Tier-1 Structural-Seismic Evaluation

Please find the following engineering report for the above-mentioned three-story commercial
property. The purpose of this report is to summarize a field survey, background research, and
preliminary structural analysis conducted on the building. The analysis addresses the seismic
resistance of the building, provides some background information, and recommends further
inspections. The report was authorized by StarGroup PCA and is based upon generally
accepted engineering principles and judgment. No warranties are expressed or implied, and no
tests, unless otherwise described, were conducted on any materials or soils.

Tier 1 ASCE-31-03 Structural/Seismic Evaluation

Background:

1. General Information:

(a) Date Report is completed 2008

(b) Building Address CA
(c) Name of Building Business Plaza
(d) The type of occupancy uses within Office, assembly at lobbies and
the building and the occupant corridors. 27,000 square-feet.
loads
(e) The number of residential, 10
commercial and other units in the
building
(f) The dates of original design, 1974
construction, additions, or
substantial structural alterations (if
known) of the building.
 (g) The name of the original designer Name : Phone Number
and contractor (if known), the
name and address of the designer
or contractor for any subsequent
additions or substantial structural
alterations.
(h) Affirmation of whether or not the Not Available
original building plans are
available and name and address of
person who has the plans.

2. Summary of Existing Conditions

The three-story reinforced concrete masonry (CMU) building was investigated using the criteria
of Tier 1 ASCE/SEI Standard 31-03 Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings (ASCE, 2003). This
standard was used for establishing potential seismic hazards. Evaluation of the basic structural
load bearing system is also included in this section. For specific design issues and code history,
the SEAONC document Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation and Rehabilitation of ... Rigid Wall
Flexible Diaphragm Structures (Structural Engineers Association of Northern California, 2001)
was referenced. Finally, demand-capacity comparisons were made using the baseline working
stress standards of the 2001 California Building Code (1997 UBC) (ICBO, 2001), which is
referenced in Table 3-1 of the aforementioned ASCE Standard.

Original Plans were not available for the building; however, an extensive mechanical system
upgrade was recently completed, which provides us with the general outline of the structure.
Inspections were made of several framing connections at the ground floor to establish
construction details.

The vertical load carrying system consists of 2x14 Douglas fir joists spaced at 16-inch on center
(o.c.). approximately 18 feet spanning to W 18 wide flange steel beams supported at
approximately 23 feet by 6-inch diameter steel pipe columns. The beams are bearing upon a 3/8-
inch steel cover plate and fastened through the bottom flange with 4-5/8-inch diameter square nut
bolts. Along the perimeter of the building, the ledger consists of channel or bent plate with
embedded bolts spaced at 16-inch o.c.. The subflooring and floor diaphragms consist of plywood
sheathing. The ceilings consist of wire-tied T-bar dropped ceiling panels without compression
strut bracing. The underside of the floor structure is sheathed with taped gypsum board sheathing
for fire protection. Likely reinforced masonry bearing walls exist at the perimeter and some
interior locations within the building, which provide support for the floor joists, elevator, etc.
Metal header beams are used to support the glazing and claddings surrounding the window
openings. A decorative mansard occurs between the CMU shear panels

Engineering Analysis Report Page 2

The lateral load resisting system and perimeter walls consist of 12-inch thick slump stone
masonry block units that appear to be performing well. The floor diaphragms consist of blocked
plywood. The diaphragms tie into the walls through a perimeter nailer that is anchored to the
ledger or rim beam. Mechanical wall anchors were not found, but blocking to develop the nails
was found occurring at 9-foot, 3-inch o.c. Inspection of the perimeter and interior wall surfaces
indicated little cracking. Based upon the date of the building, the masonry should be reinforced
with steel bars into fully grouted cells. The masonry was observed being attached to a perimeter
metal channel or bent plate with the aforementioned ¾-inch diameter bolts that contained a 3x14
in the plate’s web. Metal header beams are used to support the glazing and claddings surrounding
the window openings.

The foundation system could not be determined by the geotechnical inspector. We had observed
that the surrounding soils and paving had settled relative to the structure, indicating that the
building may have been constructed using drilled piers and grade beams that could explain the
resistance to vertical movement or settling. Asphalt paving had shown longitudinal cracking
parallel to the streambed, which may indicate ongoing soil creep or instability. The existence of a
nearby creek and steep embankments show that the building site may have been impacted by the
soils, perhaps requiring the use of a deepened foundation system. A large culvert structure and
retaining wall was found near the building site; however, the proximity of the culvert to the
nearest perimeter foundation was not accurately determined.

Inspection of potentially hazardous non-structural elements indicated a dropped T-bar ceiling that
is wire-tied to the floor system; however, compression strut reinforcing was not noted. The
integrated florescent lighting fixtures did have some independent vertical and lateral support but
lacked compression struts. An emergency lighting system was also not noticed during the
inspection. The non-structural partitions have independent support from 7- or 3-gage metal bent
plate diagonal struts. The mechanical system had recently been replaced; therefore, would
conform to the baseline standards for seismic resistance. A sprinkler system was not found;
therefore, anchorages of the fire and smoke suppression systems were not observed. The stair
system was found to be adequately connected and should be able to accommodate the expected
minimal seismic drift due to the inherent stiffness of the adjoining masonry walls.

3. Conclusions and Recommendations

A preliminary lateral force analysis was conducted of the building in order to identify significant
structural deficiencies and to propose areas for further analysis or retrofit work. Checklists
provided in the aforementioned ASCE 31 documents were used to identify potential
seismic/structural deficiencies.

1) The building was constructed in 1974 and should comply with the 1973 UBC. This Code,
adopted after the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake, required continuous ties across the
building structure and did not allow wood ledgers to be attached without ties to the
masonry. This code identified cross grain tension weaknesses of wood ledgers that had
been commonly used in this type of construction. Therefore, since the building is
constructed using metal ledgers, the failure of the ledger in cross grain tension can be
ruled out. Additionally, the continuity of the floor beam ties across the building should
provide good seismic resistive capacity to develop out of plane seismic forces into the
plywood diaphragm.

Engineering Analysis Report Page 3

 2) Based upon the construction date, the minimum reinforcing for the walls should conform
to the 2001 CBC. This can be further verified through testing. Additional steel was found
to be needed in our preliminary analysis. Such steel may also be found from the survey
that could verify the calculated requirement for additional wall reinforcement.

3) The wall lateral forces are about 25% of today’s (ASCE 2003) stringent requirement.
Therefore, in comparison to the current standard, the amount of ties anchoring the
masonry is deficient by approximately 75%. In other words, four times as many ties are
now used to anchor the 12-inch masonry to the floor and roof diaphragms. Some
additional wall anchors may be recommended.

4) The numerous 12-inch thick masonry shear walls indicate adequate shear strength for a
building of this size and shape. However, a calculation indicated that high shear exists in
these walls and their capacity should be checked. The weight of the shear walls will be
effective in reducing much of the overturning forces. However, a strong, local origin
earthquake could cause uplift demands in some to the shear walls. Therefore, it is
recommended that further study and testing be conducted to determine the contribution of
the existing steel to resist overturning caused by such strong local earthquakes.

5) The foundation type has not been determined by the survey or review of available
documents. There is a site hazard consisting of a deep streambed, which could fail under
the expected seismic event.

6) Non-structural elements such as the T-bar ceilings and integrated florescent lighting
fixtures should be enhanced with compression strut bracing.

4. Proposed Upgrade/Corrective Work

Based upon the analysis the following options for seismic upgrading are recommended:

a) Provide a radiographic inspection of the perimeter walls to verify the location of

reinforcing steel in the boundary and within the wall panels.

b) Provide a GPR survey of the foundation and site to determine the type and depth of the
existing foundation and the location of the culvert. Evaluate the foundation system for
seismic vulnerability using this survey data.

c) Prepare a detailed lateral force analysis of the building to determine the demand capacity
rations for all of the existing wall elements and evaluation of the foundation system.
Investigate the reentrant corner to determine localized diaphragm demands. Provide
additional recommendations for retrofit.

d) Provide specification for the remedial work for the T-bar ceiling and lighting system.
Investigate the attachment of the cladding and the mansard roof tile. Provide
recommendations for the attachment and support of the tiles and cladding, if found to be
loose.

Engineering Analysis Report Page 4