ATC & SEI 2015 173

Historic Desmond Building Retrofit—A Case Study of the Seismic

Retrofit of a Non-Ductile Concrete Building in the Los Angeles Area

Z. Jiang, Ph.D., P.E., LEED1,*;

M. Sarkisian, P.E., S.E., LEED2; N. Mathias, P.E., S.E., LEED3;
R. Garai, P.E., S.E., LEED4; and J. Lyrenmann, P.E.5
1
Assistant Professor, School of Engineering, San Francisco State Univ., 1600
Holloway Ave., SCI 130, San Francisco, CA 94132.
2
Partner, 3Associate Director, 4Associate, 5Structural Engineer Professional,
Skidmore, Owing & Merrill LLP#, 1 Front St., Suite 2500, San Francisco, CA 94111.
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: zsjiang@sfsu.edu

Abstract
According to a Los Angeles Times report in Oct. 2013 (Los Angeles Times, 2013),
by the most conservative estimate, as many as 50 old concrete buildings in the city of
Los Angeles would be destroyed in a major earthquake, exposing thousands to injury
or death. To address this concern, the City of Los Angeles recently proposed
instituting what are arguably the most ambitious seismic safety regulations in
California’s history; regulations that would require building owners to retrofit
thousands of building deemed to be at risk of collapse during a major earthquake.
Non-ductile concrete buildings built before 1980 were singled out as one of two
particularly vulnerable structural types requiring attention.

This paper presents a case study of seismically retrofitting a historic concrete building
located in Los Angeles, California. Designed in 1916, the building originally housed
the Willy’s Overland Company car dealership and assembly plant, which later
became a Desmond's department store warehouse. After the retrofit, the five-story
warehouse will be transformed into high quality, creative office space with a ground
floor cafe and the addition of a 7,000-square-foot sixth floor that will bring the total
size of the building to 82,000 square feet. The retrofit project is currently under
construction with full occupancy expected in the summer of 2015. When it is
complete, it will be the first of many potential renovations of historic properties
located in the South Park district for creative office use.

This case study presents an innovative but rigorous approach taken to enable the
addition of a story to the existing building by not exceeding the gravity load and
lateral force change triggers in Chapter 34 of the 2011 Los Angeles City Building
Code (2011 LABC) necessitating retrofit. Although demonstrated to not be required
by code, a seismic retrofit was nevertheless instituted; this while continuing to ensure
that the changes in force effects in retained existing structural members did not
exceed code retrofit triggers. All structural modifications made since the building was
originally constructed using very low strength concrete were considered in the
evaluations and retrofit design.

© ASCE
ATC & SEI 2015 174

INTRODUCTION
Natural disasters such as earthquakes can be very destructive. In 2005, the 7.6
magnitude earthquake in Pakistani Kashmir caused 86,000 fatalities; the 7.9
magnitude earthquake in 2008 in Sichuan, China, took 88,000 lives; and more than
300,000 people died in the magnitude 7.0 earthquake in Haiti in 2010 (EERI, 2006,
USGS, 2014, USGS, 2011, Garcetti et al., 2014). Of the various building types,
concrete buildings are a major contributor to earthquake losses around the world, and
of these, non-ductile reinforced concrete (RC) buildings are among the deadliest
(Garcetti et al., 2014). Non-ductile concrete buildings are no longer allowed by most
building codes in earthquake prone areas, but before the existence and enforcement of
modern seismic design codes requiring ductile concrete design in the mid-1970s, non-
ductile concrete buildings were a prevalent construction type even in areas of high
seismicity such as California (Comerio and Anagnos 2012). According to an estimate
from the Concrete Coalition, there are 16,000 to 17,000 such buildings extant in
California alone (Comartin et al., 2011). Despite their sturdy appearance, these old
concrete buildings were detailed with, for example, too much spacing between
stirrups and inadequate flexural reinforcement, making them susceptible to non-
ductile behavior and potentially catastrophic damage in major earthquakes.

From the findings of a study done by Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd (Swiss Re),
the world’s 2nd largest reinsurer, Los Angeles, following Tokyo-Yokohama (JPN),
Jakarta (IND), and Manila (PHL), is the fourth riskiest city in terms of vulnerability
to catastrophic loss from earthquakes (Swiss Re, 2013). According to the Second
Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF2) report, California has a
99.7% chance of having a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake during the next 30
years (SCEC, 2007). As stated in a Los Angeles Times report in Oct. 2013 (Los
Angeles Times, 2013), by the most conservative estimate, as many as 50 old concrete
buildings in the city of Los Angeles would be destroyed in a major earthquake such
as one with a magnitude of 6.7 or larger, exposing thousands to injury or death. To
improve earthquake safety and prepare for the next major earthquake, researchers
from the University of California, Berkeley (UCB), spent several years compiling a
list of potentially vulnerable non-ductile old concrete buildings across Los Angeles.

The subject of this paper, the Desmond Building, located in the heart of downtown
Los Angeles, is a building with a non-ductile reinforced concrete frame and was
included in the UCB list (Los Angeles Times, 2014). Designed in 1916, the building
originally housed the Willy’s Overland Company car dealership and assembly plant,
and later became a Desmond's department store warehouse (Figure 1(a)). After being
vacant for years, the old Desmond Building was purchased by a developer with an
eye to renovating it for high-end office use. The existing five-story retail building is
roughly 100 feet wide by 157 feet long with a concrete structure that consists of
columns linked by flat girders and conventional two-way floor slabs. The columns
and beams constituted moment frames in two orthogonal directions, albeit non-
ductile, on account of their non-compliant detailing. There is a solid concrete wall
along the entire north façade as shown in Figure 2, likely because it is on the property

© ASCE
ATC & SEI 2015 175

line and was in the past built directly against another building (no longer existing).
Although almost a century old, the building structure was found to be in very good
condition.
The building structure is founded on spread/isolated footings typically 7 feet below
ground level, with a strip footing under the north wall founded 14 ft. below grade;
possibly on account of an adjacent basement existing at the time of construction. The
existing interiors have a distinctive exposed concrete look with large steel framed
industrial windows. The reuse plan included development of creative office space, a
ground floor café, and the addition of a 7,000-square-foot sixth floor bringing the
total size of the building to 82,000 square feet and preserving the original look and
feel of the interior spaces. New storefronts are planned to be introduced into the
facades at street level as can be seen in Figure 1(b).

(a) Original Condition (b) Renovated (Rendering)

Figure 1. Desmond Building

Figure 2. Typical Original Structural Floor Framing Plan

© ASCE
ATC & SEI 2015 176

In this paper, the challenges of the Desmond Building retrofit project will first be
discussed, and followed by the solution adopted to address the challenges.

CHALLENGES
On account of the heightened awareness and concern about existing non-ductile
reinforced concrete frame buildings at the time of approaching the City of Los
Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) for permission to proceed with
this project (the UCB list had recently been released), the low original design material
strengths for concrete (compressive strength 1625 psi) and reinforcement (twisted
square steel bars with yield strength of 40 ksi), and especially in light of the fact that
it was being proposed to add a story to the existing building, very strict criteria and
requirements were established for the addition to and retrofit of the building. These
requirements were arrived at as a result of in-depth discussions with the LADBS.
They are as follows:

1. The 2011 City of Los Angeles Building Code (2011 LABC) would be the
governing design code.
2. No increase in existing concrete and reinforcement material properties to
account for age and actual mill strengths respectively would be assumed.
Properties would be based on those shown on the original building drawings.
This is largely due to the variability in the increase in compression strength
noted in concrete cores taken from the existing structure over the strength
specified in the original design drawings.
3. The sixth floor addition would only be permitted if the retrofit triggers of
Chapter 34 of the 2011 LABC (discussed in next section), including
consideration of the addition, were not exceeded. Consideration of the triggers
requires comparing building responses at the time of initial construction to the
responses including all the past and proposed structural modifications.
Changes would need to be considered cumulatively.
4. If the 2011 LABC requirements for a retrofit were not triggered, a retrofit
system designed per the LADBS using the requirements for new buildings
could be introduced into the building provided that the retrofit triggers were
not exceeded in the retained original structural components considering all
alterations including the retrofit and the addition.
5. The use of American Society of Civil Engineers 41: Seismic Rehabilitation of
Existing Building (ASCE, 2007) would not be permitted. This standard is only
permitted by the LABC for hospital buildings (2011 LABC Section 3401.5;
LADBC, 2011).

The reasons for these stringent requirements were simple. Concerns about the age,
structural type, non-ductile detailing, and reliability of the quality of the original
materials were deemed sufficient reasons for the LADBS to exercise their discretion
(per Section 3401.4 of the 2011 LABC) and require full compliance with the
requirements of the governing code.

© ASCE
ATC & SEI 2015 177

The 2011 LABC is based on the 2010 California Building Code (CBC) and 2009
International Building Code (IBC). Chapter 34 Existing Structures of the 2011 LABC
provides the requirements relating to additions and alterations to existing structures as
well as the requirements that trigger retrofit of the gravity and lateral load resisting
system components of an existing structure. Sections 3403.3 and 3403.4 of the 2011
LABC as shown in Figure 3 place limits on the allowable percentage change in
gravity loads and lateral load combination force effects on existing structural
members in the respective systems resulting from an addition beyond which
retrofitting is required. These limits are referred to as the “triggers” in this paper. Not
exceeding the triggers ensures that the existing load paths and load effects on existing
members to be retained do not change significantly as a result of an addition.

To summarize the code requirements, if the gravity loads on a gravity system member
increase by more than 5% as a result of an addition, that member is required to be
retrofitted to meet the requirements of the code for new structures; and if the demand-
capacity ratio in a member supporting lateral loads increases by more than 10% as a
result of an addition when considering relevant load combinations, the member is
required to be retrofitted to meet the requirements of the code for new structures.
Similar requirements apply to the effects of alterations and are contained in sections
3404.3 and 3404.4 respectively, as shown in Figure 4.

In making these assessments, the 2011 LABC requires all changes to the structure as
originally designed made since initial construction to be considered cumulatively in
defining the addition or altered condition of the structure.

Figure 3. Requirements for Additions in the 2011 LABC Section 3403

© ASCE
ATC & SEI 2015 178

Figure 4. Requirements for Alternations in the 2011 LABC Section 3404

THE SOLUTION
In order to meet the challenges described in the preceding section, the design team
came up with a solution based on the following principles:

1. The sixth floor addition would be as light as possible, and gravity and seismic
loads would be well distributed over the building plan to minimize the load
change to the original structure. This would be accomplished by using a steel
structure, a metal deck roof diaphragm with no concrete fill, columns aligned
with columns in the existing building below to avoid gravity load
concentrations, a distributed lateral system—special moment resisting frames
with the columns pinned at their bases—to avoid concentrating lateral load
effects at specific locations, no heavy mechanical units or eccentric loads on
the roof, a lightweight interior raised floor and lightweight exterior cladding.
2. Minimize changes to structure in the existing building. To achieve this, the
existing stair and elevator openings were re-used. New openings for
mechanical and toilet shafts were minimized.
3. Minimize weight of finishes in the existing structure. The weights of
architectural finishes were tightly controlled. Any redundant weights, such as
existing 6” raised concrete filled car washing bays and unnecessary concrete
ramps would be removed. Existing concrete stairs would be replaced by
lighter steel stairs.
4. Heavy mechanical and other service units would be located on the ground
level slab-on-grade.
5. The existing exterior cladding system would be retained, and repaired and
refinished as needed.
6. Reverting to the original structural condition where changes since initial
construction significantly impacted structural response.

© ASCE
ATC & SEI 2015 179

Adoopting the principles listed abovee, two analyysis modelss, one for tthe original
stru
ucture and on
ne for the strructure with
h the additionn and alterattions were prrepared and
the loads and demand-cap pacity ratioss in the twoo models w were comparred. It was
demmonstrated by
b the compaarison resultts that the reetrofit triggeers of Chapteer 34 of the
20111 LABC wo ould not be exceeded,
e th
hereby obviatting the needd for a seism
mic retrofit.

Theere were two o main reaso de it possiblle to not excceed the 2011 LABC’s
ons that mad
retrrofit triggerss. The first was
w that, on n account off its originaal use as an automobile
retaail facility, the structuree was desig gned for a llive load off 100 psf onn all floors
inclluding the ro oof. Consideering the cuurrently plann
nned primaryy use of the building as
offiice space with a reducible live load rating of 50 psf, a coomfortable m margin was
avaailable to accommodate the added gravityg loadds from the rroof additioon. Figure 5
sho
ows the supeerimposed loads l on a typical
t floorr. The seconnd reason w was that by
raissing the buillding height,, it was posssible, despitee the additioon’s mass, too minimally
imppact the seism mic load on the modified d structure. NNote that thee base shearr calculation
for both origin nal design anda the new w design wiith the addiition was gooverned by
appproximate fu undamental period (T C ∙ h perr ASCE 7-005, Eq. 12.88-7; ASCE,
20006) which is a function of o the height of the buillding. Table 1 shows a ssummary off
seissmic loads calculated
c ussing ASCE 7-05
7 on the original struucture and thhe structure
with the additio on.

Figu
ure 5. Typiccal Loading Diagram foor Renovateed Structuree

Tab
ble 1. Base Shear
S Comp
parison: Orriginal Struccture vs. Strructure witth Addition
Height
H Base Sheaar (kips)
Struccture R
(ft) East-Wesst Direction North-South
N D
Direction
Original Structure
S 72 3.00 34470 2697
Structure wiith Addition 90 3.00 35558 2374

Ratio Ad
ddition / Origin
nal: 1.03 0.88

Theere were, how wever, challlenges to be surmountedd in order to m meet this gooal. In 1971,
a permitted
p mo odification was
w made to o the buildinng to infill a ramp opeening in the
leveel 2 slabs ata the north side of the building. Thhe infill struucture was constructed
abo
ove the existting ramp an nd monolith hically tied iinto the surrrounding struructure. The
infiill structure not
n only add ded weight and
a seismic m mass, but alsso altered the lengths off

© ASCE
ATC & SEI 2015 180

columns and seismic load paths in the vicinity making it virtually impossible to not
exceed the code triggers. It was decided, therefore, to remove the infill structure and
revert to the original condition in the area. This move, along with removal of the
existing concrete floor finish toppings on two floors resolved the trigger exceedance
problem. In order to capture the rentable space above the ramp, a new, independent,
steel framed composite metal deck floor slab infill structure with its own special
moment resisting steel frames lateral system and footings was added and seismically
separated from the existing base building structure with an eight-inch seismic joint all
around.
To prepare for the next big earthquake, the seismic retrofit system chosen to
strengthen the building, though strictly not required by the code because the retrofit
triggers had not been exceeded, was selected to preserve as much of the building’s
original character as possible. Ductile concrete shear wall piers were placed at each
perimeter column on the west, east and south sides, aligned with the solid portions of
the exterior façade cladding so as to not encroach on the large industrial windows.
The shear wall piers were linked to each other with upturned ductile link beams at
each level to create a ductile linked shear wall system. On the north side with the
solid concrete wall, two one bay long shear walls linked by collectors were provided
as shown in Figure 6. A longitudinal section through the retrofitted building is shown
in Figure 7. Blow up details of a typical shear wall pier and moment frame link beam
are provided in Figure 8.

Figure 6. Typical Plan of Retrofitted Structure

© ASCE
ATC & SEI 2015 181

Figure 7. Longitudinal Section through Building

(a) Typical Retrofit Pier Detail (b) Typical Link Beam Detail
Figure 8. Typical Details of New Lateral System

The LADBS, in the course of discussions, had made it clear that the provision of the
retrofit system would have to be treated as an alteration to the original structure and
considered cumulatively with the addition and other alterations since the original
design, and that percentage change to loads and demand-capacity ratios in the
retained gravity and lateral system components compared to those in the original
structure would still be required to not exceed the 2011 LABC triggers. The gravity
load triggers were not an issue, as has already been explained, on account of the
reduction in live load rating corresponding to the planned office usage, but it was
necessary to carefully tune the stiffness of the lateral load resisting elements to make
sure that load paths were not altered to an extent that would cause the increase in
demand-capacity ratios in the retained original lateral system components to exceed

© ASCE
ATC & SEI 2015 182

the 10% triggeer. Addition

nally, the LAADBS requiired that forr the internaal columns,
whiich would now servee as gravitty columnss, the defoormation coompatibility
requirements off the ASCE--7-05, Sectio
on 12.12.4 (A
ASCE, 20066) would havve to be met..

Oncce again, an analysis mo odel of the reetrofitted oriiginal structuure was buillt, including
the sixth story addition, annd the percen ntage changee in the loadds and demand-capacity
ratiios in retained gravity and
a lateral system mem mbers of the original struucture were
rigoorously checcked, respecctively, at a member-byy-member llevel. The results were
shoown to not ex xceed the triggers in Chaapter 34 of 22011 LABC.. New membbers such as
speecial momen nt resisting frames
f and shear
s walls were designned in accorrdance with
the requiremen nts of the 2011
2 LABC C for new structures. Composite fiber wrap
connfinement ass shown in Figure
F 9 waas provided at the top aand bottom ends of the
inteerior gravity columns to assure deforrmation com mpatibility ass required.

Figure 9.
9 Composite Fiber Wraap Confinem
ment

New w, interconn nected found dations meeeting the reqquirements oof the 2011 LABC for
neww structures were provid ded under thhe new verticcal column ppiers and sheear walls to
sup
pport their weight
w and seeismic load effects.
e The end zones oof the added shear walls
on the north faaçade were foundf to expperience tennsion due to the amountt of seismic
load d they attraacted. As th he use of deeep foundattions such aas micro-pilles was not
practically feassible for a nu umber of reaasons includding the locaation of the walls along
the north property line, a reinforced concrete graavity ballastt wall alongg the entire
norrth façade, as shown in Figure
F 10, th
hat linked thhe two shearr walls beloww grade and
utillized the fulll depth of th
he foundationn wall abovee its strip footing with aapproximate
heig ght of 10 feeet was providded.

© ASCE
ATC & SEI 2015 183

Figure 10. Foundation/Ballast Wall Figure 11. Drift Comparison

With the proposed retrofit, performance of the structure improved dramatically as can
be seen, for example, from the drift comparison between the original and retrofitted
structures shown in Figure 11. As can be seen from the figure, the drift at story 2 fell
from 6 % to 1.4 % in the Y (north-south) direction and to 0.8 % in the X (east-west)
direction; 4 and 8 time reductions, respectively.

The construction of the project is nearing completion at the time of writing.

CONCLUSION

In this paper, a case study of seismically retrofitting a historic non-ductile concrete

building, located in Los Angeles is presented. In this retrofit design, an innovative but
rigorous approach developed in close coordination with the LADBS was taken to
allow the addition of one story to the existing building by not exceeding the gravity
load and lateral force change triggers specified in Chapter 34 of the 2011 LABC.
Although not required by the code, a seismic retrofit with ductile seismic resisting
members was implemented to achieve a stronger, more resilient design. In the
retrofitted structure as well. the gravity load and lateral force change triggers
specified in Chapter 34 of the 2011 LABC were not exceeded in retained original
structural members. The approach to the retrofit took advantage of the difference in
design loads between the original design and retrofitted structure (live loads in
particular) and the different heights and response modification factors of the two
conditions. The City of Los Angeles recently proposed instituting what are arguably
the most ambitious seismic safety regulations in California’s history, which would
require building owners to retrofit thousands of buildings deemed to be at risk of
collapse in a major earthquake (Garcetti et al., 2014). This case study has hopefully

© ASCE
ATC & SEI 2015 184

demonstrated that, with careful design, additions and alternations to old, non-ductile
concrete buildings are viable using prescriptive code requirements. The retrofit
project is currently under construction with completion expected in the summer of
2015. When it is complete, it will be one of the first of many potential renovations of
historic properties located in the South Park district for creative office use.

REFERENCES

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (2007). “Seismic Rehabilitation of

Existing Buildings.” ASCE/SEI 41-06.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (2006). “Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures.” ASCE/SEI 7-05.
Comartin, C., Bonowitz, D., Greene, M, McCormick, D., May, P., Seymour, E.
(2011). “The Concrete Coalition and the California Inventory Project: An
Estimate of the Number of Pre-1980 Concrete Buildings in the State.” Final
Inventory Report. The Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Comerio, M. C. and Anagnos, T. (2012). “Los Angeles Inventory: Implications for
Retrofit Policies for Nonductile Concrete Buildings.” Proceedings of the
fifteenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI). (2006). “The Kashmir Earthquake
of October 8, 2005: Impacts in Pakistan.” Retrieved from
https://www.eeri.org/lfe/pdf/kashmir_eeri_2nd_report.pdf.
Garcetti, E et al. (2014). “Resilience by Design.” The City of Los Angeles.
Los Angeles Times. (2013). “Concrete risks.” Retrieved from
http://graphics.latimes.com/me-earthquake-concrete/.
Los Angeles Times. (2014). “Older Concrete Buildings in Los Angeles”.
Retrieved from http://graphics.latimes.com/la-concrete-
buildings/?q=san%20pedro&p=1&s=addr.
Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC). (2007). “Second Uniform California
Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF2).” Retrieved from
http://www.scec.org/ucerf2/.
Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd (Swiss Re). (2013). “Mind the Risk, A global
ranking of cities under threat from natural disasters”. Retrieved from
http://media.swissre.com/documents/Swiss_Re_Mind_the_risk.pdf
The City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBC). (2011). “Los
Angeles City Building Code.” LADBC 2011.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (2011). “Earthquake Information for 2010.”
Retrieved from http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/2010/.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (2014). “Magnitude 7.9 - Eastern Sichuan, China.”
Retrieved from
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2008/us2008ryan/#summ
ary.

© ASCE