Editor’s Note

After seven years as editor in chief of the preeminent journal in its field, the time has come for me to step down. My association with the Journal extends well over a decade, from the time I was appointed by Dave Darwin (who served as editor from 1994 to 2000) as associate editor representing the ASCE Committee on Seismic Effects. Prior to taking over as editor in 2003, I also served as managing editor under Dale Buckner during his $3\text{-year}$ term from 2000 to 2003. As in the case of my predecessors, I took on the assignment because I enjoyed reading and reviewing the submitted manuscripts as well having the unique opportunity to stay abreast of state-of-the-art research in the field.

The Journal has seen major changes since I came on board as associate editor. At that time, all reviews were processed by regular mail with hard copies of manuscripts shipped to reviewers around the globe. With the burgeoning of online tools, we moved to an electronic database called eRoom, which was essentially a large document storage system. While eRoom eliminated the chore of mailing manuscripts and also streamlined the review management process, it was still not a truly online system. The move to Editorial Manager (the current system) marked the final transition to a complete online system for manuscript submission, review, and management. The transition from one system to the next was not easy given the fact that associate editors change on average every three years and most prefer to stay with the same system that they started with. This meant that for a considerable period of time, we had to monitor the review progress of papers in multiple systems. As I hand over my responsibilities to the incoming editor, I am pleased to report that we have completely phased out eRoom and all papers are now being processed in Editorial Manager. In the coming months and years, it is expected that this fully automated system will, among other benefits, facilitate the reduction of publication turnaround times.

The Journal of Structural Engineering (JSE) receives over 500 new submissions each year. Since only a very small percentage (about 5%) of submissions are accepted after the first round of reviews and the majority of papers undergo two or more re-reviews, we ultimately process around 1,000 papers every year. The burden this places on the editor, managing editors, and associate editors is overwhelming. Among the proactive steps I have taken over the past years (with the assistance of my managing editors) to minimize the review load on associate editors is the rigorous prescreening of papers. In 2009–2010, approximately 15% of the submissions were declined from review consideration (for reasons of quality) or redirected to other ASCE journals (for being outside the scope of the Journal).

Unlike most privately owned and sponsored journals, everyone on the editorial board of JSE undertakes their responsibility voluntarily and without remuneration. Associate editors are carefully selected in consultation with chairs of ASCE technical committees, and the review process is among the most rigorous of any journal in the field. Delays in the review process are often a result of the unwillingness of associate editors to compromise on the rigor and quality of reviews. Unfortunately, this has an adverse effect on metrics such as the Journal’s impact factor (IF). Since citations in a paper to articles previously published in the same journal are included in the IF calculation, fast turnarounds and expedited publication of papers will aid in increasing the IF of a journal. Given the nearly $2\text{-year}$ lag between submission and publication, the current impact factor of JSE is generated almost entirely by citations to our Journal by papers published in other journals. Over the years, the IF for the Journal has been rather steady. Currently the $1\text{-year}$ IF for JSE is 0.93 while the $3\text{-year}$ IF is 1.33.

The mean turnaround time from submission to publication is still over $18\text{months}$ , but this figure is gradually dropping. Recently, ASCE introduced the “Preview” feature, which posts online peer-reviewed papers that have been accepted for publication but are yet to appear in print. Since preview papers are citable, the actual turnaround time from submission to online preview is significantly shorter (by as much as $6\text{months}$ ). Based on statistics for 2010, the average time from submission to first decision is $142\text{days}$ (approximately $4.5\text{months}$ ) and the average time for processing of resubmitted papers is about $90\text{days}$ . These numbers are higher than desirable and considerable effort is being expended by both the editorial board and ASCE staff to improve these statistics.

Finally, I would like to point out that I will be continuing my services to the Journal as advisory editor so as to allow for the smooth transition of editorial duties to my successor.

It now gives me great pleasure to announce that Sherif El-Tawil, professor of structural engineering at the University of Michigan, will take over as editor beginning with this issue of the Journal. Sherif brings considerable experience to his new role, having assisted me as managing editor for over $5\text{years}$ . Prior to assuming his position as managing editor, Sherif served as associate editor overseeing papers in the area of metal and composite structures. Therefore, I am comforted by the fact that I leave the Journal in truly capable hands.

This issue opens with a paper by Alashker et al. investigating “Progressive Collapse Resistance of Steel-Concrete Composite Floors” in which steel beams are attached to columns through shear tabs. The simulation results show that the majority of collapse resistance comes from the steel deck and that, for the system considered, increasing connection strength by adding more bolts is unlikely to increase overall collapse strength. In the next paper, the “Plastic Behavior of Shear Tabs Welded to Flexible Wall Support” is examined by Yanglin Gong. Based on findings from an experimental study of six steel shear tab connections to hollow structural section columns, Gong concludes that the shear strength of the tabs welded to a flexible wall support should be reduced when compared to that of the tabs welded to a rigid support. Additionally, the width-to-thickness ratio criterion for a rigid wall support is a function of the ratio of the length of tab to the width of the supporting wall and the relative bending strength between the tab and the wall. In “Fatigue Testing of Stiffened Traffic Signal Structures,” Puckett et al. report on results from 16 tests on 12 ring-stiffened cantilevered traffic signal pole connections. The connection is found to be adequate to resist sustained winds that average approximately $12\mathrm{mi}∕\mathrm{h}$ , and the possibility of using the connection with longer mast arms exists. Observed connection bolt fatigue failures may be the limiting fatigue design feature and are important for inspection.

A method based on the softened truss model theory for “Estimation of Shear Strength of Structural Shear Walls” under both monotonic and cyclic loading is presented by Kassem and Elsheikh. The proposed method is used to predict the shear capacity of tested walls and is shown to compare favorably with experimental results. Paultre et al. present results from experimental testing on square large-scale columns in “Behavior of Steel Fiber-Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Columns under Uniaxial Compression.” The results show that adding discrete fibers to high-strength concrete mixtures in reinforced concrete columns not only prevents the premature spalling of the concrete cover but also increases their strength and ductility.

A two-part paper by Negrão et al. examines the behavior of “Glued Composite Timber-Concrete Beams.” The first part presents results from interlayer connection specimen tests that focused on the shear strength at the interface. The second part reports an experimental program on composite timber-concrete beams with glued interface and dowel-type shear connectors. The results show that glued beams displayed a larger stiffness and, consequently, smaller deflections, which may be of relevance in design. In addition, at least under stabilized and dry room conditions, the prevailing mode of failure is tension in timber and, when shear failure occurs, it is mostly conditioned by the shear strength of the concrete or the timber, not by that of the adhesive. A “New Yield Model for Wood Dowel Connections” is proposed by Miller et al. to establish a design procedure for a new mode of yielding (an effective cross-grain dowel failure) that has been observed in physical testing. A reliability analysis indicates that the proposed design equation can be used in conjunction with existing National Design Specification (NDS) yield equations for design of wood dowel connections.

In “Experimental Seismic Response of a Full-Scale Six-Story Light-Frame Wood Building,” van de Lindt et al. attempt to demonstrate the validity of the performance-based seismic design procedure developed as part of the NEESWood project and also gain a better understanding of the response of midrise light-frame wood buildings to a major earthquake. The building performed excellently with little damage following an imposed earthquake representing a $\mathrm{2,500}\text{-year}$ design event. Simon et al. investigate the effects of corrosion in “Seismic Response and Fragility of Deteriorated Reinforced Concrete Bridges.” Based on the assumption that strength deterioration is primarily the result of the reduction in cross-sectional area of the reinforcement and stiffness degradation is the result of concrete cover spalling, the findings of the study indicate that the losses in strength and stiffness only marginally influence the seismic fragility of the selected bridge. An “Integrated Reliability-Based Seismic Drift Design Optimization of Base-Isolated Concrete Buildings” is proposed by Zou et al. The technique is capable of achieving the optimal balance between the costs of the superstructure and isolation systems while the seismic drift performance or corresponding reliability of a building can be simultaneously considered.

A review of existing design procedures for modeling walking-induced dynamic loading is examined by Živanović et al. in “Modeling Spatially Unrestricted Pedestrian Traffic on Footbridges.” Using acquired experimental data from two as-built footbridges, the validity of these procedures is evaluated and possible causes of discrepancies between measured and calculated vibration responses, including the possibility of the existence of pedestrian-structure dynamic interaction, are discussed. Goulet et al. propose a “Multimodel Structural Performance Monitoring” approach that explicitly incorporates uncertainties and modeling assumptions. The approach is applied to measurements from structural performance monitoring of the Langensand Bridge in Lucerne, Switzerland. Predictions from the set of candidate models show an average discrepancy of 4 to 7% from the displacement measurements, thereby demonstrating the applicability of the approach for the structural identification and performance monitoring of real structures. The issue concludes with a study by Ginger et al. that examines the “Variation of Internal Pressure with Varying Sizes of Dominant Openings and Volumes” in windward walls. Ratios of internal to external pressure standard deviations and peaks are presented in terms of the nondimensional opening size to volume parameter and the size of the dominant opening and discharge coefficient.