About the author  ⁄ Jerod G. Johnson, Ph.D., S.E.

Jerod G. Johnson is a Principal at Reaveley Engineers in Salt Lake City. He was the engineer of record for recent updates to the base isolation system for the Salt Lake City & County Building. He was the principal investigator of the comprehensive isolator testing of May 2011. (jjohnson@reaveley.com)

Salt Lake City & County Building

On March 18, 2020, the historic Salt Lake City & County Building experienced shaking from an M5.7 event with an epicenter nearly 9 miles away. Damage experienced by this base-isolated, unreinforced masonry structure was hardly perceptible compared to other aging structures of the region and barely newsworthy…a considerable credit to the vision of the original stakeholders and the designers of its retrofit, which took place in the mid-1980s.

Read More →
Among the most powerful innovations in recent years in the structural engineering profession is the widespread adaptation and use of nonlinear analysis methods for seismic issues. The concept of nonlinear behavior has been around for decades, but only recently – say, within the last 15 years – have practical analysis methods been introduced and embraced by many. Among these is the static pushover method, which enables a representation of nonlinear behavior without the need to develop and run sophisticated response history analyses.
Read More →
It is a well-understood concept and an inevitable law of statics that loads must be transferred between beams and columns. This is an idea that is not foreign to engineers. Since our first classes in structural analysis, we have been developing our expertise at analyzing and designing beam-column intersections. The idea of balancing the sum of forces at such locations is one that cannot be disputed. However, there are some vagaries with this concept when considering flat plate and flat slab systems, which by definition have no beam-column joints. Hence, moment transfer becomes a more complex issue.
Read More →
There was a time, which many readers may well remember, when elastic behavior of structures governed our thoughts when it came to their design. For seismic design, we understood that the response reduction factor (currently designated ‘R’) was a reflection of system ductility and gave us the latitude of designing the system for much lower forces than standard elastic design might typically predict.
Read More →
Engineers largely appreciate the differences afforded between allowable stress design (ASD) and ultimate strength design (LRFD) methods, and we generally follow the prescribed protocol for each procedure without much trouble. However, even though the ASD approach has been largely supplanted by LRFD, certain occasions require that we revisit the old ASD theory for reinforced concrete (or masonry). As such, it is appropriate that we recognize the subtle and not-so-subtle differences between the two.
Read More →
Among categorizations of seismic behavior that have been adopted in modern codes is extreme torsional irregularity. Torsional irregularity is not an unfamiliar concept, having been expressed in codes in various forms for decades. It is an issue that engineers have learned to deal with, particularly in seismically active areas. Extreme torsional irregularity, however, is a somewhat newer concept and subset within the larger issue of torsional behavior. It is something that can greatly limit and restrict flexibility in choosing seismic force-resisting systems and configurations.
Read More →

Do ACI Seismic Provisions Apply?

The title of this article may seem like a trivial question, but it deals with an issue that in large measure might be overlooked. At first glance, one might think, “Of course not; gravity columns are designed for gravity, so why would I need to address the seismic provisions in Chapter 21 of ACI 318-11?” The answer is a simple matter of deformation compatibility, which ASCE 7-10 addresses for Seismic Design Categories (SDC) D through F in Section 12.12.5.

Read More →
STRUCTURE magazine