HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-27-2020 Board Item 9_Seismic Evaluation - Volume 2Prepared for:
Orange County Sanitation District
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, CA 92708-7018
(714)593-7803
Project Report
PS15-06 Seismic Evaluation of Structures
at Plants 1 and 2
Prepared by:
2100 Main Street, Suite 150
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Telephone: (714) 969-0800
Fax (714) 969-0820
www.geosyntec.com
In Association with:
Project Number: HL1635
July 19, 2019
Volume 2
HL1635\PS15-06 Geosyntec Project Report - FINAL 7/19/2019
APPENDIX D
Seismic Evaluation Criteria
Prepared for:
Orange County Sanitation District
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, CA 92708-7018
(714) 593-7803
Excerpt From Technical Memorandum 1
PS15-06 Seismic Evaluation of Structures
at Plants 1 and 2
Prepared by:
2100 Main Street, Suite 150
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Telephone: (714) 969-0800
Fax (714) 969-0820
www.geosyntec.com
In Association with:
Project Number: HL1635
Revised August 14, 2018 (Originally Issued October 31, 2017)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix D 1
HL1635\PS15-06 Geosyntec TM1 Section 1.3.2 5/13/2019
4.3.2 Seismic Evaluation Criteria
Defining the seismic evaluation criteria is the first step in the evaluation process. It sets
the stage for the execution of the evaluation work. This step involves the selection of a
performance objective, definition of building performance levels, and the definition of
the seismic hazard levels. The proposed evaluation criteria are summarized in Table 4.1.
The purpose of the PS15-06 project is to establish an understanding of seismic risk and
develop mitigation options that reduce the overall risk. The mitigation options, together
with the associated retrofits, will help the District make risk-informed decisions for the
implementation of the mitigation projects, and incorporation of these projects within the
Facilities Master Plan (FMP). Therefore, the general approach for the PS15-06 project is
to use a performance-based assessment methodology (and not a code compliance check)
that uses rational engineering concepts, which may or may not strictly meet specific
design code and evaluation standard requirements.
The ASCE 41-13 evaluation standard is selected as the overall methodology for this
project. The ASCE 41-13 specifically addresses building structures and will be applied
directly for the assessment of building structures. Although the assessment methodology
for liquid-containing structures is not explicitly included in ASCE41-13, the conceptual
methodology from the standard can be applied to such structures. This performance-based
assessment methodology, supplemented by ACI 350.3 (for reinforced concrete liquid-
containing structures) and API 650 (for the steel gas holders), will be applied.
4.3.2.1 Performance Objective
The structures to be evaluated are categorized as being either Class I or Class II, according
to their operational criticality. The following is a description of the facility classes used
in this evaluation:
Class I: Structures that are essential to the maintenance of wastewater flow and
treatment. Loss of service would create a major impact on OCSD's ability to
operate the treatment plant. Damage to these structures can also result in a health
hazard to the public with sewage back-up or spillage. Structural repairs should
be minor and not inhibit the occupancy or use of the structure.
Class II: Structures that are not directly necessary for maintaining wastewater
flow through the system. Loss of service would not result in immediate
wastewater back-up or spillage. Repairs can be deferred.
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix D 2
HL1635\PS15-06 Geosyntec TM1 Section 1.3.2 5/13/2019
The building code uses risk categorization to distinguish criticality. While the building
code is not being applied for this evaluation, for the sake of comparison, the Class I
structures would be considered to be Risk Category IV, and Class II structures would be
considered to be Risk Category II, according to the definitions set forth in the 2016
California Building Code (current building code). A summary of each structure’s Class
and Risk Category is provided in Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 for Plant 1 and Plant 2,
respectively.
ASCE41-13 has a two-fold performance objective that establishes building performance
levels for different seismic hazards. For example, a typical two-fold performance
objective for a critical building might be meeting the immediate occupancy performance
level for the 225-year return period earthquake ground motions and meeting the life safety
performance level for the 975-year return period earthquake ground motions. Similarly,
the two-fold performance objective for liquid-containing structures is prevention of
leakage for the 225-year return period ground motions, and collapse prevention or
repairable damage performance level for the 975-year return period ground motions.
Selection of a performance objective establishes the building performance levels and the
seismic hazard levels that will be applied in the evaluation for each structure, as shown
in Table 4-1.
Section 9.4 of ACI 350.3 includes an importance factor (I) for liquid-containing structures
to incorporate conservatism depending on use. For example, I = 1.5 is required for tanks
containing hazardous materials, I = 1.25 for tanks for post-earthquake emergency, and
I = 1.0 for all other tanks. For liquid-containing structures included in this study,
consideration to the importance of the structure will be included in the incorporation of
projects in the FMP. Therefore, I = 1.0 will be used for the seismic assessment of such
structures. Consideration to performance objectives such as crack control will be included
in the over-strength and inelastic energy absorption factors (m-factors in ASCE 41-13).
4.3.2.2 Building Performance Levels
Building performance levels include both structural and non-structural performance
levels. The structural performance levels defined in ASCE 41-13 are as follows:
S-1: Immediate Occupancy;
S-2: Damage Control;
S-3: Life Safety;
S-4: Limited Safety; and
S-5: Collapse Prevention.
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix D 3
HL1635\PS15-06 Geosyntec TM1 Section 1.3.2 5/13/2019
A qualitative description of the post-earthquake damage patterns for the various structural
performance levels for a selection of a few of the seismic-force resisting systems pertinent
to the study are provided in Table 4.4.
Non-structural performance levels defined in ASCE 41-13 are as follows:
N-A: Operational;
N-B: Position Retention;
N-C: Life Safety; and
N-D: Not considered.
The scope of the seismic evaluation includes a determination of whether the subject
structures meet their prescribed structural performance levels for the defined hazard level
and whether the nonstructural performance level for a limited set of nonstructural
components is met. Those nonstructural components are limited to the following
appurtenances:
Parapets;
Ornaments;
Facades; and
Cantilevered overhangs or canopies.
While other nonstructural components, such as ceilings, pipe supports, and equipment
supports are not being evaluated as part of this study in themselves, their contribution to
the seismic load and effect on the seismic performance of the structures is being
accounted for. For example, the dead load of equipment will contribute to the lateral load
demand applied to the structure or a relatively flexible piece of equipment that is
sufficiently rigid and heavy may impart impact loads to a building wall. Such effects will
be considered in the evaluation of the structures.
4.3.2.3 Seismic Hazard Level
Earthquake ground motion levels BSE-1E and BSE-2E, which represent 20% probability
of exceedance in 50 years (equivalent return period of 225 years) and 5% probability of
exceedance in 50 years (equivalent return period of 975 years), respectively, will be used
for the assessment of all structures included in this study. The use of a consistent hazard
level for the assessment of all plant structures included in this study will provide a
consistent assessment for risk reduction. For a more detailed discussion regarding the
seismic hazard levels considered for this evaluation, refer to Section 2.1.2 of this report.
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix D 4
HL1635\PS15-06 Geosyntec TM1 Section 1.3.2 5/13/2019
4.3.2.4 Liquid Containing Structures Performance Levels
The selected performance levels for liquid containing structures are also presented in
Table 4-1. As performance levels for liquid containing structures are not identified in
ASCE 41-13, descriptions of these performance levels were developed and are presented
below.
Seismic Hazard Level BSE-1E – 20% in 50 Years
Structural Performance Level – Immediate Occupancy: This performance level is
similar to Immediate Occupancy Structural Performance Level (S-1) of ASCE
41-13. This performance level means that post-earthquake damage is minor. The
structure maintains most of its pre-earthquake strength and stiffness and its
primary function of water retention. Although some post-earthquake repair might
be needed, these repairs would not be such as to prevent the primary function of
the structure.
Non-Structural Performance Level – Position Retention: This performance level
is similar to the Position Retention performance level as described in ASCE
41-13. This performance level means that in the post-earthquake damage state
damage to piping and mechanical systems is such that they cannot immediately
function. However, damage is such that primary objective of water retention is
maintained (for example, flexible piping connection or valves). The overall
impact of damage to piping and mechanical systems is not being addressed as part
of this study.
Seismic Hazard Level BSE-2E – 5% in 50 Years
Structural Performance Level – Life Safety: This performance level is generally
similar to the Enhanced Safety Structural Performance Range of ASCE 41-13 and
refers to a damage state between Immediate Occupancy Structural Performance
Level and Life Safety Structural Performance Level (closer to Life Safety
Performance Level). This performance level means that in the post-earthquake
state there is significant damage to the structure, which could result in significant
leakage, but the damage is not such that it results in complete loss of containment.
Post-earthquake damage may need immediate attention (reduction in water level
and crack repair) to minimize environmental impact from significant release of
wastewater. However, damage is not such that the structure is at a risk of imminent
collapse.
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix D 5
HL1635\PS15-06 Geosyntec TM1 Section 1.3.2 5/13/2019
Non-Structural Performance Level – Not Considered: At the BSE-2E seismic
level there could be substantial damage to piping and wastewater conveyance
systems. The overall impact of damage to piping and mechanical systems is not
being addressed as part of this study.
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix D 6
HL1635\PS15-06 Geosyntec TM1 Section 1.3.2 5/13/2019
TABLES
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix D 7
Table 4.1. Seismic Evaluation Criteria
OCSD PS15-06
Huntington Beach, California
BSE-1E (20% in 50 yrs) Immediate Occupancy (S-1)Position Retention (N-B)
BSE-2E (5% in 50 yrs) Life Safety (S-3)Not considered (N-D)
BSE-1E (20% in 50 yrs) Life Safety (S-3)Life Safety (N-C)
BSE-2E (5% in 50 yrs) Collapse Prevention (S-5)Not considered (N-D)
BSE-1E (20% in 50 yrs)Immediate Occupancy (S-1)Position Retention (N-B)
BSE-2E (5% in 50 yrs)Life Safety (S-3)Not considered (N-D)
IBuilding
Building II
Non-building (liquid-
containing structures)I
Structure Type Class Seismic Hazard Level
Non-structural Performance
LevelStructural Performance Level
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix D 8
Table 4.2. Structure Classes for Plant 1(1)
OCSD PS15-06
Fountain Valley, California
1-1 Waste Sludge Thickeners (DAFT) Pump Room 1 B I IV
1-2 Blower Building (AS1) and PEPS 1 B I IV
1-3 Plant Water Pump Station and Power Building 6 1 B I IV
1-4 City Water Pump Station 1 B I IV
1-5 Power Building 2 1 B I IV
1-6 Power Building 4 1 B I IV
1-7 Power Building 5 1 B I IV
1-8 Control Center 1 B I IV
1-9 12 kV Service Center 1 B I IV
1-10 Central Power Generation Building 1 B I IV
1-11 Aeration Basins 1-10 1 LCS I IV
1-12 Secondary Clarifiers 1-26 1 LCS I IV
1-13 Digester 5 1 LCS I IV
1-14 Digester 5 Pump Room 1 B I IV
1-15 Digester 6 1 LCS I IV
1-16 Digester 7 1 LCS I IV
1-17 Digester 7 Pump Room 1 B I IV
1-18 Digester 8 1 LCS I IV
1-19 Digester 9-10 1 LCS I IV
1-20 Digester 9-10 Pump Room 1 B I IV
1-21 Digesters 11-16 1 LCS I IV
1-22 Digesters 11-16 Pump Room 1 1 B I IV
1-23 Digesters 11-16 Pump Room 2 1 B I IV
1-24 Gas Holder 1 GST I IV
1-25 Effluent Junction Box 1 LCS I IV
1-26 Solids Storage Facility 1 B II II
1-27 Chiller Building 1 B II II
1-28 Warehouse Building 1 B II II
1-29 Shop Building A 1 B II II
1-30 Shop Building B and Building 3 1 B II II
1-31 Buildings 5 and 6 1 B II II
1-32 Auto Shop 1 B II II
1-33 PEDB2 1 LCS I IV
1-34 Central Laboratory 1 B I IV
NOTES:(1) Table was updated after the issuance of Technical Memorandum 1.
(2) Structure Groups are as follows:
B = Building
LCS = Liquid-Containing Structure
GST = Gas Storage Tank
ID Number Structure Name Plant Class Risk CategoryStructure Group(2)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix D 9
Table 4.3. Structure Classes for Plant 2(1)
OCSD PS15-06
Huntington Beach, California
2-1 DAFT A, B, & C Gallery 2 B I IV
2-2 DAFT D Gallery & WSSPS 2 LCS I IV
2-3 RAS PS East 2 B I IV
2-4 RAS PS West 2 B I IV
2-5 PEPS & MAC 2 B I IV
2-6 Operations/Control Center Bldg 2 B I IV
2-7 12 kV Service Center 2 B I IV
2-8 Power Building B 2 B I IV
2-9 Power Building C 2 B I IV
2-10 Power Building D 2 B I IV
2-11 City Water Pump Station 2 B I IV
2-12 12 kV Distribution Center B 2 B I IV
2-13 12 kV Distribution Center D 2 B I IV
2-14 Headworks Power Bldg A 2 B I IV
2-15 Headworks Power Bldg B 2 B I IV
2-16 Headworks Standby Power Building 2 B I IV
2-17 Central Power Generation Building 2 B I IV
2-18 Aeration Basins A-H 2 LCS I IV
2-19 Gas Holder 2 GST I IV
2-20 Secondary Clarifiers A-L 2 LCS I IV
2-21 DAFTs A-C 2 LCS I IV
2-22 DAFT D 2 LCS I IV
2-23 Surge Tower No. 1 2 LCS I IV
2-24 Surge Tower No. 2 2 LCS I IV
2-25 NOT USED 2
2-26 Truck Loading 2 B/LCS II II
2-27 Maintenance Building 2 B II II
2-28 Boiler Building 2 B II II
2-29 OOBS 2 B I IV
2-30 12kV Distribution Center A 2 B I IV
2-31 SEJB - Geotechnical Only 2 LCS I IV
2-32 JBC - Geotechnical Only 2 LCS I IV
NOTES:(1) Table was updated after the issuance of Technical Memorandum 1.
(2) Structure Groups are as follows:
B = Building
LCS = Liquid-Containing Structure
GST = Gas Storage Tank
ID Number Structure Name Plant Class Risk CategoryStructure Group(2)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix D 10
Table 4.4. Structural Performance Levels and Illustrative Damage
OCSD PS15-06
Huntington Beach, California
Collapse Prevention (S-5)Life Safety (S-3)Immediate Occupancy (S-1)
Concrete Walls Primary elements
Major flexural or shear cracks and voids.
Sliding at joints. Extensive crushing and
buckling of reinforcement. Severe
boundary element damage.
Some boundary element cracking and
spalling and limited buckling of
reinforcement. Some sliding at joints.
Damage around openings. Some
crushing and flexural cracking.
Minor diagonal cracking of walls.
Drift
Transient drift sufficient to cause
extensive nonstructural damage.
Extensive permanent drift.
Transient drift sufficient to cause
nonstructural damage. Noticeable
permanent drift.
Transient drift that causes minor or no
nonstructural damage. Negilgilbe
permanent drift.
Reinforced Masonry Walls Primary elements
Crushing; extensive cracking. Damage
around openings and at corners. Some
fallen units.
Major cracking distributed throughout
wall. Some isolated crushing.Minor cracking. No out-of-plane offsets.
Drift
Transient drift sufficient to cause
extensive nonstructural damage.
Extensive permanent drift.
Transient drift sufficient to cause
nonstructural damage. Noticeable
permanent drift.
Transient drift that causes minor or no
nonstructural damage. Negilgilbe
permanent drift.
Precast Concrete Walls Primary elements
Some wall connection failures, but no
wall elements dislodged.
Local crushing and spalling at wall
connections, but no gross failure of
connections.
Minor working and cracking at
connections.
Drift
Transient drift sufficient to cause
extensive nonstructural damage.
Extensive permanent drift.
Transient drift sufficient to cause
nonstructural damage. Noticeable
permanent drift.
Transient drift that causes minor or no
nonstructural damage. Negilgilbe
permanent drift.
Foundations General
Significant settlement and tilting of
buildings with shallow foundations or
buildings on liquefiable soils.
Localized settlement of buildings with
shallow foundations.Minor settlement and neglibilble tilting.
Seismic Force Resisting
System Type Structural Performance Levels
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix D 11
HL1635\PS15-06 Geosyntec Project Report - FINAL 7/19/2019
APPENDIX E
Structure Summary Sheets
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
WASTE SLUDGE THICKENERS (DAFT) PUMP ROOM
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +24 ft-MSLAWL 13 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-1
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type: Basement at 11.33’ elev. (17.67’ embedment); driven – PPC piles
(12” SQ, 50’ total)
Structure Dimensions: 150 ft x 64 ft
# of Stories: 1 above grade, 1 below grade
Date of Original Construction: 1973
Retrofit (if any): Remodeled in 1994
Projects: P1-16, P1-36-2
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☒ Geotechnical Report
☒Specifications ☐Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 7 to 8 7 to 8
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 31 to 56 27 to 46 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 15 to 27 13 to 22
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): Digester 16
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 2: Wall anchorage to the roof at east and west walls of the north building T1
Check of the eave beam to span horizontally across the width of the building. The
actual roof connections will have DCR’s > 1.0. It is recommended that wall
anchorage be added to the east and west walls.
PFM 3: Roof diaphragm shear at the north
building T2 Excessive shear demands at the north building, which has a 4.5-inch deep steel
deck (low shear capacity).
PFM 4: Discontinuous shear walls at the interior of the south building in the north-south direction (@ grid lines 3 and 5) T1
The transverse CMU walls at grid lines 4 and 5 of the north building and walls at
grid lines 3 and 5 of the south building are discontinuous. Provide ties to adjacent
concrete walls that occur between grids C and D.
Sand/Silty Sand
Sand/Silty Sand
Clay with Silt Seams
Sand/Silty Sand
Piles
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 1
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PFM 7: Bending/shear failure of piles due
to lateral spread (surface PGD = 27-inches) T1/2 23.3” (estimate of spread at pile head) lateral spread toward the Santa Ana River.
DCR is the near pile top displacement over pile top displacement at yield (3.5”).
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 7: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
70% (surface PGD = 8-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 2: Standard Structural Mitigation A1 $150,000 N/A
PFM 3: Standard Structural Mitigation B1 $560,000 Existing roof deck is 4.5-inch deep diaphragm with no concrete topping. Replace entire roof diaphragm.
PFM 4: Provide steel beam or channel ties for the full width of the
building (40-ft) that are epoxied into the bottom side of the first
floor to drag loads into the existing shear walls between grid lines C
and D.
$130,000 N/A
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $840,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation, see Note 3)
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class 5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only; 3. Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation. Refer to TM4
(Geosyntec, 2019) for additional detail.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☒ Lateral Spread Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking: LoSF Rating: __5__ CoSF, Weighted Score : __3__ Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = __15__
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: X-043 (07/01/2029)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 2
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
BLOWER BUILDING (AS1) AND PEPS
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +22.5 ft-MSL AWL 11.5 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-2
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type: Basement at 14.17’ elev. (13.33’ embedment); driven – PPC piles
(12” SQ, 50’ total)
Structure Dimensions: 201 ft x 66 ft
# of Stories: 1 above grade, 1 below grade
Date of Original Construction: 1973
Retrofit (if any): Remodeled in 1993, 1995, and 1998; 1998: Strengthening of roof-to-
wall anchorage at the north and south walls of the PEPS roof, lateral bracing of a
raised concrete platform at PEPS, and connection of the precast wall panels.
Projects: P1-16 / P1-36-1 / P1-36-2 / P1-44-4
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☒ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 6 to 10 5 to 7 Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 10 to 25 6 to 15 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 8 to 19 5 to 11
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): Digester 16
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 2: Wall anchorage to the roof at the north and south walls of the Blower Building T1 Check of the W33x connections at pilasters (10 locations). Transfer of wall anchorage force relies on a 1” weld (not clear what kind of weld) every 12 inches. For mitigation, it is assumed the load path in the diaphragm is deficient as well.
PFM 3: Wall anchorage to the roof at
the north and south walls of the PEPS
Building
T1 The north and south walls of PEPS were retrofit as part of the P1-44-4 project (22
locations).
PFM 4: Wall anchorage to the roof at
the east and west walls of the PEPS
Building
T1 Check of the W27x connections at pilasters (4 locations). Transfer of loads into the
diaphragm appear to be minimal.
Sand/Silty Sand
Piles
Clay with Silt Seam
Sand/Silty Sand
Sand/Silty Sand
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 3
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PFM 5: Roof diaphragm shear T2 Excessive shear demands at the 7.5-inch deep steel deck (low shear capacity).
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 2: Standard Structural Mitigation A2 (High) $650,000 W33x connections at pilasters (10 locations).
PFM 3: Standard Structural Mitigation A1 (SIM) $400,000 Similar to A1 without the supplemental roof
framing (22 locations).
PFM 4: Standard Structural Mitigation A2 (High) $250,000 W27x connections at pilasters (4 locations).
PFM 5: Standard Structural Mitigation B1 $800,000 Existing roof deck is 7.5-inch deep steel deck
without any concrete topping. Applies over the
Blower Room only.
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $2,100,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☒ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☒ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: __5__
CoSF, Weighted Score : __4__ Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = __20__
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: X-048 (09/01/2023)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 4
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PLANT WATER PUMP STATION AND POWER BLDG 6
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +22.5 ft-MSL AWL 11.5 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-3
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type: Basement at 9’ elev. (18.50’ embedment); driven – PPC piles (12”
SQ, 52’ total)
Structure Dimensions: 110 ft x 64 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1963
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P1-34-2
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 6 to 7 4 to 5
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 44 to 72 18 to 22 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 26 to 42 11 to 13
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): Digester 16
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 2: Wall anchorage to the roof at
east and west walls T1 Roof beam anchorage at the east and west walls is subject to pullout of the anchors at the tops of the pilasters, which can destabilize the W24x94 roof beams (8 locations).
PFM 3: Drag connection at the re-
entrant corner
T1
The W12x35 roof beam connection at the re-entrant corner is not detailed to resist the diaphragm reaction at the shear wall in the north-south direction. This is not a Life Safety check and the beam has bearing within the wall, so collapse of the beam is not anticipated.
Sand/Silty Sand
Clay with Silt Seam
Sand/Silty Sand
Sand/Silty Sand
Piles
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 5
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PFM 6: Bending/shear failure of piles
due to lateral spread (surface PGD =
40-inches)
T1/2 32” (estimate at pile head) lateral spread toward Santa Ana River. DCR is the near pile
top displacement over pile top displacement at yield (3.5”).
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
m itigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 6: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
80% (surface PGD = 8-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 2: Standard Structural Mitigation A2 (Medium) $300,000 Wall anchorage mitigation at W24x94 roof beams (8 locations).
PFM 3: Provision of a steel channel or similar shape that is epoxied
into the 10 feet of the existing wall along grid line 2 and tied to the
existing steel W12x35 with welded or bolted connections.
$120,000 Assumes that existing steel beam connections to
the north are adequate (6) ¾-inch diameter bolts
in tension.
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $420,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation, see Note 3)
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only; 3. Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for additional detail.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☒ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: __5__
CoSF, Weighted Score : __2__ Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = __10__
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: X-039 (12/30/2033)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 6
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
CITY WATER PUMP STATION
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +22.5 ft-MSL AWL 11.5 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-4
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type: Shallow spread foundation at-grade
Structure Dimensions: 62 ft x 40 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1989
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P1-34-1
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 6 to 7 4 to 5 Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 44 to 72 18 to 22
Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 26 to 42 11 to 13
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): N/A
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 1: Footings move independent of the wall T1 Walls have no structural tie between the wall and the floor slab. Building wall can move laterally toward the Santa Ana River relative to the rest of the building (204 ft).
PFM 3: Wall anchorage at east and
west walls T1 Anchorage at W24x131 to pilasters (6 locations).
PFM 4: In-plane shear at south pier between louvers T3 Primarily a ground shaking hazard.
PFM 5: Out-of-plane horizontal bending at east and west walls due to ground shaking T3 Tier 1 found horizontal wall reinforcing was less than the minimum. Tier 3 findings confirmed that horizontal bending is a vulnerability at pilasters and wall corners (8 locations).
PFM 6: Out-of-plane horizontal bending in east and west walls due to ground deformation T3 1.4” of differential settlement over 60 feet (8 locations).
Silty Sand
Spread Footings
Clay/Soft Clay with Sand Seams
Clay with Interbedded Sand Seams
Silty Sand
Clay with Sand Seams
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 7
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PFM 7: Tension failure in the CMU walls due to ground deformation T3 1.4” of differential settlement over 60 feet. Failures occur at the top of the wall. Governing pattern is transverse pattern with high point centered on building.
PFM 8: Tension failure in the concrete
stem wall due to ground deformation T3 1.4” of differential settlement over 60 feet. Failures occur at the top of the wall.
Governing pattern is transverse pattern with high point centered on building.
PFM 9: Lateral spread toward the
Santa Ana River (surface PGD = 18-
inches) T1/2
18” (near side) / 11” (far side) lateral spread can pull apart the building east wall/footing relative to the roof and the west wall because the floor slab is not tied to the wall/footing (204 ft). The slab has tensile strength to develop shear friction force
across the width of the building.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 7 & 8: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $1,200,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by
at least 50% (3/4” in 60 feet). Ground improvement for
settlement mitigation is required from 3 to 27 ft-bgs.
PFM 9: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 or per PFM 1 See Note 3 Mitigation required to reduce lateral spread by at least 50% (surface PGD = 9-inches) or mitigate per PFM 1.
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 1: Standard Structural Mitigation C1 $95,000 Walls have no structural tie between the wall and floor
slab. Mitigation required for 204 lineal feet.
PFM 3: Standard Structural Mitigation A2 (Low) $160,000 Anchorage at W24x131 to pilasters (6 locations).
PFM 4: Strengthen the existing wall by addition of a concrete
overlay that is doweled into the interior face of the wall and
extended above the wall pier as required. Wall overlay may be
limited to 6 inches in thickness to accommodate one layer of reinforcing. Shotcrete or form and pour in place are both viable
techniques.
$130,000 N/A
PFM 5 & 6: Standard Structural Mitigation D $205,000 To be applied at a spacing that reduces the horizontal
wall span by 50%.
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $1,790,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation, see Note 3)
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class 5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only; 3. Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation or mitigate per
PFM 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for additional detail.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☒ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: __5__ CoSF, Weighted Score : __2__ Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = __10__
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: X-038 (12/30/2028)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 8
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
POWER BUILDING 2
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +22.9 ft-MSL AWL 11.9 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-5
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type: Tunnel at 22.33’ elev. (5.57’ embed); dropped spread footings
Structure Dimensions: 50.3 ft x 42 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1963
Retrofit (if any): Remodeled in 1973, 1985, and 1996; Chord splices and steel braced
frames for the high roof.
Projects: P1-9 / P1-16 / P1-22 / P1-44-1
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 9 to 10 8 to 9
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 42 to 45 25 to 40 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 29 to 31 17 to 28
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 1-4 City Water Pump Station
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 1: Walls/footing are not tied
together T1 The walls can move independent of each other, which can result in structural
instability (408 feet).
PFM 2: Wall anchorage at the north
and south walls of the low roof T1
The original W12x27 beams are supported by steel columns in the masonry wall,
which are not tied into any reinforcing steel, so there is no load path for wall
anchorage (4 locations).
PFM 7: Tension failure in the CMU walls due to ground deformation
T1/2 3” over 60 feet (214% of exemplar). Building is similar in size and has larger wall
openings, which exacerbates tension failure in the walls.
Sand/Silty Sand
Clay
Sand/Silty Sand
Sand/Silty Sand with Silty Clay Seams
Sand/Silty Sand
Spread Footings
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 9
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PFM 8: Lateral spread toward the
Santa Ana River due to liquefaction T1/2
25” of lateral spread toward the Santa Ana River. Dropped wall footings are subject to high cantilevered bending. Stem wall has DCR > 2.0. This action is considered force-
controlled, so mitigation is required at any performance level. Also, walls have no ties
to the slab and separation can occur during spreading.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 7: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $2,790,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by at least 75% (3/4” in 60 feet).
Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 6 to 47 ft-bgs.
PFM 8: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
70% (surface PGD = 8-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 1: Standard Structural Mitigation C1 $145,000 Mitigation required over a length of 408 feet.
PFM 2: Standard Structural Mitigation A1 (SIM) $245,000 New wall anchorage required at 4 locations where
the original W12x27 beams are supported at the
CMU walls. Similar, with no additional roof
framing members required.
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $3,180,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation, see Note 3)
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only; 3. Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation. Refer to TM4
(Geosyntec, 2019) for additional detail.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☒ Differential Settlement
☒ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking: LoSF Rating: __3__ CoSF, Weighted Score : __2__
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = __6 _
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 10
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
POWER BUILDING 4
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5 ft-bgs +23.5 ft-MSL AWL 12.5 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-6
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type: Basement (partial) with tunnel at 15.50’ elev. (13.00’ embedment);
dropped spread footings
Structure Dimensions: 44 ft x 31.3 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1985
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P1-22
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 5 to 6 3 to 5
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 2-5 PEPS & MAC
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 3: Incomplete load path at the
north side of the high roof diaphragm T1 The north side of the high roof has no lateral load resisting elements to transfer shear forces down to the foundation. Steel bracing is required. Retrofit similar to Power Building C at Plant 2 is recommended.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Silty Sand
Silty Sand
Well Graded Sand
Sandy Silt and Silty Clay
Silty Clay
Basement + Spread Footings
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 11
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 3: Provide concentric X-braced frames at the existing louver
openings. Provide steel framed blocking at the roof level and weld
the roof deck to it. Provide a new steel member sill and anchor to
the top of the existing masonry wall with epoxy anchors.
$270,000 Mitigation required over a length of 31 feet.
Frames occur at 4 locations having bay sizes of 8-
ft long x 5-ft tall.
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $270,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 4
CoSF, Weighted Score: 2
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 8
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 12
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
POWER BUILDING 5
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +22.5 ft-MSL
AWL 11.5 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-7
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type: Basement with mat foundation at 12.33’ elev. (15.17’ embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 63.3 ft x 40 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1989
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P1-34-1
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 10 to 11 8 to 10 Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 13 to 17 10 to 13
Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 12 to 16 9 to 12
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 2-5 PEPS & MAC
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 2: Wall anchorage at the east and
west walls to the roof diaphragm T1
Roof beam anchorage at the east and west walls is subject to pullout of the anchors
at the tops of the pilasters, which can destabilize the W24x94 roof beams (8
locations).
PFM 5: Structure response to differential settlement due to liquefaction T1/2
2.7” of differential settlement over 60 feet. Differential settlement is nearly the same
as the exemplar. Walls have minimal amount of reinforcing steel and will likely
experience high overstress due to tension stress. Also, columns supporting the first
floor are subject to punching failure at the first floor.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Sand/Silty Sand
Clay with thin Silt and Sandy Silt Layers
Clay
Sand/Silty Sand with Silty Clay Seams
Sand/Silty Sand
Basement with Mat
Sand/Silty Sand
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 13
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 5: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B1 $1,170,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by 60% (1” in 60 feet). Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 12 to 46 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 2: Standard Structural Mitigation A2 (Low) $220,000 Wall anchorage mitigation at W24x94 roof beams
(8 locations).
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $1,390,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class 5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 2
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 10
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 14
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
CONTROL CENTER
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +23.5 ft-MSL AWL 12.5 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-8
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type: Basement with mat foundation at 13.00’ elev. (15.50’ embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 110 ft x 70 ft
# of Stories: 2 above grade, 1 below grade
Date of Original Construction: 1997 (?)
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: J-23-1
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 5 to 6 3 to 5 Lateral Spread (near river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 2-5 PEPS & MAC
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 2: Moment frame column anchorage is not adequate to resist seismic tension demands T2 The moment frame base plate connections have insufficient capacity to resist tension seismic forces. The weld of the column to the base plate and the base plate thickness were also found to be insufficient.
PFM 4: 2nd Floor diaphragm shear transfer T1 The 2nd floor diaphragm weld connections lack the capacity to develop the shear capacity of the diaphragm.
PFM 5: Moment frame connection
strength T2 Frame connections are pre-Northridge. 2nd floor frame connections at 48 locations do not meet the performance requirements (only BSE 1E was checked). BSE 2E will likely result in more frame locations that are deficient.
PFM 6: Moment frame panel zone
shear strength
T2 Panel zone within moment frame joints lack the shear capacity at 22 locations at the 2nd floor.
Silty Sand
Sandy Silt and Silty Clay
Silty Sand
Well Graded Sand
Silty Clay
Basement with Mat
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 15
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PFM 10: Moment frame beam flexure T2
Seven (7) beams (2 at the roof and 5 at the 2nd floor) have insufficient flexural
capacity to meet the IO performance level because the beams are unbraced over
their span.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 2, 4 - 6, and 10: Provide steel concentric braced frames from
the roof level down to the first floor. Braced frames should be either chevron or X braces and may be comprised of tube steel or buckling restrained braced frame members. Columns will require
strengthening at the basement level as required. Add supplemental
connections along collector lines with epoxy anchors installed
upward into the bottom of the 2nd floor. At roof level add puddle welds along collector lines as required.
$6,610,000 Braced frames required at 8 total bays over 2-
stories (16 frames). Will require interior demo and restoration of interior finishes.
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $6,610,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact Risk Ranking: LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 5
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 25
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 16
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
12kV SERVICE CENTER
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +22.5 ft-MSL
AWL 11.5 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-9
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type: Basement with mat foundation at 10.25’ elev. (17.25’ embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 70 ft x 40 ft
# of Stories: 1 above grade, 1 below grade
Date of Original Construction: 1989
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P1-34-2
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 10 to 12 9 to 11 Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 15 to 19 12 to 16
Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 13 to 17 11 to 14
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 2-5 PEPS & MAC
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 2: Wall anchorage to roof at east
and west walls T1
The steel roof deck is flexible and the span is parallel with the east and west walls,
which does not provide a rigid connection to the walls. The W24x84 connections will
be subject to the full wall anchorage force (8 locations).
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Basement with Mat Sand/Silty Sand
Clay with Sand Seam
Sand/Silty Sand
Sand Clay
Sand
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 17
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 2: Standard Structural Mitigation A2 (Low) $220,000 Wall anchorage mitigation at W24x84 roof beams (8 locations).
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $220,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☒ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 5
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 25
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 18
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
CENTRAL POWER GENERATION BUILDING
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +23 ft-MSL AWL 12 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-10
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type: Basement with mat foundation at 9.00’ elev. (19.00’ embedment);
driven – PPC piles (46’ long)
Structure Dimensions: 140 ft x 123 ft
# of Stories: 2 stories
Date of Original Construction: 1990
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: J-19-1
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☒ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☒ Other _Shop Drawings: Piles_______
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 10 to 11 8 to 10
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 12 to 15 8 to 9 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 10 to 12 7
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): Digester 16
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 1: Lack of lateral bracing along the east side
of the high roof diaphragm T1 The east side of the high roof (flexible diaphragm) lacks seismic bracing
(none provided).
PFM 2: Lack of lateral bracing along the west side of the low roof and 2nd floor at the basement level T1
The shear walls along the west side of the low roof and the second floor is
not continuous down to the foundation. The first-floor deck does not appear
to have been designed for this condition.
PFM 3: Insufficient lateral bracing along the west
side of the building T2
The shear walls along the west side of the building are minimal and lack
adequate capacity to resist the seismic loads of the building. The balance of the walls are compliant.
PFM 4: Wall anchorage at the high roof north and
south walls T1
The north and south walls use pilasters to brace the walls for out-of-plane
loads, but these same pilasters are not anchored to the roof framing. The
DCR reported is an estimate of what little capacity the deck provides to
resisting these loads. This is a significant deficiency at all performance levels.
PFM 5A: High roof diaphragm shear in roof deck T2 Excessive shear demands on the roof deck were estimated.
Sand/Silty Sand
Clay with thin Silt and Sandy Silt Layers
Clay
Sand/Silty Sand
Sand/Silty Sand with Silty Clay Seams
Sand/Silty Sand
Piles
Basement with Mat
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 19
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PFM 5B: High roof diaphragm shear in ledger anchor bolts T2 Anchor bolt shear is excessive at ledger angle anchorage to walls.
PFM 6A: Low roof diaphragm shear in roof deck T2 Excessive shear demands on the roof deck were estimated.
PFM 6B: Low roof diaphragm shear in ledger
anchor bolts T2 Anchor bolt shear is excessive at ledger angle anchorage to walls.
PFM 9: Out-of-plane bending on the buried walls
due to liquefied soil conditions T2 Performance is expected to experience some non-linear behavior and
exceeds performance threshold for IO.
PFM 10: Out-of-plane shear on the buried walls
due to liquefied soil conditions T2 Walls may experience shear stresses that are higher than their capacity.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 9 & 10: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation C $2,130,000 Mitigation required to reduce soil fluid density by 50% or preclude
liquefaction development in backfill altogether. Ground improvement
for lateral earth pressure reduction is required from 12 to 19 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 1: Standard Structural Mitigation E $200,000 Applies over 50 lineal feet x 5-ft tall window.
PFM 2: Provide 50 lineal feet of 12-inch thick cast-
in-place concrete shear wall at the basement level and upgrade first floor beams with steel channel tie
along the entire building length (140 feet) to serve
as a collector.
$590,000 Conduit and piping is suspended from the first floor deck along grid
line E. These would need to be removed and replaced or relocated.
PFM 3: Standard Structural Mitigation E $85,000 Applies over 24 lineal feet x 9-ft tall windows.
PFM 4: Standard Structural Mitigation A2 (High)
(SIM)
$610,000 Similar with new steel roof framing members. Provide at (6) locations.
PFM 5: Standard Structural Mitigation B1 and B2 $495,000 Replace the roof deck over 39% of the high roof (3,000 sf).
Supplement existing anchors at 20” OC (total of 90 epoxy anchors).
PFM 6: Standard Structural Mitigation B1 and B2 $300,000 Replace the roof deck over 20% of the low roof between grid lines 2 to 6 (1,000 sf). Supplement existing anchors at 20” OC (total of 60 epoxy anchors).
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $4,410,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class 5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☒ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking: LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 4
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 20
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: P1-127 (09/01/2027)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 20
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
AERATION BASINS 1-10
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +22.5 ft-MSL AWL 11.5 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-11
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type: Driven – PPC piles at 10.00’ elev. (17.50’ embedment, 12” SQ, 50’
long)
Structure Dimensions: 463.8 ft x 277.5 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1973
Retrofit (if any): Remodeled in 1985
Projects: P1-16 / P1-36-2
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☒ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 7 to 10 6 to 8
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 22 to 44 16 to 26 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 8 to 17 6 to 10
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): Digester 16
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
N/A
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Sand/Silty Sand
Clay with Silt Seam
Sand/Silty Sand
Sand/Silty Sand
Piles
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 21
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class 5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☒ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☒ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 0
CoSF, Weighted Score: 4
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 0
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 22
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
SECONDARY CLARIFIERS 1-26
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +22 ft-MSL
AWL 11 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-12
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type: Driven – PPC piles at 13.50’ elev. (13.50’ embedment, 12” SQ, 50’
long)
Structure Dimensions: 555 ft x 345 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1973 (1-14), 1996 (15-24) & 2005 (25-26)
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P1-16 / P1-36-2 / P1-82
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☒ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 7 to 8 6 to 8
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 40 to 57 38 to 56 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 7 to 10 6 to 9
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 2-20 Secondary Clarifiers A-L; 1-21A Digesters 13-16
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 6: Separation across expansion
joints due to lateral spread towards
the Santa Ana River
T1/2
The structure is divided into 9 blocks via 2 longitudinal and 2 transverse expansion joints. Different lateral spread displacement at different locations (range from 6 to 40
inches) will likely cause large separation of as much as 6-inches at the expansion
joints.
PFM 8: Failure of conveyor supporting
structure due to lateral spread
towards the Santa Ana River
T1/2 The conveyor supporting structures span over the longitudinal expansion gaps and will be subject to large deformations.
PFM 12: Bending/shear failure of piles
due to lateral spread T1/2 Bending moment in piles exceed ultimate capacity at around 24-inches of lateral
spread < best estimate PGD of up to 40 inches.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Sand/Silty Sand
Clay
Sand/Silty Sand
Sand/Silty Sand
Piles
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 23
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 6 & 12: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
at least 60% (surface PGD = 15-inches).
PFM 8: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
at least 60% (surface PGD = 15-inches). However,
damage to Clarifiers 25 is still likely. To reduced
likelihood of damage to Clarifier 25 lateral spread
displacement should be limited to half of this value (no more than 6 to 7 inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation, see Note 3)
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only; 3. Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation. Refer to TM4
(Geosyntec, 2019) for additional detail.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☐ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☒ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☒ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☒ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking: LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 4
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 20
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 24
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
DIGESTER 5
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +23 ft-MSL
AWL 12 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-13
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type: Driven – PPC piles at 24.92’ elev. (3.08’ embedment, 14” SQ, 60’
long)
Structure Dimensions: 90 ft diameter, 31 ft height, 19 inch wall thickness
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1958
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P1-2
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 10 to 11 8 to 10
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 16 to 19 10 to 11 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 14 to 16 9
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): Digester 11
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
N/A
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Sand/Silty Sand
Clay with thin Silt and Sandy Silt Layers Clay Sand/Silty Sand
Sand/Silty Sand with Silty Clay Seams
Sand/Silty Sand
Piles
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 25
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☒ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 0
CoSF, Weighted Score: 4
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 0
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 26
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
DIGESTER 5 PUMP ROOM
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +23.5 ft-MSL
AWL 12.5 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-14
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type: Dropped spread footings at 23.50’ elev. (5.00’ embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 30 ft x 29.5 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1958
Retrofit (if any): Remodeled in 1961 and 2009
Projects: P1-2 / P1-5
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 10 to 11 8 to 10 Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 14 to 17 9 to 10
Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 13 to 16 8 to 9
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 1-4 City Water Pump Station
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 1: Footings move independent of
the wall T1 Walls have no structural tie between the wall and the floor slab. Building wall can
move differentially from other walls (120 ft).
PFM 2: Insufficient separation from adjacent digesters T1 The roof deck of the digester pump room is separated from the walls of Digester 5 by 1-inch. Pounding of the roof deck into Digester 5 can occur.
PFM 3: Torsional response of roof diaphragm
T1 The roof diaphragm has shear walls on (3) sides, which will create a torsional
response and exacerbate pounding into Digester 5 wall.
Sand/Silty Sand
Clay with thin Silt and Sandy Silt Layers
Clay Sand/Silty Sand
Sand/Silty Sand with Silty Clay Seams
Sand/Silty Sand
Spread Footings
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 27
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PFM 5: Tension failure in the concrete
walls due to ground deformation T1/2
3.2” over 60 feet of differential settlement. Building is smaller than exemplar but has
shorter walls and a larger differential settlement. Response is estimated to be similar
to the exemplar.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 5: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $1,420,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by at least 50% (1-1/2” in 60 feet).
Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 5 to 42 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 1: Standard Structural Mitigation C1 $55,000 Provide over a length of 120 lineal feet.
PFM 2 & 3: Add cast-in-place concrete shear walls to brace the
building on the south side adjacent to Digester 5. Alternatively,
consider using the existing masonry wall inside the building and tie it
to the existing roof deck to transfer in-plane shear.
$145,000 Add about 12 feet of shear wall x 13.5 feet tall.
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $1,620,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class 5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☒ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact Risk Ranking: LoSF Rating: 3
CoSF, Weighted Score: 2
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 6
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 28
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
DIGESTER 6
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +23 ft-MSL
AWL 12 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-15
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type: Driven – PC piles at 24.07’ elev. (3.08’ embedment, 14” SQ,
unknown length)
Structure Dimensions: 90 ft diameter, 31 ft height, 22 inch wall thickness
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1961
Retrofit (if any): P1-100 project 2009
Projects: P1-5
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☒ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☒ Other _Shop Drawings: Steel dome__
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 10 to 11 8 to 10
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 13 to 16 9 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 11 to 14 8
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): Digester 11
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
N/A
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Sand/Silty Sand
Clay with thin Silt and Sandy Silt Layers
Clay Sand/Silty Sand
Sand/Silty Sand with Silty Clay Seams
Sand/Silty Sand
Piles (Unknown Length)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 29
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☒ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking: LoSF Rating: 0
CoSF, Weighted Score: 4
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 0
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 30
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
DIGESTER 7
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +23 ft-MSL
AWL 12 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-16
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type: Driven – STP piles at 23.32’ elev. (4.68’ embedment, 15.5” to 9.5”
dia., 45’ long)
Structure Dimensions: 90 ft diameter, 31 ft height, 22 inch wall thickness
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1963
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P1-9 / P1-35-1
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☒ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 10 to 12 9 to 10
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 25 to 33 19 to 29 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 19 to 25 15 to 22
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 1-21B Digester 11
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 10: Bending/shear failure of piles
due to lateral spread (surface PGD = 19
inches)
T1/2 Bending moment in piles exceed IO (BSE 1E) limit at 10-inches and LS (BSE 2E) limit at 15-inches.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Sand/Silty Sand
Clay with thin Silt and Sandy Silt Layers Clay
Sand/Silty Sand
Sand/Silty Sand with Silty Clay Seams
Sand/Silty Sand
Piles
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 31
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 10: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A1 or A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
at least 20% (surface PGD = 15-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation, see Note 3)
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only; 3. Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for additional detail.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☐ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☒ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☒ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 3
CoSF, Weighted Score: 4
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 12
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 32
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
DIGESTER 7 PUMP ROOM
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +22.6 ft-MSL AWL 11.6 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-17
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type: Tunnel with dropped spread footings at 19.50’ elev. (8.07’
embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 32 ft x 28.2 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1963
Retrofit (if any): Remodeled in 1969 and 2009
Projects: P1-9 / P1-14
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 10 to 12 9 to 10
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 22 to 29 17 to 26 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 20 to 27 16 to 24
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 1-4 City Water Pump Station
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 1: Footings move independent of
the wall T1 Walls have no structural tie between the wall and the floor slab. Building wall can
move differentially from other walls (120 ft).
PFM 2: Insufficient separation from
adjacent digesters T1 The roof deck of the digester pump room is separated from the walls of Digesters 7 and 8 by 1-inch. Pounding of the roof deck into the digesters can occur. Consider
adding independent braced frames or shear walls.
PFM 6: Differential lateral spread
between Digesters 7 and 8 due to
liquefaction
T1/2
Digesters 7 and 8 lateral spread is estimated to be 19”/14.5” and 18”/13.7”,
respectively. This can result in the Digesters moving into the joint and damaging the
building.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Sand/Silty Sand
Clay with thin Silt and Sandy Silt Layers
Clay
Sand/Silty Sand
Sand/Silty Sand with Silty Clay Seams
Sand/Silty Sand
Spread Footings
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 33
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 6: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A1 or A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
at least 50% (surface PGD = 9-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 1: Standard Structural Mitigation C1 $50,000 Provide over a length of 120 lineal feet.
PFM 2: Add cast-in-place concrete shear walls to brace the building
on the north and south sides.
$200,000 Add about 24 feet of shear wall x 13.5 feet tall.
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $250,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation, see Note 3)
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only; 3. Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation. Refer to TM4
(Geosyntec, 2019) for additional detail.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☒ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking: LoSF Rating: 3
CoSF, Weighted Score: 2
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 6
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 34
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
DIGESTER 8
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +22.6 ft-MSL AWL 11.6 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-18
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type: Driven – SPP piles at 23.32’ elev. (4.25’ embedment, 12.75” dia., 45’
long)
Structure Dimensions: 90 ft diameter, 31 ft height, 22 inch wall thickness
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1969
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P1-14 / P1-35-1
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 10 to 12 9 to 10
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 24 to 31 18 to 28 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 18 to 24 14 to 21
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 1-21B Digester 11
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 10: Bending/shear failure of piles due to lateral spread (surface PGD = 18
inches)
T1/2 Bending moment in piles exceed IO (BSE 1E) limit at 10-inches and LS (BSE 2E) limit at
15-inches.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Clay with thin Silt and Sandy Silt Layers
Sand/Silty Sand
Clay
Sand/Silty Sand
Sand/Silty Sand with Silty Clay Seams
Sand/Silty Sand
Piles
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 35
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 10: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A1 or A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
at least 15% (surface PGD = 15-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation, see Note 3)
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only; 3. Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation. Refer to TM4
(Geosyntec, 2019) for additional detail.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☐ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☒ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☒ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 3
CoSF, Weighted Score: 4
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 12
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 36
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
DIGESTER 9-10
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +22.7 ft-MSL
AWL 11.7 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-19
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type: Driven – PPC piles at 23.15’ elev. (4.51’ embedment, 12” SQ, 50’
long)
Structure Dimensions: 110 ft diameter, 32 ft height, 27 inch wall thickness
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1973
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P1-16 / P1-35-2
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☒ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☒ Other _Shop Drawings: Piles_______
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 10 to 12 9 to 10
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 55 to 72 40 to 64 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 28 to 37 20 to 33
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 1-21B Digester 11
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 10: Bending/shear failure of piles due to lateral spread (surface PGD = 40
inches)
T1/2 Bending moment in piles exceed IO (BSE 1E) limit at 10-inches and LS (BSE 2E) limit at
15-inches.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Sand/Silty Sand
Clay with thin Silt and Sandy Silt Layers
Clay
Sand/Silty Sand
Sand/Silty Sand and Silty Clay Seams
Sand/Silty Sand
Piles
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 37
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 10: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A1 or A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
at least 60% (surface PGD = 15-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation, see Note 3)
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only; 3. Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for additional detail.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☐ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☒ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☒ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 4
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 20
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 38
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
DIGESTER 9-10 PUMP ROOM
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +22.6 ft-MSL AWL 11.6 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-20
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type: Tunnel with dropped spread footings at 16.61’ elev. (10.96’
embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 55 ft x 40 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1963
Retrofit (if any): Remodeled in 2009
Projects: P1-16
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 10 to 12 9 to 10
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 38 to 50 29 to 45 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 27 to 36 21 to 32
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 1-4 City Water Pump Station
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 1: Footings move independent of
the wall T1 Walls have no structural tie between the wall and the floor slab. Building walls can
move differentially from other walls (140 ft).
PFM 2: Insufficient separation from
adjacent digesters T1
The roof deck of the digester pump room is separated from the walls of Digesters 9
and 10 by 1-inch. Pounding of the roof deck into the digesters can occur. Consider
adding independent braced frames or shear walls.
PFM 3: Torsional response of roof
diaphragm T1 The roof diaphragm has an irregular configuration of shear walls, which will create a
torsional response and exacerbate pounding into the digester walls.
PFM 4: Diaphragm connections at re-
entrant corner T1 The building has (1) re-entrant corner and the roof diaphragm has no detailing to
provide chord continuity or drag connections.
Sand/Silty Sand
Clay with thin Silt and Sandy Silt Layers
Clay
Sand/Silty Sand
Sand/Silty Sand with Silty Clay Seams
Sand/Silty Sand
Spread Footings
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 39
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PFM 7: Lateral spread toward the Santa Ana River due to liquefaction T1/2
29”/20.8” (near/far) lateral spread varies by 8.2 inches across the structure. Lateral
spread can pull apart the building walls because the floor slab is not tied to the
wall/footing (140 ft).
PFM 8: Differential lateral spread
between Digesters 9 and 10 due to
liquefaction
T1/2 Digesters 9 and 10 lateral spread is estimated to be 40”/20.4”. This can result in the Digesters moving into the joint and damaging the building.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 7 & 8: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A1 or A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by 70% (surface PGD = 9-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 1: Standard Structural Mitigation C1 $60,000 Provide over a length of 140 lineal feet.
PFM 2 & 3: Add cast-in-place concrete shear walls to brace the
building on the north side adjacent to Digester 10.
$180,000 Add about 16 feet of shear wall x 16 feet tall.
PFM 4: Provide stainless steel channel that is anchored to the
bottom side of the roof deck with epoxy anchors. The channel
should be provided over the full length of the building in the east-
west direction.
$100,000 Provide 54 lineal feet.
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $340,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation, see Note 3)
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class 5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only; 3. Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation. Refer to TM4
(Geosyntec, 2019) for additional detail.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☒ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking: LoSF Rating: 3
CoSF, Weighted Score: 2
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 6
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 40
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
DIGESTERS 13-16 (FRONT ROW)
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +22 ft-MSL
AWL 11 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-21A
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Driven – PPC piles at 22.67’ elev. (4.33’ embedment,
12” SQ, 52’ long)
Structure Dimensions: 110 ft diameter, 32 ft height, 27 inch wall thickness
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1989
Retrofit (if any): P1-100 project 2009
Projects: P1-34-3
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☒ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☒ Other _Shop Drawings: Piles__
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 9 to 11 8 to 10
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 42 to 58 35 to 52 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 21 to 29 17 to 26
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): N/A
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 10: Bending/shear failure of piles
due to lateral spread (surface PGD >
35-inches)
T3 Bending moment in piles exceed IO (BSE 1E) limit at 10-inches and LS (BSE 2E) limit at 15-inches.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Clay with thin Silt and Sandy Silt Layers
Silty Sand
Sand/Silty Sand Piles
Sand/Silty Sand with Silty Clay Seams
Sand/Silty Sand
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 41
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 10: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A1 or A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
at least 60% (surface PGD = 15-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation, see Note 3)
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only; 3. Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for additional detail.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☐ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☒ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☒ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 4
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 20
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 42
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
DIGESTERS 11-12 (BACK ROW)
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +22 ft-MSL
AWL 11 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-21B
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Driven – PPC piles at 22.67’ elev. (4.33’ embedment,
12” SQ, 52’ long)
Structure Dimensions: 110 ft diameter, 32 ft height, 27 inch wall thickness
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1989
Retrofit (if any): P1-100 project 2009
Projects: P1-34-3
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☒ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☒ Other _Shop Drawings: Piles_
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 9 to 11 8 to 10
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 20 to 27 16 to 24 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 14 to 19 11 to 17
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): N/A
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 10: Bending/shear failure of piles
due to lateral spread (surface PGD = 16
inches)
T3 Bending moment in piles exceed IO (BSE 1E) limit at 10-inches and LS (BSE 2E) limit at 15-inches.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Clay with thin Silt and Sandy Silt Layers
Silty Sand
Sand/Silty Sand Piles
Sand/Silty Sand with Silty Clay Seams
Sand/Silty Sand
Clay
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 43
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 10: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A1 or A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread to
at least 5% (surface PGD = 15-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation, see Note 3)
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only; 3. Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for additional detail.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☐ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☒ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☒ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 4
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 20
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 44
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
DIGESTERS 11-16 PUMP ROOM 1
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +22 ft-MSL
AWL 11 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-22
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Driven – PPC piles at 10.50’ elev. (16.50’ embedment,
12” SQ, 52’ long)
Structure Dimensions: 178 ft x 116 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1990
Retrofit (if any): Remodeled in 2009 (non-structural components only)
Projects: P1-34-3
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 9 to 11 8 to 10
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 32 to 43 26 to 38 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 16 to 21 13 to 19
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 1-21A Digester 16
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 1: Insufficient separation from
adjacent digesters causes structure pounding T1
The roof deck of the digester pump room is separated from the walls of Digesters 11-
14 by a 2-inch expansion joint. Pounding of the roof deck into the digester walls can
occur. Drift at the roof is estimated to be 3”. Given the findings for the concrete
moment frames, addition of braced frames or shear walls is recommended.
PFM 2: In-plane wall shear at shear
walls T1
Walls in both orthogonal directions were found to be deficient for the IO (BSE 1E)
performance level, but only in the E-W direction for both IO (BSE 1E) and LS (BSE 2E) performance levels.
PFM 3: Column shear at moment frames
T1
Columns that are part of the concrete moment frames have excessive shear force. The evaluation was made assuming that the shear walls were not providing lateral load resistance. Mitigation with addition of shear walls will address this potential failure mode.
Silty Sand
Clay with thin Silt and Sandy Silt Layers
Clay
Sand/Silty Sand
Sand/Silty Sand with Silty Clay Seams
Sand/Silty Sand Piles
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 45
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PFM 5: Bending/shear failure of piles due to lateral spread (surface PGD = 26 inches) T1/2 10.3” (estimate at pile head) lateral spread toward the Santa Ana River. DCR is the
near pile top displacement over pile top displacement at yield (3.5”).
PFM 6: Differential lateral spread
between Digesters 11-14 due to
liquefaction
T1/2 Digesters 11 and 12 lateral spread is estimated to vary from 11.3’’ to 16’’. This can
result in the Digesters moving into the joint and damaging the building.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 5 & 6: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A1 or A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
50% (surface PGD = 13-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 1 – 3: Provide cast-in-place concrete shear walls in both
orthogonal directions from the roof down to the basement to
reduce building drift.
$1,080,000 Provide approximately 420 lineal feet x 15 feet
tall.
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $1,080,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation, see Note 3)
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only; 3. Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation. Refer to TM4
(Geosyntec, 2019) for additional detail.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☒ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 2
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 10
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 46
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
DIGESTERS 11-16 PUMP ROOM 2
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +22 ft-MSL
AWL 11 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-23
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Driven – PPC piles at 10.50’ elev. (16.50’ embedment,
12” SQ, 52’ long)
Structure Dimensions: 116 ft x 80 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1990
Retrofit (if any): Remodeled in 2009 (non-structural components only)
Projects: P1-34-3
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 8 to 9 6 to 8
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 28 to 38 20 to 29 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 18 to 24 13 to 18
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 1-21A Digester 16
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 1: Insufficient separation from
adjacent digesters T1
The roof deck of the digester pump room is separated from the walls of Digesters 15-16 by a 2-inch expansion joint. Pounding of the roof deck into the digester walls can
occur. Drift at the roof is estimated to be 5.7”. Given the findings for the concrete
moment frames, addition of braced frames or shear walls is recommended.
PFM 2: Discontinuous shear wall at the
east and south elevations T1 Shear wall at the south side of the building is discontinuous below the first floor.
PFM 3: In-plane wall shear at shear walls T1 Only the walls in the east-west direction were found to be deficient.
Sand/Silty Sand
Clay with thin Silt and Sandy Silt Layers
Clay
Sand/Silty Sand
Sand/Silty Sand
Sand/Silty Sand with Silty Clay Seams Piles
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 47
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PFM 4: Column shear at moment
frames T1
Columns that are part of the concrete moment frames have excessive shear force. The evaluation was made assuming that the shear walls were not providing lateral
load resistance. Mitigation with addition of shear walls will address this potential failure mode.
PFM 6: Bending/shear failure of piles due to lateral spread (surface PGD = 20 inches) T1/2 9.7” (estimate at pile head level) lateral spread toward the Santa Ana River. DCR is
the near pile top displacement over pile top displacement at yield (3.5”).
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 6: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A1 or A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
50% (surface PGD = 10-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 1-4: Provide cast-in-place concrete shear walls in both
orthogonal directions from the roof down to the basement to
reduce building drift.
$420,000 Provide approximately 120 lineal feet x 15 feet
tall.
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $420,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation, see Note 3)
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only; 3. Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation. Refer to TM4
(Geosyntec, 2019) for additional detail.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 2
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 10
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 48
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
GAS HOLDER
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +22.3 ft-MSL
AWL 11.3 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-24
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Ring wall footing at 25.75’ elev. (1.50’ embedment, 2’
wide)
Structure Dimensions: 42 ft diameter, 32 ft height
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1990
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P1-34-1
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☒ Other _Shop Drawings: Gas holder _
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 10 to 11 8 to 10
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 16 to 20 11 to 12 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 15 to 18 10 to 11
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 2-19 Gas Holder
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 6: Tank shell overstress due to
liquefaction-induced settlements T1/2
Does not meet IO (BSE 1E) performance objectives. Stress in thank shell at the anchor chair location may exceed yield, may result in gas leakage.
Does meet LS (BSE 2) performance objectives. DCR > 1.0, overstress at anchor locations
may cause permanent deformation and/or gas leakage, low likelihood of collapse.
PFM 7: Anchor failure overstress due to liquefaction-induced settlements T1/2
Does not meet IO (BSE 1E) performance objectives. Stress in the anchor bolt may exceed
yield, local tear in tank shell at anchor chair location possible.
Does meet LS (BSE 2) performance objectives. DCR > 1.0, overstress in anchor locations
may cause permanent deformation or fracture, low likelihood of collapse.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Sand/Silty Sand
Clay with thin Silt and Sandy Silt Layers
Sand/Silty Sand Clay
Sand/Silty Sand with Silty Clay Seams
Sand/Silty Sand
Ring Wall Footing
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 49
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 6 & 7: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $1,800,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by 80% (1.5” in 60 feet). Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 2 to 51 ft-bgs
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $1,800,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☐ Ground Shaking
☒ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☒ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 1
CoSF, Weighted Score: 2.4
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 2.4
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: J-124 (In Progress)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 50
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
EFFLUENT JUNCTION BOX
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +20.4 ft-MSL
AWL 9.4 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-25
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Driven – PPC piles at 0.00’ elev. (25.40’ embedment,
14” SQ, unknown length)
Structure Dimensions: 48 ft x 63 ft
# of Stories: 1 below grade
Date of Original Construction: 1989
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P1-33
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 7 to 10 7 to 9
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 160 to 225 150 to 165 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 49 to 69 46 to 50
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 1-21A Digester 16
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 4: Shear failure of piles due to lateral spread towards the Santa Ana
River
T2
No lateral spread is estimated at the base of the structure. The structure is founded
on piles. Structure is subject to overturning and shearing due to application of passive
and active earth pressures from spreading soils above the base of the structure. Shear
failure of piles is possible.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Sand/Silty Sand
Clay
Sand/Silty Sand
Sand/Silty Sand Piles (Unknown Length)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 51
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 4: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation requires reduction of lateral spread so
that passive force application on the structure is
reduced by at least 50%.
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation, see Note 3)
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only; 3. Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation. Refer to TM4
(Geosyntec, 2019) for additional detail.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☐ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☒ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☒ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 2
CoSF, Weighted Score: 5
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 10
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 52
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
SOLIDS STORAGE FACILITY
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +22 ft-MSL
AWL 11 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-26
PLANT
1
CLASS
II
Risk Category
II
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class II: Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system; loss of life potential is low. Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before repair.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Driven – PPC piles at 6.75’ elev. (20.25’ embedment,
12” SQ, 52’ long)
Structure Dimensions: 71 ft x 41 ft
# of Stories: 2 stories
Date of Original Construction: 1989
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P1-34-2
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 8 to 10 7 to 9
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 24 to 35 18 to 31 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 17 to 25 13 to 22
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 1-21A Digester 16
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 1: Building pounding due to response to ground shaking T1
The north and south structures are separated by a 2-inch expansion joint, which is much less than 4% of the building height. Tying the structures together may result in significant damage as the north and south structures may have a large differential
lateral spread.
PFM 5: Bending/shear failure of piles
at the south structure due to lateral
spread (surface PGD = 18 inches)
T1/2 15.3” (estimate at pile head) lateral spread toward the Santa Ana River. DCR is the near pile top displacement over pile top displacement at yield (3.5”).
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Sand/Silty Sand
Clay
Sand/Silty Sand
Sand/Silty Sand with Silty Clay Seams
Sand/Silty Sand Piles
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 53
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 5: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
60% (surface PGD = 7-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 1: Tie the structures together using steel shapes with slotted
connections and epoxy anchors. Steel shapes will need to be sized
and located to promote uniform response of the building to ground
shaking. Lateral spread can impose differential demands across the expansion joint.
$60,000 The recommended mitigation will also require
that the lateral spread potential be mitigated.
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $60,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation, see Note 3)
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only; 3. Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for additional detail.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☐ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☒ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 3
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 15
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 54
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
CHILLER BUILDING
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +23 ft-MSL
AWL 12 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-27
PLANT
1
CLASS
II
Risk Category
II
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class II: Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system; loss of life potential is low. Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before repair.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Shallow spread footings at-grade
Structure Dimensions: 30 ft x 19.3 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1989
Retrofit (if any): 1996: Strengthening of roof-to-wall anchorage connections
Projects: J7-4 / P1-44-3
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 7 to 8 5 to 6 Lateral Spread (near river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 1-4 City Water Pump Station
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
N/A
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Sand/Silty Sand
Clay with thin Silt and Sandy Silt Layers
Clay
Sand/Silty Sand
Sand/Silty Sand with Silty Clay Seams
Sand/Silty Sand
Spread Footings
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 55
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class 5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☒ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 0
CoSF, Weighted Score: 1
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 0
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 56
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
WAREHOUSE BUILDING
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +23 ft-MSL
AWL 12 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-28
PLANT
1
CLASS
II
Risk Category
II
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class II: Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system; loss of life potential is low. Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before repair.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Shallow spread footings at-grade
Structure Dimensions: 100 ft x 150 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1972
Retrofit (if any): Remodeled in 1978 and 1996; 1996: Provision of wall anchorage
connections at the roof and mezzanine diaphragms, addition of roof and mezzanine
diaphragm cross ties, and addition of shear wall bracing for the mezzanine.
Projects: J-13 / J-13-2R / P1-44-3
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7
Surface Settlement (inches) 6 to 7 5 Lateral Spread (near river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 1-29 Shop Building A
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 1: Wall panels are not tied to the
footings T1
Walls have no structural tie between the wall and the footing. The behavior of the
building is unpredictable and relative movement of the footing below the walls is possible (20 pad footings x 8 ft).
PFM 6: Wall panels are not tied
together to resist overturning
T1
Except the south wall, panels are not tied together to resist overturning and can
experience spalling at the roof ledger. The south wall joints are stitched together
continuously with a pour strip (15 x 20 ft).
Silt/Silt and Clay
Sand and Silt
Clay and Liquefiable Sand
Silt and Clay
Well Graded Sand
Spread Footings
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 57
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PFM 8: Tension failure in the walls due
to differential settlement T1/2
2.2” over 60 feet differential settlement. Tilt-up panels provided with (2) #5 bars at
the top of the panel and a continuous ledger angle, which will both work to resist
tension in the wall due to ground deformation. The limiting strength occurs at the
ledger angle splice (L2x2x1/4).
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 1: Standard Structural Mitigation C2 $315,000 Applies over 160 lineal feet (20 pad footings x 8-ft each).
PFM 6: Tie tilt-up wall panels together along their vertical joints
using steel plates and epoxy anchors spaced at 4.0-ft on center.
$125,000 Applies to 15 joints that are 20-ft tall each.
PFM 8: Provide continuous supplemental steel chord member along
the east and west walls anchored to the existing tilt-up wall panels
with epoxy anchors.
$250,000 Applies over the middle 50% of each wall for a
total of 250 lineal feet.
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $690,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☒ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 3
CoSF, Weighted Score: 5
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 15
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 58
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
SHOP BUILDING A
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5 ft-bgs +22 ft-MSL AWL 11 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-29
PLANT
1
CLASS
II
Risk Category
II
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class II: Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system; loss of life potential is low. Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before repair.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Shallow spread footings at-grade
Structure Dimensions: 140 ft x 60 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1972
Retrofit (if any): 1996: Provision of wall anchorage connections at the roof and
mezzanine diaphragms, addition of roof and mezzanine diaphragm cross ties, addition
of shear wall bracing for the mezzanine, and strengthening of the roof diaphragm for
shear resistance.
Projects: J-13 / P1-44-3
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 6 to 7 5 Lateral Spread (near river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): N/A
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 1: Wall panels are not tied to the
footings T1
Walls have no structural tie between the wall and the footing. The behavior of the
building is unpredictable and relative movement of the footing below the walls is
possible (20 footings x 8 ft).
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Silt/Silt and Clay
Sand and Silt
Clay with Liquefiable Sand Pockets
Silt and Clay
Well Graded Sand
Spread Footings
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 59
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 1: Standard Structural Mitigation C2 $280,000 Applies over 160 lineal feet (20 pad footings x 8-ft
each).
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $280,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 3
CoSF, Weighted Score: 4
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 12
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 60
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
SHOP BUILDING B AND BUILDING 3
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +22 ft-MSL
AWL 11 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-30
PLANT
1
CLASS
II
Risk Category
II
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class II: Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system; loss of life potential is low. Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before repair.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Shallow spread footings at-grade
Structure Dimensions: 260 x 85 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1972
Retrofit (if any): Remodeled in 1988, 1996, and 2003; 1996: Provision of wall
anchorage connections at the roof diaphragm, addition of roof diaphragm cross ties,
strengthening of the roof diaphragm for shear resistance, and shear strengthening of
the concrete shear walls.
Projects: J-13, J-20 / J-89 / P1-44-3
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) Lateral Spread (near river, inches) Lateral Spread (far from river, inches)
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 1-29 Shop Building A
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 1: Wall panels are not tied to the
footings T1
Walls have no structural tie between the wall and the footing. The behavior of the
building is unpredictable and relative movement of the pad footings below the walls
is possible (32 x 8-ft).
PFM 5: Wall anchorage of the roof at
the south wall of Building 3 T1 Occurs at (3) locations. The nail transfer to the diaphragm is insufficient.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Silt/Silt and Clay
Sand and Silt
Clay and Liquefiable Sand Pockets
Silt and Clay
Well Graded Sand
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 61
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 1: Standard Structural Mitigation C2 $430,000 Applies over 256 lineal feet (32 pad footings x 8-ft
each).
PFM 5: Provide additional nailing to develop the wall anchorage
force into the diaphragm. Installation of clips angles that are screwed into the strut member and the bottom side of the plywood diaphragm on both sides of the strut member is recommended.
$10,000 Occurs at (3) locations.
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $440,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class 5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 4
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 20
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 62
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
BUILDINGS 5 AND 6
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5 ft-bgs +20 ft-MSL AWL 9 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-31
PLANT
1
CLASS
II
Risk Category
II
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class II: Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system; loss of life potential is low. Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before repair.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Shallow spread footings at-grade
Structure Dimensions: 270 ft x 61 ft
# of Stories: 2 stories
Date of Original Construction: 1988
Retrofit (if any): 1996: Provision of wall anchorage connections at the roof and 2nd
floor levels, addition of cross ties, and provision of connections between concrete tilt-
up wall panels.
Projects: J-20 / P1-44-3
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☒ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7
Surface Settlement (inches) 6 to 7 5 Lateral Spread (near river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 1-29 Shop Building A
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 1: Wall panels are not tied to the
footings T1
Walls have no structural tie between the wall and the footing. The behavior of the
building is unpredictable and relative movement of the footing below the walls is
possible (662 ft).
PFM 4: Wall anchorage of the 2nd floor T1 Building was seismically retrofit in 1996 as part of P1-44-3. The single concrete anchor
is subject to failure by concrete break-out (13 locations).
PFM 6B: Bending failure of beams over
chevron braced frames
T1
The W16x and W21x beams at the 2nd floor over the chevron braced frames do not
have sufficient bending capacity to handle unbalanced brace loads due to buckling in
the compression brace (5 locations).
Silt/Silt and Clay
Sand and Silt
Clay and Liquefiable Sand Pockets
Silt and Clay
Well Graded Sand
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 63
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PFM 6D: 2nd Floor diaphragm
collectors T2 Floor diaphragm collector connections, including the welded stud connection of the beams to the floor diaphragm, the beam end connections, and the beam itself are not adequate along grid line B from 3 to 4.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 1: Standard Structural Mitigation C2 $705,000 Applies over 662 lineal feet.
PFM 4: Supplement the existing wall anchorage with additional
hardware and epoxy anchor into the existing wall panel.
$185,000 Applies at 13 locations. Access will require
removal and replacement of building finishes
(ceiling panels, etc.).
PFM 6B: Add steel cover plates to the top and bottom flanges of the
steel beam member located directly above the braced frame.
$190,000 Applies at 5 locations x 20-ft each (100 lineal
feet).
PFM 6D: Enhance the capacity of the W21x50 drag along grid line B,
the beam end connections, and the nailer connection for transfer of
collector forces.
$180,000 Applies to the existing W21x50 beam at the 2nd
floor along grid line B between grid line 3 and 4
(20-ft long).
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $1,260,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking: LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 5
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 25
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 64
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
AUTO SHOP
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 5 ft-bgs +23 ft-MSL AWL 12 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-32
PLANT
1
CLASS
II
Risk Category
II
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class II: Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system; loss of life potential is low. Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before repair.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Shallow spread footings at-grade
Structure Dimensions: 121.3 ft x 121.3 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1971
Retrofit (if any): 1996: Provision of wall anchorage at the roof diaphragm and
addition of cross ties at the roof diaphragm.
Projects: J-12 / P1-44-3
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 6 to 7 5
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 1-29 Shop Building A
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 1: Wall panels are not tied to the
footings T1
Walls have no structural tie between the wall and the footing. The behavior of the
building is unpredictable and relative movement of the footing below the walls is
possible (25 footings x 7 ft).
PFM 4: Wall anchorage of the low roof
at the north and south side T1 Building was seismically retrofit in 1996 as part of P1-44-3. Capacity of hardware is
limiting (16 locations).
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Silt/Silt and Clay
Sand and Silt
Clay and Liquefiable Sand
Silt and Clay
Well Graded Sand
Spread Footings
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 65
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 1: Standard Structural Mitigation C2 $305,000 Applies to 25 footings x 7-ft each (175 lineal feet).
PFM 4: Standard Structural Mitigation A1 (SIM) $110,000 Similar without the need for additional roof
framing members. Occurs at 16 locations.
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $415,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking: LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 4
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 20
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 66
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PEDB2
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +20 ft-MSL
AWL 9 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-33
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BURIED BOX
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Basement with 3’ mat foundation at -4.00’ elev.
(29.00’ embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 39.3 ft x 29 ft
# of Stories: N/A
Date of Original Construction: 1989
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P1-33
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☐ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 6 to 9 5 to 7
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 1-21A Digester 16
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 2: Out-of-plane shear on the
buried walls due to liquefied soil
conditions
T2 Walls may experience excessive shear forces.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Sand/Silty Sand
Clay with Silt Seam
Sand/Silty Sand
Sand/Silty Sand
Basement with Mat
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 67
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 2: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation C $840,000 Mitigation required to reduce soil fluid density by 50% or
preclude liquefaction development in backfill altogether.
Ground improvement for lateral earth pressure reduction is
required from 9 to 29 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $840,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☐ Ground Shaking
☒ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☒ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking: LoSF Rating: 2
CoSF, Weighted Score: 5
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 10
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 68
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
LABORATORY COMPLEX
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 ft-bgs +21 ft-MSL AWL 10 ft-bgs +16 ft-MSL
#
1-34
PLANT
1
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Shallow spread foundation at-grade
Structure Dimensions: 200 ft x 90 ft
# of Stories: 2 stories
Date of Original Construction: 1989
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: J-17
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☒ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 5 to 6 4 Lateral Spread (near river, inches) ----No Lateral Spread---- Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) ----No Lateral Spread----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 1-29 Shop Building A
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 1: Braced frame column axial
stress due to overturning forces T1 Applicable to all frames in both orthogonal directions.
PFM 2: 2nd floor diaphragm seismic load transfer to braced frames T1 Applicable to bolted connections and shear transfer connections (diaphragm welding). The check is not applicable for the LS performance level.
PFM 3: Out-of-plane bracing of braced
frame beams T1 The east-west braced frame beams have no lateral bracing at the 2nd floor. The check
is not applicable for the LS performance level.
PFM 4: Braces for braced frames are
non-compact members T1
8 out of 10 of the braces at the 2nd floor are non-compact. The first floor braces are all
compact. None of the braces meet the compactness requirements for highly ductile
members per AISC 341.
PFM 5: Bending failure of beams over chevron braced frames T2
The W24x beams at the roof and 2nd floor over the chevron braced frames do not
have sufficient bending capacity to handle unbalanced brace loads due to buckling in
the compression brace (16 locations).
PFM 6: Connection strength at braces T1 The braced frame connections are mostly non-compliant for bolt, weld, and gusset
plate strength.
PFM 7: Roof diaphragm shear
T2 Excessive shear demands on the 20 GA corrugated steel deck diaphragm in both the
transverse and longitudinal directions.
Silty Sand
Sandy Silt and Silty Clay
Silty Sand
Well Graded Sand
Spread Footings
Silty Sand
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 69
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PFM 8: Column anchorage to the foundation T1 The braced frame columns along grid 3 and A (4 columns) have insufficient anchor bolt capacity to develop the uplift capacity of the footing.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 1: Provide additional steel concentric braced frames from the roof level down to the first floor. Braced frames should be chevron frames and should be comprised of bracing members that are similar to the existing frame braces (double angle). Addition of columns and enlarging footings is to be included in this mitigation.
$2,425,000 Add (5) bays of braced frames in the E-W direction and (3) bays of braced frames in the N-S direction.
PFM 2: See PFM 1 Mitigation -- Additional frames will reduce demands on collectors and
diaphragm shear transfer to collectors and frames.
PFM 3: Add out-of-plane bracing of the braced frame beams that lack this bracing. $340,000 Applies to (4) locations at the roof and (8) locations at the 2nd floor.
PFM 4: Add stiffener plates to the bracing members to
make the sections compact. Plates should be welded
along the length of each leg of each individual angle
brace.
$710,000 Applies to (8) braces at the 2nd floor. Each brace is
comprised of a double angle, which has two legs. Each
brace is about 16 feet long, so the application is required
for a total of 512 feet.
PFM 5: Add a tube steel column member below the middle of each chevron braced frame or provide steel
cover plates to stiffen the existing beam members.
-- Applies to (32) locations, which includes locations at the (16) existing braced frames and (16) new braced frames as
recommended per PFM 1 Mitigation.
PFM 6: See PFM 1 Mitigation -- Provided that PFM 1 Mitigation is implemented, the
demands on the connections are anticipated to reduce.
PFM 7: Standard Structural Mitigation B1 $1,655,000 Applies to the entire roof diaphragm over an approximate
area of 17,000 square feet. Depending on how new braced frames are added to the building, the area of diaphragm
mitigation could be reduced.
PFM 8: See PFM 1 Mitigation -- Provided that PFM 1 Mitigation is implemented, the
demands on the anchorage to the foundation will be diminished and will likely meet the performance objectives.
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $5,130,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 5
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 25
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 70
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
DAFT A, B, & C GALLERY
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 3 ft-bgs +7.5 ft-MSL AWL 8.5 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-1
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Basement with 1’-10” thick mat at -6.97’ elev. (17.47’
embedment); tie-down anchors (PTA, 1” DIA, 35’ bond length, 46’ total length)
Structure Dimensions: 144.3 ft x 60 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1977
Retrofit (if any): Remodeled in 1993 (minor structural modifications)
Projects: P2-23-6 / P2-42-2
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☒ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 7 to 10 6 to 9
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) 20 to 40 14 to 28 Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) 11 to 21 7 to 15
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 2-5 PEPS & MAC
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 6: Structure response to
differential settlement due to
liquefaction
T1/2
2.1” over 60 feet of differential settlement. Differential settlement is 75% of that for
the exemplar. The walls have less reinforcing steel and will be subject to similar
tensile stresses at the top.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Silty Sand/Clayey Sand
Poorly Graded Sand
Clay
Silty Sand and Silty Clay
Clay
Silty Sand/Clayey Sand
Tie-Down Anchors
Mat
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 71
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 6: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $5,160,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by 50% (1” in 60 feet). Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 8 to 59 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $5,160,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class 5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☐ Ground Shaking
☒ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 3
CoSF, Weighted Score: 3
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 9
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 72
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
DAFT D GALLERY & WSSPS
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 3 ft-bgs +7 ft-MSL
AWL 8 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-2
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Basement with 1’-10” thick mat at -7.67’ elev. (17.67’
embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 89 ft x 37 ft
# of Stories: 1 below grade
Date of Original Construction: 1993
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P2-42-2
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☒ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 8 to 10 7 to 9
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) 30 to 62 22 to 42 Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) 14 to 29 10 to 20
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 2-5 PEPS & MAC
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 4: Lateral spread towards the
Talbert Marsh due to liquefaction
(surface PGD = 22-inches).
T1/2
9.1”/6.7” (near/far) lateral spread toward the Talbert Marsh. The structure may
experience differential spread with DAFT D, which can cause separation at the sump
rooms, causing a loss in service and/or structural damage to the sump room.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Silty Sand/Clayey Sand
Poorly Graded Sand
Clay Silty Sand and Silty Clay
Clay
Silty Sand/Clayey Sand
Basement with Mat
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 73
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 4: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
at least 50% (surface PGD = 11-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation, see Note 3)
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only; 3. Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for additional detail.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☐ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☒ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 3
CoSF, Weighted Score: 2
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 6
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 74
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
RAS PS EAST
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 3 ft-bgs +7.5 ft-MSL
AWL 8.5 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-3
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Basement with 2’ thick mat at -7.00’ elev. (17.50’
embedment); tie-down anchors (PTA, 1” DIA, 35’ bonded length, 46’ total length)
Structure Dimensions: 114.4 ft x 56.4 ft
# of Stories: 1 above grade, 1 below grade
Date of Original Construction: 1977
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P2-23-6
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 7 to 8 6 to 8
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 19 to 33 16 to 31 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 15 to 26 13 to 24 Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) 15 to 26 13 to 25 Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) 12 to 22 11 to 21
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 2-18B Aeration Basins A-H
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 1: Vertical irregularities in building shear walls T1
Discontinuous shear walls at EL 10.50 occur at the east and north walls of the
building. Provide for drag connections and strengthening of columns below
discontinuous walls.
PFM 4: Structural response to differential settlement due to liquefaction T1/2 1.6” over 60 feet of differential settlement. Refer to exemplar for typical deficiencies,
which are anticipated to occur at the same rate below the RAS PS East.
PFM 8: Out-of-plane shear on the
buried walls due to liquefied soil
conditions
T2 Walls may experience shear stresses that are higher than their capacity.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Basement with Mat
Silty Sand/Clayey Sand
Poorly Graded Sand
Silty Sand
Silt and Clay
Tie-Down Anchors
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 75
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 4: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B1 $1,340,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by 50% (3/4” in 60 feet). Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 8 to 40 ft-bgs.
PFM 8: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation C $460,000 Mitigation required to reduce soil fluid density by
50% or preclude liquefaction development in
backfill altogether. Ground improvement for
lateral earth pressure reduction is required from 8
to 17 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 1: Add new columns and strengthen existing members for axial
overturning forces below each end of the high shear wall at the
north side of the building. Provide additional collector member
(steel channel) at the bottom side of the low roof.
$180,000 Additional column and strengthening required at
3 locations x 30 feet. Collector length estimated
to be 64 lineal feet (1 along grid line B x 32 feet
and 1 along grid line 0.5 x 32 feet).
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $1,980,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class 5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☐ Ground Shaking
☒ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☒ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☒ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 4
CoSF, Weighted Score: 2.4
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 9.6
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: X-052 (09/01/2032)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 76
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
RAS PS WEST
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 3 ft-bgs +7.5 ft-MSL AWL 8.5 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-4
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Basement with 2’ thick mat at -7.00’ elev. (17.50’
embedment); tie-down anchors (PTA, 1” DIA, 35’ bonded length, 46’ total length)
Structure Dimensions: 114.4 ft x 56.4 ft
# of Stories: 2 stories
Date of Original Construction: 1977
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P2-23-6
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 5 to 6 3 to 4
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 3 to 4 1 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 3 1 Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) 5 to 6 1 to 2 Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) 4 to 5 1 to 2
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 2-18A Aeration Basins A-H
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 1: Vertical irregularities in
building shear walls T1 Discontinuous shear walls at EL 10.50 occur at the west and north walls of the building. Provide for drag connections and strengthening of columns below discontinuous walls.
PFM 4: Structural response to
differential settlement due to
liquefaction
T1/2 1.2” over 60 feet differential settlement. Refer to exemplar for typical deficiencies,
which are anticipated to occur at the same rate below the RAS PS West.
PFM 8: Out-of-plane shear on the buried walls due to liquefied soil conditions T2 Walls may experience shear stresses that are higher than their capacity.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Silty Sand/Clayey Sand
Poorly Graded Sand
Silty Sand and Silty Clay
Silty Sand/Clayey Sand Clay
Basement with Mat
Tie-Down Anchors
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 77
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 4: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B1 $2,810,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by 40% (3/4” in 60 feet). Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 8 to 66 ft-bgs.
PFM 8: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation C $520,000 Mitigation required to reduce soil fluid density by
50% or preclude liquefaction development in
backfill altogether. Ground improvement for
lateral earth pressure reduction is required from 8
to 17 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 1: Add new columns and strengthen existing members for axial
overturning forces below each end of the high shear wall at the
north side of the building. Provide additional collector member
(steel channel) at the bottom side of the low roof.
$180,000 Additional column and strengthening required at
3 locations x 30 feet. Collector length estimated
to be 64 lineal feet (1 along grid line B x 32 feet
and 1 along grid line 0.5 x 32 feet).
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $3,510,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class 5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☐ Ground Shaking
☒ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☒ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☒ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 4
CoSF, Weighted Score: 2.4
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 9.6
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: X-052 (09/01/2032)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 78
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PEPS & MAC
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 3 ft-bgs +8.5 ft-MSL AWL 9.5 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-5
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Basement with 2’ thick mat at -7.50’ elev. (19.00’
embedment); tie-down anchors (PTA, 1” DIA, 35’ bonded length, 46’ total length)
Structure Dimensions: 167 ft x 54 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1977
Retrofit (if any): 1994: Provision of shear transfer at the north wall with window infill
and out-of-plane bracing of a non-bearing masonry wall.
Projects: P2-23-6 / P2-23-2
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7
Surface Settlement (inches) 10 to 16 9 to 14 Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 30 to 45 28 to 42 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 20 to 31 19 to 29 Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) 18 to 30 17 to 26 Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) 17 to 28 15 to 24
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g) BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): N/A
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 4: Flexure in bottom mat due to
differential settlement due to
liquefaction
T3
2.8” differential settlement over 60 feet. Occurs over length of basement wall along
grid line 6 and at high foundation slab at the west side of the building. Could be
compliant if the spring stiffness is assumed to be liquefied (ky = 7.2 ksf/ft).
PFM 5: Flexure in walls due to
differential settlement T1/2 2.8” differential settlement over 60 feet. Occurs at bottom of east wall over half the length of the wall. Could be compliant if the spring stiffness is assumed to be liquefied
(ky = 7.2 ksf/ft)
PFM 6: Tension stress in structure
slabs due to differential settlement T3 2.8” differential settlement over 60 feet. Occurs at the roof, first floor, and basement
slab.
PFM 7: Tension stress in structure
walls due to differential settlement
T3 2.8” differential settlement over 60 feet. Occurs at the top of the north, south, west, and at the bottom of the wall along grid line 4 (interior wall).
Silty Sand/Clayey Sand
Poorly Graded Sand
Silty Sand and Silty Clay
Clay Sand/Silty Sand
Basement with Mat
Tie-Down Anchors
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 79
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PFM 8: Lateral spread towards the
Santa Ana River due to liquefaction
(surface PGD = 27.5-inches).
T1/2
17.7”/12” (near/far) lateral spread toward the Santa Ana River. Foundation is within lateral spreading soils. Deep foundation wall at the west end is subject to failure and
the effluent conduit at the south side of the structure will likely separate causing loss of service.
PFM 11: Out-of-plane shear on the
buried walls due to liquefied soil
conditions
T2 Walls may experience shear stresses that are higher than their capacity.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 4 – 7: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B1 $5,740,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by 60% (1” in 60 feet). Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 10 to 60 ft-bgs.
PFM 8: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation required to reduce lateral spread by
75% (surface PGD = 7-inches).
PFM 11: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation C $1,860,000 Mitigation required to reduce soil fluid density by
50% or preclude liquefaction development in
backfill altogether. Ground improvement for
lateral earth pressure reduction is required from
10 to 20 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $7,600,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation, see Note 3)
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only; 3. Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for additional detail.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☐ Ground Shaking
☒ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☒ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 4
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 20
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: X-052 (09/01/2032)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 80
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
OPERATIONS/CONTROL CENTER BUILDING
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 3 ft-bgs +5 ft-MSL
AWL 6 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-6
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Basement with 2’ thick mat at -2.50’ elev (10.50’
embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 95 ft and 66 ft x 65 ft
# of Stories: 2 above grade, 1 below grade
Date of Original Construction: 1977
Retrofit (if any): Remodeled in 1992; 1994: Provision of collectors and ties at the roof
diaphragm, provision of tilt-up wall holdowns to the foundation, and strengthening of
wall anchorage connections at the roof diaphragm.
Projects: P2-23-5
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 12 to 14 11 to 13 Lateral Spread (near river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 2-5 PEPS & MAC
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 1: Wall anchorage at east and
west walls (original building) T1 Wall anchorage at the joist bearing seats relies on bending through the bearing seat,
which has minimal flexural capacity (16 locations).
PFM 3: Wall anchorage at east and west walls (addition) T1 Similar design as original building. The connection also has slotted holes that do not allow for transfer of wall anchorage forces into the diaphragm (14 locations).
PFM 5: Incomplete load path at the
south entrance canopy addition for resisting seismic loads T1
The canopy has no discernible load path back to the moment frame. The building is
also experiencing static settlement at the south end as the canopy extension is bearing within backfill.
PFM 6: In-plane shear at shear walls T1 N-S seismic at the north building governs. East and west walls have continuous
openings over most of the building length.
PFM 7: Drag connection at roof to east
and west shear walls T1 Connection occurs at the original 1977 building. Retrofit in 1996 is not sufficient to
develop the capacity of the roof diaphragm.
Sand and Silty Sand
Sand with Clay Seams
Silty Sand with Clay Seams
Sand/Gravel
Basement with Mat
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 81
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PFM 8: Precast wall panel connection to foundation walls T1 Precast wall panels have minimal connections to the tops of the foundation walls.
PFM 9: Structure response to
differential settlement due to
liquefaction
T1/2
4.0” over 60 feet of differential settlement. Differential settlement is about 43%
higher than the exemplar. The walls are framed in a similar manner to the south wall
of the exemplar. Tensile forces are anticipated to well exceed the wall beam capacity.
Also, the mat slab has interior walls and columns that are likely to generate large
bending moments and shear demands on the slab, similar to the exemplar.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 9: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B1 $6,780,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by 75% (1” in 60 feet). Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 6 to 61 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 1: Add stiffeners to the existing joist bearing seats by field welding in place to eliminate flexure in the joist seat. $550,000 Required at 16 locations x 2 stiffeners each (32 total).
PFM 3: Add stiffeners to the existing joist bearing seats by field
welding in place to eliminate flexure in the joist seat. Also, field
weld bolts to the bearing seat to eliminate gap in the load path.
$450,000 Required at 14 locations x 2 stiffeners each (28
total).
PFM 5: Add (2) steel braced frames with grade beams at the south canopy. $160,000 Repair to correct settlement within the backfill (slab on grade, canopy, stairs, etc.) may also be considered at the time of mitigation.
PFM 6: Standard Structural Mitigation E $20,000 Applies over 15-ft x 1-ft windows at (2) locations
(east and west walls).
PFM 7: Upgrade the existing connections with larger through bolts,
plates, and anchors.
$10,000 Occurs at 10 locations total.
PFM 8: Standard Structural Mitigation A1 $910,000 Applies to 530 lineal feet.
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $8,880,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 4
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 20
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: X-008 (03/01/2028)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 82
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
12 kV SERVICE CENTER
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 3 ft-bgs +7 ft-MSL
AWL 8 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-7
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Basement with 1’ thick mat and grade beams at 1’
elev. (9’ embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 68 ft x 41 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1977
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P2-23-3
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 13 11
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 19 to 20 16 to 19 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 17 to 18 15 to 17 Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 2-5 PEPS & MAC
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 1: Wall anchorage to roof at north and south walls T1 North and south walls have no rigid diaphragm connection as the wall anchorage force will be applied perpendicular to the 7.5-inch deep deck corrugation.
PFM 3: Wall anchorage forces at the
north and south walls have no sub-
diaphragm or ties
T1 In conjunction with wall anchorage at the north and south walls, sub-diaphragms and
struts are required to develop wall anchorage forces into the diaphragm.
PFM 4: Roof diaphragm shear T2 Excessive shear demands for the 7.5-inch deep steel deck (low shear capacity).
PFM 5: Shear at frame columns
T1 Frame columns along the north and south walls have high shear demands and cannot develop moment frame behavior due to restraint by the infill wall panels. Conversion of building to shear walls is recommended.
Silty Sand
Sand
Sand and Silty Sand
Silt and Clay Sand
Clay
Basement with Mat and Grade Beams
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 83
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PFM 7: Structure response to differential settlement due to liquefaction T1/2 4.3” over 60 feet of differential settlement. Differential settlement is about 54% higher than the exemplar. The walls are framed in a similar manner to the south wall of the exemplar. Tensile forces are anticipated to well exceed the wall beam capacity.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 7: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $2,300,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by 75% (1” in 60 feet). Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 8 to 50 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 1 & 3: Standard Structural Mitigation A1 $200,000 Applied at 8-ft on center along the north and
south walls (approximately 8 locations).
PFM 4: Replace entire roof deck with a new roof support system
that provides for new steel beams that span across the building
width in the east-west direction (40 feet) and a new standard
corrugated steel deck that spans in the north-south direction.
$420,000 Existing roof deck is 7.5-inch deep steel deck
without any concrete topping. Protect electrical
gear in place.
PFM 5: Standard Structural Mitigation E $160,000 Applies at the east and west walls for 22-ft x 2-ft
window (88 square feet total).
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $3,080,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☒ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 4
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 20
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: X-047 (09/01/2023)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 84
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
POWER BUILDING B
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 3 ft-bgs +7 ft-MSL
AWL 8 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-8
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Tunnel with dropped spread footings at 2.00’ elev.
(8.00’ embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 52.2 ft x 40 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1971
Retrofit (if any): Remodeled in 1980 and 1996; 1994: Provision of roof chords and
connections, addition of connections between the roof and shear walls, and addition
of connections between the shear walls and the floor slab.
Projects: P1-15 / P2-24-2
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 6 to 8 5 to 6 Lateral Spread (near river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 1-4 City Water Pump Station
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 4: Roof diaphragm shear T2 Diaphragm shear capacity is limiting. Mitigation is recommended to enhance the diaphragm capacity.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Spread Footings Silty Sand/Clayey Sand
Poorly Graded Sand
Silty Sand and Silty Clay
Clay
Silty Sand/Clayey Sand
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 85
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 4: Standard Structural Mitigation B1 $210,000 Applies over the entire roof plan between grid
lines 2 and 5 (1,600 sf) and requires the addition
of (2) W12x31 beams x 25-ft long.
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $210,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☒ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact Risk Ranking: LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 4
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 20
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 86
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
POWER BUILDING C
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 3 ft-bgs +8 ft-MSL
AWL 9 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-9
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Tunnel with dropped spread footings at -2.61’ elev.
(13.61’ embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 76 ft x 46 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1979
Retrofit (if any): Remodeled in 1985 and 1996; 1994: Provision of braced frames to
laterally support the high roof and wall ties.
Projects: P2-24-1 / J-6-2
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☒ Geotechnical Report
☐ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7
Surface Settlement (inches) 7 to 9 6 to 8 Lateral Spread (near river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) 9 to 16 8 to 11 Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) 8 to 14 7 to 10
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g) BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 1-4 City Water Pump Station
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 1: Incomplete lateral load
resisting system in the east-west
direction
T1
The west end of the building has no lateral load resisting system. The west concrete
roof deck will impart large out-of-plane forces onto the east wall of the digester
pump room creating a collapse hazard.
PFM 6: In-plane wall shear at shear
walls T1 Lack of shear walls in the east-west direction at the west end increase the demands on the remaining walls, which have no load path to resist the seismic loads at the digester pump room.
PFM 7: Insufficient separation from adjacent digesters T1
The roof deck of the digester pump room is separated from the walls of Digester R
and Digester S by 1-inch. Pounding of the roof deck into the digester walls can occur
and cause significant structural damage to the building.
PFM 8: Footings move independent of the wall T1 Walls have no structural tie between the wall and the floor slab. Building wall can move differentially from other walls (232 ft).
Silty Sand and Silty Clay
Poorly Graded Sand
Silty Sand and Silt
Poorly Graded Dense Sand
Silty Sand and Clay
Clay
Silty Sand and Clay
Spread Footings
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 87
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PFM 9: Tension failure in the CMU walls due to differential settlement T1/2
2.2” of differential settlement over 60 feet. Walls are lightly reinforced and shorter
than the exemplar. Ground deformation upward will fail the upper portion of the
walls in tension.
PFM 10: Lateral spread towards
Talbert Marsh due to liquefaction
(surface PGD = 7.5-inches)
T1/2
6” lateral spread toward Talbert Marsh, which can pull apart the building foundation
relative to the roof and the because the floor slab is not tied to the wall/footing (232
ft). The building is founded on tunnels and shallow footings, which have varying
depths. Differential lateral spread is anticipated, which is also a potential cause for
building instability.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 9: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $2,500,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by at least 50% (1” in 60 feet). Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 9 to 65 ft-bgs.
PFM 10: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation required to reduce lateral spread by
50%. (surface PGD = 4-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 1, 6, and 7: Provide new cast-in-place concrete shear walls
inside the digester control room. Provide with continuous footing.
$210,000 Applied at (2) places x 16 feet x 16-ft tall (32 lineal
feet).
PFM 8: Standard Structural Mitigation C1 $70,000 Applies over 232 lineal feet.
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $2,780,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation, see Note 3)
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only; 3. Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation. Refer to TM4
(Geosyntec, 2019) for additional detail.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 2
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 10
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 88
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
POWER BUILDING D
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 3 ft-bgs +6 ft-MSL AWL 7 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-10
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: 1’-4” thick mat at-grade at 8’ elev. (1’ embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 57.7 ft x 31.3 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1985
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: J-6-2
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 6 to 8 5 to 6 Lateral Spread (near river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 2-5 PEPS & MAC
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 1: Incomplete load path at the
south side of the high roof diaphragm T1 The south side of the high roof has no lateral load resisting elements to transfer shear
forces down to the foundation.
PFM 5: Out-of-plane horizontal
bending T1 Horizontal wall reinforcing is less than the minimum. Based on exemplar behavior, horizontal bending is a vulnerability. In-plane shear is relatively low and not considered to be a vulnerability.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Clayey Sand and Sandy Clay
Poorly Graded Sand
Silty Sand with Clay Seams
Clay and Silty Clay Sand
Mat
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 89
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 1: Provide concentric X-braced frames at the existing louver
openings. Provide steel framed blocking at the roof level and weld
the roof deck to it. Provide a new steel member sill and anchor to
the top of the existing masonry wall with epoxy anchors.
$260,000 Mitigation required over a length of 31 feet.
Frames occur at 4 locations having bay sizes of 8-
ft long x 5-ft tall.
PFM 5: Standard Structural Mitigation D $410,000 To be applied at a spacing that reduces horizontal
wall spans by 50%.
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $670,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking: LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 2
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 10
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 90
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
CITY WATER PUMP STATION
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 3 ft-bgs +5.6 ft-MSL
AWL 6.6 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-11
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Dropped spread footings at 5.40’ elev. (3.10’
embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 79.3 ft x 40.7 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1995
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P2-46
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 12 to 14 12 to 13
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 1-4 City Water Pump Station
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 1: Wall anchorage at north and
south walls T1 Open-web joist seat anchor is subject to pull-out (24 locations).
PFM 5: Out-of-plane horizontal
bending T1
Horizontal wall reinforcing is less than the minimum. Based on exemplar behavior,
horizontal bending is a vulnerability at wall corners (8 locations). In-plane shear is
relatively low and not considered to be a vulnerability.
PFM 6: Differential settlement due to
liquefaction T1/2 4.6” of differential settlement over 60 feet. Building is of similar size, height, and
reinforcement to exemplar, but has 2.6 times the amount of differential settlement.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Sand and Silty Sand
Sand with Clay Seams
Silty Sand with Clay Seams
Sand/Gravel
Spread Footings
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 91
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 6: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $4,040,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by at least 80% (3/4” in 60 feet).
Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 3 to 65 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 1: Standard Structural Mitigation A1 (SIM) $180,000 Similar without additional steel framing members.
Applies at 24 locations.
PFM 5: Standard Structural Mitigation D $560,000 Applies below every other roof joist and at 16-ft
spacing elsewhere.
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $4,780,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☐ Ground Shaking
☒ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking: LoSF Rating: 4
CoSF, Weighted Score: 2
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 8
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: X-036 (12/30/2028)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 92
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
12 kV DISTRIBUTION CENTER B
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 3 ft-bgs +8 ft-MSL AWL 9 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-12
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Basement with 2’ mat at -5.50’ elev. (17.00’
embedment); tie-down anchors (PTA, 1” DIA, 35’ bonded length, 46’ total length)
Structure Dimensions: 112.8 ft x 59.8 ft
# of Stories: 1 above grade, 1 below grade
Date of Original Construction: 1978
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P2-23-6 / P2-23-2
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 10 to 15 9 to 14
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 26 to 57 23 to 51 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 18 to 40 16 to 36 Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) 12 to 25 10 to 23 Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) 11 to 23 9 to 21
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 2-5 PEPS & MAC
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 2: Structure response to differential settlement due to liquefaction T1/2 2.7” differential settlement over 60 feet. Building has nearly identical foundation and reinforcing as exemplar. Walls have same framing and reinforcing steel and are expected to experience high tensile stresses, similar to the exemplar.
PFM 6: Out-of-plane shear on the
buried walls due to liquefied soil
conditions
T2 Walls may experience shear stresses that are higher than their capacity.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Silty Sand/Clayey Sand with Clay
Poorly Graded Sand
Silty Sand and Silty Clay
Clay Sand/Silty Sand
Basement with Mat
Tie-Down Anchors
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 93
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 2: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B1 $3,920,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by 60% (1” in 60 feet). Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 10 to 59 ft-bgs.
PFM 6: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation C $1,250,000 Mitigation required to reduce soil fluid density by
50% or preclude liquefaction development in
backfill altogether. Ground improvement for
lateral earth pressure reduction is required from
10 to 18 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $5,170,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class 5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☐ Ground Shaking
☒ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking: LoSF Rating: 3
CoSF, Weighted Score: 2
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 6
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 94
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
12 kV DISTRIBUTION CENTER D
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 3 ft-bgs +6.3 ft-MSL
AWL 7.3 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-13
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Shallow spread footings at unknown elevation
Structure Dimensions: 28 ft x 22 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1995
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P2-35-3
Available Information: ☐ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☐ Specifications ☒ Other _no drawings or specs for the current configuration
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 12 to 14 12 to 13 Lateral Spread (near river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 1-4 City Water Pump Station
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 4: Differential settlement due to
liquefaction T1/2
4.6” of differential settlement over 60 feet. The building has a large opening along the
north side. The CMU lintel can experience large differential settlement that can stress
the lintel beam into non-linear behavior.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Sand and Silty Sand
Sand with Clay Seams
Silty Sand with Clay Seams
Sand/Gravel
Spread Footings (Unknown Elev)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 95
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 4: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $1,500,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by at least 80% (1” in 60 feet). Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 3 to 63 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $1,500,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☐ Ground Shaking
☒ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking: LoSF Rating: 4
CoSF, Weighted Score: 2
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 8
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 96
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
HEADWORKS POWER BUILDING A
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 3 ft-bgs +4.5 ft-MSL
AWL 5.5 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-14
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Dropped spread footings at 3.35’ elev. (4.15’
embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 50 ft x 30 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1988
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P2-37 / J-33-1
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 13 to 18 13 to 17
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 19 to 28 17 to 25 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 18 to 26 16 to 23 Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 1-4 City Water Pump Station
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 3: Building separation allows
pounding T1 Building separation is only 3/16-inch, but only occurs in alignment with the west wall of the Headworks Standby Power Building. Buildings should be tied together to help
ensure uniform response.
PFM 5: Building response to
differential settlement due to
liquefaction
T1/2 5.2” of differential settlement over 60 feet. The differential settlement is 3.7 times that at the exemplar. By inspection, the building walls will likely experience tension failures.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Clayey Sand/Silty Sand
Poorly Graded Sand
Silty Sand
Silty Sand and Clay
Clay Silty Sand and Clay Sand and Silty Sand
Spread Footings
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 97
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 5: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $2,150,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by at least 80% (1” in 60 feet). Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 5 to 54 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 3: Tie the structures together using steel plates and through
bolts with epoxy anchors. Steel shapes will need to be sized to
promote uniform response of the building to ground shaking.
$60,000 Applies at one location where the east wall
adjoins to the west wall of 2-16 Headworks
Standby Power Building.
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $2,210,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact Risk Ranking: LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 2
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 10
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 98
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
HEADWORKS POWER BUILDING B
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 3 ft-bgs +4 ft-MSL AWL 5 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-15
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Shallow spread at 5.00’ elevation (2.00’ embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 50 ft x 30 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1990
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P2-42-1 / J-33-1
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 13 to 18 13 to 17 Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 20 to 30 19 to 27
Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 18 to 28 18 to 25 Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 1-4 City Water Pump Station
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 3: Building separation allows
pounding T1 Building separation is only 3/16-inch at walls and ¾-inch at the roof, where the adjacent roof diaphragm is lower than the roof deck. This can result in pounding of
the south bearing wall. Sufficient separation at the roof and walls should be provided.
PFM 5: Building response to
differential settlement due to
liquefaction
T1/2
5.2” of differential settlement over 60 feet. The differential settlement is 3.7 times
that at the exemplar. By inspection, the building walls will likely experience tension
failures.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Clayey Sand/ Silty Sand
Poorly Graded Sand
Silty Sand
Silty Sand and Clay
Clay Silty Sand and Clay Sand/ Silty Sand
Spread Footings
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 99
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 5: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $2,400,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by at least 80% (1” in 60 feet). Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 2 to 53 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 3: Tie the structures together using steel plates and through
bolts with epoxy anchors. Steel shapes will need to be sized to
promote uniform response of the building to ground shaking.
Additional ties at the roof diaphragm of the adjacent building will be
required, since that building’s diaphragm will be restrained by tying
the structures together.
$130,000 Applies at two wall locations and along the low
roof of the adjacent 2-16 Headworks Standby
Power Building (30 lineal feet).
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $2,530,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☐ Ground Shaking
☒ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 4
CoSF, Weighted Score: 2
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 8
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 100
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
HEADWORKS STANDBY POWER BUILDING
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 3 ft-bgs +4 ft-MSL AWL 5 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-16
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Shallow spread at 4.33’ elev. (2.67’ embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 50 ft x 58 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1999
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: J-33-1
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☒ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 13 to 18 13 to 17 Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 20 to 29 19 to 28
Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 18 to 26 17 to 25 Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 1-4 City Water Pump Station
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 3: Building separation allows
pounding T1
Building separation is only 3/16-inch at walls and ¾-inch at the roof, where the
adjacent roof diaphragm is higher than the roof deck. This can result in pounding of
the south bearing wall of Headworks Power Building B. Sufficient separation at the
roof and walls should be provided.
PFM 5: Building response to
differential settlement due to
liquefaction
T1/2
5.2” of differential settlement over 60 feet. The differential settlement is 3.7 times
that at the exemplar. By inspection, the building walls will likely experience tension
failures.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Clayey Sand/Silty Sand
Poorly Graded Sand
Silty Sand
Silty Sand and Clay Clay Silty Sand and Clay Sand/Silty Sand
Spread Footings
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 101
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 5: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $2,970,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by at least 80% (1” in 60 feet). Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 3 to 53 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 3: Tie the structures together using steel plates and through
bolts with epoxy anchors. Steel shapes will need to be sized to
promote uniform response of the building to ground shaking.
Additional ties at the roof diaphragm of the adjacent building will be
required, since that building’s diaphragm will be restrained by tying
the structures together.
$130,000 Applies at two wall locations and along the low
roof of the adjacent 2-15 Headworks Power
Building B (30 lineal feet).
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $3,100,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☐ Ground Shaking
☒ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 4
CoSF, Weighted Score: 2
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 8
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 102
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
CENTRAL POWER GENERATION BUILDING
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 3 ft-bgs +8 ft-MSL AWL 9 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-17
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Basement with 9’ mat at -14.00’ elev. (25.00’
embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 192 ft x 110 ft
# of Stories: 1 above grade, 1 below grade
Date of Original Construction: 1990 (?)
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: J-19-2 / J-15
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☒ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 9 to 15 8 to 13
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 26 to 33 21 to 27 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 15 to 19 12 to 16 Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): N/A
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 1: Discontinuous shear walls along grid line B (mezzanine) T1
The shear walls along the south side of the mezzanine is not continuous down to the
foundation. The first-floor deck does not appear to have been designed for this
condition.
PFM 2: Wall anchorage at the north
and south walls T1 (2) ¾” diameter bolts resist wall anchorage force in shear at the top of the pilaster (10 locations). Beam is also slender and requires bracing and/or stiffening. Diaphragm cross ties are also deficient (low capacity compared to wall anchorage force).
PFM 4: Mezzanine at EL 21 lacks
bracing T1 Steel-framed mezzanine at EL 21 has no lateral bracing to resist seismic loads.
PFM 5: In-plane shear in shear walls at
shear walls in the east-west direction
T1 East-west seismic governs. North-south was determined to be adequate.
Silty Sand with Clay Seams
Poorly Graded Sand
Silty Sand
Silty/Sandy Clay
Poorly Graded Sand
Basement with Mat
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 103
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PFM 6: Roof diaphragm shear transfer T1 The ledger angle bolts cannot develop the diaphragm shear strength.
PFM 7: Roof diaphragm shear T2 Roof diaphragm shear in both directions exceeds the capacity of the decking.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 1: Provide 50 lineal feet of 12-inch thick cast-in-place concrete shear wall at the basement level and upgrade first floor beams with steel channel tie along the entire building length (190 feet) to serve as a collector.
$600,000 Conduit and piping is suspended from the first floor deck along grid line B. These would need to be removed and replaced or relocated.
PFM 2: Standard Structural Mitigation A2 (High) $700,000 Occurs at 10 locations.
PFM 4: Provide steel braced frames down to the first floor. $70,000 Occurs at 4 locations.
PFM 5: Standard Structural Mitigation E $110,000 Provide at high and low windows at the south wall for 25-ft long x 14.5-ft (364 square feet total).
PFM 6: Standard Structural Mitigation B2 $80,000 Supplement existing anchors at 20” OC (total of
200 epoxy anchors). Provide along the west,
interior, and east walls.
PFM 7: Standard Structural Mitigation B1 $2,330,000 Estimated to be required at 50% of the roof diaphragm.
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $3,890,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☒ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 4
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 20
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: P2-119 (09/01/2027)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 104
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
AERATION BASINS A-H (NORTHWEST)
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 3 ft-bgs +8 ft-MSL AWL 9 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-18A
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: 1’-4” mat at -3.33’ elev. (14.33’ embedment); tie-
down anchors (PTA, 1” DIA, 35’ bonded length, 46’ total length)
Structure Dimensions: 379.5 ft x 192 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1977
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P2-23-6 / P2-23-2
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 5 to 6 4 to 6
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 4 to 5 1 to 3 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 3 to 4 1 to 2 Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) 5 to 7 1 to 3 Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) 3 to 4 1 to 2
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): N/A
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 4: Top slab flexure due to response to differential settlement T3
1.4” differential settlement over 60 feet. Considers a 10% reduction in capacity due to corrosion. Bottom bars govern this check. Bottom side of roof deck did not have signs of rebar corrosion per condition assessment reports. Check is compliant if the spring stiffness is assumed to be liquefied (ky = 7.2 ksf/ft).
PFM 5: Wall flexure due to response to
differential settlement at the interior
basin dividing walls and the north and south perimeter walls
T3
1.4” differential settlement over 60 feet. Occurs at the reinforcing steel dowels at the
thickened wall base of the interior basin-dividing walls and the north and south
perimeter walls. The north and south perimeter walls are compliant if the spring stiffness is assumed to be liquefied (ky = 7.2 ksf/ft).
PFM 6: Out-of-plane shear response to
differential settlement
T3 1.4” differential settlement over 60 feet. Occurs at the top slab and base slab. All conditions are compliant if the spring stiffness is assumed to be liquefied (ky = 7.2 ksf/ft).
Clayey Sand/Silty Sand
Poorly Graded Sand
Silty Sand and Silty Clay
Clay Silty Sand/Clayey Sand
Mat
Tie-Down Anchors
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 105
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PFM 7: Tension in top slab rebar due to differential settlement T3
1.4” differential settlement over 60 feet. Considers a 20% reduction in capacity due to
corrosion. Occurs at the top slab. Condition is compliant if the spring stiffness is
assumed to be liquefied (ky = 7.2 ksf/ft).
PFM 8: Tension in interior basin-dividing walls due to differential settlement T3 1.4” differential settlement over 60 feet. Occurs at the interior basin-dividing walls and the interior transverse walls. Condition is compliant if the spring stiffness is assumed to be liquefied (ky = 7.2 ksf/ft).
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 4: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B1 $18,570,000 Applies to approximately 800 square feet total. Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 50% (3/4” in 60 feet). Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 67 ft-bgs.
PFM 5: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B1 -- Occurs over a length of 800 lineal feet. Mitigation required to reduce
differential settlement by 50% (3/4” in 60 feet). Ground improvement
for settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 67 ft-bgs.
PFM 6: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B1 -- Occurs at the top slab and bottom slab. Overstress is occurring at about 3,000 square feet. Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 50% (3/4” in 60 feet). Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 67 ft-bgs.
PFM 7: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B1 -- Occurs at the top slab over an area of approximately 36,000 square
feet (50% of the top slab area). Mitigation required to reduce
differential settlement by 50% (3/4” in 60 feet). Ground improvement
for settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 67 ft-bgs.
PFM 8: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B1 -- Occurs over about 30% of all interior basin walls. Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 50% (3/4” in 60 feet). Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 67 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Total Geotechnical and Structural
Mitigation Cost $18,570,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☐ Ground Shaking
☒ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☒ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☒ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 4
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 20
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: X-050 (03/01/2020)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 106
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
AERATION BASINS A-H (SOUTHEAST)
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 3 ft-bgs +8 ft-MSL
AWL 9 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-18B
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: 1’-4” mat at -3.33’ elev. (14.33’ embedment); tie-
down anchors (PTA, 1” DIA, 35’ bonded length, 46’ total length)
Structure Dimensions: 379.5 ft x 192 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1977
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P2-23-6 / P2-23-2
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 7 to 8 6 to 8
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 18 to 33 16 to 31 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 10 to 19 9 to 18 Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) 16 to 28 13 to 26 Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) 11 to 19 9 to 18
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): N/A
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 4: Top slab flexure due to
response to differential settlement T3
1.8” differential settlement over 60 feet. Considers a 10% reduction in capacity due to
corrosion. Bottom bars govern this check. Bottom side of roof deck did not have signs
of rebar corrosion per condition assessment reports. Check is compliant if the spring
stiffness is assumed to be liquefied (ky = 7.2 ksf/ft).
PFM 5: Wall flexure due to response to
differential settlement at the interior
basin dividing walls and the north and
south perimeter walls
T3
1.8” differential settlement over 60 feet. Occurs at the reinforcing steel dowels at the
thickened wall base of the interior basin-dividing walls and the north and south
perimeter walls. The north and south perimeter walls are compliant if the spring
stiffness is assumed to be liquefied (ky = 7.2 ksf/ft).
PFM 6: Out-of-plane shear response to differential settlement T3 1.8” differential settlement over 60 feet. Occurs at the top slab and base slab. All conditions are compliant if the spring stiffness is assumed to be liquefied (ky = 7.2 ksf/ft).
Mat
Tie-Down Anchors
Clayey Sand/Silty Sand
Poorly Graded Sand
Silty Sand
Silt and Clay
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 107
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PFM 7: Tension in top slab rebar due to differential settlement T3
1.8” differential settlement over 60 feet. Considers a 20% reduction in capacity due to
corrosion. Occurs at the top slab. Condition is compliant if the spring stiffness is
assumed to be liquefied (ky = 7.2 ksf/ft).
PFM 8: Tension in interior basin-dividing walls due to differential settlement T3 1.8” differential settlement over 60 feet. Occurs at the interior basin-dividing walls and the interior transverse walls. Condition is compliant if the spring stiffness is assumed to be liquefied (ky = 7.2 ksf/ft).
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 4: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B1 $9,870,000 Applies to approximately 800 square feet total. Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 60% (3/4” in 60 feet). Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 41 ft-bgs.
PFM 5: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B1 -- Occurs over a length of 800 lineal feet. Mitigation required to reduce
differential settlement by 60% (3/4” in 60 feet). Ground improvement
for settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 41 ft-bgs.
PFM 6: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B1 -- Occurs at the top slab and bottom slab. Overstress is occurring at about 3,000 square feet. Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 60% (3/4” in 60 feet). Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 41 ft-bgs.
PFM 7: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B1 -- Occurs at the top slab over an area of approximately 36,000 square
feet (50% of the top slab area). Mitigation required to reduce
differential settlement by 60% (3/4” in 60 feet). Ground improvement
for settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 41 ft-bgs.
PFM 8: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B1 -- Occurs over about 30% of all interior basin walls. Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 60% (3/4” in 60 feet). Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 41 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A N/A
Total Geotechnical and Structural
Mitigation Cost $9,870,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☐ Ground Shaking
☒ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☒ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☒ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 4
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 20
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: X-050 (03/01/2020)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 108
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
GAS HOLDER
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 3 ft-bgs +6.5 ft-MSL
AWL 7.5 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-19
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
STEEL TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Ring wall footing (2’ wide) at 8.00’ elev. (1.50’
embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 42 ft diameter, 31 ft height
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1982
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P2-24-1
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☒ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☒ Other _Shop Drawings: Gas holder__
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 5 4
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 2 to 3 1 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 2 1 Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) 4 to 5 1 to 2 Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) 4 to 5 1 to 2
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): N/A
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 6: Tank shell overstress due to liquefaction-induced lateral spread and settlements T3
Does not meet IO (BSE 1E) performance objectives. Stress in tank shell at the anchor
location exceeds yield, may result in gas leakage. Does meet LS (BSE 2E) performance
objectives, DCR > 1.0, overstress in steel shell at anchor plates may cause some
permanent deformation and/or gas leakage, low likelihood of collapse.
PFM 7: Anchor failure overstress due to liquefaction-induced lateral spread and settlements T3
Does not meet IO (BSE 1E) performance objectives. Stress in the anchor plates exceeds yield; corrosion observed, damages to similar plate anchors observed in past earthquakes. Does meet LS (BSE 2E) performance objectives, DCR > 1.0, overstress in plate anchors may cause permanent deformation or fracture, low likelihood of
collapse.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Silty Sand/Clayey Sand
Poorly Graded Sand
Silty Sand/Silty Clay
Clay Silty Sand/Clayey Sand
Ring Wall Footing
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 109
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 6 & 7: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $2,300,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement.
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $2,300,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☐ Ground Shaking
☒ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☒ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 1
CoSF, Weighted Score: 2.4
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 2.4
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: J-124 (In Progress)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 110
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
SECONDARY CLARIFIERS A-L
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 3 ft-bgs +7.5 ft-MSL AWL 8.5 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-20
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
STEEL TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: 1’-3” Mat at -2.25’ elev. (12.75’ embedment); tie-
down anchors (PTA, 1” DIA, 35’ bonded length, 46’ total length)
Structure Dimensions: 555 ft x 345 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1977
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P2-23-6 / P2-42-2
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☒ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other _Shop Drawings: Soil anchors_
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 7 to 12 6 to 10
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 15 to 23 12 to 23 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 8 to 9 6 to 8 Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) 45 to 88 36 to 77 Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) 15 to 22 12 to 19
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): N/A
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 11: Separation across expansion
joints due to differential settlements T3 3.2” differential settlement over 60 ft. Approximately 1.5 inches of separation may
occur at the expansion joints in the walls, possible water-stop damage.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Tie-Down Anchors
Clayey Sand/Silty Sand
Sand/Clayey Sand
Poorly Graded Sand
Clay Seam
Silty Sand and Silty Clay
Clay
Silty Sand and Silty Clay
Mat
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 111
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 11: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B1 $30,240,000 Mitigation is required to reduce differential
settlement by 35% (2.1” in 60 feet). Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 9 to 30 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $30,240,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☐ Ground Shaking
☒ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☒ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☒ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking: LoSF Rating: 3
CoSF, Weighted Score: 4
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 12
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: X-051 (09/01/2027)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 112
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
DAFTS A-C
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 3 ft-bgs +7.5 ft-MSL
AWL 8.5 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-21
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: 1’-0” Mat at 1.25’ elev (9.25’ embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 55 ft diameter, 35 ft height
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1977
Retrofit (if any): Remodeled in 2011
Projects: P2-23-6
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☒ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 7 to 10 6 to 10 Lateral Spread (near river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) 20 to 34 14 to 24 Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) 11 to 19 8 to 13
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 2-22 DAFT D
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 3: Structure response to
differential settlement due to
liquefaction
T1/2
2.4” differential settlement over 60 feet. Differential settlement is about 83% of
exemplar. Members are nearly the same thickness and reinforcing. Refer to exemplar
for typical deficiencies.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Silty Sand/Clayey Sand
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt Seams
Clay
Silty Sand and Silty Clay
Silty Sand/Clayey Sand Clay
Mat
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 113
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 3: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B1 $4,970,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by 60% (1” in 60 feet). Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 8 to 60 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $4,970,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☐ Ground Shaking
☒ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking: LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 3
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 15
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 114
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
DAFT D
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 3 ft-bgs +7 ft-MSL AWL 8 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-22
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: 1’-0” Mat at 1.25’ elev. (8.75’ embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 55 ft diameter, 35 ft height
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1993
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P2-42-2
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☒ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☒ Other _Shop Drawings: Dome rebar_____
and PT thrust ring______________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 9 to 10 8 to 9 Lateral Spread (near river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) 40 to 76 28 to 52
Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) 20 to 39 14 to 26
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): N/A
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 3: Dome-to-wall Connection T2 Shear friction on the dome to wall dowels. The existing joint has building paper to
limit restraint, so the dowel is resisting all of the dome seismic shear.
PFM 5: Bottom mat flexure due to
response to differential settlement T3 2.9” differential settlement over 60 feet. Bottom bars govern this check. Check is
compliant if the spring stiffness is assumed to be liquefied (ky = 7.2 ksf/ft).
PFM 6: Bottom mat out-of-plane shear due to differential settlement T3 2.9” differential settlement over 60 feet. Check is compliant if the spring stiffness is assumed to be liquefied (ky = 7.2 ksf/ft).
PFM 7: Hoop tension in wall and slab due to differential settlement T3 2.9” differential settlement over 60 feet. Check is still non-compliant if the spring
stiffness is assumed to be liquefied (ky = 7.2 ksf/ft) for the wall and mat slab.
Silty Sand/Clayey Sand
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt Seams
Clay
Silty Sand and Silty Clay
Clay
Silty Sand/Clayey Sand
Mat
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 115
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PFM 9: Chord/ring tension in the dome trust ring T2 The diaphragm thrust due to dead load with the potential seismic chord force exceeds the available post-tensioning and mild reinforcement capacity.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 5-7: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B1 $1,940,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by 70% (1” in 60 feet). Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 8 to 60 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 3: Install additional epoxy dowels that tie the dome into the
perimeter wall.
$40,000 Estimated that 40 epoxy dowels are required.
PFM 9: Install a perimeter C6 x 13 member along the circumference
of the dome thrust ring.
$70,000 Approximate length of 100 feet. Anchor the steel
section to the dome using epoxy bonded anchors
(100 anchors).
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $2,050,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☒ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 3
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 15
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 116
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
SURGE TOWER NO. 1
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 3 ft-bgs +8 ft-MSL AWL 9 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-23
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: 2’-6” Mat at -8.50’ elev. (19.50’ embedment); piles –
PPC (14” SQ, 60’ total length)
Structure Dimensions: 28 ft diameter, 104 ft height
# of Stories: N/A
Date of Original Construction: 1996
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: J-34-1
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☒ Other _Shop Drawings: Piles_____
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 9 to 10 8 to 9
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 53 to 66 42 to 64 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 44 to 55 35 to 53 Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) 14 to 18 12 to 17 Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) 13 to 17 12 to 16
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 2-24 Surge Tower No. 2; Digester 16
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 9: Permanent displacements due
to liquefaction-induced lateral spread
and settlements (surface PGD = 64
inches)
T1/2 Permanent horizontal displacements due to lateral spread are likely. LS performance
level met, low likelihood of collapse.
PFM 10: Bending/shear failure of piles
due to lateral spread (surface PGD = 64
inches)
T1/2
Bending moment in piles exceed ultimate capacity at around 24-inches of lateral
spread < best estimate PGD = 64 inches. Low likelihood of collapse even if the piles
fail.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Clayey Sand/Silty Sand
Clay Seam
Silty Sand with Clay Seams
Sandy Silt/Silty Sand
Poorly Graded Sand
Silty Sand
Piles
Mat
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 117
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 9 & 10: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
at least 75% (surface PGD = 15-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation, see Note 3)
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only; 3. Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for additional detail.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☐ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☒ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☒ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 5
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 25
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 118
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
SURGE TOWER NO. 2
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 3 ft-bgs +9 ft-MSL
AWL 10 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-24
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: 2’-0” Mat at -4.00’ elev. (16.00’ embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 26-feet diameter, 93-feet height
# of Stories: N/A
Date of Original Construction: 1986
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: J-9 / J-34-1
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☒ Other _Shop Drawings: Steel extension__
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 9 to 13 9 to 11 Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 90 to 120 65 to 95
Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 62 to 82 45 to 65 Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) 10 to 13 7 to 11 Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) 10 to 13 7 to 11
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): N/A
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 9: Permanent displacements due
to liquefaction-induced lateral spread
and settlements (surface PGD = 65-
inches).
T3 Lateral spread and settlements will result in translation and tilting. Low likelihood of
collapse. Failure of dresser coupling does not meet IO criteria.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Silty Sand/Clayey Sand
Poorly Graded Sand
Silty Sand and Silt
Silt and Clay
Mat
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 119
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 9: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
at least 75% (surface PGD = 15-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation, see Note 3)
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only; 3. Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation. Refer to TM4
(Geosyntec, 2019) for additional detail.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☐ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☒ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☒ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 3
CoSF, Weighted Score: 5
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 15
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 120
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
TRUCK LOADING
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 3 ft-bgs +6.5 ft-MSL AWL 7.5 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-26
PLANT
2
CLASS
II
Risk Category
II
STRUCTURE TYPE
TANK
class based performance objectives
Class II: Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system; loss of life potential is low. Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before repair.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: 4’-9” Mat at 1.75’ elev. (7.75’ embedment); stone
columns
Structure Dimensions: 79 ft x 68 ft
# of Stories: 2 stories
Date of Original Construction: 2003
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P2-60
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☒ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 9 to 11 8 to 10
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 2-5 PEPS & MAC
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
N/A
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Sandy/Silty Clay and Silty Sand
Poorly Graded Sand
Clay Seam
Silty Sand
Silty Sand and Silty Clay
Silty Clay
Sand/Silty Sand
Mat
Stone Columns
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 121
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☒ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 0
CoSF, Weighted Score: 2.4
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 0
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 122
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
MAINTENANCE BUILDING
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 3 ft-bgs +6.3 ft-MSL
AWL 7.3 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-27
PLANT
2
CLASS
II
Risk Category
II
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class II: Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system; loss of life potential is low. Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before repair.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Shallow spread at 6.30’ elev. (3.00’ embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 302 ft x 51 ft
# of Stories: 2 stories
Date of Original Construction: 1996 (?)
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: P2-35-3
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 12 to 14 11 to 12 Lateral Spread (near river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 1-29 Shop Building A
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 2: Flexural stress in moment
frame columns T2 North-south direction flexure in columns has stress of 213 ksi.
PFM 3A: Flexural/axial stress in
transverse moment frame beams T2
Findings apply to all of the transverse moment frame roof beams (W24x62), which
are unbraced for their full span of 51 feet. 2nd floor beams in the transverse direction
meet the performance objectives.
PFM 3B: Flexural/axial stress in longitudinal moment frame beams T2
Findings apply to all of the longitudinal moment frame roof beams (W12x26), which
are unbraced for their full span of 20 feet. 2nd floor beams along grid line 4 do not
meet the performance objectives with slightly higher DCRs.
PFM 4: Precast wall cladding interferes
with moment frames T1
The precast concrete wall cladding is rigidly connected with welds to the moment
frame columns. The cladding will serve to restrain the moment frame and can result
in excessive damage/collapse of wall panels from the building.
PFM 5: Moment frame beam-column connection T2 All beam-column moment frame connections at both the roof and 2nd floor levels do not meet the performance objectives.
PFM 7: Moments frames have
relatively weak columns T1 All moment frame connections have strong beams relative to the columns. A Tier 2
evaluation was performed.
Sand and Silty Sand
Sand with Clay Seams
Silty Sand with Clay Seams
Sand/Gravel
Spread Footings
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 123
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PFM 8: Columns are noncompact members T1 Columns are susceptible to buckling. A Tier 2 evaluation was performed.
PFM 9: Differential settlement due to
liquefaction causes failure of precast
concrete wall panels
T1/2
4.4” differential settlement over 60 feet. The precast concrete cladding has
insufficient connections and joints to accommodate the differential settlement.
Brittle failure and spalling of the precast concrete panels is anticipated.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 9: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $15,300,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by at least 80% (1” in 60 feet). Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 4 to 64 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 2, 3A, 3B, 7, and 8: Provide steel concentric braced frames
from the roof level down to the first floor in the north-south and
east-west directions. Braced frames should be either chevron or X
braces and may be comprised of tube steel or buckling restrained
braced frame members. Add supplemental connections along
collector lines with steel hardware as required at the roof and 2nd
floor levels. Add columns below existing beam lines in addition to
the bracing. New grade beams and pad footings will be required at
the foundation level.
$2,890,000 Braced frames required at 14 total bays over 2-
stories (28 frames). Will require some interior
demo and restoration of interior finishes.
PFM 4: Remove all welded (fully restrained) wall cladding
connections to steel columns and replace with connections that
have bolts with slotted holes.
$540,000 8 connections per panel x 38 panels (304
connections).
PFM 5: See PFM 2 Mitigation. The alternative to this option would
be to upgrade all of the existing moment frame connections (64
locations), which involves strengthening existing columns over their
full height, adding doubler and continuity plates within the column
web, and potentially reducing the beam flanges near the joints.
-- Braced frames required at 14 total bays over 2-
stories (28 frames). Will require some interior
demo and restoration of interior finishes. Cost
accounted for in PFM 1-3.
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $18,730,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class 5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking: LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 5
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 25
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 124
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
BOILER BUILDING
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation HHWL 3 ft-bgs +8 ft-MSL AWL 9 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-28
PLANT
2
CLASS
II
Risk Category
II
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class II: Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system; loss of life potential is low. Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before repair.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Dropped spread footings at 7.10’ elev. (3.90’
embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 50.3 ft x 40 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1971
Retrofit (if any): Remodeled in 1980 and 1996; 1994: Provision of roof chords and
connections, addition of connections between the roof and shear walls, and addition
of connections between the shear walls and the floor slab.
Projects: P2-17
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 12 to 14 5 to 6 Lateral Spread (near river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 1-4 City Water Pump Station
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 4: Roof diaphragm shear T2 Diaphragm shear capacity is limiting. Mitigation is recommended to enhance the
diaphragm capacity.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
Silty Sand/Clayey Sand
Poorly Graded Sand
Silty Sand and Silty Clay
Clay Silty Sand/Clayey Sand
Spread Footings
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 125
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 4: Standard Structural Mitigation B1 $250,000 Applies over the entire roof plan between grid
lines 5 and 9 (2,000 sf) and requires the addition
of (3) W12x31 beams x 20-ft long.
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $250,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 2
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 10
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 126
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
OOBS
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 3 ft-bgs +8 ft-MSL
AWL 9 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-29
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Basement with 9’ thick mat at -14.00’ elev. (25.00’
embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 132 ft x 190 ft (at base) and 90 ft (at roof)
# of Stories: West End: 2 above grade, one below grade; East End: one below grade
Date of Original Construction: 1990 (?)
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: J-15
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☒ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 9 to 15 8 to 14 Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 114 to 165 92 to 145 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 26 to 38 21 to 33
Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20
BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): N/A
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 1: Wall anchorage at the roof
level at the north and south walls T1 All framing connections along the north and south walls are non-compliant (13
locations).
PFM 2: Wall anchorage at the roof
level at the east, west, and interior wall (grid line G) T1 All framing connections along the east, west, and interior wall are non-compliant (15
locations).
PFM 5: Roof diaphragm shear
T1 Roof diaphragm shear in the east-west direction is non-compliant.
Silty Sand with Clay Seams
Poorly Graded Sand
Silty Sand
Clay and Silt
Silty/Sandy Clay
Poorly Graded Sand
Basement with Mat
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 127
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PFM 8: Uneven buoyant uplift due to
liquefaction T2
The east end of the structure is an open pit that is significantly less massive than the
building to the west. Buoyant uplift due to liquefied soils is expected to rotate the
east pit upward relative to the building portion, which will result in shear and bending failures in the mat slab and movement of OOBS into the Central Power Generation
Building.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 8: Ground improvement under the foundation $8,230,000 Ground improvement for uplift mitigation is required
under the foundation from 25 to 45 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 1: Standard Structural Mitigation A2 (High) $630,000 Applies at 13 locations.
PFM 2: Standard Structural Mitigation A2 (High) $780,000 Applies at 15 locations.
PFM 5: Standard Structural Mitigation B1 & B2 $1,090,000 Mitigation to include the replacement of the roof deck (or supplement with steel bracing) in the east-west direction for a total of 8,600 sf and provision
of supplemental epoxy bonded anchors to the
existing north and south wall ledger angels @ 12” OC (180 anchors).
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $10,730,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class 5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☐ Life Safety ☒ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 5
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 25
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 128
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
12KV DISTRIBUTION CENTER A
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 3 ft-bgs +6 ft-MSL
AWL 7 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-30
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Basement with 1’ mat and grade beams at 0’ elevation
(9’ embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 92 ft x 41 ft
# of Stories: 1 story
Date of Original Construction: 1977
Retrofit (if any): Remodeled in 1983
Projects: P2-23-3 / P2-23-6 / P2-47-1
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☒ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches)
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches)
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure (N/A if Exemplar): 2-5 PEPS & MAC
PFM and Description1 Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 1: Wall anchorage to roof at north and south walls T1 W16x96 anchorage at PWPS (10 locations).
PFM 3: Torsional response due to E-W
seismic T1
Distribution Center A has concrete moment frames along the south side, but shear
wall along the north side. Addition of in-fill walls along the north and south sides
should mitigate this PFM.
PFM 4: Shear at frame columns T1
Frame columns along the north and south walls have insufficient shear capacity and
cannot develop moment frame behavior due to restraint by the infill wall panels.
Conversion of building to shear walls is recommended.
PFM 5: Structure response to
differential settlement due to
liquefaction
T1/2
4.1” over 60 feet. Differential settlement is on the order of 46% larger compared to
the exemplar. Wall tensile forces are estimated to be about the same as the
exemplar, which would result in tensile overstress.
Clayey Sand/Silty Sand
Poorly Graded Sand
Silty Sand
Silty Sand and Clay
Clay Silty Sand and Clay Sand/Silty Sand
Basement with Mat
and Grade Beams
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 129
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PFM 9: Out-of-plane shear on the buried walls due to liquefied soil conditions T2 Walls may experience shear stresses that are higher than their capacity.
Notes: 1. Potential Failure Modes (PFMs) that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list. See Technical
Memorandum 4 (TM4; Geosyntec, 2019) for additional PFMs considered; 2. T1 = Tier 1 (equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure), T2 = Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure, T3 = Tier 3 (Systematic Evaluation Procedure), T1/T2 = Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure. See TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 5: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $3,160,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 75%
(1” in 60 feet). Ground improvement for settlement mitigation
is required from 7 to 55 ft-bgs.
PFM 9: Standard Geotechnical Mitigation C $840,000 Mitigation required to reduce soil fluid density by 50% or
preclude liquefaction development in backfill altogether.
Ground improvement for lateral earth pressure reduction is required from 7 to 15 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation1 Cost2 Comments
PFM 1: Standard Structural Mitigation A2 (High) $560,000 Applies at the W16x96 beams at 10 locations at the PWPS.
PFM 3 & 4: Standard Structural Mitigation E $110,000 Applies at the north and south walls of the Distribution Center
(88 square feet infill) and at the Plant Water Pump Station (152
square feet infill).
Total Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $4,670,000
Notes: 1. Refer to TM4 (Geosyntec, 2019) for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations; 2. Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class 5 “Order-of-Magnitude” estimates, intended for planning purposes only.
risk ranking
Controlling Failure Type(s):
☒ Ground Shaking
☐ Differential Settlement
☐ Lateral Spread
Controlling Consequence(s):
☒ Life Safety ☐ Primary Treatment
☐ Regulatory ☐ Stakeholder
☐ Financial ☐ Public Impact
Risk Ranking:
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF, Weighted Score: 2
Overall RoSF = LoSF x CoSF = 10
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: X-047 (09/01/2023)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 130
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
SEJB
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 3 ft-bgs +10 ft-MSL
AWL 11 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-31
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BURIED BOX
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Buried structure with 2’ thick mat at -19.5’ elev. (32.5’
embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 21 ft x 20.3 ft
# of Stories: N/A
Date of Original Construction: 2003
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: J-77
Available Information: ☐ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☐ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 9 to 12 8 to 10
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 27 to 44 21 to 42 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 24 to 40 19 to 38 Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) 8 to 13 6 to 12 Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) 8 to 13 6 to 12
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Only Geotechnical Evaluation performed for this structure
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
Silty/Clayey Sand with Clay
Poorly Graded Sand
Silty Sand and Silty Clay
Clay Sand/Silty Sand
Mat
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 131
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
REVISED: 6/28/2019 PS 15-06
JBC
Plan View
Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 3 ft-bgs +9 ft-MSL
AWL 10 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
#
2-32
PLANT
2
CLASS
I
Risk Category
IV
STRUCTURE TYPE
BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I: Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions: Buried structure with 2.5’ thick mat at -15.50’ elev.
(27.5’ embedment)
Structure Dimensions: 45 ft x 14 ft
# of Stories: N/A
Date of Original Construction: 2003
Retrofit (if any): N/A
Projects: J-77
Available Information: ☒ Construction Drawings ☐ Geotechnical Report
☐ Specifications ☐ Other ________________________
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class: Class D (w/o liquefaction); Class F (with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential (High/Med/Low): High
HHWL1 AWL2,7 Surface Settlement (inches) 13 to 19 11 to 17
Lateral Spread (near river, inches) 100 to 150 75 to 130 Lateral Spread (far from river, inches) 58 to 87 43 to 75 Lateral Spread (near marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread ----- Lateral Spread (far from marsh, inches) ----- No Lateral Spread -----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA (g)3 Dist. (km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistic5 Hazard Level M6 PGA (g) S0 (g) SS (g) S1 (g)
BSE-1E 20% in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 BSE-2E7 5% in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes: 1. Historic High Water Level; 2. Analysis Water Level; 3. Median PGA; 4. Approximate distance to center of plant; 5. Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D; 6. Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Only Geotechnical Evaluation performed for this structure
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
Silty Sand with Clay Seam
Poorly Graded Sand
Silty Sand
Poorly Graded Sand
Silty Sand and Clay
Sand/Silty Sand
Mat
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix E 132
HL1635\PS15-06 Geosyntec Project Report - FINAL 7/19/2019
APPENDIX F
Mitigation Cost Tables
HL1635\PS15-06 Geosyntec Project Report - FINAL 7/19/2019
APPENDIX F1
Structural Mitigation Cost Tables
Project Name:Waste Sludge Thickener DAFT Pump Room Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 1 Project 1‐1 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:4 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #2 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation A1
New steel angles at existing wall or perimeter roof beam, 8' OC 165 FT 41$ 6,765$ 6$ 990$ 7,755$ RS Means. 25 lbs/ft Gal Steel. 16 ft long.
Epoxy anchors at 8' OC 41 EA 71$ 2,947$ 38$ 1,559$ 4,507$ RS Means
Puddle welding 26 EA 600$ 15,600$ 15,600$
Additional roof framing members 165 FT 41$ 6,765$ 6$ 990$ 7,755$ RS Means. 25 lbs/ft Gal Steel. 16 ft long.
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 35,617$ 100% of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 4 MONTH 3,000$ 12,000$ 12,000$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, and etc.
83,233$
PFM #3 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation B1
Demo existing roofing 1 LS 9,600$
Roof Framing 390 FT 62$ 24,254$ 7$ 2,547$ 26,801$ W14X38
Metal decking, galvanized steel, 1‐1/2" deep, 18 gauge 4688 SF 12$ 56,250$ 1.5$ 7,031$ 63,281$ RS Means
Membrane roof for the entire building 4688 SF 6$ 29,109$ 6$ 29,109$ 58,219$ Carollo database
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 157,901$ 100% of other costs
315,802$
PFM #4 Mitigation
Provide steel beam/channel ties for the full width 80 FT 51$ 4,096$ 179$ 14,304$ 18,400$ RS Means. 60 lbs/ft Gal Steel.
Epoxy anchors at 6" OC for steel channel tie 161 EA 71$ 11,503$ 38$ 6,086$ 17,589$ RS Means
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 35,989$ 100% of other costs
71,979$
Sub‐total 471,013$
Sales Tax 8%18,841$
Sub‐total 489,854$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30% 146,956$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 636,810$
GR / GC 15%95,521$
Sub‐total 732,331$
Contractor's Profit 10%73,233$
Sub‐total 805,564$
Bond 2%16,111$
Sub‐total 821,676$
Insurance 2%16,434$
GRAND TOTAL 838,109$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
INSTALLATION
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
Discontinuous shear walls at the interior of
the south building in the north‐south
direction (@grid lines 3 and 5)
Roof diaphragm shear at the north building
Wall anchorage to the roof at east and west
walls of the north building
MATERIALS
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 1
Project Name:Blower Building and PEPS Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 1 Project 1‐2 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:5 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #2 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation A2 (High)
W33x connections at pilasters 10 EA 150,000$ $15000/location. Estimated by James Doering
Additional roof deck welding 10 EA 2,400$ 24,000$ 24,000$
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 174,000$ 100% of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 5 MONTH 3,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, and etc.
363,000$
PFM #3 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation A1 (SIM)
New steel angles at existing wall or perimeter roof beam, 8' OC 560 FT 27$ 15,366$ 74$ 41,608$ 56,974$ RS Means. 25 lbs/ft Gal Steel. 16 ft long.
Epoxy anchors at 8' OC 140 EA 71$ 10,003$ 38$ 5,292$ 15,295$ RS Means
Puddle welding 62 EA 600$ 37,200$ 37,200$
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 109,469$ 100% of other costs
218,939$
PFM #4 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation A2 (High)
W27x connections at pilasters 4 EA 60,000$ $15000/location. Estimated by James Doering
Additional roof deck welding 4 EA 2,400$ 9,600$ 9,600$
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 69,600$
139,200$
PFM #5 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation B1
Demo existing roofing 1 LS 9,600$
Roof Framing 1182 FT 78$ 92,196$ 8$ 8,865$ 101,061$ W14X48
Metal decking, galvanized steel, 1‐1/2" deep, 18 gauge 8370 SF 12$ 100,440$ 1.5$ 12,555$ 112,995$ RS Means
Membrane roof for the entire building 8370 SF 6$ 50,220$ 6$ 50,220$ 100,440$ Carollo database
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 324,096$ 100% of other costs
648,192$
Sub‐total 1,369,331$
Sales Tax 8%54,773$
Sub‐total 1,424,104$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30% 427,231$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements.Sub‐total 1,851,335$
GR / GC 15% 277,700$
Sub‐total 2,129,036$
Contractor's Profit 10% 212,904$
Sub‐total 2,341,939$
Bond 2% 46,839$
Sub‐total 2,388,778$
Insurance 2%47,776$
GRAND TOTAL 2,436,553$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
Roof diaphragm shear in the
north‐south direction at the
blower building
Wall anchorage to the roof at
the north and south walls of the
PEPS Building
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
Wall anchorage to the roof at
the east and west walls of the
PEPS Building
Wall anchorage to the roof at
the north and south walls of the
Blower Building
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 2
Project Name:Plant Water Pump Station and Power Building 6 Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 1 Project 1‐3 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:3 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #2 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation A2 (Medium)
Wall anchorage mitigation at W24x94 roof beams 8 EA 80,000$
$10000/location. Estimated by
James Doering
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 80,000$ 100% of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 3 MONTH 3,000$ 9,000$ 9,000$ Construct trailer, utilities,
protection, and etc.
169,000$
PFM #3 Mitigation
Provide a steel channel or similar shape 88 FT 97$ 8,488$ 6$ 525$ 9,013$ RS Means. 60 lbs/ft Gal Steel.
Epoxy anchors 176 EA 71$ 12,575$ 38$ 6,653$ 19,228$ Assume 6" OC
Welding to existing steel W12x35 1 EA 4,800$ 4,800$ 4,800$
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 33,041$ 100% of other costs
66,081$
Sub‐total 235,081$
Sales Tax 8%9,403$
Sub‐total 244,484$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30%73,345$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 317,830$
GR / GC 15%47,674$
Sub‐total 365,504$
Contractor's Profit 10%36,550$
Sub‐total 402,054$
Bond 2%8,041$
Sub‐total 410,095$
Insurance 2%8,202$
GRAND TOTAL 418,297$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
Drag connection at the reentrant
corner (intersection of grid line 2
and D)
Wall anchorage to the roof at
east and west walls
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 3
Project Name:City Water Pump Station Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 1 Project 1‐4 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:5.5 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #1 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation C1
Stainless steel angle tie plate, 4' OC 130 FT 30$ 3,896$ 7$ 944$ 4,840$ RS Means. 1.21 ratio for SST. L4x4x1/2, 2' long
Epoxy anchors at 4' OC 65 EA 71$ 4,644$ 38$ 2,457$ 7,101$ RS Means
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 23,883$ 200% of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 5.5 MONTH 3,000$ 16,500$ 16,500$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, and etc.
52,324$
PFM #3 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation A2 (Low)
Anchorage at W24x131 to pilasters 6 EA 45,000$ $7500/location. Estimated by James Doering
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 45,000$ 100% of other costs
90,000$
PFM #4 Mitigation
6" concrete overlay 10 CY 474$ 4,740$ 1,453$ 14,530$ 19,270$ Carollo database
Special finishes for concrete 1 LS 964$ 5% of concrete
Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 200 EA 39$ 7,800$ 45$ 9,000$ 16,800$ RS Means material cost, $100/dowel, 18" OC
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 37,034$ 100% of other costs
74,067$
PFM #5 & 6 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation D
Vertical steel tube or steel channel members 6 EA 36,000$ $6000/each
Epoxy anchors at 8" OC 199 EA 71$ 14,201$ 38$ 7,513$ 21,713$ RS Means
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 57,713$ 100% of other costs
115,427$
Sub‐total 331,818$
Sales Tax 8%13,273$
Sub‐total 345,091$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30% 103,527$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 448,618$
GR / GC 15%67,293$
Sub‐total 515,911$
Contractor's Profit 10%51,591$
Sub‐total 567,502$
Bond 2%11,350$
Sub‐total 578,852$
Insurance 2%11,577$
GRAND TOTAL 590,429$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
Out‐of‐plane horizontal bending
at east and west walls
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
In‐plane shear at south pier
between louvers
Wall anchorage at east and west
walls
Footings move independent of
the wall
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 4
Project Name:Power Building 2 Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 1 Project 1‐5 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:3 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #1 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation C1
Stainless steel angle tie plate, 4' OC 258 FT 30$ 7,725$ 7$ 1,803$ 9,528$ RS Means. 1.21 ratio for SST. L4x4x1/2, 2' long
Epoxy anchors at 4' OC 129 EA 71$ 9,199$ 38$ 4,867$ 14,066$ RS Means
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 47,187$ 200% of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 3 MONTH 3,000$ 9,000$ 9,000$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, and etc.
79,780$
PFM #2 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation A1 (SIM)
New anchorage where W12x27 beams are supported at the CMU walls 4 EA 20,000$ $5000 per location
Demo existing roofing 1 LS 9,600$
Membrane roof for the entire building 2460 SF 6$ 14,760$ 6$ 14,760$ 29,520$ Carollo database
Additional roof deck welding 4 EA 2,400$ 9,600$ 9,600$
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 68,720$ 100% of other costs
137,440$
Sub‐total 217,220$
Sales Tax 8%8,689$
Sub‐total 225,909$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30%67,773$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 293,682$
GR / GC 15%44,052$
Sub‐total 337,734$
Contractor's Profit 10%33,773$
Sub‐total 371,508$
Bond 2%7,430$
Sub‐total 378,938$
Insurance 2%7,579$
GRAND TOTAL 386,516$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
Wall anchorage at the north and
south walls of the low roof
Walls/footing are not tied
together
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 5
Project Name:Power Building 4 Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 1 Project 1‐6 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:3 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #3 Mitigation
Demo existing roofing 1 LS 9,600$
Membrane roof for the entire building 1760 SF 6$ 10,560$ 6$ 10,560$ 21,120$ Carollo database
Concentric X‐braced frames at the existing louver openings 94 FT 78$ 7,359$ 8$ 708$ 8,066$ RS Means. HSS 8X8X1/2. 49lbs/ft.
Steel framed blockings at the roof level 25 FT 78$ 1,950$ 8$ 188$ 2,138$ RS Means. HSS 8X8X1/2. 49lbs/ft.
Weld steel framed blocking to roof deck 4 EA 4,800$ 19,200$ 19,200$
New steel member sill 39 FT 78$ 3,023$ 8$ 291$ 3,313$ RS Means. HSS 8X8X1/2. 49lbs/ft.
Epoxy anchors for the new steel member sill, 6"OC 79 EA 71$ 5,609$ 38$ 2,967$ 8,576$ RS Means
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 72,013$ 100% of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 3 MONTH 3,000$ 9,000$ 9,000$
153,026$
Sub‐total 153,026$
Sales Tax 8%6,121$
Sub‐total 159,147$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30%47,744$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 206,891$
GR / GC 15%31,034$
Sub‐total 237,924$
Contractor's Profit 10%23,792$
Sub‐total 261,717$
Bond 2%5,234$
Sub‐total 266,951$
Insurance 2%5,339$
GRAND TOTAL 272,290$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
Incomplete load path at the north
side of the high roof diaphragm
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 6
Project Name:Power Building 5 Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 1 Project 1‐7 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:2 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #2 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation A2 (Low)
Wall anchorage at W24x94 roof beams 8 EA 60,000$ $7500/location. Estimated by James Doering
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 60,000$ 100% of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 2 MONTH 3,000$ 6,000$ 6,000$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, and etc.
126,000$
Sub‐total 126,000$
Sales Tax 8%5,040$
Sub‐total 131,040$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30%39,312$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 170,352$
GR / GC 15%25,553$
Sub‐total 195,905$
Contractor's Profit 10%19,590$
Sub‐total 215,495$
Bond 2%4,310$
Sub‐total 219,805$
Insurance 2%4,396$
GRAND TOTAL 224,201$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
Wall anchorage at the east and west
walls to the roof diaphragm
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 7
Project Name:Control Center Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 1 Project 1‐8 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:15 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #2, 4, 5, 6, 10 Mitigation
Concentric X‐braced frames from the roof level down to the first floor 1291 FT 78$ 100,666$ 8$ 9,679$ 110,346$ RS Means. HSS 8X8X1/2 ‐ 49lbs/ft.
Supplement connections along collector at bottom of 2nd floor 80 EA 192,000$ 6 hr per location
Puddle welding along collector at roof level 1 LS 16,000$ 1 week
Enhancing connections elsewhere for seismic load transfer 1 LS 225,000$ $75000/FLOOR
Interior demo and restoration of interior finishes 8250 SF 25$ 206,250$ 50 412,500$ 618,750$ $75/SF. 25% of the entire building.
Plant SCADA system relocations 2 EA 128,000$ 256,000$ 256,000$
Fire sprinkler system 8250 SF 4$ 33,000$ 33,000$ 25% of the entire building.
Temporary trailers for control center staff 15 MONTH 24,000$ 360,000$ 360,000$ Office trailer, locker rooms, restroom and showers, etc.
Temporary facilities and requirements 15 MONTH 3,000$ 45,000$ 45,000$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, and etc.
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 1,856,096$ 100% of other costs
3,712,191$
Sub‐total 3,712,191$
Sales Tax 8% 148,488$
Sub‐total 3,860,679$
Project Level Allowance 30% 1,158,204$
Sub‐total 5,018,882$
GR / GC 15% 752,832$
NOTES:Sub‐total 5,771,715$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Contractor's Profit 10% 577,171$
Sub‐total 6,348,886$
Bond 2% 126,978$
Sub‐total 6,475,864$
Insurance 2% 129,517$
GRAND TOTAL 6,605,381$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
Moment frame column
anchorage is not adequate to
resist seismic tension demands,
etc…
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 8
Project Name:12kV Service Center Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 1 Project 1‐9 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:2 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #2 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation A2 (Low)
Wall anchorage at W24x84 roof beams 8 EA 60,000$ $7500/location. Estimated by James Doering
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 60,000$ 100% of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 2 MONTH 3,000$ 6,000$ 6,000$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, and etc.
126,000$
Sub‐total 126,000$
Sales Tax 8%5,040$
Sub‐total 131,040$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30%39,312$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 170,352$
GR / GC 15%25,553$
Sub‐total 195,905$
Contractor's Profit 10%19,590$
Sub‐total 215,495$
Bond 2%4,310$
Sub‐total 219,805$
Insurance 2%4,396$
GRAND TOTAL 224,201$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
Wall anchorage to roof at east and
west walls
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 9
Project Name:Central Power Generation Building Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 1 Project 1‐10 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:7 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #1 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation E
Cast‐in‐place concrete walls 11.6 CY 412$ 4,769$ 676$ 7,824$ 12,593$ Carollo database
Special finishes for concrete 1 LS 630$ 5% of cast‐in‐place concrete
Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 92 EA 39$ 3,575$ 45$ 4,125$ 7,700$ RS Means, 18" OC
Demo windows at 35' above floor 12 EA 800$ 9,600$ 9,600$
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 61,044$ 200% of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 7 MONTH 3,000$ 21,000$ 21,000$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, and etc.
112,567$
PFM #2 Mitigation
50', 12" thick cast‐in‐place concrete shear wall at basement level 37.0 CY 412$ 15,259$ 676$ 25,037$ 40,296$ Carollo database
Upgrade first floor beams with steel channel tie along building length 140 FT 97$ 13,580$ 6$ 840$ 14,420$ RS Means. 60 lbs/ft Gal Steel.
Epoxy anchors at 6" OC for steel channel tie 281 EA 71$ 20,077$ 38$ 10,622$ 30,699$ RS Means
Conduit, piping, valving, and supports demo 1 LS 16,000$
Replacement allowance for conduit, piping, valving, and supports 1 LS 65,000$
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 166,416$ 100% of other costs
332,831$
PFM #3 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation E
Cast‐in‐place concrete 10.0 CY 412$ 4,120$ 676$ 6,760$ 10,880$ Carollo database
Special finishes for concrete 1 LS 544$ 5% of cast‐in‐place concrete
Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels EA 39$ ‐$ 45$ ‐$ ‐$ RS Means material cost, $100/dowel, 18" OC
Demo windows at grade 16 EA 800$ 12,800$ 12,800$
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 24,224$ 100% of other costs
48,448$
PFM #4 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation A2 (High) (SIM)
Demo existing roof 1 LS 9,600$
New steel welded or bolted connections to existing beams 6 EA 90,000$ $15000/location. Estimated by James Doering
Additional membrane roof 4625 SF 6$ 28,721$ 6$ 28,721$ 57,443$ Carollo database
Additional roof deck welding 6 EA 2,400$ 14,400$ 14,400$
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 171,443$ 100% of other costs
342,885$
PFM #5 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation B1 and B2
Demo existing roofing 0 LS ‐$ Already included in PFM #4
Metal decking, galvanized steel, 1‐1/2" deep, 18 gauge 3000 SF 12$ 36,000$ 2$ 4,500$ 40,500$ RS Means
Membrane roof for the entire high roof 7400 SF 6$ 44,400$ 6$ 44,400$ 88,800$ Carollo database
Supplement existing anchors at 20" OC 90 EA 71$ 6,431$ 38$ 3,402$ 9,833$ RS Means
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 139,133$ 100% of other costs
278,265$
PFM #6 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation B1 and B2
Demo existing roofing 1 LS 4,800$
Metal decking, galvanized steel, 1‐1/2" deep, 18 gauge 1000 SF 12$ 12,000$ 2$ 1,500$ 13,500$ RS Means
Membrane roof for the entire low roof south of grid line 2 4900 SF 6$ 29,400$ 6$ 29,400$ 58,800$ Carollo database
Supplement existing anchors at 20" OC 60 EA 71$ 4,287$ 38$ 2,268$ 6,555$ RS Means
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 83,655$ 100% of other costs
167,310$
Sub‐total 1,282,306$
Sales Tax 8% 51,292$
Sub‐total 1,333,598$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30% 400,079$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 1,733,677$
GR / GC 15% 260,052$
Sub‐total 1,993,729$
Contractor's Profit 10% 199,373$
Sub‐total 2,193,102$
Bond 2% 43,862$
Sub‐total 2,236,964$
Insurance 2% 44,739$
GRAND TOTAL 2,281,703$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
Lack of lateral bracing along the
west side of the low roof and 2nd
floor at the basement level
Lack of lateral bracing along the
east side of the high roof
diaphragm
High roof diaphragm shear
Low roof diaphragm shear
Wall anchorage at the high roof
north and south walls
Insufficient lateral bracing along
the west side of the building
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 10
Project Name:Digester 5 & 6 Pump Room Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 1 Project 1‐14 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:3 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
Total TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #1 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation C1
Stainless steel angle tie plate, 4' OC 78 FT 30$ 2,323$ 7$ 563$ 2,885$ RS Means. 1.21 ratio for SST. L4x4x1/2, 2' long
Epoxy anchors at 4' OC 39 EA 71$ 2,769$ 38$ 1,465$ 4,233$ RS Means
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 14,238$ 200% of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 3 MONTH 3,000$ 9,000$ 9,000$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, and etc.
30,357$
PFM #2 Mitigation
Provide cast‐in‐place concrete shear walls 7.5 CY 412$ 3,090$ 676$ 5,070$ 8,160$ Carollo database
Special finishes for concrete 1 LS 408$ 5% of cast‐in‐place concrete
Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 43 EA 39$ 1,658$ 45$ 1,913$ 3,570$ RS Means, 18" OC
Roof connections 1 LS 15,000$ Estimated by James Doering
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 54,276$ 200% of other costs
81,414$
Sub‐total 111,771$
Sales Tax 8%4,471$
Sub‐total 116,242$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30%34,872$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 151,114$
GR / GC 15%22,667$
Sub‐total 173,781$
Contractor's Profit 10%17,378$
Sub‐total 191,159$
Bond 2%3,823$
Sub‐total 194,982$
Insurance 2%3,900$
GRAND TOTAL 198,882$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
Insufficient separation from
adjacent digesters
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
Footings move independent of
the wall
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 11
Project Name:Digester 7 & 8 Pump Room Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 1 Project 1‐17 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:3 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
Total TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #1 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation C1
Stainless steel angle tie plate, 4' OC 78 FT 30$ 2,323$ 7$ 563$ 2,885$ RS Means. 1.21 ratio for SST. L4x4x1/2, 2' long
Epoxy anchors at 4' OC 39 EA 71$ 2,769$ 38$ 1,465$ 4,233$ RS Means
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 14,238$ 200% of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 3 MONTH 3,000$ 9,000$ 9,000$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, and etc.
30,357$
PFM #2 Mitigation
Provide cast‐in‐place concrete shear walls 15.0 CY 412$ 6,180$ 676$ 10,140$ 16,320$ Carollo database
Special finishes for concrete 1 LS 816$ 5% of cast‐in‐place concrete
Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 63 EA 39$ 2,438$ 45$ 2,813$ 5,250$ RS Means, 18" OC
Roof connections 1 LS 15,000$ Estimated by James Doering
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 74,772$ 200% of other costs
112,158$
Sub‐total 142,515$
Sales Tax 8%5,701$
Sub‐total 148,215$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30%44,465$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements.Sub‐total 192,680$
GR / GC 15%28,902$
Sub‐total 221,582$
Contractor's Profit 10%22,158$
Sub‐total 243,740$
Bond 2%4,875$
Sub‐total 248,615$
Insurance 2%4,972$
GRAND TOTAL 253,587$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
Insufficient separation from
adjacent digesters
Footings move independent of
the wall
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 12
Project Name:Digester 9‐10 Pump Room Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 1 Project 1‐20 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:3 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
Total TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #1 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation C1
Stainless steel angle tie plate, 4' OC 90 FT 30$ 2,700$ 7$ 630$ 3,330$ RS Means. 1.21 ratio for SST. L4x4x1/2, 2' long
Epoxy anchors at 4' OC 45 EA 71$ 3,215$ 38$ 1,701$ 4,916$ RS Means
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 16,493$ 200% of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 3 MONTH 3,000$ 9,000$ 9,000$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, and etc.
33,739$
PFM #2 Mitigation
Provide cast‐in‐place concrete shear walls 11.9 CY 412$ 4,883$ 676$ 8,012$ 12,895$ Carollo database
Special finishes for concrete 1 LS 645$ 5% of cast‐in‐place concrete
Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 53 EA 39$ 2,080$ 45$ 2,400$ 4,480$ RS Means, 18" OC
Roof connections 1 LS 15,000$ Estimated by James Doering
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 66,039$ 200% of other costs
99,059$
PFM #4 Mitigation
Stainless steel channel 54 FT 117$ 6,338$ 7$ 392$ 6,730$ RS Means. 60 lbs/ft Gal Steel. 1.21 ratio for SST.
Epoxy anchors at 6" OC 109 EA 71$ 7,788$ 38$ 4,120$ 11,908$ RS Means
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 37,277$ 200% of other costs
55,915$
Sub‐total 188,712$
Sales Tax 8%7,548$
Sub‐total 196,261$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30%58,878$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 255,139$
GR / GC 15%38,271$
Sub‐total 293,410$
Contractor's Profit 10%29,341$
Sub‐total 322,751$
Bond 2%6,455$
Sub‐total 329,206$
Insurance 2%6,584$
GRAND TOTAL 335,790$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
Diaphragm connections at re‐
entrant corner
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
Insufficient separation from
adjacent digesters
Footings move independent of
the wall
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 13
Project Name:Digester 11‐14 Pump Room Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 1 Project 1‐22 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:5 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
Total TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #1 Mitigation
Provide cast‐in‐place concrete shear walls 292 CY 412$ 120,167$ 676$ 197,167$ 317,333$ Carollo database
Special finishes for concrete 1 LS 15,867$ 5% of cast‐in‐place concrete
Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 725 EA 39$ 28,275$ 45$ 32,625$ 60,900$ RS Means, 18" OC
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 197,100$ 50% of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 5 MONTH 3,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ Construct trailer, utilities,
protection, and etc.
606,200$
Sub‐total 606,200$
Sales Tax 8%24,248$
Sub‐total 630,448$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30% 189,134$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 819,582$
GR / GC 15% 122,937$
Sub‐total 942,520$
Contractor's Profit 10%94,252$
Sub‐total 1,036,772$
Bond 2%20,735$
Sub‐total 1,057,507$
Insurance 2%21,150$
GRAND TOTAL 1,078,657$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
Insufficient separation from adjacent
digesters causes structure pounding
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 14
Project Name:Digester 15‐16 Pump Room Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 1 Project 1‐23 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:3.5 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
Total TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #1 Mitigation
Provide cast‐in‐place concrete shear walls 83 CY 412$ 34,333$ 676$ 56,333$ 90,667$ Carollo database
Special finishes for concrete 1 LS 4,533$ 5% of cast‐in‐place concrete
Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 225 EA 39$ 8,775$ 45$ 10,125$ 18,900$ RS Means, 18" OC
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 114,100$ 75% of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 3.5 MONTH 3,000$ 10,500$ 10,500$ Construct trailer, utilities,
protection, and etc.
238,700$
Sub‐total 238,700$
Sales Tax 8%9,548$
Sub‐total 248,248$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30%74,474$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 322,722$
GR / GC 15%48,408$
Sub‐total 371,131$
Contractor's Profit 10%37,113$
Sub‐total 408,244$
Bond 2%8,165$
Sub‐total 416,409$
Insurance 2%8,328$
GRAND TOTAL 424,737$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
Insufficient separation from
adjacent digesters
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 15
Project Name:Solids Storage Facility Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant Project 1‐26 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:2.5 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
Total TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #1 Mitigation
Steel plates with slotted connections 53 FT 41$ 2,153$ 6$ 315$ 2,468$ RS Means. 25 lbs/ft Gal Steel.
Epoxy anchors at 8" OC 80 EA 71$ 5,680$ 38$ 3,005$ 8,685$ RS Means
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 2 LS 16,800$ 200% of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 2.5 MONTH 3,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ Construct trailer, utilities,
protection, and etc.
35,453$
Sub‐total 35,453$
Sales Tax 8%1,418$
Sub‐total 36,871$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30%11,061$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 47,932$
GR / GC 15%7,190$
Sub‐total 55,122$
Contractor's Profit 10%5,512$
Sub‐total 60,634$
Bond 2%1,213$
Sub‐total 61,847$
Insurance 2%1,237$
GRAND TOTAL 63,084$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
Building pounding between the
north and south structures due
to out‐of‐phase response to
ground shaking
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 16
Project Name:Warehouse Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 1 Project 1‐28 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:5 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
Total TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #1 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation C2
Excavation allowance to expose footing 1 LS 13,333$ $200/CY
Exterior cast‐in‐place concrete tie beam 67 CY 285$ 18,991$ 446$ 29,723$ 48,714$ Carollo database.
Epoxy dowel the tie beam into existing wall and footings, 8"OC 520 EA 21$ 10,691$ 39$ 20,535$ 31,226$ RS Means, 3/4" diameterX12" long
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 69,955$ 75% of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 5 MONTH 3,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, and etc.
178,228$
PFM #6 Mitigation
Use steel plates to tie tilt‐up wall panels together along their vertical joints 300 FT 97$ 29,100$ 6$ 1,800$ 30,900$ RS Means. 60 lbs/ft Gal Steel.
Epoxy anchors at 4' OC 90 EA 71$ 6,431$ 38$ 3,402$ 9,833$ RS Means
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 30,549$ 75% of other costs
71,282$
PFM #8 Mitigation
Provide continuous supplemental steel chord member along the east and west walls 250 FT 97$ 24,250$ 6$ 1,500$ 25,750$ RS Means. 60 lbs/ft Gal Steel.
Epoxy anchors at 6" OC 501 EA 71$ 35,796$ 38$ 18,938$ 54,734$ RS Means
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 60,363$ 75% of other costs
140,847$
Sub‐total 390,358$
Sales Tax 8%15,614$
Sub‐total 405,972$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30% 121,792$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 527,764$
GR / GC 15%79,165$
Sub‐total 606,928$
Contractor's Profit 10%60,693$
Sub‐total 667,621$
Bond 2%13,352$
Sub‐total 680,973$
Insurance 2%13,619$
GRAND TOTAL 694,593$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
Tension failure in the walls due
to differential settlement
Wall panels are not tied
together to resist overturning
Wall panels are not tied to the
footings
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 17
Project Name:Shop Building A Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 1 Project 1‐29 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:5 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
Total TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #1 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation C2
Excavation allowance to expose footing 1 LS 10,667$ $200/CY
Exterior cast‐in‐place concrete tie beam 53 CY 285$ 15,193$ 446$ 23,779$ 38,971$ Carollo database.
Epoxy dowel the tie beam into existing wall and footings, 8"OC 520 EA 21$ 10,691$ 39$ 20,535$ 31,226$ RS Means, 3/4" diameterX12" long
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 60,648$ 75% of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 5 MONTH 3,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, and etc.
156,512$
Sub‐total 156,512$
Sales Tax 8%6,260$
Sub‐total 162,772$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30%48,832$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 211,604$
GR / GC 15%31,741$
Sub‐total 243,344$
Contractor's Profit 10%24,334$
Sub‐total 267,679$
Bond 2%5,354$
Sub‐total 273,033$
Insurance 2%5,461$
GRAND TOTAL 278,493$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
Wall panels are not tied to the
footings
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 18
Project Name:Shop Building B and Building 3 Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 1 Project 1‐30 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:5 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
Total TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #1 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation C2
Excavation allowance to expose footing 1 LS 17,067$ $200/CY
Exterior cast‐in‐place concrete tie beam 85 CY 285$ 24,308$ 446$ 38,046$ 62,354$ Carollo database.
Epoxy dowel the tie beam into existing wall and footings, 8"OC 832 EA 21$ 17,106$ 39$ 32,856$ 49,962$ RS Means, 3/4" diameterX12" long
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 97,037$ 75% of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 5 MONTH 3,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, and etc.
241,419$
PFM #5 Mitigation
Additional nailing to develop the wall anchorage force into the
diaphragm 1 LS 1,600$
Install clip angles and screw into both sides of the strut member and
bottom side of the plywood diaphragm 3EA 6$ 18$ 3,200$ 9,600$ 1,600$
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 3,200$ 100% of other costs
6,400$
Sub‐total 247,819$
Sales Tax 8%9,913$
Sub‐total 257,732$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30%77,319$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 335,051$
GR / GC 15%50,258$
Sub‐total 385,309$
Contractor's Profit 10%38,531$
Sub‐total 423,840$
Bond 2%8,477$
Sub‐total 432,316$
Insurance 2%8,646$
GRAND TOTAL 440,963$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
Wall anchorage of the roof at
the south wall of Bldg 3
Wall panels are not tied to the
footings
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 19
Project Name:Building 5 & 6 Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 1 Project 1‐31 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:9 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
Total TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #1 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation C2
Excavation allowance to expose footing 1 LS 44,133$ $200/CY
Exterior cast‐in‐place concrete tie beam 221 CY 285$ 62,859$ 446$ 98,384$ 161,243$ Carollo database
Epoxy dowel the tie beam into existing wall and footings, 8"OC 664 EA 21$ 13,652$ 39$ 26,221$ 39,873$ RS Means, 3/4" diameterX12" long
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 122,625$ 50% of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 9 MONTH 3,000$ 27,000$ 27,000$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, and etc.
394,875$
PFM #4 Mitigation
Supplement the existing wall anchorage with additional hardware 13 EA 13,000$ $1000 for each location
Supplement the existing wall anchorage with epoxy anchors 13 EA 71$ 929$ 38$ 491$ 1,420$ RS Means
Remove building finishes (ceiling panels, etc…)1 LS 5,307$ Match replacement installation cost
Replacement allowance for new building finishes (ceiling panels, etc…) 1300 SF 20$ 26,536$ 4$ 5,307$ 31,843$ Carollo database
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 51,570$ 100% of other costs
103,140$
PFM #6B Mitigation
Demo existing finishes 1 LS 2,000$
Replacement allowance for the finishes 200 SF 20$ 4,082$ 4$ 816$ 4,899$ Carollo database
Add steel cover plates to the top and bottom flanges of the steel beam 100 FT 97$ 9,700$ 6$ 600$ 10,300$ RS Means. 60 lbs/ft Gal Steel.
Field welding of the new steel plates to the existing beam 15 EA 2,400$ 36,000$ 36,000$
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 53,199$ 100% of other costs
106,398$
PFM #6D Mitigation
Strengthen existing beam by adding 2 channels along each side 40 FT 24$ 960$ 6$ 240$ 1,200$ RS Means. 13 lbs/ft Gal Steel
Replace end connections allowance 1 LS 25,000$
Enhance floor shear transfer allowance 1 LS 25,000$
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 51,200$ 100% of other costs
102,400$
Sub‐total 706,813$
Sales Tax 8%28,273$
Sub‐total 735,085$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30% 220,526$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 955,611$
GR / GC 15% 143,342$
Sub‐total 1,098,952$
Contractor's Profit 10% 109,895$
Sub‐total 1,208,848$
Bond 2%24,177$
Sub‐total 1,233,025$
Insurance 2%24,660$
GRAND TOTAL 1,257,685$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
MATERIALS
2nd floor diaphragm shear
INSTALLATION
Wall anchorage of the 2nd floor
Bending failure of beams over
chevron braced frames
Wall panels are not tied to the
footings
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 20
Project Name:Auto Shop Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 1 Project 1‐32 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:5 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
Total TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #1 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation C2
Excavation allowance to expose footing 1 LS 11,667$ $200/CY
Exterior cast‐in‐place concrete tie beam 58 CY 285$ 16,617$ 446$ 26,008$ 42,625$ Carollo database.
Epoxy dowel the tie beam into existing wall and footings, 8"OC 575 EA 21$ 11,822$ 39$ 22,707$ 34,529$ RS Means, 3/4" diameterX12" long
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 66,615$ 75% of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 5 MONTH 3,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, and etc.
170,435$
PFM #4 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation A1 (SIM)
New steel angles at existing wall at the north and south side, 8' OC 650 FT 41$ 26,650$ 6$ 3,900$ 30,550$ RS Means. 25 lbs/ft Gal Steel. 16 ft long.
Epoxy anchors at 8' OC 41 EA 71$ 2,903$ 38$ 1,536$ 4,438$ RS Means
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 26,241$ 75% of other costs
61,229$
Sub‐total 231,665$
Sales Tax 8%9,267$
Sub‐total 240,931$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30%72,279$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 313,211$
GR / GC 15%46,982$
Sub‐total 360,192$
Contractor's Profit 10%36,019$
Sub‐total 396,212$
Bond 2%7,924$
Sub‐total 404,136$
Insurance 2%8,083$
GRAND TOTAL 412,219$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
Wall anchorage of the low roof
at the north and south side
Wall panels are not tied to the
footings
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 21
Project Name:Central Laboratory Date Prepared:4/11/2019
Project Number:OCSD Plant 1 Project 1‐34 Prepared By:BS / XHK
Project Construction Duration:12 months Date Accepted:4/19/2019
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #1 Mitigation
Concentric chevron braced frames from the roof level down to the first floor 485 FT 120$ 58,200$ 6$ 2,910$ 61,110$ RS Means, 2L6x6x1 ‐ 75 lbs/ft
Saw cut existing concrete slab 725 FT 2$ 1,552$ 23$ 16,313$ 17,864$ RS Means
Repair concrete slab 5 CY 648$ 3,552$ 744$ 4,078$ 7,630$ Carollo database
Additional columns below frame beams from roof level down to first floor 675 FT 78$ 52,650$ 8$ 5,400$ 58,050$ RS Means, HSS 8x8x1/2 ‐ 49 lbs/ft
Demo and restoration of interior finishes 2391 SF 25$ 59,775$ 50$ 119,550$ 179,325$ $75/SF. 25% of the entire building.
Excavation allowance to expose footing 1 LS 59,259$ $200/CY
Enlarge existing footings below frame columns 175 CY 412$ 72,176$ 676$ 118,425$ 190,601$ Carollo database
Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 200 EA 39$ 7,800$ 45$ 9,000$ 16,800$ RS Means
Add footings below new frame columns 67 CY 412$ 27,467$ 676$ 45,067$ 72,533$ Carollo database
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 663,173$ 100% of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 12 MONTH 3,000$ 36,000$ 36,000$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, and etc.
1,362,347$
PFM #3 Mitigation
Demo and restoration of interior finishes 215 SF 25$ 5,375$ 50$ 10,750$ 16,125$ $75/SF.
Beam framing 86 FT 92$ 7,912$ 6$ 516$ 8,428$ RS Means, W21x57 ‐ 57 lbs/ft.
Beam bolted connections 24 EA 72,000$ $3000/location. Estimated by James Doering
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 96,553$ 100% of other costs
193,106$
PFM #4 Mitigation
Demo and restoration of interior finishes 1169 SF 25$ 29,225$ 50$ 58,450$ 87,675$ $75/SF.
Add stiffener plates to existing bracing members 512 FT 41$ 20,992$ 6$ 3,072$ 24,064$ RS Means, 25 lbs/ft.
Field welding of new stiffener plates to existing bracing members 64 EA 2,400$ 153,600$ 153,600$
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 132,670$ 50% of other costs
398,009$
PFM #7 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation B1
Demo existing roofing 1 LS 32,000$
Metal decking, galvanized steel, 1‐1/2" deep, 18 gauge 17000 SF 12$ 204,000$ 2$ 25,500$ 229,500$ RS Means
Membrane roof for the entire building 17000 SF 6$ 102,000$ 6$ 102,000$ 204,000$ Carollo database
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 465,500$ 100% of other costs
931,000$
Sub‐total 2,884,461$
Sales Tax 8% 115,378$
Sub‐total 2,999,840$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30% 899,952$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 3,899,791$
GR / GC 15% 584,969$
Sub‐total 4,484,760$
Contractor's Profit 10% 448,476$
Sub‐total 4,933,236$
Bond 2%98,665$
Sub‐total 5,031,901$
Insurance 2% 100,638$
GRAND TOTAL 5,132,539$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
Roof diaphragm shear
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in 2018
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
Out‐of‐plane bracing of braced
frame beams
Braces for braced frames are
non‐compact members
Braced frame column axial
stress due to overturning forces
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 22
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PS15‐06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name:RAS PS East Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 2 Project 2‐3 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:3 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #1 Mitigation
New cast in place concrete columns, square 7.5 CY 638$ 4,782$ 709$ 5,321$ 10,103$ RS means includes forms, 24"
Strengthen existing members 3 EA 30,000$ $10000/each. Estimated by James
New collector member (steel channel)64 FT 97$ 6,208$ 6$ 384$ 6,592$ RS Means. 60 lbs/ft Gal Steel
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 46,695$ 100% of Direct cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 3 MONTH 3,000$ 9,000$ 9,000$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, etc.
102,389$
Sub‐total 102,389$
Sales Tax 8% 4,096$
Sub‐total 106,485$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30% 31,945$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 138,430$
GR / GC 15% 20,764$
Sub‐total 159,194$
Contractor's Profit 10% 15,919$
Sub‐total 175,114$
Bond 2% 3,502$
Sub‐total 178,616$
Insurance 2% 3,572$
GRAND TOTAL 182,188$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
Vertical irregularities in
building shear walls
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 23
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PS15‐06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name:RAS PS West Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 2 Project 2‐4 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:3 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #1 Mitigation
New cast in place concrete columns, square 7.5 CY 638$ 4,782$ 709$ 5,321$ 10,103$ RS means includes forms, 24"
Strengthen existing members 3 EA 30,000$ $10000/each. Estimated by James
New collector member (steel channel)64 FT 97$ 6,208$ 6$ 384$ 6,592$ RS Means. 60 lbs/ft Gal Steel
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 46,695$ 100% of direct cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 3 MONTH 3,000$ 9,000$ 9,000$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, etc.
102,389$
Sub‐total 102,389$
Sales Tax 8% 4,096$
Sub‐total 106,485$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30% 31,945$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 138,430$
GR / GC 15% 20,764$
Sub‐total 159,194$
Contractor's Profit 10% 15,919$
Sub‐total 175,114$
Bond 2% 3,502$
Sub‐total 178,616$
Insurance 2% 3,572$
GRAND TOTAL 182,188$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
Vertical irregularities in
building shear walls
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 24
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PS15‐06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name:Operations Control Center Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 2 Project 2‐6 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:9 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #1 Mitigation
New stiffeners to existing joist bearing seats 32 EA 64,000$ $2000/each. Estimated by James
Field welding in place 32 EA 2,400$ 76,800$ 76,800$
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 140,800$ 100% of direct cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 9 MONTH 3,000$ 27,000$ 27,000$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, etc.
308,600$
PFM #3 Mitigation
New stiffeners to existing joist bearing seats 28 EA 56,000$ $2000/each. Estimated by James
Field welding in place 28 EA 2,400$ 67,200$ 67,200$
New bolts 28 EA 71$ 1,988$ 38$ 1,064$ 3,052$ RS Means
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 126,252$ 100% of direct cost
252,504$
PFM #5 Mitigation
Steel braced frames 80 FT 97$ 7,760$ 6$ 480$ 8,240$ RS Means. 60 lbs/ft Gal Steel
Grade Beams 14 CY 412$ 5,860$ 676$ 9,614$ 15,474$ Carollo database
Steel Columns 64 FT 82$ 5,248$ 3$ 212$ 5,460$ RS means (6x6x3/8)
Demo finishes 1 LS 6,400$
Replacement for finishes 1 LS 8,000$
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 43,574$ 100% of direct cost
87,149$
PFM #6 Mitigation‐Standard Structural Mitigation E
Cast‐in‐place concrete 1.4 CY 412$ 572$ 676$ 939$ 1,511$ Carollo Database
Special finishes for concrete 1LS 76$ 5% of total concrete
Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 27 EA 39$ 1,040$ 45$ 1,200$ 2,240$ RS Means material cost, $100/dowel, 18" OC
Demo windows at EL 20.00 2 EA 800$ 1,600$ 1,600$
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 5,427$ 100% of direct cost
10,853$
PFM #7 Mitigation
New through bolts, plates and anchors 10 EA 233$ 2,330$ 68$ 680$ 3,010$ RS means for bolts, plates and anchors
Demo existing connections 10 EA 680$ Same as installation for new
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 3,690$ 100% of direct cost
7,379$
PFM #8 Mitigation‐Standard Structural Mitigation C1
Steel angles with steel hardware at 8' OC 528 FT 41$ 21,648$ 6$ 3,168$ 24,816$ RS Means. 1.21 ratio for SST. L4x4x1/2, 2' long
Epoxied anchors at 8' OC 2112 EA 71$ 149,952$ 38$ 80,256$ 230,208$ RS means
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 255,024$ 100% of direct cost
510,048$
Sub‐total 1,176,533$
Sales Tax 8%47,061$
Sub‐total 1,223,595$
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% 367,078.37$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 1,590,673$
GR / GC 15% 238,601$
Sub‐total 1,829,274$
Contractor's Profit 10% 182,927$
Sub‐total 2,012,201$
Bond 2%40,244$
Sub‐total 2,052,445$
Insurance 2%41,049$
GRAND TOTAL 2,093,494$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
Drag connection at roof to east
and west shear walls
Precast wall panel connection to
foundation walls
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
Wall anchorage at east and west
walls (original building)
Wall anchorage at east and west
walls (addition)
Incomplete load path at the
south entrance canopy addition
for resisting seismic loads
In‐plane shear at shear walls
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 25
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PS15‐06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name:12 kV Service Center Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 2 Project 2‐7 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:4.5 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #1 Mitigation‐Standard Structural Mitigation A1
Steel angle with steel hardware at 8' OC 245 FT 41$ 10,045$ 6$ 1,470$ 11,515$ RS Means. 25 lbs/ft Gal Steel. 16 ft long.
Roof framing members 245 FT 41$ 10,045$ 6$ 1,470$ 11,515$
Epoxied anchors at 8' OC 61 EA 71$ 4,349$ 38$ 2,328$ 6,676$ RS Means
Field weld struts to roof deck 8 EA 2,400$ 18,375$ 18,375$
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 48,081$ 100% of direct cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 4.5 MONTH 3,000$ 13,500$ 13,500$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, etc.
109,663$
PFM #4 Mitigation
Demo roofing 1 LS 9,600$
Membrane roof 2788 SF 6.00$ 16,728$ 6.00$ 16,728$ 33,456$
Demo 7.5 inch deep steel roof deck 1 LS 4,182$ Installation cost of new
New standard corrugated steel deck 2788 SF 12$ 33,456$ 2$ 4,182$ 37,638$ RS Means
New steel beams 246 SF 135$ 33,210$ 5$ 1,304$ 34,514$ RS Means. 87lbs/ft Gal Steel.
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 119,390$ 100% of direct cost
238,780$
PFM #5 Mitigation‐Standard Structural Mitigation E
Cast‐in‐place concrete 4.1 CY 412$ 1,679$ 676$ 2,754$ 4,433$ Carollo database
Special finishes for concrete 1 LS 222$ 5% of cast‐in‐place concrete
Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels, 8" OC 288 EA 39$ 11,232$ 45$ 12,960$ 24,192$ RS Means material cost, $100/dowel, 18" OC
Demo windows at EL 20.00 2 EA 800$ 1,600$ 1,600$
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS $60,892 200% of direct cost
91,339$
Sub‐total 439,781$
Sales Tax 8%17,591$
Sub‐total 457,372$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30% 137,212$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 594,584$
GR / GC 15%89,188$
Sub‐total 683,771$
Contractor's Profit 10%68,377$
Sub‐total 752,148$
Bond 2%15,043$
Sub‐total 767,191$
Insurance 2%15,344$
GRAND TOTAL 782,535$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
Shear at frame columns
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
Wall Anchorage to roof at north
and south walls
Roof Diaphragm Shear
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 26
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PS15‐06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name:Power Building B Date Prepared:4/17/2019
Project Number:OCSD Plant 2 Project 2‐8 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:4 months Date Accepted:4/19/2019
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #4 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation B1
Demo existing roofing 1 LS 6,400$
Metal decking, galvanized steel, 1‐1/2" deep, 18 gauge 1600 SF 12$ 19,200$ 2$ 2,400$ 21,600$ RS Means
Membrane roof for the entire building 1950 SF 6$ 11,700$ 6$ 11,700$ 23,400$ Carollo database
Addition of (2) W12X31 beams 50 FT 50$ 2,500$ 6$ 300$ 2,800$ RS Means.
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 54,200$ 100% Direct Cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 4 MONTH 3,000$ 12,000$ 12,000$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, etc.
120,400$
Sub‐total 120,400$
Sales Tax 8%4,816$
Sub‐total 125,216$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30%37,565$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 162,781$
GR / GC 15%24,417$
Sub‐total 187,198$
Contractor's Profit 10%18,720$
Sub‐total 205,918$
Bond 2%4,118$
Sub‐total 210,036$
Insurance 2%4,201$
GRAND TOTAL 214,237$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
Roof diaphragm shear
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 27
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PS15‐06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name:Power Building C Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 2 Project 2‐9 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:4 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #1 Mitigation
New cast in place concrete shear wall 19.0 CY 412$ 7,828$ 676$ 12,844$ 20,672$ Carollo database
Epoxy dowels, 8" OC 192 EA 21$ 4,032$ 39$ 7,488$ 11,520$ RS Means, 3/4" diameterX12" long
Continuous footing 9.5 CY 412$ 3,906$ 676$ 6,409$ 10,316$ Carollo database
Excavation 1 LS 10,000$ Estimated by James
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 52,508$ 100% direct cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 4 MONTH 3,000$ 12,000$ 12,000$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, etc.
117,016$
PFM #8 Mitigation‐Standard Structural Mitigation C1
Stainless steel angle tie plates, 4' OC 148 FT 30$ 4,425$ 7$ 1,033$ 5,458$ RS Means. 1.21 ratio for SST. L4x4x1/2, 2'
long
New epoxy anchors at 4' OC 74 EA 71$ 5,236$ 38$ 2,803$ 8,039$ RS Means
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS $26,993 200% direct cost
40,489$
Sub‐total 157,504$
Sales Tax 8%6,300$
Sub‐total 163,805$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30%49,141$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 212,946$
GR / GC 15%31,942$
Sub‐total 244,888$
Contractor's Profit 10%24,489$
Sub‐total 269,377$
Bond 2%5,388$
Sub‐total 274,764$
Insurance 2%5,495$
GRAND TOTAL 280,260$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
Footings move independent of
the wall
Incomplete lateral load resisting
system in the east‐west
direction
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 28
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PS15‐06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name:Power Building D Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 2 Project 2‐10 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:3.5 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #1 Mitigation
Concentric X braced frames at louver openings 76 FT 78$ 5,928$ 8$ 608$ 6,536$ RS Means. HSS 8X8X1/2. 49lbs/ft.
Steel framed blocking 25 FT 78$ 1,950$ 8$ 200$ 2,150$ RS Means. HSS 8X8X1/2. 49lbs/ft.
Welding in field 4 EA 4,800$ 19,200$ 19,200$
New steel member sill 31 FT 78$ 2,418$ 8$ 248$ 2,666$ RS Means. HSS 8X8X1/2. 49lbs/ft.
Epoxy anchors 47 EA 71$ 3,302$ 38$ 1,767$ 5,069$ RS Means
Membrane roof for entire building 1827 SF 6$ 10,962$ 6$ 10,962$ 21,924$ Carollo Database
Demo existing roofing 1 LS 9,600$
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 67,145$ 100% Direct Cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 3.5 MONTH 3,000$ 10,500$ 10,500$
144,789$
PFM #5 Mitigation‐Standard Structural Mitigation D
Vertical steel tube or steel channel members 12 EA 48,000$ Estimated by James
New epoxy anchors at 8" OC 176 EA 71$ 12,514$ 38$ 6,698$ 19,211$ RS Means
Additional bracing hardware and framing members 12 EA 48,000$ $4000/brace
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 115,211$ 100% Direct Cost
230,423$
Sub‐total 375,212$
Sales Tax 8%15,008$
Sub‐total 390,220$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30% 117,066$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 507,286$
GR / GC 15%76,093$
Sub‐total 583,379$
Contractor's Profit 10%58,338$
Sub‐total 641,717$
Bond 2%12,834$
Sub‐total 654,551$
Insurance 2%13,091$
GRAND TOTAL 667,642$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
Out‐of‐plane horizontal bending
Incomplete load path at the
south side of the high roof
diaphragm
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 29
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PS15‐06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name:City Water Pump Station Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 2 Project 2‐11 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:3 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #1 Mitigation‐Standard Structural Mitigation A1 (SIM)
New steel angles at existing wall or perimeter roof beam, 8' OC 480 FT 27$ 12,960$ 74$ 35,520$ 48,480$ RS Means. 25 lbs/ft Gal Steel. 16 ft long.
Epoxy anchors at 8' OC 120 EA 71$ 8,520$ 38$ 4,560$ 13,080$ RS means
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 30,780$ 100% Direct Cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 3 MONTH 3,000$ 9,000$ 9,000$
101,340$
PFM #5 Mitigation‐Standard Structural Mitigation D
Vertical steel tube or steel channel members 17 EA 68,500$ $4000/each. Estimated by James
New epoxy anchors at 8" OC 200 EA 71$ 14,200$ 38$ 7,600$ 21,800$ RS Means
Additional bracing hardware and framing members 17 EA 68,000$ $4000/brace
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 158,300$ 100% Direct Cost
316,600$
Sub‐total 417,940$
Sales Tax 8%16,718$
Sub‐total 434,658$
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% 130,397$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 565,055$
GR / GC 15%84,758$
Sub‐total 649,813$
Contractor's Profit 10%64,981$
Sub‐total 714,794$
Bond 2%14,296$
Sub‐total 729,090$
Insurance 2%14,582$
GRAND TOTAL 743,672$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
Out‐of‐plane horizontal bending
Wall anchorage at north and
south walls
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 30
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PS15‐06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name:Headworks Power Building A Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 2 Project 2‐14 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:2 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #3 Mitigation
New steel plates 3 EA 12,000$ $4000/connection. Estimated by James
New through bolts 8 EA 6$ 50$ 3$ 27$ 77$ RS means
New epoxy anchors 8 EA 71$ 568$ 38$ 304$ 872$ RS means
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 12,949$ 100% Direct Cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 2 MONTH 3,000$ 6,000$ 6,000$
31,898$
Sub‐total 31,898$
Sales Tax 8%1,276$
Sub‐total 33,174$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30%9,952$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 43,126$
GR / GC 15%6,469$
Sub‐total 49,594$
Contractor's Profit 10%4,959$
Sub‐total 54,554$
Bond 2%1,091$
Sub‐total 55,645$
Insurance 2%1,113$
GRAND TOTAL 56,758$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
Building separation allows
pounding into adjacent building
(2‐16 Headworks Standby Power
Building)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 31
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PS15‐06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name:Headworks Power Building B Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 2 Project 2‐15 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:2 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #3 Mitigation
New steel plates 3 EA 12,000$ $4000/connection. Estimated by James
New through bolts 8 EA 6$ 48$ 3$ 24$ 72$ RS means
New epoxy anchors 8 EA 71$ 568$ 38$ 304$ 872$ RS means
Ties at roof diaphragm 58 FT 30$ 1,740$ 7$ 406$ 2,146$
RS Means. 1.21 ratio for SST. L4x4x1/2, 2'
long 4' OC
Ties to existing roof deck 1 LS 5,000$ Estimated by James
Epoxy anchors, 6"OC 116 EA 71$ 8,236$ 38$ 4,408$ 12,644$ RS means
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 32,734$ 100% Direct Cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 2 MONTH 3,000$ 6,000$ 6,000$
71,468$
Sub‐total 71,468$
Sales Tax 8%2,859$
Sub‐total 74,327$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30%22,298$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 96,625$
GR / GC 15%14,494$
Sub‐total 111,118$
Contractor's Profit 10%11,112$
Sub‐total 122,230$
Bond 2%2,445$
Sub‐total 124,675$
Insurance 2%2,493$
GRAND TOTAL 127,168$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
Building separation allows
pounding into adjacent building
(2‐16 Headworks Standby
Power Building)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 32
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PS15‐06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name:Headworks Standby Power Building Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 2 Project 2‐16 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:2 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #3 Mitigation
New steel plates 3 EA 12,000$ $4000/connection. Estimated by James
New through bolts 8 EA 6$ 48$ 3$ 24$ 72$ RS means
New epoxy anchors 8 EA 71$ 568$ 38$ 304$ 872$ RS means
Ties at roof diaphragm 60 EA 30$ 1,800$ 7$ 420$ 2,220$
RS Means. 1.21 ratio for SST. L4x4x1/2, 2'
long 4' OC
Ties to existing roof deck 1 LS 5,000$ Estimated by James
Epoxy anchors, 6" OC 116 EA 71$ 8,236$ 38$ 4,408$ 12,644$ RS means
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 32,808$ 100% Direct Cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 2 MONTH 3,000$ 6,000$ 6,000$
71,616$
Sub‐total 71,616$
Sales Tax 8%2,865$
Sub‐total 74,481$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30%22,344$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 96,825$
GR / GC 15%14,524$
Sub‐total 111,349$
Contractor's Profit 10%11,135$
Sub‐total 122,483$
Bond 2%2,450$
Sub‐total 124,933$
Insurance 2%2,499$
GRAND TOTAL 127,432$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
Building separation allows
pounding into adjacent building
(2‐15 Headworks Power Building
B)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 33
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PS15‐06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name:Central Power Generation Building Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 2 Project 2‐17 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:8 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #1 Mitigation
Cast‐in‐place concrete shear wall 29.6 CY 412$ 12,207$ 676$ 20,030$ 32,237$ Carollo Database
Upgrade first floor beams with steel channel tie along building length 190 FT 51$ 9,690$ 179$ 34,010$ 43,700$ RS Means. 60 lbs/ft Gal Steel.
Demo conduit and piping 1 LS 16,000$
Replace conduit and piping 1 LS 65,000$
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 156,937$ 100% of direct cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 8 MONTH 3,000$ 24,000$ 24,000$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, and etc.
337,874$
PFM #2 Mitigation‐Standard Structural Mitigation A2 (High)
New steel welded or bolted connections 10 EA 15,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ Estimated by James Doering
Additional roof deck welding 10 EA 4,800$ 48,000$ 48,000$
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 198,000$ 100% Direct Cost
396,000$
PFM #4 Mitigation
New steel x‐braced frames 186 FT 78$ 14,514$ 8$ 1,489$ 16,002$ RS Means. HSS 8X8X1/2. 49lbs/ft.
Epoxy anchors 32 EA 71$ 2,272$ 38$ 1,216$ 3,488$ RS Means
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 19,490$ 100% Direct Cost
38,981$
PFM #5 Mitigation‐Standard Structural Mitigation E
Cast in place concrete 16.9 CY 412$ 6,943$ 676$ 11,392$ 18,335$ Carollo Database
Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 66 EA 39$ 2,568$ 45$ 2,963$ 5,530$ RS Means material cost, $100/dowel, 18" OC
Special finishes for concrete 1 LS 917$ 5% of cast‐in‐place concrete
Demo existing window at grade and at EL 33.00 2 EA 800$ 1,600$ 6,400$
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 31,182$ 100% Direct Cost
62,363$
PFM #6 Mitigation‐Standard Structural Mitigation B2
Roof diaphragm shear transfer Supplement existing anchors at 20" OC 420 EA 71$ 29,820$ 38$ 15,960$ 45,780$ RS means
45,780$
PFM #7 Mitigation‐Standard Structural Mitigation B1
Membrane roof for the entire building 26125 SF 6$ 156,750$ 6$ 156,750$ 313,500$
New steel roof framing 432 FT 41$ 17,712$ 6$ 2,592$ 20,304$ RS Means. 25 lbs/ft Gal Steel.
Metal decking, galvanized steel, 1‐1/2" deep, 18 gauge 18000 SF 12$ 216,000$ 2$ 27,000$ 243,000$ RS Means
Demo existing steel roof deck 1 LS 38,400$
Demo existing roofing 1 LS 38,400$
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 653,604$ 100% Direct Cost
1,307,208$
Sub‐total 2,188,206$
Sales Tax 8%87,528$
Sub‐total 2,275,734$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30% 682,720$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 2,958,455$
GR / GC 15% 443,768$
Sub‐total 3,402,223$
Contractor's Profit 10% 340,222$
Sub‐total 3,742,445$
Bond 2%74,849$
Sub‐total 3,817,294$
Insurance 2%76,346$
GRAND TOTAL 3,893,640$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
Roof diaphragm shear in both
directions
In‐plane shear in shear walls at
shear walls in the east‐west
direction
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
Mezzanine at EL 21 lacks
bracing
Wall anchorage at the north,
south, and interior wall along
grid line B
Discontinuous shear walls
along grid line B (mezzanine)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 34
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PS15‐06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name:DAFT D Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 2 Project 2‐22 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:4 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost References
PFM #3 Mitigation
Install new epoxy dowels 40 EA 42$ 1,680$ 78$ 3,120$ 4,800$ RS Means, 3/4" diameterX24" long
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 9,600$ 200% of direct cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 2 MONTH 3,000$ 6,000$ 6,000$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, and etc.
20,400$
PFM #9 Mitigation
New C6X13 member anchored to the existing thrust ring 100 FT 24$ 2,400$ 6$ 600$ 3,000$ RS Means. 13 lbs/ft Gal Steel
Anchor to the dome with epoxy anchors (3/4" diameter X
8" long) spaced at 12" OC 100 EA 71$ 7,100$ 38$ 3,800$ 10,900$ RS Means
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 27,800$ 200% of direct cost
41,700$
Sub‐total 62,100$
Sales Tax 8%2,484$
Sub‐total 64,584$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30%19,375$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 83,959$
GR / GC 15%12,594$
Sub‐total 96,553$
Contractor's Profit 10%9,655$
Sub‐total 106,208$
Bond 2%2,124$
Sub‐total 108,333$
Insurance 2%2,167$
GRAND TOTAL 110,499$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
Dome‐to‐wall connection
Out‐of‐plane bending on the
buried walls due to liquefied soil
conditions
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 35
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PS15‐06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name:Maintenance Building Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 2 Project 2‐27 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:12 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #2, 3A, 3B, 5, 7, and 8 Mitigation
Steel concentric x‐braced frames 1737 FT 78$ 135,495$ 8$ 13,897$ 149,392$ RS Means. HSS 8X8X1/2. 49lbs/ft.
Supplemental connections with steel hardware 112 EA 448,000$ $4000 per brace, James
New grade beams 84 CY 412$ 34,608$ 676$ 56,784$ 91,392$ Carollo database
Saw cut existing slab and footing 412 FT 2$ 881$ 23$ 9,261$ 10,142$ RS Means.
Replace existing slab and footing 167 CY 324$ 53,992$ 248$ 41,390$ 95,382$ Carollo database.
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 794,309$ 100% of direct cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 12 MONTH 3,000$ 36,000$ 36,000$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, and etc.
1,624,617$
PFM #4 Mitigation
Remove all welded wall cladding connections 304 EA 152,000$ $500/each
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 152,000$ 100% of direct cost
304,000$
Sub‐total 1,928,617$
Sales Tax 8%77,145$
Sub‐total 2,005,762$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30% 601,729$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 2,607,490$
GR / GC 15% 391,124$
Sub‐total 2,998,614$
Contractor's Profit 10% 299,861$
Sub‐total 3,298,475$
Bond 2%65,970$
Sub‐total 3,364,445$
Insurance 2%67,289$
GRAND TOTAL 3,431,734$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
Precast wall cladding interferes
with moment frames
Building drift at elevated floors
in the north‐south direction
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 36
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PS15‐06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name:Boiler Building Date Prepared:4/17/2019
Project Number:OCSD Plant 2 Project 2‐28 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:4 months Date Accepted:
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #4 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation B1
Demo existing roofing 1 LS 9,600$
Metal decking, galvanized steel, 1‐1/2" deep, 18 gauge 2000 SF 12$ 24,000$ 2$ 3,000$ 27,000$ RS Means
Membrane roof for the entire building 2000 SF 6$ 12,000$ 6$ 12,000$ 24,000$ Carollo database
Addition of (3) W12X31 beams 60 FT 50$ 3,000$ 6$ 360$ 3,360$ RS Means. 31 lbs/ft
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 63,960$ 100% Direct Cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 4 MONTH 3,000$ 12,000$ 12,000$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, etc.
139,920$
Sub‐total 139,920$
Sales Tax 8%5,597$
Sub‐total 145,517$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30%43,655$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 189,172$
GR / GC 15%28,376$
Sub‐total 217,548$
Contractor's Profit 10%21,755$
Sub‐total 239,302$
Bond 2%4,786$
Sub‐total 244,088$
Insurance 2%4,882$
GRAND TOTAL 248,970$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
Roof diaphragm shear
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 37
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PS15‐06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name:OOBS Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 2 Project 2‐29 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:8 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #1 Mitigation‐Standard Structural Mitigation A2 (High)
New steel welded or bolted connections 13 EA 15,000$ 195,000$ 195,000$ $15000/location. Estimated by James Doering
Additional roof deck welding 13 EA 2,400$ 31,200$ 31,200$
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 113,100$ 100 % of direct cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 4 MONTH 3,000$ 12,000$ 12,000$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, and etc.
351,300$
PFM #2 Mitigation‐Standard Structural Mitigation A2 (High)
New steel welded or bolted connections 15 EA 15,000$ 225,000$ 225,000$ Estimated by James Doering
Additional roof deck puddle welds 82 EA 600$ 49,200$ 49,200$
Roof demo 1 LS 9,600$
Roof replacement 1 LS 9,600$
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 146,700$ 100 % of direct cost
440,100$
PFM #5 Mitigation ‐ Standard Structural Mitigation B1 and B2
Demo existing roofing 1 LS 28,800$
Metal decking, galvanized steel, 1‐1/2" deep, 18 gauge 8600 SF 12$ 103,200$ 2$ 12,900$ 116,100$ RS Means
Membrane roof for the entire building 11880 SF 6$ 71,280$ 6$ 71,280$ 142,560$ Carollo database
Supplement existing anchors at 20" OC 180 EA 71$ 12,861$ 38$ 6,804$ 19,665$ RS Means
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 307,125$ 100% Direct Cost
614,250$
Sub‐total 1,405,650$
Sales Tax 8%56,226$
Sub‐total 1,461,876$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30% 438,563$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 1,900,439$
GR / GC 15% 285,066$
Sub‐total 2,185,505$
Contractor's Profit 10% 218,550$
Sub‐total 2,404,055$
Bond 2%48,081$
Sub‐total 2,452,136$
Insurance 2%49,043$
GRAND TOTAL 2,501,179$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
Low roof diaphragm shear
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
Wall anchorage at the roof level
at the north and south walls
Wall anchorage at the roof level
at the east, west, and interior
wall (Grid line G)
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 38
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PS15‐06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name:12 kV Distribution Center A Date Prepared:12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 2 Project 2‐30 Prepared By:XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:4 months Date Accepted:1/8/2019
Accepted By:JAD
TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #1 Mitigation‐Standard Structural Mitigation A2 (High)
New steel welded or bolted connections 10 EA 15,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ $15000/location. Estimated by James Doering
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 150,000$ 100% of direct cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 4 MONTH 3,000$ 12,000$ 12,000$ Construct trailer, utilities, protection, and etc.
312,000$
PFM #3 Mitigation‐Standard Structural Mitigation E
Cast in place concrete 11.1 CY 412$ 4,578$ 676$ 7,511$ 12,089$ RS Means. Assume 12"
Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 157 EA 39$ 6,110$ 45$ 7,050$ 13,160$ RS Means material cost, $100/dowel, 18" OC
Demo existing window 4 EA 6,400$
Special finishes for concrete 1 LS 604$ 5% of cast‐in‐place concrete
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 32,253$ 100% of direct cost
64,507$
Sub‐total 376,507$
Sales Tax 8%15,060$
Sub‐total 391,567$
NOTES:Project Level Allowance 30% 117,470$
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub‐total 509,037$
GR / GC 15%76,356$
Sub‐total 585,393$
Contractor's Profit 10%58,539$
Sub‐total 643,932$
Bond 2%12,879$
Sub‐total 656,810$
Insurance 2%13,136$
GRAND TOTAL 669,947$
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018
MATERIALS INSTALLATION
Wall anchorage to roof at
north and south walls
Shear at frame columns in the
E‐W direction
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix F1 39
HL1635\PS15-06 Geosyntec Project Report - FINAL 7/19/2019
APPENDIX F2
Geotechnical Mitigation Cost Tables
DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT AND INCREASED LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE MITIGATION COST ESTIMATE
PS15‐06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Treatment
Depth
Drilling ‐
Standard
Rig
Drilling ‐
Directional
Drilling ‐
Limited
Access
Access
Shafts
Total
Grout
Volume
Standard
Rig Drilling
Cost2
Directional
Drilling
Cost2
Limited Access
Drilling Cost2
Access
Shaft
Grouting
Cost3
Savings due to
Economies of
Scale
Structure‐specific
Modification &
Access Costs
Sub‐Total,
Construction
Costs Sales Tax
Project
Level
Allowance GR/GC
Contractor's
Profit Bond Insurance Structure Total
Structure
No.Structure Name (FT) (LF) (LF) (LF) (QTY) (CY) 70 125 95 600,000 900 8% 30% 15% 10% 2% 2%
1‐4 City Water Pump Station 27 2,910 0 0 0 521 203,695 0 0 0 469,200 0 0 672,895 26,916 209,943 136,463 104,622 23,017 23,477 $1,197,332
1‐5 Power Building 2 47 6,662 0 0 0 1,221 466,358 0 0 0 1,098,800 0 0 1,565,158 62,606 488,329 317,414 243,351 53,537 54,608 $2,785,003
1‐7 Power Building 5 46 0 0 3,022 0 415 0 0 287,109 0 373,050 0 0 660,159 26,406 205,970 133,880 102,642 22,581 23,033 $1,174,671
1‐10 Central Power Generation Building 19 2,858 0 0 0 1,108 200,067 0 0 0 997,500 0 0 1,197,567 47,903 373,641 242,867 186,198 40,963 41,783 $2,130,920
1‐14 Digester 5 Pump Room 42 0 0 3,043 0 563 0 0 289,076 0 506,900 0 0 795,976 31,839 248,344 161,424 123,758 27,227 27,771 $1,416,339
1‐24 Gas Holder 51 0 0 3,638 0 735 0 0 345,570 0 661,500 0 0 1,007,070 40,283 314,206 204,234 156,579 34,447 35,136 $1,791,955
1‐33 PEDB2 29 1,122 0 0 0 435 78,508 0 0 0 391,500 0 0 470,008 18,800 146,643 95,318 73,077 16,077 16,398 $836,321
2‐1 DAFT A, B, & C Gallery 59 0 0 12,625 0 1,890 0 0 1,199,330 0 1,701,000 0 0 2,900,330 116,013 904,903 588,187 450,943 99,208 101,192 $5,160,775
2‐3 RAS PS East 40 626 0 3,717 0 692 43,844 0 353,115 0 622,790 0 0 1,019,749 40,790 318,162 206,805 158,551 34,881 35,579 $1,814,517
2‐4 RAS PS West 66 697 0 6,712 0 1,317 48,780 0 637,659 0 1,184,880 0 0 1,871,319 74,853 583,852 379,504 290,953 64,010 65,290 $3,329,780
2‐5 PEPS & MAC 60 2,029 0 15,957 0 3,267 142,050 0 1,515,915 0 2,940,608 ‐326,734 0 4,271,838 170,874 1,332,814 866,329 664,185 146,121 149,043 $7,601,204
2‐6 Operations/Control Center Bldg 61 18,213 0 0 0 3,170 1,274,915 0 0 0 2,852,998 ‐317,000 0 3,810,913 152,437 1,189,005 772,853 592,521 130,355 132,962 $6,781,045
2‐7 12 kV Service Center 50 5,738 0 0 0 989 401,625 0 0 0 889,700 0 0 1,291,325 51,653 402,893 261,881 200,775 44,171 45,054 $2,297,752
2‐9 Power Building C 61 0 0 5,902 0 964 0 0 560,666 0 867,420 0 0 1,428,086 57,123 445,563 289,616 222,039 48,849 49,826 $2,541,101
2‐11 City Water Pump Station 65 0 0 8,219 0 1,657 0 0 780,829 0 1,491,360 0 0 2,272,189 90,888 708,923 460,800 353,280 77,722 79,276 $4,043,077
2‐12 12 kV Distribution Center B 59 1,676 0 9,664 0 2,078 117,318 0 918,099 0 1,870,585 0 0 2,906,002 116,240 906,673 589,337 451,825 99,402 101,390 $5,170,869
2‐13 12 kV Distribution Center D 63 0 0 3,062 0 614 0 0 290,871 0 552,920 0 0 843,791 33,752 263,263 171,121 131,193 28,862 29,440 $1,501,421
2‐14 Headworks Power Bldg A 54 0 0 4,508 0 867 0 0 428,227 0 780,520 0 0 1,208,747 48,350 377,129 245,134 187,936 41,346 42,173 $2,150,814
2‐15 Headworks Power Bldg B 53 0 0 4,961 0 1,003 0 0 471,276 0 902,700 0 0 1,373,976 54,959 428,681 278,642 213,626 46,998 47,938 $2,444,819
2‐16 Headworks Standby Power Building 53 0 0 6,082 0 1,213 0 0 577,766 0 1,091,510 0 0 1,669,276 66,771 520,814 338,529 259,539 57,099 58,241 $2,970,269
2‐18A Aeration Basins A‐H (Northwest)67 28,375 0 0 0 10,563 1,986,215 0 0 0 9,506,290 ‐1,056,254 0 10,436,250 417,450 3,256,110 2,116,472 1,622,628 356,978 364,118 $18,570,006
2‐18B Aeration Basins A‐H (Southeast)41 17,364 0 0 0 5,412 1,215,445 0 0 0 4,870,395 ‐541,155 0 5,544,685 221,787 1,729,942 1,124,462 862,088 189,659 193,452 $9,866,076
2‐19 Gas Holder 66 0 0 4,678 0 951 0 0 444,386 0 856,320 0 0 1,300,706 52,028 405,820 263,783 202,234 44,491 45,381 $2,314,445
2‐20 Secondary Clarifiers A‐L 30 58,605 0 0 0 15,950 4,102,350 0 0 0 14,354,846 ‐1,594,983 130,000 16,992,213 679,689 5,301,571 3,446,021 2,641,949 581,229 592,853 $30,235,525
2‐21 DAFTs A‐C 60 12,056 0 0 0 2,168 843,885 0 0 0 1,951,452 0 0 2,795,337 111,813 872,145 566,894 434,619 95,616 97,529 $4,973,954
2‐22 DAFT D 60 4,712 0 0 0 846 329,805 0 0 0 761,292 0 0 1,091,097 43,644 340,422 221,274 169,644 37,322 38,068 $1,941,471
2‐27 Maintenance Building 64 37,627 0 0 0 7,457 2,633,904 0 0 0 6,711,390 ‐745,710 0 8,599,584 343,983 2,683,070 1,743,996 1,337,063 294,154 300,037 $15,301,887
2‐29 OOBS 45 0 16,330 0 1 2,483 0 2,041,250 0 600,000 2,234,600 ‐248,289 0 4,627,561 185,102 1,443,799 938,469 719,493 158,289 161,454 $8,234,168
2‐30 12kV Distribution Center A 55 1,131 0 7,648 0 1,607 79,166 0 726,536 0 1,446,500 0 0 2,252,202 90,088 702,687 456,747 350,172 77,038 78,579 $4,007,513
1Column footing widths, where applicable, provided in parentheses.
2Drilling rates include Sleeve Port Grout Pipe (SPGP) installation.
3Grout cost includes labor and material. Unit cost is per CY of grout delivered, as measured by flow meters, not CY of soil treated.
Total Quantities Unit Costs* ($/LF and $/CY)Addt'l Costs Cost Estimate ($)
PS15-06 Appendix F2 1
LATERAL SPREAD MITIGATION COST ESTIMATE
PS15‐06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Plant
Wall
Length
(ft)
Column
Diameter
(ft)
Wall
Depth
(ft)
No.
Columns
(1ft.
separation)
Cost per Pile1
($)
Sub‐Total
Construction
Costs ($) Sales Tax
Project
Level
Allowance GR/GC
Contractor's
Profit Bond Insurance Total
8%30%15%10%2%2% (Upper end of Est. Range)+50%Best Estimate ‐50%
1 2,775 4 90 555 150,000$ 83,250,000$ 3,330,000 25,974,000 16,883,100 12,943,710 2,847,616 2,904,569 148,132,995 150,000,000$ 100,000,000$ 50,000,000$
2 1,385 4 90 277 150,000$ 41,550,000$ 1,662,000 12,963,600 8,426,340 6,460,194 1,421,243 1,449,668 73,933,044 75,000,000$ 50,000,000$ 25,000,000$
2 - Full Frontage 6,667 4 90 1,333 150,000$ 200,010,000$ 8,000,400 62,403,120 40,562,028 31,097,555 6,841,462 6,978,291 355,892,856 350,000,000$ 225,000,000$ 125,000,000$
1 Estimated cost per 4ft diameter, concrete-filled steel pile, 90ft deep, as described in Lateral Spread Mitigation Memo. Per pile cost estimate based on average of costs provided by two geotechnical contractors.
AACEI Class 5 Cost Estimate Range
(rounded to the nearest $25M)
PS15-06 Appendix F2 2
HL1635\PS15-06 Geosyntec Project Report - FINAL 7/19/2019
APPENDIX G
Lateral Spread Wall Concept Memorandum
2100 Main Street, Suite 150 Huntington Beach, California, 92648 PH 714.969.0800 FAX 714.969.0820 www.geosyntec.com
Memorandum
Date: 19 July 2019
To: Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD)
Copies to: Chris Conkle, P.E., G.E., Geosyntec Consultants
From: Jacquelyn Allmond, Ph.D., P.E, Project Engineer Christopher Hunt, Ph.D., P.E., G.E., Senior Principal
Subject: Lateral Spread Wall Concept
Seismic Evaluation of Structures at Plant Nos. 1 and 2
Project No. PS15-06 Geosyntec Project Number: HL1635
Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec) is pleased to present findings and recommendations from the evaluation of the lateral spread mitigation alternative proposed at Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Plant Nos. 1 and 2. This memorandum summarizes the liquefaction-induced lateral spreading hazard, the idealized cross-section developed for assessing liquefaction-induced lateral earth pressures and deformations, the analyses performed to develop an embedded wall
mitigation concept, and an associated cost estimate. The lateral spreading hazard was evaluated at Plant 1 and 2 as part of Task 3 and the liquefaction mitigation alternatives and costs were developed in Task 4 of PS15-061.
1. LIQUEFACTION AND LATERAL SPREAD HAZARD
Liquefaction is the term used to describe the sudden loss of soil strength due to pore pressure
buildup in response to a loading event such as earthquake shaking. Experiences from previous earthquakes have demonstrated that loose granular soils located near the ground surface and saturated by a high-water table are the most susceptible to liquefaction. The loss of strength associated with liquefaction can cause settlement, flotation of buried structures, increase in lateral
soil pressures, and bearing capacity reduction below shallow foundations or around deep
foundation elements. A related phenomenon is lateral spreading, where liquefied soil located near an exposed free-face or sloping ground, such as near the Santa Ana River and Talbert Marsh, moves as a mass towards the face and can apply lateral forces to structures and their foundations.
1 A summary of the work executed by the Geosyntec team as part of PS15-06 Tasks 3 and 4 are provided in Technical Memorandum 3 (TM3) and 4 (TM4), respectively.
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix G 1
Memorandum - Lateral Spread Wall Concept 19 July 2019 Page 2
Lateral spread deformation profiles with depth were developed for each subject-structure in PS15-06 at the analysis ground water level (AWL, see Section 4.1.3 of TM3 for design ground water levels). Contours of the liquefaction induced lateral spread at the ground surface at Plant 1 and Plant 2 are shown in Figures 4.19 and 4.24 of TM3, respectively, and are based on the lateral
spread predicted at the ground surface at each structure. At Plant 1, the best estimate lateral spreading displacement was on the order of 3 feet (ft) for the subject-structures nearest the Santa Ana River frontage. At Plant 2, the best estimate lateral spreading displacement was on the order of 4 to 6 ft for structures near the Santa Ana River frontage, and 5 ft for structures near the Talbert Marsh frontage. The free-field liquefaction induced lateral spread deformation profiles for each
structure at the AWL and the 5% probability of exceedance in 50-year earthquake hazard level (Basic Safety Earthquake 2E) are provided in Appendix C of TM3. Lateral spread deformations were calculated without consideration of influences from the structure, foundation, surrounding structures, or surrounding ancillary features such as buried pipes or utility conduits and are therefore referred to as “free-field”.
At both plant locations, assessments indicated that lateral spread would likely affect only a portion of each site, with lateral spread unlikely to extend to locations distant from the river or marsh frontages. Ground surface deformations near the river and marsh frontages were assessed to be greater than what many subject-structures could tolerate in order to meet performance objectives2.
Therefore, lateral spread mitigation was recommended at both Plants 1 and 2 for structures which
are subject to lateral spreading displacements larger than their capacity. This memorandum documents the evaluation of one potential mitigation option for these lateral spreads, an embedded wall concept proposed to limit excessive lateral displacements towards the river and marsh. The embedded wall is envisioned as consisting of a series of large diameter steel pipes installed at close
spacings along the perimeter of the plants between the subject-structures and sloped frontages.
A plan and oblique view of the lateral spread wall concept are shown in Figure 1 relative to the Digesters at Plant 1 and the Santa Ana River. The idealized soil conditions and development of the wall geometry and material properties are described in greater detail below.
2. IDEALIZED CROSS SECTION
Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading deformations were evaluated at each structure in this study
based on the structure-specific subsurface idealized profile and proximity to the Talbert Marsh and/or Santa Ana River frontages; however, for this planning level evaluation, one cross-section was selected to develop the target lateral loads and allowable deflection of the lateral spread wall. The idealized soil profile at 1-21A Digesters 13-16 at Plant 1 was chosen based on the exemplar
structure’s proximity to the Santa Ana River and because movement of the relatively thick
unliquefied “crust” at the surface would place a large demand on the mitigation wall concept. The
2 The probable failure mode (PFM) associated with excessive lateral spreading and recommended levels of mitigation (e.g., 60% reduction in lateral spread deformation) to meet performance level objectives for each subject-structure are provided in the PFM and Mitigation Tables in TM3.
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix G 2
Memorandum - Lateral Spread Wall Concept 19 July 2019 Page 3
analysis of the lateral spread wall targeted a maximum deflection of 12 inches at the ground surface, which, based on a Tier 3 structural analysis of Digester 16, was a tolerable amount of ground displacement for the pile-supported digesters to meet their target performance criteria.
A “typical ground water level” (TWL) of 16 ft below ground surface was selected for the lateral
spread wall analyses. The TWL is deeper than the Historic High Water Level (HHWL) or AWL used in other analyses in this study, but captures the majority of the historical ground water data at Plant 1, and represents a “typical” condition that may be present during an earthquake. The deeper TWL results in a stronger soil profile near the surface (i.e., less liquefiable soil) and forms
a thicker soil crust that can displace over deeper liquefiable layers during an earthquake event. On
the backside of the wall, this thicker soil cap applies a high driving force on the wall near the ground surface while providing no lateral resistance on the river-side as the cap spreads laterally towards the river. This TWL scenario results in greater wall deflection than under the HHWL or AWL with thinner soil crusts and was therefore considered conservative for this evaluation.
The idealized soil profile at 1-21A is shown in Figure 2 and consists of a 16-ft thick layer of non-
liquefiable (i.e., dry above groundwater) silty sand at the surface over 1 foot of liquefiable sand and silty sand. These layers overlie a 20-ft thick partially liquefiable clay layer with thin silt and sandy silt layers, though only the soils in the upper 13 ft of this layer were considered to contribute to lateral spread deformation (i.e., soils above the “lateral spread cut-off” described in TM3). The
bottom sand and silty sand layers (between EL. -10 ft and -40 ft) are considered liquefiable, and
may contribute to settlement, but are not anticipated to contribute significantly to lateral spread. The best estimate lateral spread profile was developed following the same procedures outlined in Section 4.1.4 of TM3 using the 1-21A idealized profile, the TWL, and an assumed distance to free-face of 65 ft, which is the approximate distance from the Santa Ana River free-face to the river-
side edge of the access/perimeter road of Plant 1 (see Figure 1). Based on review of existing utility
as-builts the lateral spread wall concept was developed to allow for construction between existing underground utilities near the Plant 1 digesters at this 65-ft offset from the river3. Figure 2 shows the idealized soil profile (at left), the assumed lateral spread cut-off depth, and the best estimate free-field lateral spread profile at the wall location (at right, red line on displacement plot).
3. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE
The movement of the soil towards the river after liquefaction will impose additional lateral load on the back side of the wall (structure-side of the wall). In addition, soil will move away from the wall on the river-side, reducing lateral capacity from surrounding soil. This creates a cantilever condition with a distributed load along the back of the wall and no resisting load over most of the
upper 30 ft of laterally spreading soil.
3 An underground clearance assessment was made at both Plant 1 and Plant 2 based on review of as-built drawings provided by OCSD. Utility related constraints should be taken into consideration in the ultimate design and construction of the lateral displacement wall at Plant 1 and Plant 2.
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix G 3
Memorandum - Lateral Spread Wall Concept 19 July 2019 Page 4
The distributed lateral earth pressure from liquefaction was calculated following the methods presented in Section 5 of TM3. Active lateral earth pressure corresponds to the pressure experienced at the soil-wall interface when a wall moves away from the adjacent soil and the soil relaxes as it moves into the space behind the wall, and passive lateral earth pressure is applicable
when soil is compressed as it moves towards a stationary wall (or more conventionally, when the wall moves into the soil). The crust behind the lateral spread wall will move laterally towards the river on top of the deeper liquefied soil and as the wall is not completely rigid, the resulting soil pressure acting on the wall is considered to be neither fully active or fully passive. For these simplified analyses, the crust was considered to impart at most a lateral load equivalent to its
weight, resulting in an earth pressure coefficient (K) of 1 (i.e., horizontal and vertical stresses are equal). For liquefied soil, the equivalent fluid pressure applied by the liquefied soil (e.g., fluid with an estimated soil unit weight of 120 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) vs water unit weight of 62.4 pcf), and a corresponding hydrodynamic increment of the liquefied soil against the wall were considered. The following loads were used to develop the lateral earth pressure imposed on the
embedded wall due to liquefaction:
• Above Water Table (Passive Scenario): Earth Pressure with K = 1
• Below Water Table (Liquefied Soil): Hydrostatic (Dense Fluid) + Hydrodynamic Pressure
The resulting liquefied lateral earth pressure is shown in Figure 2 (at left, green line on earth pressure plot) and was used as the distributed driving load in the lateral spread wall model. Note that as the soil between elevations 10 ft and -3 ft (lateral spread cutoff) is considered only partially liquefiable, the use of hydrostatic and hydrodynamic pressures is likely conservative.
4. LATERAL SPREAD WALL MODEL AND RESULTS
The embedded wall concept consists of large diameter drilled pipe piles installed at close spacings along the perimeter of the Plants between the subject-structures and sloped frontages. The pipe geometry and material parameters were evaluated given the 1-21A Digester 13-16 idealized soil
profile and liquefied lateral loading scenarios described in previous sections in order to meet the
12-inch target pipe deflection at the ground surface. These analyses were performed using the program GROUP by ENSOFT, Inc.4 The program is used for pushover analysis of pile groups and includes the ability to apply a distributed lateral load and extract deflection profiles along the piles. The soil models and parameters used in the GROUP model are shown in Table 1.
4 Reese, L.C., Wang, S.-T., and Vasquez, L. [2016] “Computer Program GROUP – Version 2016 – A Program for the Analysis of a Group of Piles Subjected to Vertical and Lateral Loading – Technical Manual.” Prepared for ENSOFT, Inc., Austin, TX, May 2016.
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix G 4
Memorandum - Lateral Spread Wall Concept 19 July 2019 Page 5
Table 1: GROUP Model Soil Material Properties
GROUP
Soil Model
Layer Depth Effective Unit
Weight, γ’ Friction Angle, φ’ Cohesion, c Top Bottom
(ft) (ft) (pcf) (deg) (psf)
Sand (Reese) 0 16 115 35 0
Sand (Reese) 16 17 57.5 35 0
Soft Clay (Matlock) 17 37 52.6 0 800
Sand (Reese) 37 53 62.6 35 0
Sand (Reese) 53 67 67.6 35 0
Sand (Reese) 67 150 67.6 40 0
Several pipe configurations and characteristics were analyzed as part of the parametric study, including the following:
• Pile length: The critical pipe pile length was selected based on stabilization of the surface deflection. Load case scenarios were analyzed in GROUP starting with a pipe pile length of 74 ft and incrementally increased to 125 ft. The resulting deflection at the ground surface started to stabilize after a pile length of 85 ft as the calculated surface deflection was
unaffected by using longer piles. Based on these evaluations, a 90-ft pile was considered
to provide stable embedment with regard to surface deflection.
• Pile Layout: Two pipe pile diameters, three center-to-center spacings, and two layout configurations were analyzed to select a wall design to meet the target deflection. Multiple rows of piles offset at closer spacings were considered; however, the multi-row offset
pattern did not significantly improve deflection at the ground surface with the added cost of requiring more underground utility clearance. A single line of 4-ft diameter piles at 5-ft center-to-center spacing (the smallest pipe diameter analyzed at the closest spacing) was selected as a feasible configuration for construction purposes while meeting the target surface displacement.
• Liquefaction-Induced Soil Strength Loss: Consideration was given to the effect of soil strength loss due to liquefaction on the wall lateral capacity. A typical value of a “p-multiplier” to account for strength loss is 0.1 (i.e., liquefied soil strength is 10% of unliquefied soil strength), though this value should be selected based on soil and site
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix G 5
Memorandum - Lateral Spread Wall Concept 19 July 2019 Page 6
conditions5. Lateral soil resistance was reduced in the GROUP analysis by applying the following p-multipliers:
o 0.0 for all soils which displace further than the deflection of the pipe. This represents
the near surface soil flowing away from the wall, creating a gap at the pipe-soil
interface, and providing no lateral support to the wall.
o 0.1 for liquefied material in contact with the pipe. This represents either liquefied soil at depth or laterally spreading soil which displaces less than the deflection of the pipe (i.e., pipe is still in contact with the flowing soil).
o 1.0 for unliquefied soil (i.e., no strength reduction).
Based on parametric iterations of the pipe geometry and material properties, a 4-foot diameter, 90-foot long Grade 52 steel pipe with 1” wall thickness, spaced at 5 ft on center with a rebar cage with twenty-four #18 Grade 75 vertical bars, and filled with 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) concrete was found to limit pipe deflection at the ground surface to approximately 12 inches. A sketch of the non-deformed pipe, deflection of the laterally loaded design pipe (at right, purple
line on displacement plot), and p-multiplier values (at right, blue line on p-multiplier plot) used in these analyses are shown in Figure 2. Plan and section views of the design pipe and wall configurations are shown in Figure 3.
5. DRILLED PIPE PILE LATERAL SPREAD MITIGATION COST
ESTIMATE
Lateral spread mitigation cost estimates are an element of the final deliverable (TM4) of the current project. These estimates will be used for long range planning purposes and are to be prepared at the American Association of Cost Engineers International (AACEI) Class 5 level. Estimates
prepared at this class are generally prepared at a very early stage of project definition and are
therefore expected to have a wide accuracy range (-50% to +50%).
A cost estimate was formulated by making use of the conceptual approach to the embedded lateral spread wall using the large diameter drilled pipe piles at the 1-21A location as described in Section 4. Concept-level rough order pricing was solicited from two separate drilling contractors,
both experienced with performing this type of work in Southern California. According to the cost
estimates received, the average cost for materials and installation is on the order of $150,000 per pile, which equates to $30,000 per lineal foot of river/marsh frontage for lateral spread mitigation using the design pipe diameter and spacing pattern described above.
5 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). [2013] “Guidelines on Foundation Loading and Deformation Due to Liquefaction Induced Lateral Spreading” internal design guideline www.dot.ca.gov/research/structures/peer_lifeline_program/docs/guidelines_on_foundation_loading_jan2012.pdf
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix G 6
Memorandum - Lateral Spread Wall Concept 19 July 2019 Page 7
.
This memorandum outlines the analyses performed to assess an embedded wall concept for lateral spread mitigation at OCSD Plants 1 and 2. The concept for the lateral spread wall utilizes a single line of fully embedded 4-foot diameter Grade 52 steel pipes, 90 ft in length with 1” wall thickness
and spaced at 5 ft on center. Within the steel pipe is a rebar cage of 24 EA. #18 Grade 75 vertical
bars and filled with 5,000 psi concrete. Evaluations indicate this configuration limits the deflection of the wall at the ground surface to approximately 12 inches.
The analyses presented herein were performed for this planning level study using one cross-section at Plant 1 (1-21A Digester 13-16) and a simplified GROUP model. A more comprehensive
geotechnical and structural analysis should be performed for design and construction of the walls
at Plant 1 and 2 and should at a minimum include consideration of soil and lateral spread variability, underground utilities and clearances, variability in target pipe pile deflection at the ground surface, and arching and stability of soils between piles. Note also that slope movement along the Santa Ana River and Talbert Marsh frontages beyond the mitigation wall was not
considered and would not be mitigated by this approach. Lateral spread mitigation alternatives like
the lateral spread wall concept described in this memorandum will help reduce detrimental ground deformations on buried structures, foundations, and utilities susceptible to the excessive liquefaction-induced lateral spread hazard at Plant 1 and 2.
Attachments: Figure 1: Lateral Spread Wall Concept (shown at Plant 1 Digesters)
Figure 2: Idealized Soil Profile, Lateral Spread Displacement, Lateral Earth Pressure Distribution, and Pipe Deflection
Figure 3: Design Pipe Sections
*****
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix G 7
Lateral Spread Wall Concept
(shown at Plant 1 Digesters)
OCSD PS15-06
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORINA
Project No: HL1635 JULY 2019
Figure
1
Plan View
Oblique View
(only portion of lateral spread wall shown)
lateral spread
towards river
A
A’
A
A’65-ft Offset
Santa Ana River
Free-Face
Note: drawings not
shown to scale
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix G 8
00.5101,0002,0003,0004,0005,000
soil lateral
spread
towards
river
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Project No: HL1635 JULY 2019
Figure
2
lateral spread cut-off
liquefied soil displaces
more than pipe deflects
P-multiplier
0.0 =no pipe-soil contact (gap) and
no lateral resistance
0.1 =pipe-soil contact with
liquefaction strength reduction
1.0 =pipe-soil contact with
full lateral resistance
1.0
Lateral Displacement and Pipe Deflection (in.)Idealized Soil Profile
1.0
0.1
liquefied soil displaces
less than pipe deflects
Liquefied Lateral Earth Pressure (psf)
soil displacement is equal to pipe deflection
0.0
0.1
Idealized Soil Profile, Lateral Spread Displacement,
Lateral Earth Pressure Distribution, and Pipe Deflection
OCSD PS15-06
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORINA
P-multiplier
0
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix G 9
Design Pipe Sections
OCSD PS15-06
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORINA
Project No: HL1635 JULY 2019
Figure
3
90 ft
long
5 ft spaced on center
4 ft diameter
Grade 52 steel pipe
1 inch24 EA. #18
Grade 75
vertical bars
5,000 psi
concrete
Pipe Cross Section
PS15-06 TM4 Appendix G 10
HL1635\PS15-06 Geosyntec Project Report - FINAL 7/19/2019
APPENDIX H
Likelihood and Consequence of Each PFM,
by Structure
General Notes and Legend
1
Category Percentage
2 Equals CoSF score times weighting percentage Life Safety 100.0%
Primary Treatment 100.0%
Regulatory 80.0%
Stakeholder 37.5%
Financial 80.0%
3 LoSF score index:Public Impact 0.0%
0 = meets performance objective
1 = low likelihood
3 = medium likelihood
5 = high likelihood
4 CoSF score index for Life Safety:
1 = Meets performance objectives for life safety.
2 =Failure presenting life safety risk for structures with occupancy less than 2,000 person‐hours per year.
3 =Failure presenting life safety risk for structures with occupancy from 2,000 to 10,000 person‐hours per year.
4 = Failure presenting life safety risk for structures with occupancy from 10,000 to 20,000 person‐hours per year.
5 = Failure presenting life safety risk for structures with occupancy greater than 20,000 person‐hours per year.
5 CoSF score index for Primary Treatment and Primary Solids Handling (Digestion/Thickening/Hauling):
1=Meets objectives for receiving wastewater into the plant and discharging wastewater from the plant with at least a primary level of treatment plus primary solids handling, without interruption.
2=Minor impact to receiving wastewater into the plant and/or discharging wastewater from the plant with at least a primary level of treatment plus primary solids handling.
3=Short term (~1 week) failure to receive wastewater into the plant and/or discharge wastewater from the plant with at least a primary level of treatment plus primary solids handling.
4=Medium term (1‐6 weeks) failure to receive wastewater into the plant and/or discharge wastewater from the plant with at least a primary level of treatment plus primary solids handling.
5=Long term (>6 weeks) failure to receive wastewater into the plant and/or discharge wastewater from the plant with at least a primary level of treatment plus primary solids handling.
6 CoSF score index for Regulatory Attainment:
1=Meets LOS targets for spill management secondary treatment standards, effluent water quality, and health and safety goals, including release of digester gas.
2=Minor impact to meeting LOS targets for spill management secondary treatment standards, effluent water quality, and health and safety goals,including release of digester gas.
3=Short term (~1 month) failure to meet LOS targets for spill management, secondary treatment standards, effluent water quality, and health and safety goals, including release of digester gas
4=Medium term (1‐6 months) failure to meet LOS targets for spill management secondary treatment standards, effluent water quality, and health and safety goals, including release of digester gas.
5=Long term (>6 months) failure to meet LOS targets for spill management, secondary treatment standards, effluent water quality, and health and safety goals, including release of digester gas
7 CoSF score index for Stakeholder Commitments
1=Meets LOS targets for GWRS source water quality and quantity and other stakeholder expectations.
2=Minor impact to meeting LOS targets for GWRS source water quality and quantity and other stakeholder expectations.
3=Short term (~1 month) failure to meet LOS targets for GWRS source water quality and quantity and other stakeholder expectations.
4=Medium term (1‐6 months) failure to meet LOS targets for GWRS source water quality and quantity and other stakeholder expectations.
5=Long term (>6 months) failure to meet LOS targets for GWRS source water quality and quantity and other Stakeholder expectations.
8 CoSF score for Financial Impacts:
1 =No identified financial impact. Meets LOS target for balanced O&M budget and maintains AAA bond rating.
2 =Low costs (to repair or replace facility and address other financial impacts).
3 = Medium costs (to repair or replace facility and address other financial impacts).
4 = High costs (to repair or replace facility and address other financial impacts).
5 = Very high costs (to repair or replace facility and address other financial impacts).
9 CoSF score for Public Impacts:
1=Meets LOS targets for odor complaints and response time.
2=Minor impact to meeting LOS targets for odor complaints and response time.
3=Short term (~1 month) failure to meet LOS targets for odor complaints and response time.
4=Medium term (1‐6 months) failure to meet LOS targets for odor complaints and response time.
5=Long term (>6 months) failure to meet LOS targets for odor complaints and response time.
CoSF WeightingGS = ground shaking, DS = differential settlement, LS = lateral spread
PS15-06 Appendix H 1
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
2
Wall anchorage to the roof at east and west
walls of the north building 0.7 1.1 1 GS 3 1 3 1 1 1 3.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.2 3.0 3.0
3 Roof diaphragm shear 10.3 6.5 5 GS 3 1 3 1 1 1 3.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.2 3.0 15.0
4 Discontinuous shear walls > 1.0 > 1.0 3 GS 3 1 3 1 1 1 3.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.2 3.0 9.0
7
Bending/shear failure of piles due to lateral
spread (surface PGD = 27-inches)2.2 3.4 5 LS 3 1 3 1 1 1 3.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.2 3.0 15.0
Facility Notes:15.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 15.0
Inability to trasfer WAS to thicking has moderate regulatory impact for secondary treatment (e.g. Regulatory)0.0
15.0
Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
RoSF
ScorePFM Description
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-1 Waste Sludge Thickeners (DAFT) Pump Room
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LS Score
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PFM
Type(1)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment
PS15-06 Appendix H 2
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
2
Wall anchorage to the roof at east and west
walls of the north building 1.1 N/A 1 GS 3 1 3 1 1 1 3.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.2 3.0 3.0
3 Roof diaphragm shear 10.1 N/A 5 GS 3 1 3 1 1 1 3.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.2 3.0 15.0
4 Discontinuous shear walls > 1.0 N/A 3 GS 3 1 3 1 1 1 3.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.2 3.0 9.0
7
Bending/shear failuer of piles due to lateral
spread (surface PGD = 27-inches)2.2 N/A 5 LS 3 1 3 1 1 1 3.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.2 3.0 15.0
Facility Notes:15.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 15.0
Inability to trasfer WAS to thicking has moderate regulatory impact for secondary treatment (e.g. Regulatory)0.0
15.0
Financial
Public
Impacts
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory StakeholderPFM
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-1 Waste Sludge Thickeners (DAFT) Pump Room
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
Description
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
CoSF
Score
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
PS15-06 Appendix H 3
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
2
Wall anchorage to the roof at the north and
south walls of the Blower Building 8.3 12.4 5 GS 3 1 5 5 5 1 3.0 1.0 4.0 1.9 4.0 0.2 4.0 20.0
3
Wall anchorage to the roof at the north and
south walls of the PEPS Building 0.8 1.2 2 GS 3 1 5 5 5 1 3.0 1.0 4.0 1.9 4.0 0.2 4.0 8.0
4
Wall anchorage to the roof at the east and
west walls of the PEPS Building 9.3 14.0 5 GS 3 1 5 5 5 1 3.0 1.0 4.0 1.9 4.0 0.2 4.0 20.0
5 Roof diaphragm shear 1.5 2.3 5 GS 3 1 5 5 5 1 3.0 1.0 4.0 1.9 4.0 0.2 4.0 20.0
Facility Notes:20.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 20.0
Inability to provide full secondary treatment at Plant 1 has severe impacts for regulatory compliance and ability to deliver secondary effluent to OCWD stakeholder 0.0
0.0
Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
RoSF
ScorePFMDescription
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-2 Blower Building and PEPS
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LS Score
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PFM
Type(1)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment
PS15-06 Appendix H 4
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
2
Wall anchorage to the roof at the north and
south walls of the Blower Building 12.4 N/A 5 GS 3 1 5 5 5 1 3.0 1.0 4.0 1.9 4.0 0.2 4.0 20.0
3
Wall anchorage to the roof at the north and
south walls of the PEPS Building 1.2 N/A 2 GS 3 1 5 5 5 1 3.0 1.0 4.0 1.9 4.0 0.2 4.0 8.0
4
Wall anchorage to the roof at the east and
west walls of the PEPS Building 14.0 N/A 5 GS 3 1 5 5 5 1 3.0 1.0 4.0 1.9 4.0 0.2 4.0 20.0
5 Roof diaphragm shear 2.3 N/A 5 GS 3 1 5 5 5 1 3.0 1.0 4.0 1.9 4.0 0.2 4.0 20.0
Facility Notes:20.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 20.0
Inability to provide full secondary treatment at Plant 1 has severe impacts for regulatory compliance and ability to deliver secondary effluent to OCWD stakeholder 0.0
0.0
Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
RoSF
ScorePFMDescription
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-2 Blower Building and PEPS
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LS Score
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PFM
Type(1)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment
PS15-06 Appendix H 5
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
2
Wall anchorage to the roof at east and west
walls 1.7 2.6 5 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 10.0
3 Drag connection at the re-entrant corner < 1.0 > 1.0 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
6
Bending/shear failure of piles due to lateral
spread (surface PGD = 40-inches)3.0 4.6 5 LS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 10.0
Facility Notes:10.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 10.0
0.0
10.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-3 Plant Water Pump Station and Power Building 6
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 6
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
2
Wall anchorage to the roof at east and west
walls 2.6 N/A 5 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 10.0
3 Drag connection at the re-entrant corner < 1.0 N/A 0 GS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 1.0 0.0
6
Bending/shear failure of piles due to lateral
spread (surface PGD = 40-inches)3.0 N/A 5 LS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 10.0
Facility Notes:10.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 10.0
0.0
10.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-3 Plant Water Pump Station and Power Building 6
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 7
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1 Footings move independent of the wall > 1.0 > 1.0 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
3 Wall anchorage at east and west walls 3.9 5.9 5 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 10.0
4 In-plane shear at south pier between louvers 1.0 1.5 5 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 10.0
5
Out-of-plane horizontal bending at east and
west walls due to ground shaking 1.2 1.8 5 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 10.0
6
Out-of-plane horizontal bending in east and
west walls due to ground deformation 2.0 2.0 5 DS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 10.0
7
Tension failure in the CMU walls due to
ground deformation 2.8 2.8 5 DS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 10.0
8
Tension failure in the concrete stem wall due
to ground deformation 0.9 1.4 4 DS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 8.0
9 Lateral spread toward the Santa Ana River > 1.0 > 1.0 3 LS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
Facility Notes:10.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 10.0
10.0
6.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-4 City Water Pump Station
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 8
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1 Footings move independent of the wall > 1.0 N/A 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
3 Wall anchorage at east and west walls 5.9 N/A 5 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 10.0
4 In-plane shear at south pier between louvers 2.2 N/A 5 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 10.0
5
Out-of-plane horizontal bending at east and
west walls due to ground shaking 1.8 N/A 5 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 10.0
6
Out-of-plane horizontal bending in east and
west walls due to ground deformation 2.0 N/A 5 DS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 10.0
7
Tension failure in the CMU walls due to
ground deformation 2.8 N/A 5 DS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 10.0
8
Tension failure in the concrete stem wall due
to ground deformation 2.7 N/A 5 DS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 10.0
9 Lateral spread toward the Santa Ana River > 1.0 N/A 3 LS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
Facility Notes:10.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 10.0
10.0
6.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-4 City Water Pump Station
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 9
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1 Walls/footing are not tied together > 1.0 > 1.0 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
2
Wall anchorage at the north and south walls
of the low roof > 1.0 > 1.0 1 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 2.0
7
Tension failure in the CMU walls due to
ground deformation > 1.0 > 1.0 3 DS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
8
Lateral spread toward the Santa Ana River
due to liquefaction > 1.0 > 1.0 3 LS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
Facility Notes:6.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 6.0
6.0
6.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-5 Power Building 2
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 10
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1 Walls/footing are not tied together > 1.0 N/A 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
2
Wall anchorage at the north and south walls
of the low roof > 1.0 N/A 1 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 2.0
7
Tension failure in the CMU walls due to
ground deformation > 1.0 N/A 3 DS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
8
Lateral spread toward the Santa Ana River
due to liquefaction > 1.0 N/A 3 LS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
Facility Notes:6.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 6.0
6.0
6.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-5 Power Building 2
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 11
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
3
Incomplete load path at the north side of the
high roof diaphragm > 1.0 > 1.0 4 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 8.0
Facility Notes:8.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 8.0
0.0
0.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-6 Power Building 4
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 12
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
3
Incomplete load path at the north side of the
high roof diaphragm > 1.0 N/A 4 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 8.0
Facility Notes:8.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 8.0
0.0
0.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-6 Power Building 4
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 13
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
2
Wall anchorage at the east and west walls to
the roof diaphragm 1.5 2.2 5 GS 2 1 1 1 2 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.2 2.0 10.0
5
Structure response to differential settlement
due to liquefaction < 1.0 > 1.0 3 DS 2 1 1 1 2 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.2 2.0 6.0
Facility Notes:10.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 10.0
6.0
0.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-7 Power Building 5
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 14
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
2
Wall anchorage at the east and west walls to
the roof diaphragm 2.2 N/A 5 GS 2 1 1 1 2 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.2 2.0 10.0
5
Structure response to differential settlement
due to liquefaction > 1.0 N/A 3 DS 2 1 1 1 2 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.2 2.0 6.0
Facility Notes:10.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 10.0
6.0
0.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-7 Power Building 5
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 15
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
2
Moment frame column anchorage is not
adequate to resist seismic tension demands 9.9 9.9 5 GS 5 2 2 2 2 1 5.0 2.0 1.6 0.8 1.6 0.2 5.0 25.0
4 2nd Floor diaphragm shear transfer > 1.0 > 1.0 2 GS 5 2 2 2 2 1 5.0 2.0 1.6 0.8 1.6 0.2 5.0 10.0
5 Moment frame connection strength 3.2 3.2 5 GS 5 2 2 2 2 1 5.0 2.0 1.6 0.8 1.6 0.2 5.0 25.0
6 Moment frame panel zone shear strength 0.5 2.8 5 GS 5 2 2 2 2 1 5.0 2.0 1.6 0.8 1.6 0.2 5.0 25.0
10 Moment frame beam flexure 0.6 1.9 5 GS 5 2 2 2 2 1 5.0 2.0 1.6 0.8 1.6 0.2 5.0 25.0
Facility Notes:25.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 25.0
Control Building out of service will have minor impact to Primary Treatment and ability to meet regulatory requirements 0.0
0.0LS Score
Description
CoSF
Score
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
Financial
Public
Impacts
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-8 Control Center
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PFM
PS15-06 Appendix H 16
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
2
Moment frame column anchorage is not
adequate to resist seismic tension demands 15.4 N/A 5 GS 5 2 2 2 2 1 5.0 2.0 1.6 0.8 1.6 0.2 5.0 25.0
4 2nd Floor diaphragm shear transfer > 1.0 N/A 2 GS 5 2 2 2 2 1 5.0 2.0 1.6 0.8 1.6 0.2 5.0 10.0
5 Moment frame connection strength 5.0 N/A 5 GS 5 2 2 2 2 1 5.0 2.0 1.6 0.8 1.6 0.2 5.0 25.0
Facility Notes:25.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 25.0
Control Building out of service will have minor impact to Primary Treatment and ability to meet regulatory requirements 0.0
0.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-8 Control Center
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 17
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
2 Wall anchorage to roof at east and west walls 3.3 5.0 5 GS 2 5 5 5 3 1 2.0 5.0 4.0 1.9 2.4 0.2 5.0 25.0
Facility Notes:25.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 25.0
Loss of 12 KV service center will severly impact all plant operations, particularly if CenGen is damaged (See Structure 1-10)0.0
0.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-9 12kV Service Center
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 18
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
2 Wall anchorage to roof at east and west walls 5.0 N/A 5 GS 2 5 5 3 3 1 2.0 5.0 4.0 1.1 2.4 0.2 5.0 25.0
Facility Notes:25.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 25.0
Loss of 12 KV service center will severly impact all plant operations, particularly if CenGen is damaged (See Structure 1-10)0.0
0.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-9 12kV Service Center
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 19
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1
Lack of lateral bracing along the east side of
the high roof diaphragm > 1.0 > 1.0 5 GS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.2 4.0 20.0
2
Lack of lateral bracing along the west side of
the low roof and 2nd floor at the basement
level > 1.0 > 1.0 4 GS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.2 4.0 16.0
3
Insufficient lateral bracing along the west side
of the building 1.1 1.4 4.0 GS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.2 4.0 16.0
4
Wall anchorage at the high roof north and
south walls 13.3 20.0 5.0 GS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.2 4.0 20.0
5 High roof diaphragm shear 1.6 1.6 5.0 GS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.2 4.0 20.0
6 Low roof diaphragm shear 1.6 1.6 5.0 GS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.2 4.0 20.0
9
Out-of-plane bending on the buried walls due
to liquefied soil conditions 0.8 1.1 1 LS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.2 4.0 4.0
Facility Notes:20.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 20.0
Extreemly high financial risk due to value of CenGen 0.0
4.0
Financial
Public
Impacts
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure
Seismic Hazard Level
1-10 Central Power Generation Building
BSE 1E
PFM Description
CoSF
Score
RoSF
Score
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder
Weighted CoSF(2)
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PS15-06 Appendix H 20
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1
Lack of lateral bracing along the east side of
the high roof diaphragm > 1.0 N/A 5 GS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.2 4.0 20.0
2
Lack of lateral bracing along the west side of
the low roof and 2nd floor at the basement
level > 1.0 N/A 4 GS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.2 4.0 16.0
3
Insufficient lateral bracing along the west side
of the building 1.7 N/A 5.0 GS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.2 4.0 20.0
4
Wall anchorage at the high roof north and
south walls 20.0 N/A 5.0 GS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.2 4.0 20.0
5 High roof diaphragm shear 2.5 N/A 5.0 GS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.2 4.0 20.0
6 Low roof diaphragm shear 2.5 N/A 5.0 GS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.2 4.0 20.0
10
Out-of-plane shear on the buried walls due to
liquefied soil conditions 1.1 N/A 1 LS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.2 4.0 4.0
Facility Notes:20.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 20.0
Extreemly high financial risk due to value of CenGen 0.0
4.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-10 Central Power Generation Building
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 21
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
No PFM Found < 1.0 < 1.0 0 GS 1 1 5 5 5 1 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.9 4.0 0.2 4.0 0.0
0.0
Facility Notes:0.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
0.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-11 Aeration Basins 1-10
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 22
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
No PFM Found < 1.0 N/A 0 GS 1 1 5 5 5 1 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.9 4.0 0.2 4.0 0.0
0.0
Facility Notes:0.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
0.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-11 Aeration Basins 1-10
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 23
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
6
Separation across expansion joints due to
lateral spread towards the Santa Ana River > 1.0 > 1.0 5 LS 2 1 5 5 5 1 2.0 1.0 4.0 1.9 4.0 0.2 4.0 20.0
8
Failure of conveyor supporting structure due
to lateral spread towards the Santa Ana River > 1.0 > 1.0 5 LS 2 1 5 5 5 1 2.0 1.0 4.0 1.9 4.0 0.2 4.0 20.0
12
Bending/shear failure of piles due to lateral
spread 2.0 2.5 5 LS 2 1 5 5 5 1 2.0 1.0 4.0 1.9 4.0 0.2 4.0 20.0
Facility Notes:20.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
0.0
20.0
Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
RoSF
ScorePFMDescription
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-12 Secondary Clarifiers 1-26
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LS Score
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PFM
Type(1)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment
PS15-06 Appendix H 24
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
6
Separation across expansion joints due to
lateral spread towards the Santa Ana River > 1.0 N/A 5 LS 2 1 5 5 5 1 2.0 1.0 4.0 1.9 4.0 0.2 4.0 20.0
8
Failure of conveyor supporting structure due
to lateral spread towards the Santa Ana River > 1.0 N/A 5 LS 2 1 5 5 5 1 2.0 1.0 4.0 1.9 4.0 0.2 4.0 20.0
12
Bending/shear failure of piles due to lateral
spread 2.4 N/A 5 LS 2 1 5 5 5 1 2.0 1.0 4.0 1.9 4.0 0.2 4.0 20.0
Facility Notes:20.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
0.0
20.0
Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
RoSF
ScorePFMDescription
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-12 Secondary Clarifiers 1-26
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LS Score
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PFM
Type(1)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment
PS15-06 Appendix H 25
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0% 100.0% 80.0% 37.5% 80.0% 16.5%
No PFM Found < 1.0 < 1.0 0 GS 1 1 1 1 2 1 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.2 1.6 0.0
Facility Notes:0.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
0.0
0.0
Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
RoSF
ScorePFMDescription
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-13 Digester 5
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LS Score
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PFM
Type(1)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment
PS15-06 Appendix H 26
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
No PFM Found < 1.0 N/A 0 GS 1 1 1 1 2 1 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.2 1.6 0.0
Facility Notes:0.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
0.0
0.0
Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
RoSF
ScorePFMDescription
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-13 Digester 5
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LS Score
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PFM
Type(1)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment
PS15-06 Appendix H 27
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1 Footings move independent of the wall > 1.0 > 1.0 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
2 Insufficient separation from adjacent digesters > 1.0 > 1.0 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
3 Torsional response of roof diaphragm >1.0 > 1.0 2 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 4.0
5
Tension failure in the concrete walls due to
ground deformation >1.0 > 1.0 3 DS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
Facility Notes:6.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 6.0
6.0
0.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-14 Digester 5 & 6 Pump Room
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 28
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1 Footings move independent of the wall > 1.0 N/A 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
2 Insufficient separation from adjacent digesters > 1.0 N/A 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 2 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.3 2.0 6.0
3 Torsional response of roof diaphragm > 1.0 N/A 2 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 4.0
5
Tension failure in the concrete walls due to
ground deformation > 1.0 N/A 3 DS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
Facility Notes:6.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 6.0
6.0
0.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-14 Digester 5 & 6Pump Room
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 29
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
No PFM Found < 1.0 < 1.0 0 GS 1 1 1 1 2 1 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.2 1.6 0.0
Facility Notes:0.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
0.0
0.0
Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
RoSF
ScorePFMDescription
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-15 Digester 6
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LS Score
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PFM
Type(1)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment
PS15-06 Appendix H 30
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
No PFM Found < 1.0 N/A 0 GS 1 1 1 1 2 1 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.2 1.6 0.0
Facility Notes:0.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
0.0
0.0
Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
RoSF
ScorePFMDescription
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-15 Digester 6
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LS Score
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PFM
Type(1)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment
PS15-06 Appendix H 31
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
10
Bending/shear failure of piles due to lateral
spread (surface PGD = 19-inches)0.8 1.3 3 LS 2 1 3 1 2 1 2.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 1.6 0.2 2.4 7.2
Facility Notes:7.2
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
Potential Leakage of digester gas from broken piping can be fixed within 1 month, resulting in regulatory rating of 3 0.0
7.2
Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
RoSF
ScorePFMDescription
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-16 Digester 7
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LS Score
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PFM
Type(1)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment
PS15-06 Appendix H 32
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
10
Bending/shear failure of piles due to lateral
spread (surface PGD = 19-inches)1.3 N/A 3 LS 2 1 3 1 2 1 2.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 1.6 0.2 2.4 7.2
Facility Notes:7.2
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
Potential Leakage of digester gas from broken piping can be fixed within 1 month, resulting in regulatory rating of 3 0.0
7.2
Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
RoSF
ScorePFMDescription
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-16 Digester 7
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LS Score
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment
PS15-06 Appendix H 33
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1 Footings move independent of the wall > 1.0 > 1.0 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
2 Insufficient separation from adjacent digesters > 1.0 > 1.0 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
6
Differential lateral spread between Digesters
nos. 7 and 8 due to liquefaction > 1.0 > 1.0 3 LS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
Facility Notes:6.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 6.0
0.0
6.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-17 Digester 7 & 8 Pump Room
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 34
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1 Footings move independent of the wall > 1.0 N/A 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
2 Insufficient separation from adjacent digesters > 1.0 N/A 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
6
Differential lateral spread between Digesters
nos. 7 and 8 due to liquefaction > 1.0 N/A 3 LS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
Facility Notes:6.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 6.0
0.0
6.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-17 Digester 7 & 8 Pump Room
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 35
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
10
Bending/shear failure of piles due to lateral
spread (surface PGD = 18-inches)0.8 1.3 3 LS 2 1 3 1 2 1 2.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 1.6 0.2 2.4 7.2
Facility Notes:7.2
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
Potential Leakage of digester gas from broken piping can be fixed within 1 month, resulting in regulatory rating of 3 0.0
7.2
Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
RoSF
ScorePFMDescription
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-18 Digester 8
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LS Score
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PFM
Type(1)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment
PS15-06 Appendix H 36
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
10
Bending/shear failure of piles due to lateral
spread (surface PGD = 18-inches)1.2 N/A 2 LS 2 1 3 1 2 1 2.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 1.6 0.2 2.4 4.8
Facility Notes:4.8
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
Potential Leakage of digester gas from broken piping can be fixed within 1 month, resulting in regulatory rating of 3 0.0
4.8
Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
RoSF
Score
LS Score
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
PFM Description
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-18 Digester 8
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PFM
Type(1)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment
PS15-06 Appendix H 37
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
10
Bending/shear failure of piles due to lateral
spread (surface PGD = 40-inches)2.0 3.0 5 LS 2 1 3 1 2 1 2.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 1.6 0.2 2.4 12.0
Facility Notes:12.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
Potential Leakage of digester gas from broken piping can be fixed within 1 month, resulting in regulatory rating of 3 0.0
12.0
Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
RoSF
ScorePFMDescription
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-19 Digesters 9-10
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LS Score
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PFM
Type(1)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment
PS15-06 Appendix H 38
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
10
Bending/shear failure of piles due to lateral
spread (surface PGD = 40-inches)2.7 N/A 5 LS 2 1 3 1 2 1 2.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 1.6 0.2 2.4 12.0
Facility Notes:12.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
Potential Leakage of digester gas from broken piping can be fixed within 1 month, resulting in regulatory rating of 3 0.0
12.0
Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
RoSF
ScorePFMDescription
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-19 Digesters 9-10
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LS Score
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PFM
Type(1)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment
PS15-06 Appendix H 39
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1 Footings move independent of the wall > 1.0 > 1.0 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
2 Insufficient separation from adjacent digesters > 1.0 > 1.0 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
3 Torsional response of roof diaphragm > 1.0 > 1.0 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
4 Diaphragm connections at re-entrant corner > 1.0 > 1.0 1 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 2.0
7
Lateral spread toward the Santa Ana River due
to liquefaction > 1.0 > 1.0 3 LS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
8
Differential lateral spread between Digesters
nos. 9 and 10 due to liquefaction > 1.0 > 1.0 3 LS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
Facility Notes:6.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 6.0
0.0
6.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-20 Digesters 9-10 Pump Room
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 40
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1 Footings move independent of the wall > 1.0 N/A 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
2 Insufficient separation from adjacent digesters > 1.0 N/A 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
3 Torsional response of roof diaphragm > 1.0 N/A 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
4 Diaphragm connections at re-entrant corner > 1.0 N/A 1 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 2.0
7
Lateral spread toward the Santa Ana River due
to liquefaction > 1.0 N/A 3 LS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
8
Differential lateral spread between Digesters
nos. 9 and 10 due to liquefaction > 1.0 N/A 3 LS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
Facility Notes:6.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 6.0
0.0
6.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-20 Digesters 9-10 Pump Room
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 41
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
10
Digesters 11-12: Bending/shear failure of piles
due to lateral spread (surface PGD = 16-inches)0.8 >1.0 1 LS 2 1 3 1 4 1 2.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 3.2 0.2 3.2 3.2
10
Digesters 13-16: Bending/shear failure of piles
due to lateral spread (surface PGD > 35-inches)1.7 2.5 5 LS 2 1 3 1 4 1 2.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 3.2 0.2 3.2 16.0
Facility Notes:16.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
Potential Leakage of digester gas from broken piping can be fixed within 1 month, resulting in regulatory rating of 3 0.0
16.0
Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
RoSF
ScorePFMDescription
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-21 Digesters 11-16
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LS Score
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PFM
Type(1)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment
PS15-06 Appendix H 42
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
10
Digesters 11-12: Bending/shear failure of piles
due to lateral spread (surface PGD = 16-inches)1.1 N/A 1 LS 2 1 3 1 4 1 2.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 3.2 0.2 3.2 3.2
10
Digesters 13-16: Bending/shear failure of piles
due to lateral spread (surface PGD > 35-inches)2.3 N/A 5 LS 2 1 3 1 4 1 2.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 3.2 0.2 3.2 16.0
Facility Notes:16.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
Potential Leakage of digester gas from broken piping can be fixed within 1 month, resulting in regulatory rating of 3 0.0
16.0
Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
RoSF
ScorePFMDescription
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-21 Digesters 11-16
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LS Score
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PFM
Type(1)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment
PS15-06 Appendix H 43
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1
Insufficient separation from adjacent digesters
causes structure pounding > 1.0 > 1.0 3 GS 2 1 1 1 2 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.2 2.0 6.0
2 In-plane wall shear at shear walls 1.1 1.7 5 GS 2 1 1 1 2 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.2 2.0 10.0
3 Column shear at moment frames 2.9 4.4 5 GS 2 1 1 1 2 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.2 2.0 10.0
5
Bending/shear sailure of piles due to lateral
spread (surface PGD = 26-inches)1.0 1.5 5 LS 2 1 1 1 2 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.2 2.0 10.0
6
Differential lateral spread between Digesters
nos. 11-14 due to liquefaction > 1.0 > 1.0 3 LS 2 1 1 1 2 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.2 2.0 6.0
Facility Notes:10.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 10.0
0.0
10.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-22 Digester 11-14 Pump Room
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 44
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1
Insufficient separation from adjacent digesters
causes structure pounding > 1.0 N/A 3 GS 2 1 1 1 2 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.2 2.0 6.0
2 In-plane wall shear at shear walls 1.3 N/A 3 GS 2 1 1 1 2 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.2 2.0 6.0
3 Column shear at moment frames 4.4 N/A 5 GS 2 1 1 1 2 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.2 2.0 10.0
6
Differential lateral spread between Digesters
nos. 11-14 due to liquefaction > 1.0 N/A 3 LS 2 1 1 1 2 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.2 2.0 6.0
Facility Notes:10.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 10.0
0.0
6.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-22 Digester 11-14 Pump Room
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 45
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1 Insufficient separation from adjacent digesters > 1.0 > 1.0 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
2
Discontinuous shear walls at the south
elevation > 1.0 > 1.0 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
3 In-plane wall shear at shear walls 0.7 1.3 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
4 Column shear at moment frames 2.6 3.9 5 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 10.0
6
Bending/shear failure of piles due to lateral
spread (surface PGD = 20-inches)0.9 1.4 4 LS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 8.0
Facility Notes:10.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 10.0
0.0
8.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-23 Digester 15-16 Pump Room
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 46
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1 Insufficient separation from adjacent digesters > 1.0 N/A 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
2
Discontinuous shear walls at the south
elevation > 1.0 N/A 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 6.0
3 In-plane wall shear at shear walls 1.0 N/A 0 GS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 1.0 0.0
4 Column shear at moment frames 3.9 N/A 5 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.0 10.0
Facility Notes:10.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 10.0
0.0
0.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-23 Digester 15-16 Pump Room
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 47
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
6
Tank shell overstress due to liquefaction-
induced lateral spread and settlements 1.1 1.1 1 DS 2 1 3 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.4 2.4
7
Anchor failure overstress due to liquefaction-
induced lateral spread and settlements 1.2 1.2 1 DS 2 1 3 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.4 2.4
Facility Notes:2.4
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
Potential Leakage of digester gas from broken piping can be fixed within 1 month, resulting in regulatory rating of 3 2.4
0.0
Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
RoSF
ScorePFMDescription
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-24 Gas Holder
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LS Score
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PFM
Type(1)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment
PS15-06 Appendix H 48
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
6
Tank shell overstress due to liquefaction-
induced lateral spread and settlements 1.0 N/A 0 DS 1 1 3 1 1 1 1.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.4 0.0
7
Anchor failure overstress due to liquefaction-
induced lateral spread and settlements 1.0 N/A 0 DS 1 1 3 1 1 1 1.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.4 0.0
Facility Notes:0.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
Potential Leakage of digester gas from broken piping can be fixed within 1 month, resulting in regulatory rating of 3 0.0
0.0
Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
RoSF
ScorePFMDescription
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-24 Gas Holder
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LS Score
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PFM
Type(1)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment
PS15-06 Appendix H 49
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
4
Shear failure of piles due to lateral spread
towards the Santa Ana River 1.1 1.1 1 LS 2 5 5 1 1 1 2.0 5.0 4.0 0.4 0.8 0.2 5.0 5.0
Facility Notes:5.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
0.0
5.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-25 Effluent Junction Box
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 50
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
4
Shear failure of piles due to lateral spread
towards the Santa Ana River 1.2 N/A 2 LS 2 5 5 1 1 1 2.0 5.0 4.0 0.4 0.8 0.2 5.0 10.0
Facility Notes:10.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
0.0
10.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-25 Effluent Junction Box
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 51
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1
Building pounding due to response to ground
shaking > 1.0 N/A 2 GS 3 1 1 1 3 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 2.4 0.2 3.0 6.0
5
Bending/shear failure of piles at the south
structure due to lateral spread (surface PGD =
18-inches)1.1 N/A 1 LS 3 1 1 1 3 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 2.4 0.2 3.0 3.0
Facility Notes:6.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 6.0
0.0
3.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-26 Solids Storage Facility
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(CP)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 52
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1
Building pounding due to response to ground
shaking N/A > 1.0 2 GS 3 1 1 1 3 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 2.4 0.2 3.0 6.0
5
Bending/shear failure of piles at the south
structure due to lateral spread (surface PGD =
18-inches)N/A 1.5 5 LS 3 1 1 1 3 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 2.4 0.2 3.0 15.0
Facility Notes:15.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 6.0
0.0
15.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-26 Solids Storage Facility
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(CP)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 53
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
No PFM Found < 1.0 N/A 0 GS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 1.0 0.0
Facility Notes:0.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
0.0
0.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-27 Chiller Building
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(CP)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 54
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
No PFM Found N/A < 1.0 0 GS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 1.0 0.0
Facility Notes:0.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
0.0
0.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-27 Chiller Building
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(CP)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 55
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1 Wall panels are not tied to the footings > 1.0 > 1.0 3 GS 5 1 1 1 1 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 5.0 15.0
6
Wall panels are not tied together to resist
overturning >1.0 > 1.0 3 GS 5 1 1 1 1 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 5.0 15.0
8
Tension failure in the walls due to differential
settlement > 1.0 > 1.0 3 DS 5 1 1 1 1 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 5.0 15.0
Facility Notes:15.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 15.0
15.0
0.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-28 Warehouse Building
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 56
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1 Wall panels are not tied to the footings > 1.0 N/A 3 GS 5 1 1 1 1 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 5.0 15.0
6
Wall panels are not tied together to resist
overturning < 1.0 N/A 0 GS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 1.0 0.0
8
Tension failure in the walls due to differential
settlement > 1.0 N/A 3 DS 5 1 1 1 1 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 5.0 15.0
Facility Notes:15.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 15.0
15.0
0.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-28 Warehouse Building
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 57
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1 Wall panels are not tied to the footing > 1.0 N/A 3 GS 4 1 1 1 1 1 4.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 4.0 12.0
Facility Notes:12.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 12.0
0.0
0.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-29 Shop Building A
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(CP)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 58
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1 Wall panels are not tied to the footing N/A > 1.0 3 GS 4 1 1 1 1 1 4.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 4.0 12.0
Facility Notes:12.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 12.0
0.0
0.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-29 Shop Building A
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(CP)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 59
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1 Wall panels are not tied to the footings > 1.0 N/A 3 GS 4 1 1 1 1 1 4.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 4.0 12.0
5
Wall anchorage of the roof at the south wall of
Bldg 3 1.6 N/A 5 GS 4 1 1 1 1 1 4.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 4.0 20.0
Facility Notes:20.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 20.0
0.0
0.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-30 Shop Building B and Building 3
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(CP)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 60
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1 Wall panels are not tied to the footings N/A > 1.0 3 GS 4 1 1 1 1 1 4.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 4.0 12.0
5
Wall anchorage of the roof at the south wall of
Bldg 3 N/A 2.4 5 GS 4 1 1 1 1 1 4.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 4.0 20.0
Facility Notes:20.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 20.0
0.0
0.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-30 Shop Building B and Building 3
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(CP)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 61
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1 Wall panels are not tied to the footings > 1.0 N/A 3 GS 5 1 1 1 1 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 5.0 15.0
4 Wall anchorage of the 2nd floor 1.2 N/A 2 GS 5 1 1 1 1 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 5.0 10.0
6
Bending failure of beams over chevron braced
frames 3.5 N/A 5 GS 5 1 1 1 1 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 5.0 25.0
Facility Notes:25.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 25.0
0.0
0.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-31 Buildings 5 and 6
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(CP)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 62
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1 Wall panels are not tied to the footings N/A > 1.0 3 GS 5 1 1 1 1 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 5.0 15.0
4 Wall anchorage of the 2nd floor N/A 1.8 5 GS 5 1 1 1 1 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 5.0 25.0
6
Bending failure of beams over chevron braced
frames N/A 3.5 5 GS 5 1 1 1 1 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 5.0 25.0
Facility Notes:25.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 25.0
0.0
0.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-31 Buildings 5 and 6
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(CP)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 63
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1 Wall panels are not tied to the footings > 1.0 N/A 3 GS 4 1 1 1 1 1 4.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 4.0 12.0
4
Wall anchorage of the low roof at the north
and south side 1.1 N/A 1 GS 4 1 1 1 1 1 4.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 4.0 4.0
Facility Notes:12.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 12.0
0.0
0.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-32 Auto Shop
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(CP)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 64
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1 Wall panels are not tied to the footings N/A > 1.0 3 GS 4 1 1 1 1 1 4.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 4.0 12.0
4
Wall anchorage of the low roof at the north
and south side N/A 1.7 5 GS 4 1 1 1 1 1 4.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 4.0 20.0
Facility Notes:20.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 20.0
0.0
0.0
CoSF(4-9)
RoSF
Score
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder FinancialPFM
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(CP)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)
LoSF
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-32 Auto Shop
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Description
Public
Impacts
PS15-06 Appendix H 65
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
No PFM Found < 1.0 < 1.0 0 GS 1 5 5 5 1 1 1.0 5.0 4.0 1.9 0.8 0.2 5.0 0.0
Facility Notes:0.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
0.0
0.0
Public
Impacts
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-33 PEDB2
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
PFM Description
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
LoSF
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 66
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
2
Out-of-plane shear on the buried walls due to
liquefied soil conditions 1.2 N/A 2 DS 2 5 1 5 1 1 2.0 5.0 0.8 1.9 0.8 0.2 5.0 10.0
Facility Notes:10.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
10.0
0.0
Public
Impacts
RoSF
ScorePFMDescription
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-33 PEDB2
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PFM
Type(1)
Life
Safety
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
PS15-06 Appendix H 67
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1
Braced frame column axial stress due to
overturning forces 2.9 4.3 5 GS 5 1 1 1 2 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.2 5.0 25.0
2
2nd floor diaphragm seismic load transfer to
braced frames 2.9 4.4 5 GS 5 1 1 1 2 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.2 5.0 25.0
3 Out-of-plane bracing of braced frame beams < 1.0 > 1.0 3 GS 5 1 1 1 2 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.2 5.0 15.0
4 Braces for braced frames are non-compact > 1.0 > 1.0 3 GS 5 1 1 1 2 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.2 5.0 15.0
5
Bending failure of beams over chevron-
braced frames 6.5 6.5 5 GS 5 1 1 1 2 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.2 5.0 25.0
6 Connection strength at braces 1.9 2.8 5 GS 5 1 1 1 2 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.2 5.0 25.0
Facility Notes:25.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 25.0
0.0
0.0
PFM Description
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-34 Central Laboratory
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
RoSF
Score
Life
Safety Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
PS15-06 Appendix H 68
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%16.5%
1
Braced frame column axial stress due to
overturning forces 4.3 N/A 5 GS 5 1 1 1 2 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.2 5.0 25.0
4 Braces for braced frames are non-compact > 1.0 N/A 3 GS 5 1 1 1 2 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.2 5.0 15.0
5
Bending failure of beams over chevron-
braced frames 6.5 N/A 5 GS 5 1 1 1 2 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.2 5.0 25.0
6 Connection strength at braces 2.8 N/A 5 GS 5 1 1 1 2 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.6 0.2 5.0 25.0
Facility Notes:25.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 25.0
0.0
0.0
PFM Description
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-34 Central Laboratory
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
CoSF
Score
RoSF
Score
Life
Safety Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
PS15-06 Appendix H 69
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
6
Structure response to differential settlement
due to liquefaction > 1.0 > 1.0 3 DS 3 1 2 1 1 1 3.0 1.0 1.6 0.4 0.8 0.0 3.0 9.0
Facility Notes:9.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
9.0
0.0LS Score
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
Financial
Public
Impacts
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-1 DAFT A-C Gallery
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
PFM
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory StakeholderDescription
PS15-06 Appendix H 70
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
6
Structure response to differential settlement
due to liquefaction > 1.0 N/A 3 DS 3 1 2 1 1 1 3.0 1.0 1.6 0.4 0.8 0.0 3.0 9.0
Facility Notes:9.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
9.0
0.0LS Score
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
RoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Stakeholder
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-1 DAFT A-C Gallery
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
Description
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)
LoSF CoSF(4-9)
Financial
Public
ImpactsPFM
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
PS15-06 Appendix H 71
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
4
Lateral spread towards the Talbert Marsh due
to liquefaction > 1.0 > 1.0 3 LS 2 1 2 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 1.6 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 6.0
Facility Notes:6.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
0.0
6.0LS Score
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
RoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Stakeholder
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-2 DAFT D Gallery & WSSPS
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
Description
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)
LoSF CoSF(4-9)
Financial
Public
ImpactsPFM
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
PS15-06 Appendix H 72
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
4
Lateral spread towards the Talbert Marsh due
to liquefaction > 1.0 N/A 3 LS 2 1 2 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 1.6 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 6.0
Facility Notes:6.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
0.0
6.0LS Score
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
RoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Stakeholder
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-2 DAFT D Gallery & WSSPS
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
Description
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)
LoSF CoSF(4-9)
Financial
Public
ImpactsPFM
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
PS15-06 Appendix H 73
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
1 Vertical irregularities in building shear walls > 1.0 > 1.0 3 GS 2 1 3 1 3 1 2.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 2.4 0.0 2.4 7.2
4
Structural response to differential settlement
due to liquefaction > 1.0 > 1.0 3 DS 2 1 3 1 3 1 2.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 2.4 0.0 2.4 7.2
8
Out-of-plane shear on the buried walls due to
liquefied soil conditions 1.3 1.3 3 DS 2 1 3 1 3 1 2.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 2.4 0.0 2.4 7.2
Facility Notes:7.2
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 7.2
7.2
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
Safety
LoSF CoSF(4-9)
PFM Description
CoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure
Seismic Hazard Level
2-3 RAS PS East
BSE 1E
PS15-06 Appendix H 74
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
1 Vertical irregularities in building shear walls > 1.0 N/A 3 GS 2 1 3 1 3 1 2.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 2.4 0.0 2.4 7.2
4
Structural response to differential settlement
due to liquefaction > 1.0 N/A 3 DS 2 1 3 1 3 1 2.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 2.4 0.0 2.4 7.2
8
Out-of-plane shear on the buried walls due to
liquefied soil conditions 1.4 N/A 4 DS 2 1 3 1 3 1 2.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 2.4 0.0 2.4 9.6
Facility Notes:9.6
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 7.2
9.6
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-3 RAS PS East
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 75
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
1 Vertical irregularities in building shear walls > 1.0 > 1.0 3 GS 2 1 3 1 3 1 2.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 2.4 0.0 2.4 7.2
4
Structure response to differential settlement
due to liquefaction > 1.0 > 1.0 3 DS 2 1 3 1 3 1 2.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 2.4 0.0 2.4 7.2
8
Out-of-plane shear on the buried walls due to
liquefied soil conditions 1.3 1.3 3 DS 2 1 3 1 3 1 2.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 2.4 0.0 2.4 7.2
Facility Notes:7.2
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 7.2
7.2
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-4 RAS PS West
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 76
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
1 Vertical irregularities in building shear walls > 1.0 N/A 3 GS 2 1 3 1 3 1 2.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 2.4 0.0 2.4 7.2
4
Structure response to differential settlement
due to liquefaction > 1.0 N/A 3 DS 2 1 3 1 3 1 2.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 2.4 0.0 2.4 7.2
8
Out-of-plane shear on the buried walls due to
liquefied soil conditions 1.4 N/A 4 DS 2 1 3 1 3 1 2.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 2.4 0.0 2.4 9.6
Facility Notes:9.6
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 7.2
9.6
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-4 RAS PS West
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 77
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
4
Flexure in bottom mat due to differential
settlement due to liquefaction 2.1 2.9 5 DS 2 1 5 1 4 1 2.0 1.0 4.0 0.4 3.2 0.0 4.0 20.0
5 Flexure in walls due to differential settlement 1.2 1.7 5 DS 2 1 5 1 4 1 2.0 1.0 4.0 0.4 3.2 0.0 4.0 20.0
6
Tension stress in structure slabs due to
differential settlement 1.4 2.0 5 DS 2 1 5 1 4 1 2.0 1.0 4.0 0.4 3.2 0.0 4.0 20.0
7
Tension stress in structure walls due to
differential settlement 2.2 2.8 5 DS 2 1 5 1 4 1 2.0 1.0 4.0 0.4 3.2 0.0 4.0 20.0
8
Lateral spread towards the Santa Ana River
due to liquefaction > 1.0 > 1.0 4 LS 2 1 5 1 4 1 2.0 1.0 4.0 0.4 3.2 0.0 4.0 16.0
11
Out-of-plane shear on the buried walls due to
liquefied soil conditions 1.4 1.4 4 LS 2 1 5 1 4 1 2.0 1.0 4.0 0.4 3.2 0.0 4.0 16.0
Facility Notes:20.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
Loss of PEPS effluent conduit will result in loss of secondary treatment and result in violation of secondary treatment regulations 20.0
16.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-5 PEPS & MAC
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 78
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
4
Flexure in bottom mat due to differential
settlement due to liquefaction 2.1 N/A 5 DS 2 1 5 1 4 1 2.0 1.0 4.0 0.4 3.2 0.0 4.0 20.0
5 Flexure in walls due to differential settlement 1.2 N/A 2 DS 2 1 5 1 4 1 2.0 1.0 4.0 0.4 3.2 0.0 4.0 8.0
6
Tension stress in structure slabs due to
differential settlement 1.4 N/A 4 DS 2 1 5 1 4 1 2.0 1.0 4.0 0.4 3.2 0.0 4.0 16.0
7
Tension stress in structure walls due to
differential settlement 2.2 N/A 5 DS 2 1 5 1 4 1 2.0 1.0 4.0 0.4 3.2 0.0 4.0 20.0
8
Lateral spread towards the Santa Ana River
due to liquefaction > 1.0 N/A 4 LS 2 1 5 1 4 1 2.0 1.0 4.0 0.4 3.2 0.0 4.0 16.0
11
Out-of-plane shear on the buried walls due to
liquefied soil conditions 1.5 N/A 5 LS 2 1 5 1 4 1 2.0 1.0 4.0 0.4 3.2 0.0 4.0 20.0
Facility Notes:20.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
Loss of PEPS effluent conduit will result in loss of secondary treatment and result in violation of secondary treatment regulations 20.0
20.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-5 PEPS & MAC
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 79
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
1
Wall anchorage at east and west walls
(original building)4.3 6.5 5 GS 4 2 2 1 2 1 4.0 2.0 1.6 0.4 1.6 0.0 4.0 20.0
3
Wall anchorage at east and west walls
(addition)4.3 6.5 5 GS 4 2 2 1 2 1 4.0 2.0 1.6 0.4 1.6 0.0 4.0 20.0
5
Incomplete load path at the south entrance
canopy addition of resisting seismic loads > 1.0 > 1.0 5 GS 4 2 2 1 2 1 4.0 2.0 1.6 0.4 1.6 0.0 4.0 20.0
6 In-plane shear at shear walls 1.1 1.7 5 GS 4 2 2 1 2 1 4.0 2.0 1.6 0.4 1.6 0.0 4.0 20.0
7
Drag connection at roof to east and west
shear walls 1.7 2.6 5 GS 4 2 2 1 2 1 4.0 2.0 1.6 0.4 1.6 0.0 4.0 20.0
8
Precast wall panel connection to foundation
walls 3.1 4.7 5 GS 4 2 2 1 2 1 4.0 2.0 1.6 0.4 1.6 0.0 4.0 20.0
9
Structure response to differential settlement
due to liquefaction > 1.0 > 1.0 3 DS 4 2 2 1 2 1 4.0 2.0 1.6 0.4 1.6 0.0 4.0 12.0
Facility Notes:20.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 20.0
12.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-6 Operations Control Center
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 80
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
1
Wall anchorage at east and west walls
(original building)6.5 N/A 5 GS 4 2 2 1 2 1 4.0 2.0 1.6 0.4 1.6 0.0 4.0 20.0
3
Wall anchorage at east and west walls
(addition)6.5 N/A 5 GS 4 2 2 1 2 1 4.0 2.0 1.6 0.4 1.6 0.0 4.0 20.0
5
Incomplete load path at the south entrance
canopy addition of resisting seismic loads > 1.0 N/A 5 GS 4 2 2 1 2 1 4.0 2.0 1.6 0.4 1.6 0.0 4.0 20.0
6 In-plane shear at shear walls 1.7 N/A 5 GS 4 2 2 1 2 1 4.0 2.0 1.6 0.4 1.6 0.0 4.0 20.0
7
Drag connection at roof to east and west
shear walls 2.6 N/A 5 GS 4 2 2 1 2 1 4.0 2.0 1.6 0.4 1.6 0.0 4.0 20.0
8
Precast wall panel connection to foundation
walls 4.7 N/A 5 GS 4 2 2 1 2 1 4.0 2.0 1.6 0.4 1.6 0.0 4.0 20.0
9
Structure response to differential settlement
due to liquefaction > 1.0 N/A 3 DS 4 2 2 1 2 1 4.0 2.0 1.6 0.4 1.6 0.0 4.0 12.0
Facility Notes:20.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 20.0
12.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-6 Operations Control Center
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 81
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
1
Wall anchorage to roof at north and south
walls > 1.0 > 1.0 5 GS 2 4 4 3 3 1 2.0 4.0 3.2 1.1 2.4 0.0 4.0 20.0
3
Wall anchorage forces at the north and south
walls have no sub-diaphragm or ties > 1.0 > 1.0 5 GS 2 4 4 3 3 1 2.0 4.0 3.2 1.1 2.4 0.0 4.0 20.0
4 Roof diaphragm shear 1.4 2.2 5 GS 2 4 4 3 3 1 2.0 4.0 3.2 1.1 2.4 0.0 4.0 20.0
5 Shear at frame columns > 1.0 > 1.0 5 GS 2 4 4 3 3 1 2.0 4.0 3.2 1.1 2.4 0.0 4.0 20.0
7
Structure response to differential settlement
due to liquefaction > 1.0 > 1.0 3 DS 2 4 4 3 3 1 2.0 4.0 3.2 1.1 2.4 0.0 4.0 12.0
Facility Notes:20.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 20.0
Loss of 12kv Service Center will result in power loss to primary treatment and secondary treatment which can be partially mitigated with standby power (Note: CenGen will likely be out of service, see Structure 2-17)12.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-7 12kV Service Center
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 82
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
1
Wall anchorage to roof at north and south
walls > 1.0 N/A 5 GS 2 4 4 3 3 1 2.0 4.0 3.2 1.1 2.4 0.0 4.0 20.0
3
Wall anchorage forces at the north and south
walls have no sub-diaphragm or ties > 1.0 N/A 5 GS 2 4 4 3 3 1 2.0 4.0 3.2 1.1 2.4 0.0 4.0 20.0
4 Roof diaphragm shear 2.3 N/A 5 GS 2 4 4 3 3 1 2.0 4.0 3.2 1.1 2.4 0.0 4.0 20.0
5 Shear at frame columns > 1.0 N/A 5 GS 2 4 4 3 3 1 2.0 4.0 3.2 1.1 2.4 0.0 4.0 20.0
7
Structure response to differential settlement
due to liquefaction > 1.0 N/A 3 DS 2 4 4 3 3 1 2.0 4.0 3.2 1.1 2.4 0.0 4.0 12.0
Facility Notes:20.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 20.0
Loss of 12kv Service Center will result in power loss to primary treatment and secondary treatment which can be partially mitigated with standby power (Note: CenGen will likely be out of service, see Structure 2-17)12.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life SafetyPFMDescription
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-7 12kV Service Center
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 83
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
4 Roof diaphragm shear 1.0 1.5 5 GS 2 4 4 1 1 1 2.0 4.0 3.2 0.4 0.8 0.0 4.0 20.0
Facility Notes:20.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 20.0
0.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-8 Power Building B
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 84
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
4 Roof diaphragm shear 1.6 N/A 5 GS 2 4 4 1 1 1 2.0 4.0 3.2 0.4 0.8 0.0 4.0 20.0
Facility Notes:20.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 20.0
0.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-8 Power Building B
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 85
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
1
Incomplete lateral load resisting system in
the east-west direction > 1.0 > 1.0 5 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 10.0
6 In-plane wall shear at shear walls 1.0 1.5 5 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 10.0
7
Insufficient separation from adjacent
digesters > 1.0 > 1.0 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 6.0
8 Footings move independent of the wall > 1.0 > 1.0 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 6.0
9
Tension failure in the CMU walls due to
differential settlement > 1.0 > 1.0 3 DS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 6.0
10 Lateral spread due to liquefaction > 1.0 > 1.0 3 LS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 6.0
Facility Notes:10.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 10.0
6.0
6.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-9 Power Building C
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 86
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
1
Incomplete lateral load resisting system in
the east-west direction > 1.0 N/A 5 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 10.0
6 In-plane wall shear at shear walls 1.5 N/A 5 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 10.0
7
Insufficient separation from adjacent
digesters > 1.0 N/A 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 6.0
8 Footings move independent of the wall > 1.0 N/A 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 6.0
9
Tension failure in the CMU walls due to
differential settlement > 1.0 N/A 3 DS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 6.0
10 Lateral spread due to liquefaction > 1.0 N/A 3 LS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 6.0
Facility Notes:10.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 10.0
6.0
6.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-9 Power Building C
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 87
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
1
Incomplete load path at the south side of the
high roof diaphragm > 1.0 > 1.0 5 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 10.0
5 Out-of-plane horizontal bending > 1.0 > 1.0 2 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 4.0
Facility Notes:10.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 10.0
0.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-10 Power Building D
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 88
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
1
Incomplete load path at the south side of the
high roof diaphragm > 1.0 N/A 5 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 10.0
5 Out-of-plane horizontal bending > 1.0 N/A 2 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 4.0
Facility Notes:10.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 10.0
0.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-10 Power Building D
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 89
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
1 Wall anchorage at north and south walls 0.7 1.1 1 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 2.0
5 Out-of-plane horizontal bending > 1.0 > 1.0 2 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 4.0
6 Differential settlement due to liquefaction > 1.0 > 1.0 4 DS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 8.0
Facility Notes:8.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 4.0
8.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-11 City Water Pump Station
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 90
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
1 Wall anchorage at north and south walls 1.1 N/A 1 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 2.0
5 Out-of-plane horizontal bending > 1.0 N/A 2 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 4.0
6 Differential settlement due to liquefaction > 1.0 N/A 4 DS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 8.0
Facility Notes:8.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 4.0
8.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-11 City Water Pump Station
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 91
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
2
Structure response to differential settlement
due to liquefaction > 1.0 > 1.0 3 DS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 6.0
6
Out-of-plane shear on the buried walls due to
liquefied soil conditions 1.1 1.1 1 LS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 2.0
Facility Notes:6.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
6.0
2.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-12 12kV Distribution Center B
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 92
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
2
Structure response to differential settlement
due to liquefaction > 1.0 N/A 3 DS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 6.0
6
Out-of-plane shear on the buried walls due to
liquefied soil conditions 1.2 N/A 2 LS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 4.0
Facility Notes:6.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
6.0
4.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-12 12kV Distribution Center B
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 93
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
4 Differential settlement due to liquefaction > 1.0 > 1.0 4 DS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 8.0
Facility Notes:8.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
8.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-13 12kV Distribution Center D
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 94
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
4 Differential settlement due to liquefaction > 1.0 N/A 4 DS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 8.0
Facility Notes:8.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
8.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-13 12kV Distribution Center D
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 95
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
3 Building separation allows pounding 25.6 38.4 5 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 10.0
5
Building response to differential settlement
due to liquefaction > 1.0 > 1.0 4 DS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 8.0
Facility Notes:10.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 10.0
8.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-14 Headworks Power Building A
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 96
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
3 Building separation allows pounding 38.4 N/A 5 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 10.0
5
Building response to differential settlement
due to liquefaction > 1.0 N/A 4 DS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 8.0
Facility Notes:10.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 10.0
8.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-14 Headworks Power Building A
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 97
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
3 Building separation allows pounding > 1.0 > 1.0 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 6.0
5
Building response to differential settlement
due to liquefaction > 1.0 > 1.0 4 DS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 8.0
Facility Notes:8.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 6.0
8.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-15 Headworks Power Building B
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 98
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
3 Building separation allows pounding > 1.0 N/A 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 6.0
5
Building response to differential settlement
due to liquefaction > 1.0 N/A 4 DS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 8.0
Facility Notes:8.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 6.0
8.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-15 Headworks Power Building B
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 99
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
3 Building separation allows pounding > 1.0 > 1.0 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 6.0
5
Building response to differential settlement
due to liquefaction > 1.0 > 1.0 4 DS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 8.0
Facility Notes:8.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 6.0
8.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-16 Headworks Standby Power Building
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 100
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
3 Building separation allows pounding > 1.0 N/A 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 6.0
5
Building response to differential settlement
due to liquefaction > 1.0 N/A 4 DS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 8.0
Facility Notes:8.0
1 to 9 (Not used)6.0
8.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-16 Headworks Standby Power Building
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 101
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
1
Discontinuous shear walls along grid line B
(mezzanine)> 1.0 > 1.0 3 GS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.0 4.0 12.0
2 Wall anchorage at the north and south walls 9.7 14.5 5 GS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.0 4.0 20.0
4 Steel mezzanine at EL 21 lacks bracing > 1.0 > 1.0 2 GS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0
5
In-plane shear in shear walls at shear walls in
the east-west direction 0.8 1.2 2 GS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0
6 Roof diaphragm shear transfer 1.7 1.7 5 GS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.0 4.0 20.0
7 Roof diaphragm shear 2.3 3.7 5 GS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.0 4.0 20.0
Facility Notes:20.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 20.0
0.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-17 Central Power Generation Building
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 102
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
1
Discontinuous shear walls along grid line B
(mezzanine)> 1.0 N/A 3 GS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.0 4.0 12.0
2 Wall anchorage at the north and south walls 14.5 N/A 5 GS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.0 4.0 20.0
4 Mezzanine at EL 21 lacks bracing > 1.0 N/A 2 GS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0
5
In-plane shear in shear walls at shear walls in
the east-west direction 1.2 N/A 2 GS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0
6 Roof diaphragm shear transfer 2.8 N/A 5 GS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.0 4.0 20.0
7 Roof diaphragm shear 3.8 N/A 5 GS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.0 4.0 20.0
Facility Notes:20.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 20.0
0.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-17 Central Power Generation Building
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 103
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
4
Top slab flexure due to response to
differential settlement 0.9 1.2 2 DS 3 1 5 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 4.0 0.4 4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0
5
Wall flexure due to response to differential
settlement at the interior basin dividing walls
and the north and south perimeter walls 1.1 1.4 4 DS 3 1 5 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 4.0 0.4 4.0 0.0 4.0 16.0
6
Out-of-plane shear response to differential
settlement 2.7 2.7 5 DS 3 1 5 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 4.0 0.4 4.0 0.0 4.0 20.0
7
Tension in top slab rebar due to differential
settlement 1.4 2.0 5 DS 3 1 5 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 4.0 0.4 4.0 0.0 4.0 20.0
8
Tension in interior basin-dividing walls due to
differential settlement 1.4 1.8 5 DS 3 1 5 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 4.0 0.4 4.0 0.0 4.0 20.0
Facility Notes:20.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
Loss of Aeration Basins could result in loss of secondary treatment capacity and failure to meet regulatory requirements for more than 6 months.20.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-18 Aeration Basins A-H
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 104
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
5
Wall flexure due to response to differential
settlement at the interior basin dividing walls
and the north and south perimeter walls 1.1 N/A 1 DS 3 1 5 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 4.0 0.4 4.0 0.0 4.0 4.0
6
Out-of-plane shear response to differential
settlement 2.7 N/A 5 DS 3 1 5 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 4.0 0.4 4.0 0.0 4.0 20.0
7
Tension in top slab rebar due to differential
settlement 1.4 N/A 4 DS 3 1 5 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 4.0 0.4 4.0 0.0 4.0 16.0
8
Tension in interior basin-dividing walls due to
differential settlement 1.4 N/A 4 DS 3 1 5 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 4.0 0.4 4.0 0.0 4.0 16.0
Facility Notes:20.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
Loss of Aeration Basins could result in loss of secondary treatment capacity and failure to meet regulatory requirements for more than 6 months.20.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-18 Aeration Basins A-H
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 105
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
6
Tank shell overstress due to liquefaction-
induced lateral spread and settlements 1.1 1.1 1 DS 2 1 3 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.4 2.4
7
Anchor failure overstress due to liquefaction-
induced lateral spread and settlements 1.2 1.2 1 DS 2 1 3 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.4 2.4
Facility Notes:2.4
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
Potential Leakage of digester gas from broken piping can be fixed within 1 month, resulting in regulatory rating of 3 2.4
0.0LS Score
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
RoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Stakeholder
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-19 Gas Holder
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
Description
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)
LoSF CoSF(4-9)
Financial
Public
ImpactsPFM
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
PS15-06 Appendix H 106
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
6
Tank shell overstress due to liquefaction-
induced lateral spread and settlements 1.0 N/A 0 DS 1 1 3 1 1 1 1.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.4 0.0
7
Anchor failure overstress due to liquefaction-
induced lateral spread and settlements 1.0 N/A 0 DS 1 1 3 1 1 1 1.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.4 0.0
Facility Notes:0.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
Potential Leakage of digester gas from broken piping can be fixed within 1 month, resulting in regulatory rating of 3 0.0
0.0LS Score
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
RoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Stakeholder
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-19 Gas Holder
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
Description
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)
LoSF CoSF(4-9)
Financial
Public
ImpactsPFM
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
PS15-06 Appendix H 107
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
11
Separation across expansion joints due to
differential settlements >1.0 >1.0 3 DS 3 1 5 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 4.0 0.4 4.0 0.0 4.0 12.0
Facility Notes:12.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
Loss of Secondary Clarifiers could result in loss of secondary treatment capacity and failure to meet regulatory requirements for more than 6 months.12.0
0.0LS Score
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
RoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Stakeholder
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-20 Secondary Clarifiers A-L
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
Description
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)
LoSF CoSF(4-9)
Financial
Public
ImpactsPFM
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
PS15-06 Appendix H 108
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
11
Separation across expansion joints due to
differential settlements >1.0 N/A 2 DS 3 1 5 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 4.0 0.4 4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0
Facility Notes:8.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
Loss of Secondary Clarifiers could result in loss of secondary treatment capacity and failure to meet regulatory requirements for more than 6 months.8.0
0.0LS Score
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
RoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Stakeholder
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-20 Secondary Clarifiers A-L
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
Description
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)
LoSF CoSF(4-9)
Financial
Public
ImpactsPFM
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
PS15-06 Appendix H 109
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
3
Structure response to differential settlement
due to liquefaction > 1.0 > 1.0 5 DS 3 1 3 1 2 1 3.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 1.6 0.0 3.0 15.0
Facility Notes:15.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
15.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-21 DAFT A-C
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 110
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
3
Structure response to differential settlement
due to liquefaction > 1.0 N/A 5 DS 3 1 3 1 2 1 3.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 1.6 0.0 3.0 15.0
15.0
0.0
15.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-21 DAFT A-C
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 111
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
3 Dome-to-wall connection 1.1 1.7 5 GS 3 1 3 1 1 1 3.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.0 3.0 15.0
5
Bottom mat flexure due to response to
differential settlement 1.7 2.3 5 DS 3 1 3 1 1 1 3.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.0 3.0 15.0
6
Bottom mat out-of-plane shear due to
differential settlement 1.5 2.2 5 DS 3 1 3 1 1 1 3.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.0 3.0 15.0
7
Hoop tension in wall and slab due to
differential settlement 2.9 3.8 5 DS 3 1 3 1 1 1 3.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.0 3.0 15.0
Facility Notes:15.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 15.0
15.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-22 DAFT D
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 112
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
3 Dome-to-wall connection 2.3 N/A 5 GS 3 1 3 1 1 1 3.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.0 3.0 15.0
5
Bottom mat flexure due to response to
differential settlement 1.7 N/A 5 DS 3 1 3 1 1 1 3.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.0 3.0 15.0
6
Bottom mat out-of-plane shear due to
differential settlement 2.2 N/A 5 DS 3 1 3 1 1 1 3.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.0 3.0 15.0
7
Hoop tension in wall and slab due to
differential settlement 2.9 N/A 5 DS 3 1 3 1 1 1 3.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.0 3.0 15.0
9 Chord/ring tension in the dome thrust ring 1.8 N/A 5 GS 3 1 3 1 1 1 3.0 1.0 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.0 3.0 15.0
Facility Notes:15.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 15.0
15.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-22 DAFT D
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 113
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
9
Permanent displacements due to liquefaction-
induced lateral spread and settlements >1.0 >1.0 3 LS 2 5 5 1 2 1 2.0 5.0 4.0 0.4 1.6 0.0 5.0 15.0
10
Bending/shear failure of piles due to lateral
spread (surface PGD = 64-inches)>1.0 >1.0 5 LS 2 5 5 1 2 1 2.0 5.0 4.0 0.4 1.6 0.0 5.0 25.0
Facility Notes:25.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
0.0
25.0LS Score
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
RoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Stakeholder
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-23 Surge Tower #1
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
Description
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)
LoSF CoSF(4-9)
Financial
Public
ImpactsPFM
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
PS15-06 Appendix H 114
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
10
Bending/shear failure of piles due to lateral
spread (surface PGD = 64-inches)>1.0 N/A 5 LS 2 5 5 1 2 1 2.0 5.0 4.0 0.4 1.6 0.0 5.0 25.0
Facility Notes:25.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
0.0
25.0LS Score
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
RoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Stakeholder
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-23 Surge Tower #1
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
Description
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)
LoSF CoSF(4-9)
Financial
Public
ImpactsPFMLife Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
PS15-06 Appendix H 115
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
9
Permanent displacements due to liquefaction-
induced lateral spread and settlements >1.0 >1.0 3 LS 2 5 5 1 2 1 2.0 5.0 4.0 0.4 1.6 0.0 5.0 15.0
Facility Notes:15.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
0.0
15.0LS Score
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
RoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Stakeholder
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-24 Surge Tower #2
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
Description
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)
LoSF CoSF(4-9)
Financial
Public
ImpactsPFM
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
PS15-06 Appendix H 116
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
No PFM Found <1.0 N/A 0 GS 1 5 5 1 2 1 1.0 5.0 4.0 0.4 1.6 0.0 5.0 0.0
Facility Notes:0.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
0.0
0.0LS Score
Overall Score
GS Score
DS Score
CoSF
Score
RoSF
Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
Stakeholder
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-24 Surge Tower #2
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
Description
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)
LoSF CoSF(4-9)
Financial
Public
ImpactsPFM
Life
Safety
Primary
Treatment Regulatory
PS15-06 Appendix H 117
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
No PFM Found < 1.0 N/A 0 GS 1 1 1 1 3 1 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 2.4 0.0 2.4 0.0
Facility Notes:0.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
0.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(CP)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-26 Truck Loading
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 118
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
No PFM Found N/A < 1.0 0 GS 1 1 1 1 3 1 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 2.4 0.0 2.4 0.0
Facility Notes:0.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 0.0
0.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(CP)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-26 Truck Loading
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 119
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
2
Flexural/axial stress in moment frame
columns 4.0 N/A 5 GS 5 1 1 1 1 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 5.0 25.0
3 Flexural/axial stress in moment frame beams 6.2 N/A 5 GS 5 1 1 1 1 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 5.0 25.0
4
Precast wall cladding interferes with moment
frames > 1.0 N/A 5 GS 5 1 1 1 1 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 5.0 25.0
5 Moment frame beam-column connection 2.2 N/A 5 GS 5 1 1 1 1 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 5.0 25.0
9
Differential settlement due to liquefaction
causes failure of precast concrete wall panels >1.0 N/A 4 DS 5 1 1 1 1 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 5.0 20.0
Facility Notes:25.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 25.0
20.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(CP)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-27 Maintenance Building
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 120
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
2
Flexural/axial stress in moment frame
columns N/A 4.2 5 GS 5 1 1 1 1 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 5.0 25.0
3 Flexural/axial stress in moment frame beams N/A 10.2 5 GS 5 1 1 1 1 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 5.0 25.0
4
Precast wall cladding interferes with moment
frames N/A > 1.0 5 GS 5 1 1 1 1 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 5.0 25.0
5 Moment frame beam-column connection N/A 3.6 5 GS 5 1 1 1 1 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 5.0 25.0
9
Differential settlement due to liquefaction
causes failure of precast concrete wall panels N/A > 1.0 4 DS 5 1 1 1 1 1 5.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 5.0 20.0
Facility Notes:25.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 25.0
20.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(CP)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-27 Maintenance Building
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 121
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
4 Roof diaphragm shear 1.5 N/A 5 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 10.0
Facility Notes:10.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 10.0
0.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(CP)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-28 Boiler Building
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 122
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
4 Roof diaphragm shear N/A 1.6 5 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 10.0
Facility Notes:10.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 10.0
0.0
0.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(CP)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-28 Boiler Building
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 123
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
1
Wall anchorage at the roof level at the north
and south walls 4.8 7.2 5 GS 2 5 5 1 5 1 2.0 5.0 4.0 0.4 4.0 0.0 5.0 25.0
2
Wall anchorage at the roof level at the east,
west, and interior wall (grid line G)10.5 15.8 5 GS 2 5 5 1 5 1 2.0 5.0 4.0 0.4 4.0 0.0 5.0 25.0
5 Roof diaphragm shear 2.2 2.2 5 GS 2 5 5 1 5 1 2.0 5.0 4.0 0.4 4.0 0.0 5.0 25.0
8 Uneven buoyant uplift > 1.0 > 1.0 4 LS 2 5 5 1 5 1 2.0 5.0 4.0 0.4 4.0 0.0 5.0 20.0
Facility Notes:25.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 25.0
0.0
20.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-29 Ocean Outfall Booster Pump Station
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 124
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
1
Wall anchorage at the roof level at the north
and south walls 7.2 N/A 5 GS 2 5 5 1 5 1 2.0 5.0 4.0 0.4 4.0 0.0 5.0 25.0
2
Wall anchorage at the roof level at the east,
west, and interior wall (grid line G)15.8 N/A 5 GS 2 5 5 1 5 1 2.0 5.0 4.0 0.4 4.0 0.0 5.0 25.0
5 Roof diaphragm shear 3.6 N/A 5 GS 2 5 5 1 5 1 2.0 5.0 4.0 0.4 4.0 0.0 5.0 25.0
8 Uneven buoyant uplift > 1.0 N/A 4 LS 2 5 5 1 5 1 2.0 5.0 4.0 0.4 4.0 0.0 5.0 20.0
Facility Notes:25.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 25.0
0.0
20.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-29 Ocean Outfall Booster Pump Station
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 125
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
1
Wall anchorage to roof at north and south
walls 0.8 1.2 2 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 4.0
3 Torsional response due to E-W seismic > 1.0 > 1.0 2 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 4.0
4 Shear at frame columns 1.6 2.4 5 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 10.0
5
Structure response to differential settlement
due to liquefaction > 1.0 > 1.0 3 DS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 6.0
9
Out-of-plane shear on the buried walls due to
liquefied soil conditions 1.1 1.1 1 LS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 2.0
Facility Notes:10.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 10.0
6.0
2.0
Overall Score
RoSF
Score
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Primary
Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
DCR/m
(LS)
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)Life
SafetyPFM Description
CoSF
Score
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-30 12kV Distribution Center A
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 1E
LoSF CoSF(4-9)Weighted CoSF(2)
PS15-06 Appendix H 126
Life
Safety
Primary
Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
100.0%100.0%80.0%37.5%80.0%0.0%
1
Wall anchorage to roof at north and south
walls 1.2 N/A 2 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 4.0
3 Torsional response due to E-W seismic > 1.0 N/A 2 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 4.0
4 Shear at frame columns 2.4 N/A 5 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 10.0
5
Structure response to differential settlement
due to liquefaction > 1.0 N/A 3 DS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 6.0
9
Out-of-plane shear on the buried walls due to
liquefied soil conditions 1.2 N/A 2 LS 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.0 4.0
Facility Notes:10.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend 10.0
6.0
4.0
Overall Score
Regulatory Stakeholder Financial
Public
Impacts
CoSF
Score
Primary
Treatment
LoSF
RoSF
Score
DCR/m
(IO)
LoSF
Score(3)
PFM
Type(1)
CoSF(4-9)
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-30 12kV Distribution Center A
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
GS Score
DS Score
LS Score
Weighted CoSF(2)
PFM Description
DCR/m
(LS)
Life
Safety
PS15-06 Appendix H 127