2007 Issue

www.utahengineerscouncil.org 34 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF UTAH www.seau.org President Jeff Miller, Reaveley Engineers & Associates Vice President/President Elect Barry Welliver Secretary Russell Merrill, Dunn Associates Treasurer Don Barker, BHB Consulting Engineers UEC Representative Mike Buehner Reaveley Engineers & Associates 801-386-3883 UEC Representative-Elect Shaun Packer Calder Richards Consulting Engineers Newsletter Editor Rick Seelos Reaveley Engineers & Associates Program Chair Larry Reaveley U. of U. Dept. of Civil & Env. Engineering SOCIETY FORUM Shake, Rattle and Roll T HE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AS- SOCIATION OF UTAH (SEAU) IS IN ITS 27TH YEAR AND HAS GROWN FROM 37 FOUNDING MEMBERS TO OVER 260 members today. The purpose for or- ganizing SEAU is stated in 6 goals of the association: • Promote acquaintance and understanding among Structural Engineers. • Promote technical expertise. • Promote legislation and codes relating to Structural Engineering. • Increase public awareness of Structural Engineering. • Discourage unethical and detrimental practice. • Promote high standards of Structural Engineering in the best interests of clients, community, the public, and the profession. Furthermore, in our code of ethics, we, as structural engineers, are bound to hold paramount the safety of the public in the per- formance of our professional duties. SEAU members take this charge very seriously and the association has remained very active in promoting continual improvement of techni- cal knowledge and engineering practice of our members. SEAU sponsored the 14th Annual Con- ference of the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations held in Salt Lake City in September 2006. SEAU received many compliments from several of the other state structural engineers associations for our active membership that numbers more than many other states of much larger population. SEAU’s greatest benefit to our members is bringing nationally recognized structural engineering leaders to present technical seminars that keep our members up to date on the latest code design provisions and technological advancements. Designing buildings for adequate earth- quake resistance has been one of the fastest growing and changing aspects for structural engineers over the past several years. Build- ing code provisions change substantially almost every code cycle due to updated seis- mic maps, advancement of knowledge of earthquake motions, and new testing of different building lateral seismic force resist- ing systems. Particularly here in Utah, with increased understanding of past earthquakes and new information about the probability of large earthquakes on the Wasatch Fault coming from geologic studies, we are trying to build strong public awareness of the potential risks of earthquakes to our homes and build- ings with active public access. As the built environment in our nation grows larger and older, and because build- ings are typically designed for 30 to 50 year life cycles, structural engineers will be more and more involved with the rehabilitation of older buildings. With the increased knowledge of how buildings behave in earthquakes has also come the realization of the vulnerability of older buildings to significant damage in a seismic event. We love our venerable buildings that define the character of our cities and we admire the craftsmanship with which many were built without the aid of modern machinery. Most of these buildings are, unfortunately, not safe in an earthquake because the effects of earthquakes were not considered when they were designed and built. Structural engineers face challenges unique to our profession in that, unlike oth- er engineering disciplines where designs can be tested, our buildings cannot be tested for earthquake resistance. We have to rely on tests of individual connection components and accepted factors of safety all the while keeping in mind that public safety not be compromised. Nowadays, we have powerful computer modeling software that helps us best predict the behavior of buildings when subject to seismic ground motions, but the computer models we create are still only models that include assumptions of behav- ior. On top of this responsibility, we have to design something that can actually be built and at a cost acceptable to building owners. We are fortunate to have educated building owners and building officials in Utah that recognize the importance of creating seis- mically safe buildings. (The next thing we continued on following page