Annual Report 2014/2015: Where Will We Go?

WHERE WILL WE GO IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS?

2014 / 2015 ANNUAL REPORT

Thornton Tomasetti provides engineering design, investigation and analysis services to clients worldwide on projects of every size and level of complexity. We address the full life cycle of structures through our seven integrated practices (see page 28). Founded in 1956, today Thornton Tomasetti is an 850-person, 100 percent employee-owned organization of engineers, architects and other professionals collaborating from offices across the United States and in Asia-Pacific, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East.

EXECUTIVE MESSAGE

WHERE WILL THE AEC INDUSTRY GO IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS? RETAINING AND PROMOTING TALENT OF THE “OTHER 51%” HARNESSING THE POWER OF BIG DATA THE PROMISE OF 3D PRINTING MAKING A MORE RESILIENT BUILT ENVIRONMENT DELIVERING THE MODEL BRINGING THE MATERIALS OF THE FUTURE INTO USE TRANSFERRING NEW TECHNOLOGIES TO AEC CONCLUSION

CONTRIBUTORS THORNTON TOMASETTI FOUNDATION THORNTON TOMASETTI PURPOSE & VALUES AWARDS OUR PRACTICES SUSTAINABILITY REPORT BOARD OF DIRECTORS & OFFICERS

EXECUTIVE MESSAGE

WHERE WILL WE GO IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS?

T

hornton Tomasetti’s long-term goal is to be the global driver of change and innovation in our industry. To achieve this, we first must seek out and research where the industry needs to go in 5, 10, even 20 years.

We’ve been stirring the pot to stimulate discussion and collect ideas. We kicked off this campaign last year, when Steven Johnson, author of How We Got to Now, shared his ideas on the origins of innovation at our annual meeting. We maintain a virtual suggestion box and encourage all our employees to submit R&D proposals.

The firm financially supports the most promising ideas.

Last summer we surveyed our staff and asked: “In discussions with colleagues inside and outside our company, what do you see as the key trends changing our industry over the next 20 years?” From across our 26 offices, we got more than 100 ideas, and distilled them to the seven key themes covered in this report.

Some of these ideas are already in the works; others are at the prototype stage, cooking in the lab. This report includes a handful of ideas we’re working on and highlights the ideas of many others, from within the AEC community and beyond.

As an industry, we have a long way to go to be called “innovators.” In September 2014, the Harvard Business Review published a Bain study that listed the construction industry dead last in its speed of innovation. Why is it important to address this issue? Three reasons: Success for people: When people learn and grow in their work, they see it as rich in opportunity. This helps attract and retain the talent our industry needs. Woven into our firm’s DNA is the drive to challenge people to grow – not just our people, but also our colleagues and clients. That drive breeds innovation and success.

Success for our firm: To survive and thrive in a volatile and complex market, we need to stay ahead of emerging technologies and processes. We need to be mindful that the best ideas may originate in other industries or anywhere in the world.

They often come from small, passionate groups who stimulate conversations that spur us on to make lasting contributions.

2

THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014/2015 ANNUAL REPORT

Success for the AEC industry: If we are to achieve our goal of being the global driver of change and innovation, we need to set an example. We need to create an environment in which the status quo can be challenged, so we’re prepared when clients are ready to try something new. As Steve Jobs said, innovation is what distinguishes leaders from followers. For all of us to thrive, we need to become an industry that leads.

Achieving all these goals requires broad collaboration – with our clients, colleagues and competitors, and with firms in other fields. We look forward to working together with you to drive the influence and stature of our AEC world to greater heights. We can’t wait!

Tom Scarangello Chairman & CEO

Bob DeScenza President

Bess Adler/Thornton Tomasetti

Danny Bright

From left, Tom Scarangello, Eli Gottlieb, Bob DeScenza and Elisabeth Malsch, in the shake lab at our New York office. Elisabeth leads a team that is using a shake table to adapt NASA mass-damping technology, developed for rockets, to the built environment. Eli is working with several clients to test the prototype of a new tuned mass damper for a New York City high-rise. Below, Michele Cyr and Sebastian Mendez set up the test tank experiment on a shake table.

THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014 /2015 ANNUAL REPORT

3

4

THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014/2015 ANNUAL REPORT

WHERE WILL THE AEC INDUSTRY GO IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS?

We invited our staff to think about some Big Ideas: What major changes will the industry experience in the next 5, 10 or even 20 years?

What do clients, business partners and colleagues say are the biggest challenges we all need to address?

What new technologies will change the way we operate?

People from across our 26 offices shared 102 ideas.

We boiled these down to the seven key trends addressed in this report. Some great discussions were too long to fit on these pages; you can read extended versions at www.WhereAreWeGoing.com.

How good are our prognostications? Mark your calendar for May 2035 and let’s talk.

THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014 /2015 ANNUAL REPORT

5

W

omen make up 51 percent of the population, but this ratio is not reflected in the AEC industry, where less than 20 percent of engineering graduates and licensed architects are women. If the industry is to achieve higher levels of performance, it must do better at retaining and promoting women. We convened a group of leaders from across the industry to explore some of the issues and possible solutions. Here is an excerpt of their discussion.

Aine Brazil, P.E., F.SEI, LEED AP (moderator) Vice Chairman, Thornton Tomasetti Fiona Cousins, P.E., LEED AP Principal and Arup Fellow, Arup Nancy Hamilton, S.E., P.E. Consultant (formerly HOK Director of Engineering & HOK Board member) Patricia Lancaster, FAIA Professor, Schack Institute of Real Estate, New York University Jill Lerner, FAIA Principal, KPF Marilyn Taylor, FAIA Dean, School of Design, University of Pennsylvania

WHERE WILL WE GO IN THE NEXT 2O YEARS?

RETAINING AND PROMOTING TALENT OF THE “OTHER 51%”

BRAZIL Most of our firms are challenged to hold on to our best people. If improving retention is important to our success, what are we doing to intentionally improve it?

COUSINS I think the issue is broader than “how to keep people when they want to look after their infants.” The key to retention – of everyone, not just women – is making sure that there’s always room for development of people, and that you have a shot at the next opportunity and the one after that. We need to be talking about how we keep people and make them the best in class. You also have to ensure those people feel recognized for their achievements.

TAYLOR I want to sound another note, a sort of warning bell. Many of the rising students and professionals now referred to as Millennials don’t expect to be retained, or even want to be retained.

They believe that they’re going to move toward a high degree of self-sufficiency, and they don’t feel that they need to become dependent on a large organization. If they develop good team skills, they will rise to leadership and to investment opportunities. A challenge for those of us who have thought of ourselves as

Fiona Cousins Marilyn Taylor

Aine Brazil

6

THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014/2015 ANNUAL REPORT

people for longevity and therefore want to build talent like our own -- we have to recognize that many Millennials have different paths in mind. They are going to advance along those paths, and we need to understand those needs, change our way of doing business, or support them as future colleagues in their own groundbreaking enterprises.

BRAZIL Do your Millennials work for the organization or at the organization?

LERNER They work primarily as part of the team within the organization, which raises the issue of credit. Is credit taken by the team leader, or is credit taken by the stronger personality? Men are very good at taking credit for certain projects that are team projects, and women sometimes don’t step forward and get the credit.

HAMILTON One of the single biggest problems is getting women the visibility they deserve, particularly women who are quiet or culturally quiet. It’s a challenge

to get them to be confident about taking credit. We can have a staff that looks like it’s 50–50 when you walk through the studio but when you get to promotions, the numbers are just never what you would like them to be. I’ve been leading staff for 25 years. Men will come and ask for promotions. They expect promotions.

Women will be thankful that they are recognized, that they are given a rewarding job, and they trust that you will promote them based on their competence. It’s that trust that does them in.

BRAZIL Are we doing enough? I sometimes feel like we’re making progress and then, when I analyze it, see that we’re still not getting there.

LANCASTER A body of literature says that women stay in jobs more because they’re valued than because of work/life balance. Many men are still focused on “Oh, they have babies and then we lose them for a while. Then they come back and they’re the only ones not working 60 hours a week.” That’s a stigma that still doesn’t bode well for your career.

LERNER One of the most effective things we’ve done is to simply ask people: “What do you want to be working on?” The answers are sometimes surprising. People who have been doing wonderful renderings at the beginning of a project suddenly say, “I’ve never done construction documents, and I really want to do that.” It really helps you shape their future and the firm’s future if they feel that they’re being listened to.

Another positive step we’ve taken is to have young people present at periodic Friday evening sessions. We’re such a big firm and no one knows all the projects, so we’ll organize them by theme, such as “retail” or “terra cotta.” It gives young people practice in public speaking and provides them greater exposure within the firm.

For the full discussion visit: www.WhereAreWeGoing.com

Patricia Lancaster

Jill Lerner Bess Adler/Thornton Tomasetti

Nancy Hamilton THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014 /2015 ANNUAL REPORT

7

Comparison of Engineering Data Volume, 2014

WHERE WILL WE GO IN THE NEXT 2O YEARS?

1 MB = 1 million bytes 1 GB = 1 billion bytes (1000 MB) 1 TB = 1000 GB

HARNESSING THE POWER OF BIG DATA

All Thornton Tomasetti data: 75 TB

T

he term “big data” emerged in the 1990s in the computer graphics industry in Silicon Valley and was quickly adopted by businesses, like Google and Amazon, that amassed vast amounts of information about users. Today, big data is everywhere, and is defined by 3 Vs and 1 A: Daylight modeling: 1 TB

Volume “Big” starts in the terabyte range and goes up.

Variety Big data is a mishmash. In our work it might include photos, blogs, chats, reports, analyses, models, sensor data and scanned paper documents.

Velocity The rate at which data change or are updated. Big data has a high velocity (like Amazon’s 426 transactions per second during the 2013 holiday season) and no AEC data yet approximates the big data velocities.

Analysis To make sense of big data and find patterns requires an enormous amount of RAM – often more than any organization will have, unless it’s NASA. Big data analysis usually requires cloud computing.

Forensic investigations: I-35 bridge collapse, WTC and Sandy: 1 TB Typical laser scan: 10 GB

Typical TTX: 10 GB

Typical Revit model: 4 GB Typical Tekla model: 70 MB

8

THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014/2015 ANNUAL REPORT

A luminance (top) and glare (bottom) study of the Hudson Yards Culture Shed.

This is for a 63-mm frit on the outer side of the ETFE pillow for June 21. In the bottom row, the higher daylight glare probability (DGP) means higher glare.

You can’t find true big data in the AEC world – yet.

What you can find are the precursors, and some big data techniques starting to appear. There are several enablers of this change: the falling cost of computing power, storage and network connectivity; the availability of cloud computing; and perhaps most importantly, openness to experiment with how technology is changing human roles and relationships.

Here are some elements we see of big data: TTX: Volume, Variety, Analysis Thornton Tomasetti was an early adopter of building information modeling, and we soon saw the need to write translators to move design, analysis and fabrication information automatically from one platform to another. As the number of software packages proliferated, maintaining a library of translators soon became impractical. The translators were missing a critical bit of functionality: the ability to update the model. And whenever there was a program update, the translator needed an update as well.

Daylighting Modeling: Volume, Analysis Daylighting analysis requires large data sets at two stages: data acquisition and data analysis. Acquiring daylighting data for one room typically involves sampling 50 data points per hour per day for 8,760 hours (one year). An even larger data set is developed during ray tracing, which finds the relationship between daylight and interior illumination in a defined space. Depending on the density of sampling, volume of space, and number of spaces sampled, ray-tracing data may be several orders of magnitude larger than the raw data. This can still be processed locally, but large-scale sampling of large buildings could easily require a cloud solution.

Laser Scanning: Volume Laser scanning, a technique that creates an undistorted “point cloud” 3D image, is finding application in forensic analysis. A study may require dozens of point-cloud scans, each averaging about 10 GB. Laser scanning allows for easy measurement of component position and dimensions, and comparison of changes over time. We have used laser scanning to quantify floor deflection following removal of a heavy curtain wall, and to help façade engineers prepare a lighter-weight replacement that accommodates the new floor position. We have also used it to diagnose the cause of wall bulging in an arena, to rule out deformation from excessive roof-rigging loads. In the near future, the variety of data will increase as photographs, MEP equipment condition, flood levels and other data are incorporated into scans. Further down the road, application of finite element analysis will enable us to determine stress conditions in nonlinear geometries, such as sculptural pieces or unusual connection designs.

Instead, we developed a kind of software Esperanto called TTX, a database that all AEC platforms can talk to. So far, we have Grasshopper, Revit, Tekla, SAP, RAM and ETABS all talking to each other and allowing cross-platform model updates.

Although the original intent of TTX was interoperability, it is increasingly being used for iterative capturing of analysis data.

TTX saves all data in one database, rather than as separate files in separate folders. This opens the door to new kinds of analyses. Previously, we could tell differences between models; with TTX, we can understand details of those differences. The result of this analysis will be more modeling iterations in less time, on a universal platform that the entire project team can share. Borrowing from a big data analysis approach, we have a prototype web-based tool to that allows TTX users to run real-time reports on their models and easily sync different models used during different project phases. This will lead to easier transitions between project phases.

Office Operations Coordinator Matt Martir, left, and Resource Manager Tenira Forman organize the 72 boxes of reports, designs, photos, analyses, maps and field notes from the structural design of 731 Lexington Avenue, a 55-story tower in Manhattan that opened in 2004. Assuming one tightly packed box contains 100 MB of data, this totals only 7.2 GB of data – which would easily fit on a keychain flash drive today. As more customers accept a building information model as the final deliverable (see page 16), our ability to analyze project data sets becomes practical – and analog storage becomes an anachronism.

Bess Adler/Thornton Tomasetti

THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014 /2015 ANNUAL REPORT

9

THE PROMISE OF 3D PRINTING

WHERE WILL WE GO IN THE NEXT 2O YEARS?

H

ow might 3D printing change how we think about design and construction? Where will it gain a foothold? We asked some of today’s leading theorists and practitioners. Here are the highlights.

“We all thought the microwave oven would transform cooking and we wouldn’t need any other appliances. But it turns out the microwave is amazing for certain things, but it can’t do everything. 3D printing can do certain things very well and other things not so well. So my focus is more on bottomup processes, on pushing the boundaries of what 3D printing can do for materials science.”

Hedwig Heinsman Co-founder and Partner DUS Architects Amsterdam

Skylar Tibbits Research Scientist MIT Department of Architecture Director, MIT Self-Assembly Lab Cambridge, Massachusets

“I am especially interested in the social aspects enabled by the technology. It is so simple and visual – it fires everyone’s imagination.”

“I have been working for many years to implement 3D printing in architecture. Now the way is completely open: it’s just a matter of time, resources and momentum.”

Jordan Brandt Technology Futurist Autodesk San Francisco, California

Enrico Dini Chairman Monolite UK, Ltd. London

“3D printing is already augmenting traditional building product manufacturing as molds, jigs and fixtures are being printed to make existing equipment and processes more efficient.”

Avi Reichental President and CEO, 3D Systems Faculty Chair, Digital Fabrication Program, Singularity University Moffett Field, California

“You can produce any form you can imagine.

For the first time you can design entirely for performance, and print and test countless different options of form, function, flexibility, strength and so on, all from the office, all on demand.”

10

THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014/2015 ANNUAL REPORT

Top: A 3D-printed structure and enclosure for a prototype 780-square-foot house (two bedrooms, one bath) intended for the affordable housing market in the Middle East.

Bottom left: Detail of 3D-printed layered “ink” at an end wall.

Courtesy Gensler

Bottom right: Section of 3D printed wall construction showing the internal structural bracing pattern.

3D printing is already moving from R&D labs to the field. We are collaborating on multiple projects to print sustainable, affordable housing in the Middle East, Africa and Haiti and we’re looking ahead to how codes and construction law will affect the advent of 3D printing in the AEC industry.

In 2014, we began partnering with Dubai-based WinSun Global as part of a consortium with Gensler and Syska Hennessy Group to develop Project Unicorn, which focuses on 3D printing for low-rise commercial and residential applications (above). We are validating materials used for printing structural, interior and exterior components.

THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014 /2015 ANNUAL REPORT

11

MATERIALS SCIENCE

BRANDT Additive manufacturing with computational materials will usher in a new era for engineers. To date, the building industry has relied primarily upon bulk materials with fixed properties. What happens when the molecular composition of each beam, mullion and anchor is bespoke?

DINI It opens a new frontier for understanding the mechanical properties of layered, non-isotropic materials that all start as a slurry. There will need to be much testing to determine variables like density, porosity, compressive and tensile strength and thermal coefficient.

TIBBITS Most building materials today are “dumb.” They passively bear loads or define architectural space or features. Programmable materials have fundamental logic that can respond to moisture, sunlight or temperature to change and transform in useful ways. They could develop into a moisture barrier or acquire specific acoustical properties. Or they could make a steel connection more precise than you could ever do with humans or machines; it could tighten itself up, the way Japanese wood joinery uses water to swell the wood and tighten a joint. That approach has been around for hundreds or thousands of years; we just need to rethink how to apply it.

TIBBITS The industry needs incentives to innovate with new materials. If we can clear that hurdle, we have new opportunities to rethink the design possibilities of the materials we build with. We need to foster relationships between researchers and practitioners and build incentives to actually implement new technologies, and not feel like we’re all going to get sued or lose money if we take intelligent risks.

Courtesy Gensler

ON GOING MAINSTREAM

DINI People commonly think that a 3D printer can generate any shape – and in theory that’s true. But for buildings, the force of gravity still rules!

There are many engineering questions still to be addressed.

DINI: The early 3D adopters today are the materials producers, who are interested in testing the potential for their materials in extruded form. Some are the usual players: providers of sand, aggregate, cement, gypsum. But some are not, such as those who make glass microspheres, recycle plastics and collect foundry slag and shredded tires. With crushed tires, for example, you can literally print shock absorbers.

BRANDT Investment in materials and rewriting building codes is important.

Traditional codes that govern methods and forms of construction will become obsolete and the trend toward replacing them with performance requirements will continue.

DINI Maybe printers won’t need to be bigger than the object printed.

Instead of being enclosed in a gantry, a large-scale printer could be shaped more like a crane.

HEINSMAN We need to develop the print chain – the entire process that goes from a parametric design to the printer to the material to new ways of construction to distribution. Once all these elements of the building process are integrated into one smart chain, 3D printing will take off.

REICHENTAL 3D printing is the fastest way to bring a design from idea to reality. It’s abundantly clear that there is no going back to a 2D world.

12

THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014/2015 ANNUAL REPORT

A four-story, eight-unit 3D-printed apartment building in Suzhuo, China.

Cast-in-place concrete separates “printed forms” that comprise other structural components, walls and exterior cladding.

HOW WE’LL USE IT

BRANDT Ultimately, a building design will become the literal human and machine instructions by which it is built; “design intent” will fade from the architectural vernacular.

CHANGING AEC PRACTICE

REICHENTAL 3D printing has already had a huge impact in the fields of architecture, engineering and construction as the technology greatly improves communication in these areas. There is simply no equivalent to having a physical model to present.

DINI Once the mechanical properties of printed materials become known, structural engineering models will optimize shapes for load bearing to determine what topologies use the least material possible.

HEINSMAN The really interesting change is in how 3D printing enables a more networked way of working. It will allow people to have made-to-measure, local solutions instead of pre-fab solutions.

We are seeing interest from developing countries, wanting to print with local materials. With a networked printing process, we can communicate with large groups of people and deliver architecture all over the globe.

REICHENTAL 3D printing is an engineer’s dream: it may open up strategies previously inconceivable, like fusing structure and enclosure/fenestration into a single skin. 3D printing removes the barriers to design and manufacturing that once constrained engineers. This will revolutionize engineering as we know it.

DINI My vision for 3D printing is not a replacement, but an instrument to exploit architectural creativity. It is a tool that artisans can use to produce tailor-made elements. We are already printing building components. Last week we printed a free-form stone wall for an experimental building. We did it in 12 pieces, using 3- by 3-meter printers, and assembled them on site to construct the complete shape. This approach is already practical.

HEINSMAN We will probably see 3D printing emerge for temporary structures, like at festivals or fairs, which have different regulations than permanent structures. You might see them printed with biological, degradable materials, so the structure “melts” after half a year of rain, snow and sunshine.

Another frontier will likely be interiors. Imagine a unique, personalized apartment that fits perfectly into the defined space. In Europe, we also have a lot of heritage buildings. It’s more interesting to keep them instead of tearing them down. You just scan the interiors and print a new infill.

DINI One interesting potential is if the façade is printed as the face of the structure, it may no longer need to be “engineered” in the sense we know today. It may become more of a materials property question, as you change material to be extruded for the façade portion. Now we have constraints on shape related to the manufacturing process, but a printed façade could allow a more direct link between the mind of the designer and the materialization.

HEINSMAN We’re now designing façades with integrated 3D printed solar panels, and the solar angle can be optimized automatically – for example, for Amsterdam or New York or Rio de Janeiro. It saves you having to create a separate set of forms or molds for each setting. Instead, you can easily execute unique shapes.

For the full discussion visit: www.WhereAreWeGoing.com

THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014 /2015 ANNUAL REPORT

13

MAKING A MORE RESILIENT BUILT ENVIRONMENT

WHERE WILL WE GO IN THE NEXT 2O YEARS?

T

he concept of resiliency is gaining ground in the AEC industry. Here are some emerging resiliency trends.

Resiliency Ratings The U.S. Resiliency Council was formed to develop and implement rating systems for buildings – a key step toward gaining wider public understanding of resiliency. Thornton Tomasetti is a founding member. Learn more at www.usrc.org.

Structural Resiliency Hardening a structure against a range of perils – wind, flood, fire, blast and earthquake – is one of the ways structural engineering contributes to resiliency.

Adding resiliency to structural designs is often the result of events that reveal weaknesses in the industry’s design assumptions. Before the terrorist attacks of 9/11, design to limit damage from blast was typically confined to military and government buildings. Since then, the private sector has included hardening to help protect occupants against terrorist actions, especially in mission-critical facilities. Following CAT-90 Sandy, we are seeing interest in reinforcing concrete slabs to prevent water infiltration from below. And in December 2014, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti proposed the most ambitious seismic safety regulations in California history, requiring owners to retrofit thousands of the buildings most at risk of collapse during a major earthquake.

Some improvements in structural resiliency are driven by increases in computing power and analysis capabilities.

In high seismic areas, for example, strict code provisions have long been the rule.

But over the past few decades, performance-based design (PBD) has moved from theory to practice as computers and software have become capable of tracking the performance of the thousands of members in a large building through the thousands of time-steps in a typical earthquake record. Structures can now be tuned to meet specific performance criteria based on the building’s use.

Now next-generation PBD is on its way.

It uses fragility curves (using probability

14

THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014/2015 ANNUAL REPORT

638 m

729 m

Five of our current tall and supertall performance-based design projects.

to tie earthquake demands to damage), consequence functions (which tie damage to loss) and Monte Carlo simulations (which estimate financial loss or downtime). We used some of these approaches in designing several tall and supertall projects (above). New PBD methods allow us to more accurately design for defined earthquake criteria and reduce the uncertainty of building behavior during such events.

Soon PBD may extend beyond seismic requirements. In collaboration with wind engineer RWDI, we are studying a way to define PBD for building design that is dominated by wind considerations. Our goal is to see if “wind PBD” can lead to cost-saving design options.

The Passive House standard is a German export that is now finding use in mutifamily housing projects in the United States – especially in affordable housing units, where developers hold properties for decades and have a vested interest in conservation. The Passive House standard can generally maintain “comfortable” temperatures inside without the need for heating or cooling, mainly through a thicker building envelope, stoppage of thermal bridging and air leaks, and on-site cogeneration. It also provides for energy savings of 80 to 90 percent over conventional-code buildings.

Another growing trend is “retro-commissioning,” which is tuning existing MEP equipment to reduce energy use by 10 to 20 percent and potentially improve the building’s ability to function during, and recover from, service outages. In Brookline, Massachusetts, for example, we helped the John D. Runkle School, a K-12 school, reduce energy consumption by 25 percent.

Multihazard Risk Assessment Global climate change is expected to usher in more frequent and severe weather events. Following the 2011 tornado that struck Joplin, Missouri, the National Institute of Standards and Technology called for wide-ranging improvements in building codes, standards and practices.

Some communities damaged by severe tornados, like Moore, Oklahoma, have already strengthened local codes – a trend likely to accelerate.

But sometimes even large-scale disaster motivates change in only a minority of those affected. In the aftermath of Sandy, only a small percentage of commercial property owners in New York City relocated MEP equipment out of basements to above flood level. The high price of such measures is often seen as unjustified by the risk. Our risk assessment services are one way we help clients more accurately gauge the potential costs of long-term hazards.

Mission-critical facilities tend to be in the vanguard when it comes to resiliency.

We are conducting an extensive multihazard risk study for New York University Langone Medical Center, studying its vulnerabilities to flood, earthquake and wind hazards, and developing recommendations and mitigation measures to improve resiliency during an event at the scale of Sandy or larger.

Testing of a Transbay Transit Center link-beam – the largest ever tested – to simulate flexure during an earthquake. We used PBD to confirm that design of the San Francisco structure met performance criteria.

Courtesy Charles Lee Powell Laboratories at UCSD

Suzhou Zhongnan Center

468 m

Signature Tower

341 m

Chengdu Greenland Center

One Shenzhen Bay Tower

Wilshire Grand Center 335 m

Passive Survivability When Sandy trapped so many elderly people in their homes without electricity or running water, it raised a broader question: How long can a building remain livable without any utilities? This is a critical resiliency question for any residential building or place of refuge. The answer lies in the analysis of the building envelope.

Stress concentrations from high (red) to low (blue) in 3D finite element analysis for connection design at the Transbay Transit Center. We also performed soilstructure interaction analysis to model seismic demands imposed by the strata.

THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014 /2015 ANNUAL REPORT

15

Participants WHERE WILL WE GO IN THE NEXT 2O YEARS?

DELIVERING THE MODEL

Serge Dussault, B.Sc.A., M.Eng., P.E. Vice President, Engineering Canam Group Serge has more than 20 years of experience in the design, fabrication and erection of steel structures. He manages a number of Canam’s design and detailing offices.

Frank W. Falciani, MBA, LEED AP, CCM Senior Vice President and General Manager, dck worldwide Frank has 40 years of experience in every facet of the construction business. He manages major construction projects with a focus on providing clients with the best return on their investment.

J

W. Steven Hofmeister, P.E., S.E., LEED AP Managing Principal, Thornton Tomasetti

ust a decade ago, delivering a model instead of drawings was a new idea. As the practice became more common, it has changed the very shape of the built environment. The current state of model-based delivery is a snapshot of a new technology being adopted, one that could help us understand how best to integrate future technologies. We brought together a structural engineer, a steel fabricator and two construction managers to discuss how model-based delivery has changed – and will continue to change – the way the industry works. Here’s what they had to say.

Steve has 30 years of experience in structural engineering for complex projects delivered via design-build and design-assist methods. A member of Thornton Tomasetti’s board of directors, he oversees the firm’s structural and construction engineering practices.

Delivering the model has become increasingly common.

What are the biggest benefits?

Allan M. Paull, P.E. Senior Vice President Tishman Construction, an AECOM Company

HOFMEISTER Delivering a model provides a better level of information.

Bidders can’t miss the complexity of the scope. It’s there. It’s very visible.

DUSSAULT It reduces the risk of error, so the owner gets prices that are more representative of the project.

PAULL The biggest benefits for construction are predictability of price and schedule.

Allan has more than 34 years of experience in the construction industry. He heads review and oversight of structural design and construction for all Tishman projects in the United States.

HOFMEISTER On average jobs, about 60 percent of shop drawings come in at least twice. On a recent project with model-based delivery, 97 percent of the shop drawings were accurate on the first pass. That’s a huge benefit to everybody.

FALCIANI A complete model allows us to predict the full impact of proposed changes, to test and price them so that owners can make informed decisions.

Are there any drawbacks?

DUSSAULT Model delivery varies a lot from firm to firm. Right now there’s no standard.

PAULL It has to be actively managed on our end, just like another contractor. But there are no real negatives because you’re starting the process earlier, which gives you bigger bang for the buck.

16

THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014/2015 ANNUAL REPORT

A Revit model of the complex platform being built over active rail yards to support Manhattan’s new Hudson Yards project. Most of the development’s 12.6 million square feet will rest atop the platform.

FALCIANI There is no downside, but there are challenges. We need to update the model in real time throughout construction, but getting that to happen in the field has been a challenge. To compensate, we end up doing a lot of that work for the subcontractors because they can’t get the information in at the speed that we need it.

How will the shift to model-based delivery change the roles, relationships and responsibilities among owners, architects, engineers, fabricators and contractors?

HOFMEISTER Delivering a model puts a greater onus on us as designers to deliver a more complete product with a higher level of information.

PAULL I think detailing should be separated from the structural steel contractors. That information needs to be on the design side. There is still a lot of specialized engineering for the contractor to do, but it’s kind of backwards for them to be guessing what something should be, or putting in allowances or making assumptions for an estimate or a bid.

DUSSAULT If it’s a simple job, that’s OK. But on more complex projects, the shop drawing process allows us to plan the job and to buy the material right.

HOFMEISTER We’ve had to change the mix of our design team, to add people from the construction side who understand more of what the fabricators and erectors need us to deliver.

PAULL It costs a lot of money to model a complex building, but it’s the right thing to do. It produces a better outcome for the clients. Fees for the

Danny Bright

Clockwise from top: Frank Falciani, Steve Hofmeister, Allan Paull and Serge Dussault.

designers have to go up to provide that fuller service, but I think it is money well spent, given the benefits.

FALCIANI There is so much to gain. The model is a management tool throughout the construction process. It can also be used as a defensive tool to prevent cost overruns and to help challenge any claims that may arise. A model that has been updated and maintained shows the progression of construction against the schedule. It can be used to quickly develop time-impact analyses to show the subcontractors, so they can rethink their position before we all start paying the lawyers.

Will the adoption of model-based delivery drive changes in overall project delivery or increase the use of emerging delivery methods like Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)?

DUSSAULT The details of IPD still need to become clearer, but earlier and better collaboration gets a better product, and model delivery causes a greater level of collaboration.

THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014 /2015 ANNUAL REPORT

17

HOFMEISTER Success comes down to how people work together. If you read the IPD documentation you’ll find a few basic behaviors the team must commit to (see sidebar).

I’ve never done a “true IPD” project, but some of the very best projects of my 30-year career have had those behaviors: the teamwork, the collaboration, the open discussion of challenges and issues.

FALCIANI There’s a huge benefit to integrating project delivery if you can get sophisticated subcontractors that are able to work with you hand in hand.

PAULL On a recent job with very complex geometry, the steel contractors walked through with iPads with the model on them, to understand what went where and in what order. We didn’t ask them to do it. I thought that was remarkable.

FALCIANI Our superintendents and engineers have their tablets with them and they’re able to literally walk through a complex project while they “walk through” the architectural vision and the engineering requirements. It’s an amazing tool.

Will 2D drawings go away completely?

PAULL In 10 years you won’t see any paper at all. It may be five years. Market conditions will drive it. There’s no need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars printing drawings anymore.

DUSSAULT I think we’re getting close. We used to have phenomenal printing capacity in our drafting offices, but now several of them are paperless. They work from electronic information only.

HOFMEISTER Five years ago, a job site would have a trailer devoted entirely to layout boards and racks of drawings. Now that trailer has five 84-inch monitors – smart screens so you can mark things up in Bluebeam, take snapshots and send them to people. We’re moving pretty quickly.

FALCIANI Clients are willing to pay us for iPads, but not for blueprints.

Will the shift to model-based delivery change the buildings themselves?

PAULL You’ve already seen it. Nothing is square anymore. All the buildings twist, slope, and turn.

FALCIANI Exactly. The sky’s the limit on the architect’s imagination; they can just turn it loose. If they can envision it, we can build it.

Courtesy Related-Oxford

Thornton Tomasetti performed structural engineering as well as steel modeling and connection design for the Hudson Yards platform. Delivering a detailed steel model reduced change orders, simplified fabrication and shortened the schedule for the platform’s complex structural steel. We are also providing engineering services for a number of the new buildings at Hudson Yards.

18

THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014/2015 ANNUAL REPORT

HOFMEISTER With model-based delivery, we are able to envision and deliver much more complicated buildings.

DUSSAULT In much less time. Executing that complex geometry with our current tools is not much more difficult than it was to do simpler geometry 20 years ago.

HOFMEISTER That’s the real impact: we can digitally imagine and deliver complex schemes with no more issues and challenges than standard buildings.

Does concrete modeling have the same benefits as steel?

HOFMEISTER We have the capability to model concrete, but we don’t have the partners to hand off to, like we do in the steel community.

PAULL We’re already producing concrete jobs very efficiently. A complex building would benefit.

FALCIANI It may make sense to model some highly architectural formwork, or you may need concrete modeling in a high seismic zone. But it’s not as cost-efficient as steel modeling.

What will a construction site look like in 20 years? Will there be people? Or will we have robots following instructions from a model?

PAULL I certainly hope not!

HOFMEISTER We’re already seeing some industrialized construction. With repetitive buildings, automation is more likely. It’s uncomfortable to think it could all be done by robots, but 20 years ago no one could deliver a 3D model of a building either.

PAULL I see opportunity for prefabrication and pre-assembly. But I don’t see someone coming in and pushing a button that causes a team of robots to go out and build the building, not when each building is unique.

Danny Bright

FALCIANI Robots are not going to build one-off buildings anytime soon, but someone’s going to devise something to do the welds in the field. Or we’ll modularize more components. Owners want buildings faster and for less money.

That is going to drive the process of being innovative.

For the full discussion visit: www.WhereAreWeGoing.com Steve Hofmeister and Serge Dussault.

INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY The American Institute of Architects defines IPD as “a project delivery method that integrates people, systems, business structures and practices into a process that collaboratively harnesses the talents and insights of all participants to reduce waste and optimize efficiency through all phases of design, fabrication and construction.”

The IPD delivery method uses multi-party contracts to give team members incentives to collaborate toward an outcome that is successful for all. The AIA also recognizes an IPD philosophy that can improve any project, regardless of contract structure. Advanced modeling technology and model sharing are critical components of the collaboration necessary for the full spectrum of IPD projects.

While industry organizations describe IPD with differing levels of detail, fundamental concepts are shared: • Mutual Respect and Trust: All team members rely on collaboration and teamwork to support the best interests of the project.

• Mutual Benefit and Reward: Compensation rewards behavior that’s best for the project. Early involvement is recognized and rewarded.

• Organization and Leadership: All team members commit to common goals and values. Leadership is assigned to the team member most capable of specific work or services.

• Collaborative Innovation: A free exchange of ideas among team members promotes creative decision-making. Ideas are judged on their merits, not the role or status of their originator.

• Early Involvement: Early involvement improves decision-making. Diverse knowledge has greater value if it is employed earlier.

• Early Goal Definition: Project goals are developed early and are agreed upon and respected by all team members.

• Intensified Planning: Increased effort in planning drives efficiency and savings by streamlining and shortening the construction effort.

• Open Communication: Direct and honest communication among all team members focuses energy on quick identification and resolution of problems, rather than liability.

• Technology: Technologies are specified up front to maximize functionality, generality and interoperability. Open and interoperable data exchanges are essential.

We have participated in a number of “true IPD” projects in the past five years. Many of our best projects – design-bid-build, design-assist or design-build – have incorporated aspects of the IPD philosophy.

THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014 /2015 ANNUAL REPORT

19

BRINGING MATERIALS OF THE FUTURE INTO USE

M

aterials science is the next frontier for the AEC industry. Researchers are making progress on self-healing concrete; super-light, nonbrittle ceramics; shape memory alloys for reinforcing bars; colorful semitransparent solar cells; and much more. As 3D printing advances, we will be able to optimize the physical properties of individual building elements for particular uses (see pages 10 –13). Instead of adapting a design to suit the material, we may one day adapt the material to suit the design.

The possibilities appear nearly endless.

Inventing the materials of the future is only the first step, though. They must then be tested. Manufacturing processes at an industrial scale must be developed.

Building codes must be revised to allow their use. And owners must be willing to try something new. To accomplish these tasks, we in the AEC industry will need to be active participants.

Members of the AEC industry already collaborate with academic researchers, material suppliers and testers – especially in Europe – but this effort will need to expand to keep up with the accelerating pace of materials science. As a much-needed bridge between academia and owners, we can help researchers stay abreast of the needs in the field and help our clients understand the real-world benefits of newly developed materials.

We will also require more sophisticated computational analysis tools than we have today to understand the behavior of new materials in new shapes and applications. The technology will need to be more tightly integrated so feedback can be quickly produced and shared between designers and builders.

Once innovative materials are ready to use in large-scale, real-world structures, building codes become the next hurdle in their adoption. Codes are inherently conservative; they exist to minimize risk. But any new material will present some risk. It will be important for those in the AEC industry who are passionate about the adoption of new materials to get involved, join or educate code committees and advocate appropriate changes.

20

THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014/2015 ANNUAL REPORT

WHERE WILL WE GO IN THE NEXT 2O YEARS?

Most crucial will be finding clients who are willing to try the new materials. Architects, engineers and contractors must act as ambassadors of material innovation. It will be up to us to educate owners and allow them to feel comfortable with trying something new – to clarify the risks versus the rewards. As with every building material ever used, each new material will have benefits and drawbacks. But they are being specifically designed to minimize the disadvantages. Many new materials will allow us to cost-effectively build imaginative forms that had been cost-prohibitive. Stronger, lighter materials will save money overall. There will be a host of benefits from using new materials, which could range from improved energy efficiency and renewable power generation to lower long-term maintenance costs.

Successfully integrating the materials of the future will also require changes in the way we work together. Teamwork will be essential. Proposed project teams will need to demonstrate – even more than they do today – both the willingness and ability to work collaboratively with all project partners in the application and analysis of innovative materials.

SOME MATERIALS IN DEVELOPMENT

Self-healing Concrete: concrete that contains microcapsules of agents that are activated by cracks and act to seal the damage. A number of healing agents are being studied, including bacteria that produce calcium carbonate (limestone) when exposed to water.

Nonbrittle Ceramics: a newly developed method exploits the properties of solids at the nano scale to produce ceramics that contain 99.9 percent air yet are extremely strong.

Shape Memory Alloys: metal alloys that, when bent, return to their original shape when heat is applied. A variety of metals can be used to produce SMAs, but the most promising for the AEC industry are ironbased alloys. Reinforcing rods made of this material could be cast into concrete, then activated (by applying an electric current) to pre-stress the concrete.

Semitransparent Photovoltaics: solar cells that are both beautiful and effective will dramatically expand where we place photovoltaics.

Under development are see-through cells that can be made in any color.

THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014 /2015 ANNUAL REPORT

21

Bess Adler/Thornton Tomasetti

TRANSFERRING NEW TECHNOLOGIES TO AEC

WHERE WILL WE GO IN THE NEXT 2O YEARS?

N

ew technologies may change the way the built environment is imagined. What if local power generation became good enough to overturn our centralized distribution model? When cars drive themselves, how will new buildings and neighborhoods change to accommodate them? Can drones make cities safer?

Some of Thornton Tomasetti’s innovators weighed in on what the future may hold.

Charles Van Winckle Senior Project Manager

Protecting the Public with Drones The potential commercial applications of small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as drones, are wide-ranging, from delivering goods to checking the status of livestock on farms. In the AEC industry, the usefulness of drones equipped with visible-spectrum and infrared cameras for emergency response in the wake of catastrophic events is self-evident. But drones could also perform other tasks to keep people safe – tasks that are lower-profile but far more frequent.

Many cities have façade ordinances requiring regular visual inspections to find and address problems early. Because these examinations are expensive and time-consuming – erecting scaffolding, setting up rigging, sending people out in harnesses – most regulations call for inspection of representative sections only. Camera-equipped drones could transform this process, recording the condition of an entire façade faster and more cheaply than the current method. Drones would increase the quality of façade inspections, preventing problems from falling through the cracks – and debris from falling onto roads and sidewalks.

The technology to improve façade inspections is here, but barriers remain. Regulations are still under consideration in many places. Restrictions on flight altitude may hinder inspection of taller buildings. But alternatives exist: drones could be tethered, or attached to window-washing rigs to reduce the risk of damage or injury in the event of malfunction. To ensure that these beneficial uses of drone technology are allowed to move forward, we in the AEC industry must make our voices heard.

22

THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014/2015 ANNUAL REPORT

Mary T. Mannix

Autonomous Cars Will Drive Changes in the Built Environment Self-driving cars have been speeding out of science fiction and into the everyday.

Once this technology becomes prevalent, it will change the built environment in many ways.

Self-driving cars will move very accurately. They won’t need extra room in lanes to account for human error.

Therefore roads could be much narrower than they are now, creating more room for pedestrians, cyclists or green space.

We may also need to rethink the way roads, sidewalks and cycling routes intersect. For safety, self-driving cars will be programmed to stop when they encounter anything or anyone in their path, so people crossing roads when and wherever they like could cripple traffic.

Therefore, we may need to effectively separate the circulation of vehicles and people, restricting crossing points to specific locations.

Bess Adler/Thornton Tomasetti

Parking structures and lots will become much more compact, both because of operational accuracy and because cars will drop people off before they park.

Parking spaces won’t need room for doors to open. This will likely change column spacing requirements in buildings as well. Since parking areas need not be convenient for people, we may see re-introduction of car elevators, relocation of garages to less desirable levels of buildings and a sharp reduction in floor-tofloor heights. And because these cars will likely be electric, ventilation won’t be necessary.

Frank Hashimoto Associate

Marguerite Pinto Senior Project Director

Powering Buildings with Piezoelectricity Piezoelectrics are already being used in everyday items such as musical greeting cards, cigarette lighters and motion sensors. But soon piezoelectricity will go big. It will help power buildings and cities.

Piezoelectric materials generate electricity when subjected to pressure or motion.

Harvesting the vibrations caused by people walking is already on the horizon. They could be used in wireless, independent power sources that would allow placement of lights and monitoring systems in locations where wiring is impractical.

Someday, we may use piezoelectrics to capture an entire building’s movement. Many tall buildings have tuned mass dampers (TMDs) that dissipate the wind energy that causes vibration and sway. TMDs are also used to control the motion of long-span floors. What if that energy could be harnessed instead? New piezoelectric materials might offer a solution to vibration problems and generate power while damping undesirable motion. And because TMDs are already used, the technology could potentially be applied in many existing buildings as well as new construction.

Can a building help power itself this way? Will we harvest electricity from our roads and sidewalks? It’s possible. The fundamental technology is already here, and researchers are working on ways to broaden its application. Piezoelectrics, when combined with other technologies like biomechanical power generation, high-temperature superconductors, thermoelectric harvesting and next-generation photovoltaics, could drastically alter the current centralized model of power distribution.

THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014 /2015 ANNUAL REPORT

23

CONCLUSION

Some of the discussions we started this year were too long to fit on these pages. You can find extended versions at www.WhereAreWeGoing.com.

O

ften enough, people don’t see it. The future is dancing right in front of us, hidden in plain sight, but we’re not ready or willing to see its promise.

It’s been said that the future is already here – it’s just not evenly distributed. The preceding pages shine a light on bits of possible futures around us today. Some may not make it; others might change the world. The difference between the two is often not the virtue of the idea; it’s what we make of it: what barriers we remove and how many supporters we enlist.

At Thornton Tomasetti, we see one of our jobs as being distributors of the future. We grab ideas – sometimes nonadjacent and from outside our industry -- and reassemble them into something new and useful. We identify the possible, manage the risk, make it practical and spread it around.

We are also teachers and learners: we challenge ourselves and others to learn and grow. We invite diverse voices to the discussion.

And we are entrepreneurs: we want to rewrite the rules that stop us from innovating.

Are the ideas on the preceding pages the real future of our industry? Maybe. But we certainly need to encourage the conversation and give fresh ideas a chance to be examined and tested. Because at the beginning, even great ideas might look like they can only dance a little.

24

THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014/2015 ANNUAL REPORT

CONTRIBUTORS

Many Thornton Tomasetti people contributed inspiration, ideas and information to this report. Some of them are mentioned in the preceding pages, but not all. Thanks to everyone who helped!

John Aniol, Vice President

Amanda Lehman, Project Director

Bruce K. Arita, Senior Vice President

Elisabeth Malsch, Vice President

Ali Ashrafi, Senior Associate

Robert T. Merkel, Senior Project Engineer

Thomas L. Berry, Vice President

José Manuel Montes Donaire, Associate

Joshua Bradshaw, BIM Manager

Justin Nardone, Senior Associate

Thomas Byrne, Senior Associate

Joelle Nelson, Associate

Henry Clouting, Senior Engineer

Casey O’Laughlin, Project Engineer

Jarred M. Coulter, Senior Project Engineer

Robert K. Otani, Principal

Michele Cyr, Associate

Christopher P. Pinto, Vice President

Sergio De Gaetano, Principal

Marguerite J. Pinto, Senior Project Director

Michael Fornek, Senior Engineer

Carol A. Post, Principal

Cristopher Gebhardt, Senior BIM Modeler

Michael Pulaski, Senior Associate

Robert Glynn, Associate

Mostapha Roudsari, Integration Applications Developer

Rafael Gomes de Oliveira, Structural Engineering Consultant

Nicolas Saenz, Senior Associate

Eli B. Gottlieb, Senior Principal

Jonatan Schumacher, Director of CORE studio

Christopher R. Hart, Senior Engineer

Douglas Schweizer, Senior Engineer

Frank Hashimoto, Associate

Simon Shim, Senior Associate

Amy Seif Hattan, Corporate Sustainability Officer

Matthew Steiner, Senior Associate

Douglas L. Heinze, Senior Associate

Mark J. Tamaro, Principal

Haider Himairi, Project Director

Steve Thompson, Associate

Benjamin Howes, Senior Computational Designer

Robert Treece, Principal

Onur Ihtiyar, Senior Project Engineer

Chi Chung (Billy) Tse, Senior Associate

Ian M. Johnson, Project Director

Charles Van Winckle, Senior Project Director

Rebecca Jones, Associate

Viviana Vumbaca, Project Director

Leonard Joseph, Principal

Linda Warren, Senior Instructional Designer

Christopher B. Kahanek, Vice President

Timothy Wong, BIM Modeler

Efe Karanci, Project Engineer

Maya Wynn, Marketing-Communications Manager

Edward Kasparek, Senior Vice President

Yingying Xu, Business Development Manager

Kyle E. Krall, Senior Principal

Brian Yeo, BIM Modeler

THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014 /2015 ANNUAL REPORT

25

THORNTON TOMASETTI FOUNDATION

Board of Governors Richard L. Tomasetti, Chairman Joel S. Weinstein, Vice Chairman Andy Goldbaum, Treasurer Daniel A. Cuoco*, Secretary Joseph Burns Elisabeth Malsch Wayne Stocks

In 2014, the Thornton Tomasetti Foundation, an independent 501(c)3 nonprofit organization, distributed $113,000 in scholarships, charitable projects and other efforts in support of its mission. Since its inception in 2008, the foundation has distributed more than $635,000 in grants and scholarships to over 30 organizations. See more at www.ThorntonTomasettiFoundation.org.

Activities Committee Aaron Beebe Rachel Jackson Amy Macdonald Bridget Morrissey

• The Lehigh University chapter of Bridges to Prosperity received $10,000 to build a bridge in Panama across El Rio Indio to allow residents access to schools and healthcare services during the rainy season.

* Dan Cuoco (1946–2014): His spirit and great work for the foundation are missed. See page 29.

Highlights of 2014 Commitments • GeoHazards International (GHI) received $17,500 to support student involvement in research to make concrete buildings on hillsides safer from earthquakes.

• Cole Brubaker, Aishwarya Puranam and Erman Eruz received the Foundation’s third annual National Scholarship awards. Soon to be graduates from Colorado State University, Purdue University and Princeton University, respectively, the three engineering students will each receive $10,000 to pursue their master’s degrees.

• Engineers Without Borders, University of Wisconsin – Platteville chapter, received $19,000 to support completion of a four-building primary school in Ghana to serve 250 children. An additional $2,250 was awarded to the Marquette University chapter for construction of a vehicular bridge for 3,000 villagers in Guatemala.

• Public School 199 in New York City received $5,000 to support the building of a greenhouse-laboratory for environmental science studies.

• The Urban Assembly, which runs education programs in 23 New York City public theme schools, received $5,000 toward educating 10,000 underserved children.

• Jon Striker, a civil engineering student at the University of Illinois, received the annual $1,500 Eli W. Cohen – Thornton Tomasetti Foundation Scholarship.

Thornton Tomasetti Foundation scholarship winners Cole Brubaker, Aishwarya Puranam and Erman Eruz.

Engineers Without Borders helped construct a school in Ghana to serve 250 children.

26

THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014/2015 ANNUAL REPORT

GHI staff member Rinpuii Tlau and summer intern Sarah Welsh-Huggins examine concrete buildings on a hillside in Aizawl, India.

FIRST ANNUAL THORNTON TOMASETTI PURPOSE & VALUES AWARDS

Ed Lederman

Bess Adler/Thornton Tomasetti

In 2013 we spent several months discovering the right words to express our purpose and the values that define who we are. We made this effort because we believe that a common understanding of our purpose and values is essential to fulfill our highest possible potential.

Len Joseph Purpose We embrace challenges to make lasting contributions.

Bess Adler/Thornton Tomasetti

Bess Adler/Thornton Tomasetti

Scott Lomax Value We challenge people to grow.

Peter Cutts

Zach Kates Value We look beyond the obvious to solve the real problem.

From across the firm we had many other deserving nominees who received the recognition of their colleagues: Ron Ademaj Nick Aitken Ali Ashrafi Graeme Ballantyne Bill Bast Trevor Bertin John Boyer Claudia Bruder Theresa Curtis Vanessa Da Rocha Monica Dutro Margarito Garcia Cris Gebhardt Tonia Gotsis Kerem Gulec Amy Hattan Ben Kaan Bob Kornfeld Jimmy Lau

Pete Lopez Ken Maschke Rachel Michelin Damian Moser Michael Murphy Bob Nacheman David O’Connell Michele Olender Rob Otani Lance Parker Jason Reither Robert Rogers Colin Schless Nate Sosin Tyler Storm Matt Thomas Euclydes Trovato Stephanie Waterman Todd Whisenhunt

Mary T. Mannix

Andrew Blasetti Value We are passionate about what we do.

Lauana Lins Value We are passionate about what we do.

This year, we asked all 850 of our employees to nominate the colleagues who they think best embody our purpose and our values, and write a one-page description supporting their nomination. Our board of directors then selected the winners (left).

John Peronto Value We see opportunity where others focus on risk.

THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014 /2015 ANNUAL REPORT

27

OUR PRACTICES Structural Engineering Our experienced professionals collaborate with architects, building owners and builders to design elegant solutions for projects of all types, sizes and levels of complexity.

Construction Engineering We work closely with designers, developers, contractors, fabricators and erectors to efficiently move a project from concept to opening day. Our expertise in integrated modeling, connection design and erection enhances our structural engineering services on complex, time-sensitive projects.

Façade Engineering We provide façade consulting services to architects, building owners and developers. From material research and specialty analyses through detailed design, engineering and construction support to glass and façade failure investigations, our expert staff help clients execute ambitious architectural visions.

Sustainability We collaborate with clients and project partners to integrate successful green solutions into the planning, design, construction and operation of buildings, reducing their environmental impact at every stage of their life cycle and supporting energy performance, health and well-being.

Renewal We provide building owners and managers with a wide range of envelope, structural, and mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection solutions for existing structures of all types.

Forensics We provide multidisciplinary expertise to assist attorneys, property managers, building owners, contractors, manufacturers and design professionals with a wide range of engineering and architectural forensic services.

Property Loss Consulting We help insurance companies analyze pre- and post-loss risks, damage and property claims arising from natural or man-made perils. Representing diverse disciplines from architecture to structural, mechanical, electrical and plumbing engineering, we offer single-source solutions to complex issues.

Amanda Lehman commutes to our Portland office by bicycle.

28

THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014/2015 ANNUAL REPORT

Cover and text paper: 30% PCW

www.russelldesign.com

Ian Johnson/Thornton Tomasetti

To find out how, view our 2015 Sustainability Report: www.GreenReport.ThorntonTomasetti.com

Russell Design NYC

Sustainability is integral to the question of where we need to go in the next 20 years. Many of the ideas and innovations discussed in this report have tremendous potential to increase the sustainability of the built environment.

But we’re not waiting for the future to make Thornton Tomasetti a sustainable business. We are making progress toward sustainability goals for our operations and practices today.

Illustrations by Chris McRae Design

2015 CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY REPORT

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS Board of Directors

Practice Leaders

Regional Leaders

Global Support

Thomas Z. Scarangello, P.E. Chairman & CEO

Structural Engineering & Construction Engineering W. Steven Hofmeister, P.E., S.E. Managing Principal

East U.S. Michael J. Squarzini, P.E. Managing Principal

John Fairbairn Vice President Human Resources

Mid-Atlantic South U.S. R. Wayne Stocks, P.E. Managing Principal

Andy Goldbaum, CPA Chief Financial Officer

Robert P. DeScenza, P.E. President

Façade Engineering Sergio De Gaetano Dott. Ing., CEng Principal

Aine M. Brazil, P.E. Vice Chairman Dennis C.K. Poon, P.E. Vice Chairman

Midwest U.S. Faz Ehsan, Ph.D., P.E. Senior Principal

Sustainability Gunnar Hubbard, FAIA, LEED Fellow Principal

Joseph G. Burns, S.E., FAIA Managing Principal Bruce Gibbons, S.E., CEng Managing Principal W. Steven Hofmeister, P.E., S.E. Managing Principal Gary F. Panariello, Ph.D., S.E. Managing Principal

West U.S. Bruce Gibbons, S.E., CEng Managing Principal Europe, Middle East, India, Brazil Joseph G. Burns, CEng, RIBA Managing Principal

Forensics John Abruzzo, P.E. Senior Principal Renewal Gary P. Mancini, P.E. Senior Principal

Michael J. Squarzini, P.E. Managing Principal

Property Loss Consulting Charles P. Meade Principal

R. Wayne Stocks, P.E. Managing Principal

Pacific Rim Yi Zhu Managing Principal

Amy Hattan, LEED GA Corporate Sustainability Officer Robert L. Honig, Esq. General Counsel Ed Kasparek Director of Business Development Jim Kent Chief Marketing & Communications Officer Leigh Mires Chief Learning Officer Steve Ross Chief Information Officer

Yi Zhu Managing Principal Founding Principals Charles H. Thornton Ph.D., P.E., NAE, Hon. AIA Richard L. Tomasetti P.E., NAE, Hon. AIA

IN MEMORIAM

Dan Cuoco 1946 – 2014

Ed Lederman

Ed Lederman

We mourn the passing of two great engineers, partners, mentors and friends. With his broad technical knowledge and intellectual curiosity, Dan led the creation of what became our Renewal and Forensics practices. He retired in 2011 after 40 years with the firm, serving as president (2002 to 2008) and CEO (2008 to 2011). Abe served our firm for nearly 45 years, as one of its early principals, and was known for his technical excellence and versatility. He was also instrumental in developing our multidisciplinary expertise.

We will honor Dan and Abe with scholarships to support the education of young engineers.

Abe Gutman 1940 – 2014

THORNTON TOMASETTI 2014 /2015 ANNUAL REPORT

29

Offices Abu Dhabi, UAE Beijing, China Boston, Massachusetts Chicago, Illinois Christchurch, New Zealand Dallas, Texas Denver, Colorado Dubai, UAE Fort Lauderdale, Florida Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Hong Kong, China Irvine, California Kansas City, Missouri London, United Kingdom Los Angeles, California Moscow, Russia Mumbai, India New York, New York Newark, New Jersey Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Portland, Maine San Diego, California San Francisco, California São Paulo, Brazil Shanghai, China Washington, D.C.

www.ThorntonTomasetti.com