Andrew Carnegie's Great Legacy

Steel construction maintains a huge market share in the US. Structural engineers design steel buildings every day, and most never think twice about the man whose name was once synonymous with the material: Andrew Carnegie.

Carnegie, the Scottish immigrant as industrial magnate

Carnegie did not invent steel. However, he was the first one that both realized how it would transform the world and with enough capital to do something about it. Steel, even the old-fashioned alloys that most engineers thumb their noses at today, was still such an amazing material that Carnegie became the 2nd wealthiest human ever based on his investment in steel.

Indianapolis' Union Station structure bears his name throughout the building

Andrew Carnegie had a great business sense and knew a good deal when he saw one. But Carnegie realized that money was not all that important. He already knew that giving money to people not prepared to receive it was a bad idea. Instead of leaving a large inheritance or giving it away in a lottery, he wanted to do "real and permanent good" for people.

In fact, responsible management of charitable giving is hard work. For Carnegie, giving money away was more difficult than making it. It took a long time to give away so much money. In the end he set up many institutions to continue the process after his death. He laid out his philanthropic principles in his "Gospel of Wealth" publication.

His institutions sponsor all sorts of work even today, and his educational initiatives are legendary. The thousands of Carnegie libraries and the Carnegie Mellon University (my alma mater) are testament to the enduring power of educational efforts sponsored by his fortune.

Let's imagine that Andrew Carnegie was alive today, with the same intense philanthropic desire to help people. What changes would a modern day Carnegie seek to effect in today's society? What progressive programs could a person with $300 Billion kick-start, how could they usher in a new period of social growth in American Society?

I think Carnegie's most successful charities were ones that engaged the efforts of others and resulted in secondary effects. His libraries brought great literature and books to cities throughout the US. The people who took advantage of these opportunities created the conditions that helped the US prosper in the 20th century.

But his libraries also helped create communities. The physical presence of the library cemented the status of city on many towns. The simple, institutional architecture was a visible reminder that people could build the US into a great nation.

However, the most important effect of his libraries was unseen. It was the fact that cities had to set up a permanent taxing structure to ensure support for the libraries. Without the ability to regulate taxes and set budgets, no library would be awarded. Thus, the populace willingly taxed themselves to help the common good.

So we revisit the question: What would Andrew Carnegie do today?

If we view his legacy in light of civic reform, I have some good ideas. Sponsor or subsidize the creation of some public amenity, institution, or capital improvement project and put some strict requirements on it. Maybe ask cities to bid for different projects, and instead of bidding money they bid in terms of civic reform.

Want a new university or voc-tech school? Then put in place a new zoning code that allows high-density development and mixed use space.


Want to rebuild a blighted urban streetscape? Enact an iron-clad complete streets policy and an urban growth boundary.


Want a regional High-Speed-Rail or local subway system? Maybe the cities could enact TOD requirements on top of other minor reforms.


Want a new dock or freight rail intermodal facility? I think it's time for exclusive wildlife corridors or wildlife overpasses throughout the state.


Of course, when the cities are very thirsty for capital projects, the bidding could get even more intense. How about a health insurance exchange program for the state, or a Robin Hood educational system, or even reform of the inane and discriminatory US drug policies? I digress, but my point should be clear by now.

Carnegie's charitable givings were great for their intended purposes, but the unintended consequence of responsible civic government were probably even greater. A few cities here in the US could use a carrot to lead them to better governance. Maybe the Carnegie Library phase of this nation is over, but it's still a fun fantasy for any urban planner.

Facade Issues in Steel Buildings

Of special note to anyone who been working with facade connections in steel buildings is two documents from AISC. The first is their "Design Guide 22: Facade Attachments to Steel-Framed Buildings" and the other is a recent article in MSC: "Steel Framing & Building Envelopes".

The Design Guide 22 is free to AISC members (~$60 otherwise) and is probably one of their best. It has a great amount of information about spandrel beams, connections, facade issues, and even backs it up with some FEA work.

The MSC article "Steel Framing & Building Envelopes" by James A. D'Aloisio, PE, SECB, LEED AP should be considered as an addendum to the design guide, specifically dealing with the issues of thermal bridging and building envelope thermal performance. Basically, if an engineer applies the suggestions from DG22 without considering thermal bridging effects, then the R-value of the wall assembly could be halved (!).

D'Aloisio's has published some interesting details he is experimenting with. His recommendation is to always use a thermal break, and he shows a Fiberglass-Reinforced Plastic shim plate to isolate steel lintels and hangers from the exterior environment. As he points out, many LEED NC buildings are not meeting their expected performance levels. The reason may be because of conventional details used by the construction industry.

Green Starts at Home... Or Does It?

This past month I saw a lot of New Year's articles that addressed going green as a resolution for the upcoming year. Obviously their heart and mind were in the right place. But I wanted to be a bit cynical in this post.

Any home was once an empty piece of land. That piece of land was a special niche in the local ecology. A foot deep of priceless topsoil. Earthworms tilled the soil, butterflies hatching from cocoons on a nearby shrub. All sorts of life forming an interwoven, dynamic web. When you really think about it, that home wasn't built on an empty piece of land, it was built to replace a grassland or a stand of old hardwood trees.

To build this house, people decided to "improve" the land. They built a shell from the carcasses of trees as a shelter, the inhabitants themselves part of the extinction of half of biodiversity and the spoiling of every watershed on the planet. Mankind's capacity to upset nature is only matched by their capacity to delude themselves into thinking they benefit the planet by their presence.


It might sound like I am saying all human development is bad. In fact, that's exactly what I'm saying. But the environment can tolerate a little bad. Just not bad on the scale we've been doing. Going green is all about less bad.

So let's return to the issue of housing. Can going green at home really make a difference? It depends. Housing is a big piece of the puzzle, but the actual houses and what's inside of them aren't the problem. The problem is the way we organize our neighborhoods and cities. The built environment in the US forces a huge energy investment to accomplish anything.

The "go green at home" idea implies that we can save the world from climate change by buying products that are better for the environment. This makes the assumption that buying different things will give us different results. The truth is that we can't buy our way out of this.

Here is a chart showing the best ways to help the environment versus perception:



I'm no environmental saint. My own efforts in this realm pale in comparison to some of my neighbors and family. In reality we all need to go green at home, but it is not the most productive place to start changing. 

The problem is that as a democratic society we are all connected. The choices that people make affect all of us, sometimes in weird ways. When some people stop driving then others are likely to take their place. If people buy a car with a better gas mileage rating then they usually end up driving more miles. On average, its not easy to change social trends in the US through voluntary action.

So without major structural reforms of the built environment I fear that the sacrifices that people make net zero benefits. I applaud all of the efforts that people make, but I believe that going green doesn't begin at home, it begins with good policies. Now, more than ever before, we need to let science guide our policy making decisions rather than whatever it is that people talk about in media. Get active politically if you want to get active in the environment. Do your research, find and support groups and politicians that build their platform on the issues that matter to the environment. It doesn't even cost anything.

A Tragedy in Haiti

On January 12, a 7.0 seismic event centered close to Haiti's capital, Port Au Prince, caused massive devastation. The collapsed structures and untreated injuries may cause up to 200,000 deaths.

The past few days have been a nightmare for people on the ground. The EQ knocked out much of the country's fragile infrastructure. Haiti was a nation that was already in need of major assistance, having experienced 4 full-scale hurricanes last year and decades of political instability. A 7.0 EQ is absolutely a major event, and coming so close on the heels of last years problems is just horrible.

To put it in perspective, California's Northridge EQ in 1994 was one of the USA's worst disasters causing $20B worth of damage and it only registered a 6.7 magnitude. Haiti's EQ caused strong lateral movements, and judging from the USGS map the accelerations were almost as strong as gravity. This is the structural equivalent of taking a building and turning it on its side, again and again.

Very few buildings can survive this type of movement undamaged. Haiti was even worse off because of their building materials. Many of the buildings were built from unreinforced, hand-mixed concrete blends. The images on TV show the results well enough, the TV crews probably don't even need to look very hard to find examples.

As a structural engineer, it is always difficult to see the problems caused by improper construction and to know that many of the problems could have been avoided. Of course once an earthquake hits, engineers are powerless.

Using a list of simple rules engineers can easily design buildings that, for the most part, will preserve life safety. Designers of critical structures such as police buildings, hospitals, and bridges know in advance that they must make sure the structure will be operational in even the worst of events. The hospitals, bridges, and government buildings in Haiti appear to be worse off than other buildings, even.

So why do events like this happen? Engineers understand earthquakes, but that is only one step in the chain of safe construction. Simply stated, it is a political failure. Building codes are rolled back by politicians, with the excuse that they are too expensive. Contractors pay bribes to inspectors to pass suspect materials and shoddy workmanship. Engineers are asked to turn a blind eye in the name of patriotism. The problem with this "build quickly" theory is that the buildings remain and the legacy of poor construction becomes a ticking time bomb.

I am not trying to lay this problem at the feet of Haitians. I doubt many of them knew they were sitting on a fault line. They probably didn't understand that reinforcing is required in columns for earthquake resistance. The engineering community needs to make a greater effort to encourage seismic resistant buildings in developing nations.

The engineer's sole weapon against natural disasters is good design. If engineers aren't proactive in the political realm or if engineers cede their responsibilities, then they will fail in their duty to protect the public welfare.

Anyone interesting in helping the efforts in Haiti should donate to the American Red Cross disaster relief foundation. Engineers wanting to donate specific skills should go to the ASCE Disaster Assistance page.

Happy (belated) New Year!

I hope everyone had a good holiday season. I spent the past few weeks with family and friends, relaxing and recharging my batteries. It was also great to be back in a warmer climate watching a blizzard move through the US.


My mom and stepfather have successfully set up a vineyard winery, with products now available locally in central Texas. So congratulations to them for their hard work! We celebrated the holidays with their organically farmed, sustainably managed, zero-mile wine.


New Year's Day is also a chance to reflect on the past and contemplate the future. 2009 was a redeeming year for APOS, over 100 posts published and I was very proud of a few. Here's a list of my favorites from 2009:

1. Placemaking in Irvington
2. Greenwashing the Construction Industry
3. Iconic Structures (series)
4. Role of Structural Engineers in Sustainable Design
5. Gender Issues in Engineering
6. Icehouse Featured in Magazine
7. Successful Renovation of Local Schoolhouse
8. How Large is Downtown Indy?
9. All Infrastructure Users are Created Equal
10. Metastable Equilibrium

If I missed anyone else's favorite, they are all listed in the Archives!

Looking to the future, I anticipate another year full of personal and professional growth. I have found the website to be a great hobby. I love bringing together my interests in the community with my interests in engineering. Blogging = awesomeness defined. I'm even going to kick it up a notch, as my wife bought me a new camera. 10MP of photographic power in a pocket-friendly plastic form.