Port Pavilion at Broadway Pier, Design and Construction of a Modern Building

on a 100-Year-Old Structure
San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego, California

Matthew N. Martinez, S. E., M. ASCE1, Rod Whitsel, S. E., M. ASCE1

1
Structural Engineer - Moffatt & Nichol/Blaylock, 1660 Hotel Circle North, Suite
500, San Diego, CA 92108, Ph (619) 220-6050, mmartinez@moffattnichol.com/
Rwhitsel@moffattnichol.com

ABSTRACT
Broadway Pier, a facility owned by the San Diego Unified Port District (District), is a
100-year-old facility that has been used to support a transit shed, general-purpose
vessel berthing, military facility, cruise ships, and a place of public assembly (park).
The pier structure is located at the foot of Broadway, the "front doorstep" to the city.
The District sought to convert Broadway Pier to a modern dual-purpose facility
designed to meet the need for a place of public assembly in downtown San Diego and
to support the city's burgeoning cruise ship industry. This paper will describe the
unique marine engineering approach necessary for design and construction of a
structural steel building on the historic pier. This paper will discuss challenging
aspects of the project, including:
 Design and construction of a bonded structural deck overlay to increase pier
deck capacity to support buses, trucks, forklifts and cranes.
 Global structural evaluation to determine the suitability of the pier structure
to support the proposed building, mobile passenger gangway, ship berthing,
mooring, and environmental loads.
 Below water testing of pier piling of undetermined flexural capacity. The
testing apparatus was designed and implemented by engineer-divers. The
testing resulted in substantial savings in retrofit costs for the District.
 Seismic retrofit of the pier, using a base isolation system.
 Strategic placement of the building structure to not overstress the existing
pier. Strengthening of the pier structure to resist building loads.
 Design of a steel-framed building using moment resisting frames, including
the use of Vierendeel trusses and heavy built-up steel columns having
cruciform configuration.

INTRODUCTION AND DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY

The Port Pavilion on Broadway Pier is a good example of innovative pier and
building structural design solutions implemented in a challenging marine
environment. There were a number of constraining parameters that eliminated
obvious and traditional solutions leading to a variety of in-field structural testing and
investigations to complete the project.
Broadway Pier is approximately 130 ft wide by 1,000 ft long. The pier is divided into
five segments separated by four, 2-in-wide expansion joints. Figure 1 shows the
hybrid nature of the pier construction, comprising three components: 1) 1913 original
construction, 2) 1930 addition (200 feet – outer end), 3) 1989 Seismic enhancement
(30-foot-wide segments on north and south sides).

Figure 1. Broadway Pier Plan.

All three vintages of construction used reinforced cast-in-place (CIP) concrete deck
construction, while the substructures differed. The original 1913 pier comprises
structural steel pile caps and longitudinal stringers, which are supported by 36-inch
CIP cassions (Figure 2).
The substructure for the 1930 addition (Figure 3) comprises reinforced CIP
longitudinal stringers and pile caps supported by 20-inch-square precast concrete
piles. The piles have a unique “pile extension-jacket” deck connection (Please refer
to the section titled Below Water Testing of Pier Piling.)

Figure 2. Broadway Pier Figure 3. Broadway Pier

1913/1989 Section. 1930 Section.

The 1989 enhancement (Figure 2) required two strips of 1913 pier from the original
construction to be removed and replaced with modern presressed concrete
vertical/batter pile structure designed to improve the lateral stability of the overall
system.

2
Over the years, the facility has been used for a variety of functions, including a large
combination transit shed/cruise terminal, a Customs building, a cruise embarkation
and debarkation structure, and public park (Photos 1 and 2).

SCOPE OF WORK/EVOLUTION OF PROJECT

The District initially configured the scope of work to design a temporary interim,
cruise ship facility to be used during the refurbishment of the adjacent cruise facility.
The scope was revised to accommodate a permanent structure, when the District
responded to the emergent need to combine the features of a cruise ship terminal with
those of a facility to support public assembly and commercial uses.

Photo 1. Broadway Pier, (ca. 1931), Photo 2. Broadway Pier,

showing a transit shed/terminal (ca. 2005).
building on top of the pier.

As the architectural program for the facility evolved, the requirements for structural
analysis also changed. Initially, the structural effort for the project was relatively
simple: Small buildings, site work and landscape improvements were to be removed
and replaced by a lightweight temporary facility. The fact that there was no net
increase in mass to the structure negated the need for substantial seismic retrofit.
With the introduction of a permanent building used for public assembly, it became
necessary to reconcile the vertical and lateral load demands placed on the aging
structure using significant structural analysis and design effort. A further
complication was introduced when it became clear that there was insufficient lead-
time in the schedule for environmental permitting, which precluded the use of
additional piling to improve the structure. Therefore, it became necessary to consider
methodologies for load capacity strengthening and seismic upgrade solutions without
the use of supplemental piling.
The Port Pavilion at Broadway Pier ultimately evolved into a steel-framed structure
with approximate dimensions as shown in Figure 5, with the building configured on
the pier so that it straddles the three outer-most segments.

3
BONDED STRUCTURAL DECK OVERLAY

Figure 4. Broadway Pier Plan, Structural Deck

The first step in transforming the facility into the Port Pavilion involved design and
construction of a structural deck overlay to improve the vertical load capacity of the
areas shown in Figure 4.
These deck areas had an existing overlay of approximately eight inches of asphaltic
cement (A. C.) paving. The additional dead load from the A. C. paving subtracted
from what was already an insufficient load capacity. Analysis had indicated that
these areas could not support loads from mid-size and large trucks, buses, forklifts or
the outriggers of in-use mobile truck cranes.
To eliminate as many load limitations as possible, a bonded reinforced concrete deck
overlay was placed over the 1913 and1930 areas shown in Figure 4. The 2-foot-thick
deck of the 1989 structure had sufficient load capacity and did not need enhancement.
After demolition and removal of the A. C. paving, the concrete deck areas of the
older structure were mechanically roughened to + 1/8-inch amplitude and the overlay,
consisting of an (average) 8-inch-thick
concrete section with steel reinforcing,
was laid down using highway paving
techniques (Photo 3).
The net result was an increase in vertical
load capacity that allowed the
aforementioned vehicles to operate in
areas that were previously off-limits, with
minimal increase in mass to the structure.
The improved deck sections also
provided greater diaphragm shear
capacity to resist lateral loads. Photo 3. Broadway Pier,
Structural deck overlay
under construction.

4
GLOBAL STRUCTURAL EVALUATION
The introduction of a
major building structure
with a public occupancy
designation necessitated a
global structural analysis
of the entire system,
including the formational
soils, the hybrid pier
structure, and the building.
The initial codified seismic
retrofit concepts were
Figure 5. Plan - Building on Pier Structure. based on the “Existing
Structures” provisions of
the California Building
Code (CBC) Section 3403.2. The intention was to limit the seismic mass of the new
building to not exceed that of the topside pier structures (scheduled for demolition)
by more than 5 percent. Pursuing this strategy would require use of a lightweight
building structure such as a tent or prefabricated metal building to stay within the
original mass limits. The decision to move away from a lightweight building solution
to a permanent structure capable of meeting the long-term needs of the District
necessitated a more definitive structural analysis, particularly from a seismic
perspective.
Figure Nos. 5 and 6 illustrate the configuration of the Port Pavilion building as
situated on the pier structure. The building straddles one expansion joint between
Segments 3 and 4 (fused together by design) and another expansion joint between
Segments 4 and 5 (widened by design). As illustrated in Figure 6, the building is
offset to allow for operation of a passenger boarding bridge, facilitating entrance and
egress from cruise ships. This offset
meant that one row of the primary
building columns landed on the 1913
pier structure.
The in-depth structural analysis
required separate evaluation of the
1930 segment (outer 200 feet) and the
1913 and1989 segments. It was
understood that follow-on assessment
of the displacements of the dissimilar
segments would have to be performed
to address “structural pounding” and
the manner in which the deck
displacements would affect the Figure 6. Building/pier section.
building superstructure sitting on the
three separate pier segments.

5
The evaluation of 1930 seismic capacity involved unique below water testing that
ultimately culminated in a conclusion whereby no additional seismic improvements
were necessary in order to support the building. This topic is discussed further in the
section titled “Below Water Testing of Pier Piling.” (The reader is also directed to
the Ports 2013 Paper “Seismic Investigation/Below-Water Load Test for a 100-Year-
Old Pier”, contained in these Proceedings.)
The evaluation of 1913 and1989 segments’ seismic capacity determined that the
capacity was insufficient to support the building without enhancement. Because
supplemental piling could not be used, the seismic retrofit involved a novel “base
isolation” solution that is described in the section titled “Seismic Retrofit.” (The
reader is also directed to the Ports 2013 Paper “Seismic Retrofit of a Historic Pier
Using Lead-Rubber Bearings” contained in these Proceedings.)
Because Segments 3 and 4 are of similar structural configuration, the expansion joint
beneath the building was fused to avoid reflection of the joint up through the building
structure. In contrast, the 2-in.-wide joint between Segments 4 and 5 was widened to
avoid structural pounding. It became necessary to reflect this joint up through the
building walls and roof because of the potential movement. This was treated
architecturally as a “crumple zone” in that the potential need to repair the wall and
roof surfaces after a major seismic event was considered acceptable.

BELOW WATER TESTING OF PIER PILING

As previously described, findings of a seismic evaluation of the 1930 segment of the
pier found numerous deficiencies, the most critical being the moment capacity of the
1930 pile extension-jacket deck connection. This pile extension-jacket deck
connection is unique, as there is no direct
moment-resistant connection between the
pile and superstructure. During construction
the piles were jetted and driven to capacity,
after which precast concrete jackets were
placed over the pile and the interface
between the pile and jacket was grouted.
Once the jacket was fixed over the driven
pile, the upper half of the jacket was filled
with the same concrete used for the deck
slab, thereby facilitating a connection of
sorts between the pile and the deck. There
was minimal steel reinforcement (1/2-inch Figure 7. In-place testing
square bars) extending out from the corners apparatus. The diver is
of the 4-inch-thick pile extension-jacket into positioned near the hydraulic
the deck.
Two-dimensional static analyses were performed using an approach consistent with
Chapter 31F of the California Building Code Marine Oil Terminal Engineering
Maintenance Standards (MOTEMS) and included strength and ductility checks at the
Operating Level Earthquake (OLE) and Contingency Level Earthquake (CLE).

6
These earthquakes are defined as that having a statistical probability of occurrence at
a particular site over a given period, and are typically generated by a geotechnical
consultant or geologist. Deficiencies related to the capacity of the 1930 pile
extension-jacket deck connection were called into question for the CLE event.
The structural engineers were not confident in their ability to develop a reliable
structural model to compute the capacity of the pile extension-jacket connection. A
novel means of in situ testing of the capacity of the connection was developed where
lateral load would be applied to the piles using a hydraulic jack system located at
mid-height of the pile.
This jacking system consisted of a steel frame, which supported a hydraulic jack that
could apply incremental push/pull loading on a test pile, creating shear and moment
at the top of the pile and validating the capacity of the pile extension-jacket deck
connection. The steel frame was configured to engage three additional piles as
“strong-backs” to provide sufficient rigidity for the hydraulic jack. This system is
illustrated in Figure 7.
The results of the load test proved that the extension-jacket deck connection had more
than sufficient capacity for the forces generated by the CLE. The validation of the
pile-to-deck connection provided a rationale that allowed construction of the Port
Pavilion without any additional seismic retrofit to the 1930 segment. The result was
a savings of about $2.3 million in potential retrofit-related costs. (For an in-depth
discussion about this below water pile testing program, the reader is directed to the
Ports 2013 paper titled “Seismic Investigation/Below-Water Load Test for a 100-
Year-Old Pier” contained in these Proceedings.)

SEISMIC RETROFIT
The 1913 and1989 pier segments
were analyzed in accordance with
MOTEMS in a manner similar to
that previously described. The
analysis found that seismic demand
placed on the batter pile/deck
connection would suffer a brittle
shear-type failure under loading
induced by the CLE. An innovative
base isolation concept was
developed that introduced isolation
bearings to de-couple the pier deck
Photo 4. Broadway Pier, and building structure from the
base isolator. batter pile substructure under CLE
loading, while maintaining the
vertical load path of the
building/pier deck through the piles into formational material.
Photo 4 shows a base isolation unit inserted between batter piles and the pier deck.
The units comprise a lead core surrounded by alternating layers of high-grade natural

7
rubber and steel plates. The bearings dissipate energy through deformation,
ultimately returning to their initial configuration slowly after loading. These devices
were placed between both transverse and longitudinal-axis batter piles. Construction
methodologies were introduced that allowed the seismic work below the pier to
proceed concurrently with terminal building construction above.
The MOTEMS requirements indicate that the pier structure should be able to
withstand the OLE without any significant damage, and the CLE with only repairable
damage. The CBC requires that the building be designed for a force defined as “2/3
Maximum Credible Earthquake”—a seismic event capable of delivering significantly
higher accelerations then the MOTEMS requirements.
With the implementation of the base isolation system, the force resisted by the batter
piles is determined by the displacement of the bearings. The bearing design was
configured so that the piles perform elastically during the CLE and only undergo
limited yielding during the 2/3 MCE event. Use of the base isolation system allowed
for retrofit of the 1913 and 1989 segments of the pier directly beneath the building
and was a critical component of the project going forward without the introduction of
supplemental piles.

PLACEMENT OF THE BUILDING/STRENGTHENING OF PIER

STRUCTURE
Broadway Pier is narrow, only 130 feet
wide. Given the 75-foot-wide Pavilion
structure, there was insufficient width
remaining for the building to be centered on
the pier and allow operation of the
passenger boarding bridge. Figures 5 and 6
depict the building offset from the centerline
of the pier. As previously described, the
offset meant that one row of the primary
building columns landed on 1913 pier
structure. Photo 5 shows the deck under
Photo 5. Broadway Pier deck construction (1913), with the steel beams
during 1913 construction exposed prior to concrete encasement. The
arrows seen in Photo 5 show the typical
location established for the point-of-connection for the Pavilion building columns on
the north side of the pier.
It was first necessary to establish the exact spacing of the existing steel beams. This
was done by extracting 8-inconcrete cores from the deck in the approximate location
of alternate pile caps (approximately 30ft on-center) and exposing the top of the steel
girders. Once these were located, the exact centerline was established, and a very
accurate survey was performed to determine the exact as-built center-to-center
location. These specific dimensions were used to locate the building frame columns.
Figure 8 illustrates the details used to strengthen the concrete encased pile cap beam
to support the building column frames. This work was performed from below deck

8
and necessitated working in concert with tidal fluctuations which added to the
complexity of execution.

Figure 8. 1913 Broadway Pier pile cap supplemental strengthening details.

The pile caps are directly tributary to the 1913 CIP caissons previously described and
as seen in Figure 6. During the course of the design, it became evident that the
nominal allowable bearing capacity of 6,000 pounds per square ft (PSF) was going to
be inadequate to support the increased loading from the building, particularly when
overturning forces from lateral loads were considered. A program of cone
penetrometer tests (CPT) was undertaken, with the CPT rig located on the pier deck
where access holes record through the pier deck to allow advancement of the rods.
As a result of the CPT data, bearing capacity values of 9,000–10,000 PSF were
achieved.

DESIGN OF STEEL FRAMED BUILDING

Wind and seismic lateral loading, combined with limitations on pier load capacity
and architectural program requirements, made it necessary to create a building
structure that would have excellent ductile characteristics. It also had to be relatively
lightweight and open to allow light, circulation, and ventilation. A structural steel
solution was selected with certain major design features.
Transverse moment frames, used to resist both vertical and lateral loads were
arranged for each bay of the structure and provided the required degree of
redundancy. The building was designed using provisions of the CBC, and
ANSI/AISC 341 “Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings as a Special
Moment Resisting Frame”. Longitudinal frames were arranged on the exterior sides
of the building, running the entire length. Moment frames were separated at the
seismic joint between Segments 4 and 5.
Cruciform columns were developed and served as the primary members for both the
transverse and longitudinal moment frames. Use of these columns allowed
prequalified bolted moment connections in both directions. The built-up columns
were fabricated by groove welding a WT15x105.5 to the web of a W21x132.

9
 Deep column members provided conformance
with story drift provisions required by code, in
keeping with the “strong-column/weak-beam”
approach.
Photo 6 shows long-span “Vierendeel” trusses
(no diagonal members) that were designed to
allow clerestory windows at each bay, allowing
exposed structural steel framing and providing
natural ventilation for the interior spaces, thus
Photo 6. Vierendeel trusses meeting LEED energy reduction requirements.
are being connected to Special moment frame beam-column connections
cruciform columns to form a were shop welded and field bolted using extended
transverse moment frame. end plate connections designed per “ANSI/AISC
358 Prequalified Connections for Special and
Intermediate Steel Moment Frames for Seismic Applications.” Prequalification of
the connections greatly simplified detailed connection design, and satisfied both
building officials, and independent peer reviewers. The completed project is shown in
Photo 7.

CONCLUSION
The structural steel design of the building is novel under any circumstances and
particularly for a building placed on a pier structure. This project was successfully
implemented on a phased basis and employed a variety of unusual engineering design
approaches and construction techniques to
construct a modern building on 100-year-
old pier, thereby extending the usefulness
of the aging infrastructure. These efforts
included use of a bonded structural deck
overlay to increase capacity, below water
testing of piles to establish flexural
capacity, and use of base isolation to
improve seismic performance and
modernize a structure that would not Photo 7. Port Pavilion at
otherwise comply with modern code Broadway Pier, completed
requirements. structure.

REFERENCES
California Building Standards Commission. (2007) “Marine Oil Terminal
Engineering Maintenance Standards (MOTEMS).” California Building Code
(CBC) Chapter 31F. California building code.
California Building Standards Commission. (2007) “Existing Structures.” California
Building Code (CBC) Section 3403.2. California building code.
American National Standards Institute. (2005) “ANSI/AISC 358 Prequalified
Connections for Special and Intermediate Steel Moment Frames for Seismic
Applications.”

10