should be available prior to the exam in October. During the 2011-2012 year the board has made some changes to our organization in order to provide more opportunities and better service to our members. The board created the following five subcommittees to coordinate activities in the separate areas of service. (1) Structural Engineering Emergency Response (SEER); (2) Structural Engineering Licensing; (3) Programs; (4) Liaison with the Board of Registration; (5) Legislative Council. Each subcommittee includes a member of the board and a separate chairman. Subcommittee meeting notes, subcommittee purpose, and active members can be found on the SEAOG Web site. Please visit the site and volunteer! We are glad to announce that Mr. Al Lagerstrom will continue as executive director. His service has been invaluable and we are glad that he will continue to serve SEAOG for the coming year. As outgoing president, I would like to extend thanks to the membership, sponsors, our board of directors, and our executive director for making my time as president of SEAOG a very rewarding experience. It has been good to experience the continued support of our members by attendance at meetings, volunteering for subcommittees, words of advice, and recruitment of new members. The sponsors who have continued to provide financial support for our seminars are special. They allow us to provide opportunities for professional development for very attractive rates. We appreciate their continued involvement with the structural engineers of Georgia. I have enjoyed working with the members of the board over the past two years. The
sacrifice of time and effort while still supporting and fulfilling their responsibilities to their career and family is noteworthy and much appreciated. I would like to take the chance to extend a special word of thanks to two of our board members who will be stepping down this year. John Hutton is a long time member and contributor to the Board of Directors. John has been especially generous with his time and expertise by representing SEAOG on the national level at NCSEA meetings, and in technical committees which review and amend our governing building codes. He has also been an active and effective board member, secretary, vice-president, and president during his tenure. Paul Shelton has been an active and engaged board member during his time on the board. He took the lead on the SEER subcommittee and has set the stage for future developments. Paul provided invaluable leadership and coordination in the development of the Special Inspections Guidelines. He served as secretary for several years and also worked with representatives of CRSI on the AEC Collegiate Cup Golf Tournament which raised $2,000 for the Georgia Engineering Foundation last fall. In summary, the Structural Engineers Association of Georgia closes our 2011-2012 year in good health and looking forward to an active and exciting year ahead. We encourage you to keep tabs on our events and activities at www.seaog.org. Please consider getting involved with one or more of our subcommittees. Your involvement will keep SEAOG effective in service to the professional structural engineers of Georgia long into the future. v The GeorGia enGineer
JUNE | JULY 2012