No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8_Seismic Evaluation - Volume 1 Prepared 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: Geosyntec consultants engineers I scientists I innovators 2100 Main Street, Suite 150 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Telephone: (714)969-0800 Fax(714)969-0820 www.geosyntec.com C �� In Association with: Engineers Wor ;ng Wonders With Wa(e• I 7 Infra•Terra Project Number: HL1635 July 19,2019 Geosyntec° consultants PROJECT REPORT PS15-06 Seismic Evaluation of Structures at Plants 1 and 2 This report was prepared under the supervision and direction ofthe undersigned. Prepared by: Geosyntec Consultants,Inc. 2100 Main Street, Suite 150 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 µOFESS/O ppOFE55/ � ON Pt�OQS OPNER F�l �r�4OP��,FA Niy4,P N GE 2821 a z 9; K A * No. 51071 EXP ;�'CFOyECNN\OPy�P �qt CIVIL `y?Q 9�OF CAUF� 0 1919 'f� i CAL1F0 -19-19 Christopher Hunt,Ph.D.,Ph.D., P.E.,G.E, Ahmed Nisar, P.E. Senior Principal Principal En �OFESSIO OFpOFESSI� ���4DOQHER g�� ti�P�SAS J.L y g r3 oy z 9 OJ W`Z = GE 926 fi SC a ° rn, 047513 �'DP 6 sn ( . • ExP.IZ/31[Y At r',r // k-gw n // �_ ]-19-19 J-19-19 UK— Chris Conkle, P.E.,G.E. Dou Lanning, P Senior Engineer =' aoFESS/ Senior Vice Pr iden �E�y P. OpF4e-\ rc No. 4466 T. / �9r�CT��Sa`P CR I F OF CAUFO 7-19-19 James Doering, Senior Structural Engineer GeosyntecO consultants TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................................................................ES-1 1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... I 2. SUMMARY OF EVALUATION APPROACH.............................................................. 3 2.1 Development of Project Approach......................................................................... 3 2.2 Approach for Geotechnical Evaluations................................................................. 3 2.2.1 Subsurface Site Model...............................................................................4 2.2.2 Seismic Setting and Response Spectra......................................................4 2.2.3 Ground Deformations................................................................................4 2.2.4 Geotechnical Input to Structural Analyses................................................5 2.3 Approach for Structural Evaluations...................................................................... 5 2.3.1 Seismic Evaluation Criteria....................................................................... 5 2.3.2 Collect and Review As-built Information................................................. 5 2.3.3 Conduct Site Visits.................................................................................... 6 2.3.4 Structural Analyses....................................................................................6 2.3.5 Identification of Potential Failure Modes..................................................9 2.4 Approach for Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations........................................ 10 2.5 Basis for Risk Ranking of Seismic Projects......................................................... 11 3. GEOTECHNICAL SUMMARY................................................................................... 12 3.1 Seismic Setting and Design Earthquakes............................................................. 12 3.2 Historic Document Review and Supplementary Field Investigation................... 13 3.3 Idealized Soil Profiles.......................................................................................... 13 3.4 Liquefaction Analysis and Structural Inputs........................................................ 13 3.5 Plant 1 Summary.................................................................................................. 14 3.5.1 Seismic Design Parameters..................................................................... 14 3.5.2 Site Conditions........................................................................................ 14 3.5.3 Geohazard Evaluation Results................................................................. 15 3.6 Plant 2 Summary.................................................................................................. 15 3.6.1 Seismic Design Parameters..................................................................... 15 3.6.2 Site Conditions........................................................................................ 15 3.6.3 Geohazard Evaluation Results................................................................. 16 4. RESULTS OF EVALUATIONS................................................................................... 17 4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 17 4.2 Seismic Mitigations Overview............................................................................. 17 4.2.1 Structural Mitigations.............................................................................. 17 4.2.2 Geotechnical Mitigations........................................................................ 18 4.3 Summary of Evaluation Results at Plant 1........................................................... 18 n l635TS]5-06Ge.s,ec Roj.Rep a-FMAL-Rev2.docx i W19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants TABLE OF CONTENTS(Continued) Paee 4.3.1 Potential Failure Modes........................................................................... 18 4.3.2 Mitigation Alternatives............................................................................ 19 4.4 Summary of Evaluation Results at Plant 2........................................................... 19 4.4.1 Potential Failure Modes........................................................................... 19 4.4.2 Mitigation Alternatives............................................................................20 4.5 Structure Summary Sheets...................................................................................20 5. MITIGATION COST ESTIMATING...........................................................................22 5.1 Structural Mitigations...........................................................................................22 5.1.1 Construction Difficulty............................................................................23 5.1.2 Temporary Facilities................................................................................23 5.2 Geotechnical Mitigations.....................................................................................23 5.2.1 Settlement and Lateral Earth Pressure Mitigation...................................23 5.2.2 Lateral Spread Mitigation........................................................................23 5.3 Indirect Cost.........................................................................................................25 5.4 Facility Value....................................................................................................... 25 6. LIKELIHOOD AND CONSEQUENCE RANKING....................................................26 6.1 Development of Likelihood of Seismic Failure Score.........................................26 6.2 Consequence Descriptions and Weights..............................................................26 6.2.1 Life Safety............................................................................................... 26 6.2.2 Primary Treatment and Digestion...........................................................27 6.2.3 Regulatory............................................................................................... 27 6.2.4 Stakeholder Commitments......................................................................27 6.2.5 Financial Impacts.................................................................................... 27 6.2.6 Public Impacts......................................................................................... 27 6.2.7 Summary of OCSD Input Regarding Consequences...............................28 6.3 Calculation of RoSF for each PFM......................................................................28 6.3.1 BSE-lE vs BSE-2E................................................................................. 28 6.4 Calculation of Structure RoSF............................................................................. 29 6.4.1 Controlling Failure Type......................................................................... 29 6.4.2 Controlling Consequence........................................................................29 7. PROJECT RANKING...................................................................................................30 7.1 Risk Ranking Within Facility Master Plan Framework.......................................30 7.1.1 Based on Highest RoSF Score.................................................................30 7.1.2 Structures That Can Be Mitigated Using an Already Planned Project...................................................................................................... 30 7.1.3 Structures Subject to Lateral Spread.......................................................30 7.2 Plant l Recommended Project Prioritization.......................................................31 7.2.1 1-8 Control Center...................................................................................31 7.2.2 1-9 12-kV Service Center........................................................................31 111.1635P515-06 Gme,o Prof Report-FINAL-Rev 2.docx ii V19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants TABLE OF CONTENTS(Continued) Paee 7.2.3 1-31 Buildings 5 and 6............................................................................32 7.2.4 1-34 Laboratory Complex.......................................................................32 7.3 Plant 2 Recommended Project Prioritization.......................................................32 7.3.1 2-23 Surge Tower No. 1..........................................................................32 7.3.2 2-27 Maintenance Building.....................................................................32 7.3.3 2-29 Ocean Outfall Booster Pump Station..............................................33 7.4 Integration with the Facility Master Plan(IMP).................................................33 7.4.1 Overview of FMP Prioritization..............................................................33 7.4.2 Approach to Integration with the FMP....................................................34 7.4.3 Proposed Initiative for CoSE...................................................................34 7.4.4 Remaining Integration Steps...................................................................35 8. SUMMARY................................................................................................................... 36 9. REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 37 HL1635TS15-M Ge.s,ec Rojec[Repotl-FMAL-Rev 2.docx iii 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1: Standard Structural Mitigations Table 4.2: Standard Geotechnical Mitigations Table 5.1:Facility Values,Plant 1 Table 5.2:Facility Values,Plant 2 Table 6.1: Structure Occupancy,Plant 1 Table 6.2: Structure Occupancy,Plant 2 Table 6.3: Controlling Failure and Controlling Consequence,Plant I Table 6.4: Controlling Failure and Controlling Consequence,Plant 2 Table 7.1:Prioritized List of Recommended Mitigations with Costs,Plant 1 Table 7.2:Prioritized List of Recommended Mitigations with Costs,Plant 2 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1:Project Approach Flowchart Figure 4.1:Results of Structural Evaluations at Plant 1 Figure 4.2:Results of Structural Evaluations at Plant 2 Figure 7.1:Project Prioritization Approach LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Technical Memorandum 2 Appendix B: Technical Memorandum 3 Appendix C: Meeting Minutes Appendix D: Seismic Evaluation Criteria Appendix E: Structure Summary Sheets Appendix F: Mitigation Cost Tables Appendix Fl: Structural Mitigation Cost Tables Appendix F2: Geotechnical Mitigation Cost Tables Appendix G Lateral Spread Wall Concept Memorandum Appendix H: Likelihood and Consequence of Each PFM,by Structure 111.1635TS15-06 Geosy wProject Report-PINA4Re 2.d. iv 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AACEI American Association of Cost Engineers International ACI America Concrete Institute ANSYS ANSYS Finite Element Software API American Petroleum Institute ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials AWL analysis water level bgs below ground surface BH borehole BRBF buckling restrained braced frame BSE Basic Safety Earthquake CBC California Building Code CBSC California Building Standards Commission CCI Construction Cost Index CDMG California Department of Conservation,Division of Mines and Geology CH fat clay CIP Capital Improvement Program CL lean clay CMU concrete masonry unit CoSF Consequence of Seismic Failure CPT cone penetration tests DAFT Dissolved Air Flotation Thickener DCR demand-to-capacity ratio DS differential settlement EPRI Electric Power Research Institute FC fines content FE fmite element FHWA Federal Highway Administration It feet,foot IMP Facility Master Plan GDR Geotechnical Data Report GS ground shaking GWRS Groundwater Remediation System HHWL historic high-water level IF importance factors in. inches IO immediate occupancy LDI lateral displacement index HI1635PS15-06 Geosymec Project Report-fWAI_Re 2.d. v 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVATIONS(cont'd) LLRS lateral load resisting system LOS levels of service LoF Likelihood of Failure LoSF Likelihood of Seismic Failure Score LPILE Computer program LS lateral spread MAC Mechanical and Compressor ML inorganic silt NHI National Highway Institute MSL mean sea level O&M Operation and Maintenance OCHCA Orange County Health Care Agency OCSD Orange County Sanitation District GOBS Ocean Outfall Booster Station OOP out-of-plane PEPS Primary Effluent Pump Station PFM potential failure mode PGA peak ground acceleration PGD Permanent Ground Displacements PT peat PS Planning Study RAS Return Activated Sludge RC reinforced concrete RoF Risk of Failure RS Response Spectrum RUL Remaining Useful Life SCAL Secondary Clarifiers A-L SEI Structural Engineering Institute SM silty sand SP poorly graded sand SPT Standard Penetration Testing TM Technical Memorandum USCS Unified Soil Classification System USGS United States Geological Survey WSSPS Waste Sidestream Pump Station 11L2635P815-06 Geosynmc Project Report-IWA4Re 2.d. A 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This final project report is the fourth and final technical memorandum developed by the Geosyntec team for the"PS15-06 Seismic Evaluation of Structures at Plants 1 and 2"project.The overall focus of this study was to evaluate the seismic vulnerability of select structures at the two plants and develop recommendations for the mitigation of the identified vulnerabilities. Each of the three technical memoranda developed prior to this final report provides interim work products related to the three main tasks in the scope of work. Technical Memorandum 1 (TMI), developed at the conclusion of Task 1, provides a preliminary characterization of the seismic vulnerabilities at each plant based on a review of background documents and sets forth an initial framework for the project approach.As the study progressed,the approach was adjusted and refined to efficiently meet the goals of the project.The updated approach is described in Section 2 of this report and supersedes the information provided in TMI. Technical Memorandum 2(TM2),included as Appendix A, surnmarizes the geotechnical field investigations performed as part of this study and includes laboratory test data obtained from the soil samples collected during the investigations. Technical Memorandum 3 (TM3), included as Appendix B, provides a description of the geotechnical and structural evaluations performed in Task 2 and Task 3, respectively. Identified vulnerabilities and mitigation recommendations to address the identified vulnerabilities are presented in Potential Failure Mode(PFM)and Mitigation Tables,both of which are provided in appendices to TM3. The final project task, Task 4, includes an estimation of planning-level budgetary construction costs to implement the recommended mitigations to address the seismic vulnerabilities identified in Task 3. This task also includes prioritization of the relative importance of implementing the various recommended mitigation measures,given the likelihood and consequence associated with each PFM. Mitigation costs, prioritization, and recommendations for Plants 1 and 2 are summarized in Tables 7.1 and 7.2.In addition to describing the final project approach,this Project Report presents the evaluation of the cost and effectiveness of proposed mitigations and provides a list of recommended mitigation measures given the prioritization of vulnerabilities. Considerations for incorporating seismic projects into Orange County Sanitation District's (OCSD's)Facility Master Plan(IMP)are also provided. M1635PS15-06Geo tec Project Report-r A4Re 2.d.c. ES-1 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants 1. INTRODUCTION Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)initiated this PS 15-06 study due to concerns about the resiliency of Plants 1 and 2 in a significant seismic event. Many of the structures at each plant were designed and built prior to the adoption of modem building codes and,as such, there was the need to conduct an evaluation of potential seismic hazards and associated retrofits to mitigate the risk of earthquake damage. This study focuses on critical structures that were designed and built using codes prior to the 2001 California Building Code(CBC).The scope of work of this project includes an assessment of the seismic vulnerability of these facilities using the general approach described in American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 41-13 for existing structures. Based on the identified seismic vulnerabilities, recommendations for seismic improvements and planning level cost estimates have been developed to enhance the performance and operational reliability of these facilities to meet target seismic performance levels. Working with OCSD, a process was developed to prioritize and provide relative rankings for implementation of the recommended improvements. The primary elements of the overall study were as follows. 1. Review existing structural and geotechnical data to understand existing conditions and identify data gaps in existing information. 2. Conduct limited geotechnical investigations at the two plants (detailed in TM2; Appendix A) to evaluate geologic site hazards, including estimates of ground motion, liquefaction potential, and liquefaction-induced differential settlement and lateral spreading(detailed in TM3;Appendix B). 3. Conduct performance-based seismic evaluations of the selected structures at the two plants using ASCE 41-13 and America Concrete Institute (ACI) 350-06 guidelines and other applicable standards(detailed in TM3;Appendix B). 4. Identify geotechnical and structural mitigation measures to achieve target performance levels for the selected structures at the two plants.These performance levels were initially identified by OCSD and include immediate occupancy,life safety,or collapse prevention. depending on the risk category assigned to the structure(detailed in TM3;Appendix B). 5. Develop an American Association of Cost Engineers International (AACEI) Concept Screening phase(Class 5)cost estimate for the recommended improvements and retrofits. 6. Prepare this final report (also referred to as Technical Memorandum 4; TM4) that presents the results of this study, identifies the potential seismic risk to the selected structures, and provides a prioritized list of mitigation measures to meet the selected performance levels. This document was prepared by a consultant team consisting of Geosymec Consultants, Carollo Engineers,and InfraTerm(the Geosyntec team). During the course of the project, the Geosyntec team solicited input from OCSD stakeholders regarding the preparation of this document, the selected approaches, and the results of these 11[,1635TS15-06 Geoey wPrgw Report-RINA4Re 2.d. 1 9I19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants evaluations during a series of workshops and meetings. Minutes of these meetings are included in Appendix C.Work performed for this project was reviewed by OCSD's Independent Technical Reviewer,Jacobs Engineering. HI163SPS15-06 Geosy wProject Report-P A4Re 2.d. 2 7/19/2019 Geosyntecl` consultants 2. SUMMARY OF EVALUATION APPROACH 2.1 Develoument of Project Aooroach A preliminary project approach was presented in Technical Memorandum(TMI),which was used by the team as guidance for the study.During the course of the project,elements of the approach evolved based on additional data, discussions with OCSD and OCSD's third-party reviewer, Jacobs Engineering.The sections below describe the final project approach that supersedes TMl. The final project approach generally followed the fimnework and evaluation procedures set forth in ASCE 41-13. where necessary,adjustments were made to the ASCE 41-13 approach to more efficiently achieve the project goals,accommodate non-building structures such as process tanks to maintain uniformity in the overall approach, and efficiently achieve project goals for both building and non-building structures. These adjustments were also necessary because of the liquefaction hazard at the sites. Specific adjustments made to the ASCE 41-13 framework are outlined in the discussion of the geotechnical and structural evaluation approaches that follow. 2.2 Approach for Geotechnical Evaluations At each plant,the geotechnical evaluation approach generally consisted of the following steps: • Develop a subsurface site model; • Evaluate the seismic setting and associated ASCE 41-13 response spectra for target seismic hazard levels; • Evaluate ground deformations from associated geohazardsr,including: o Liquefaction-induced settlement;and o Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading; • Support structural analyses with geotechnical input, as appropriate,including: o Axial and lateral foundation capacities; o Anchor capacities(Plant 2); o Soil resistance for foundation springs; and o Lateral earth pressures for buried structural elements; • Develop geotechnical mitigation measures; and • Develop cost estimates for geotechnical mitigation. Fault rupture was originally considered as an additional source of ground deformation for Plant 2. However, as described in TM3, given the low probabilities of fault rupture and the comparatively large liquefaction-induced deformations being considered at the plant site, the Geosyntec team did not incorporate fault rupture deformations within the evaluations considered for these existing structures. 111,1635T815-06 Geosy wProject Report-FINA4Re 2.d. 3 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants 2.2.1 Subsurface Site Model A subsurface site model for each plant was developed using existing data supplemented with data collected from targeted geotechnical investigations performed as part of this study.The site model included development of subsurface stratigraphy at each structure included in the study, as well as generally for the two plants, including assigning groundwater levels to be used for analyses. Geotechnical parameters were assigned to each soil stratum using both the existing data and data collected from geotechnical investigations. Details of the targeted geotechnical investigation at both plants are included in TM2. Interpreted subsurface conditions at each plant and for each structure are presented in TM3. 2.2.2 Seismic Setting and Response Spectra Plants 1 and 2 are located in Southern California, an area of relatively high seismic hazard. Development of the seismic setting included a review of historical seismicity and known seismic sources within the vicinity of the plants. The review considered both local(such as the Newport- Inglewood and San Joaquin Hills Faults) and regional (such as the San Andreas fault) seismic sources. ASCE 41-13 [2014] defines two earthquake levels referred to as Basic Safety Earthquake(BSE) 1 and 2. For existing structures,the two earthquake levels (BSE-lE and BSE-2E) are defined as ground motions with a 20% and 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years (equivalent return periods of 225 years and 975 years), respectively. Seismic response spectra were developed for each plant for the BSE-1 E and BSE-2E ground motion levels. Further details of the seismic setting and the ASCE 41-13 response spectra developed for the plants me included in TM3. 2.2.3 Ground Deformations Using the subsurface site model and the estimated ground shaking, liquefaction analysis was performed for each structure. The analysis included an assessment of liquefaction triggering and the associated vertical settlements and lateral spread deformations.Analyses were performed for up to five cone penetration tests(CPTs). "Best estimate"'idealized settlement and lateral spread profiles were developed for each structure. Results of liquefaction analysis, including the estimated amplitude and deformation profiles for liquefaction-induced settlement and lateral spread,were used as input to the structural analyses.Additional details of the ground deformation analysis methodology and the results for each structure me included in TM3. x Settlement and lateral spread values were also developed representing an"upper"estimate interpretation of the results from the CPTs;however,for the purposes of a planning study,it was deemed more appropriate to focus on best estimate behavior, and so structural analyses were not widely performed at these upper estimates,and they were instead considered only qualitatively. ttt.1635TS15-06 Ge ,atec Project Report-FINA4Re 2.d. 4 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants 2.2.4 Geotechnical Input to Structural Analyses Foundation-specific geotechnical parameters, such as pile and anchor capacities, lateral earth pressures, soil springs, and bearing capacities were developed for use in structural analysis. Details of these geotechnical inputs to structural analysis me included in TM3. 2.3 Approach for Structural Evaluations The approach for seismic evaluation of structures can be summarizes as follows: • Establish the seismic evaluation criteria: o Selection of a performance objective; o Define the building performance levels; o Define the seismic hazard levels;and o Define geotechnical and geo-seismic loads and soil deformation; • Collect and review as-built information; • Conduct site visits to confirm as-built conditions and identify deficiencies in conformance with a Tier 1 evaluation; • Perform structural analyses: o Tier 1 (where applicable); o Tier 2 or equivalent(as required); and o Tier 3 or equivalent(as required); • Identify potential failure modes(PFMs); • Develop mitigation strategies; and • Develop cost estimates for structural mitigation. 2.3.1 Seismic Evaluation Criteria Seismic evaluation criteria for the structures were originally developed as part of TMl and me included herein as Appendix D. Through the course of the study, the structure criticality and associated performance levels were revised for multiple structures and new structures were added and some structures omitted from the original scope of work. The final list of structures included within Appendix D contains a summary of OCSD's assigned Structure Class and Risk Category. 2.3.2 Collect and Review As-built Information Before beginning the seismic evaluations of the structures,it was necessary to collect information about the structures to establish sufficient knowledge of their framing systems and overall configuration to guide the evaluation. Drawings for projects were made available by OCSD, including general,civil,structural,mechanical,and standard/typical detail sheets.In many cases, these drawings were labeled as`record"or"as-built"drawings.The drawings served as the initial m.163SPS15-06 Geosy wProject Report-FINA4Re 2.d. 5 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants basis for understanding of structural systems.For further discussion of the collection and review of as-built information,refer to Section 3.1 of TM3. 2.3.3 Conduct Site Visits Prior to structural analyses,site visits were conducted for each structure to allow for collection of visual information. The site visits were conducted at both Plants I and 2 between January 10, 2018 and February 11,2018.Observations made during the site visits were collected using digital cameras, iPads, hand-written notes, and other media capturing devices. Information was collected,compiled,and organized by structure for use by the evaluation team using standard data fortes. For a discussion of the site visits,refer to Section 3.2 of TM3. 2.3.4 Structural Analyses The structural seismic evaluation of each structure included both an analytical and visual assessment. The analytical review was a quantitative estimate of the potential material stresses and deformation of the structural members when subjected to estimated loads due to the loading from the considered seismic hazard. The visual assessment was a qualitative evaluation of the structural condition, which can have a bearing on the available structural capacity. The goal of this evaluation was to identify those structural vulnerabilities and conditions, whether by analytical or visual assessment methods, that have a potential to significantly impact the ability of the facility to meet the stated performance goals and, as required, recommend mitigation measures that will improve the performance of the structure. The structural seismic evaluation work was limited to actions and conditions that are brought about by seismic activity,such as inertial and convective response to ground shaking,inertial soil pressures, liquefaction conditions, lateral spreading, and dynamic settlement. The structural seismic evaluations did not include analyses to assess the structural response to the following independent load cases and/or conditions that occur apart from the seismic load case or apart from conditions brought about by site seismic activity: • Service loads; • Wind loads; • Construction loads; • Static uniform and differential settlement effects; • Thermal expansion and/or contraction; • Flood loads;or • Tsunami loads. ""'bile fault traces have been identified at Plant 2,fault rupture hazard at Plant 2 has been shown to have a relatively low risk of occurrence compared to structural shaking and liquefaction hazards. As described in further detail in TM3, a study by Kleinfelder [20171 indicates that the median horizontal fault rupture displacement associated with the BSE-lE and BSE-2E seismic hazard levels are both zero. Consequently, the structural response to fault rupture for structures at both Plants 1 and 2 were not evaluated. M163SPS15-06 Geosy wPrgw Report-FINAI-Re 2.d. 6 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants The seismic evaluation of the structures at Plant 1 and Plant 2 generally followed the guidelines and recommendations set forth in ASCE 41-13 with some adjustments made to the typical evaluation process depicted in Figure C 1-1 of ASCE 41-13 [2014].One of the goals of the study was to identify PFMs for the subject structures, which does not necessarily require extensive structural analysis or multi-tiered evaluations to achieve. Additionally, the study includes non-building structures and a large quantity of structures that required adjustments to the ASCE 41-13 evaluation framework in order to efficiently manage and execute the structural assessment. The primary adjustments made to the traditional application of the ASCE 41-13 evaluation framework are as follows: • For evaluating the structure response to ground deformation,ASCE 41-13 requires that the structure be evaluated using the Tier 3 procedures. Through the course of the geotechnical work, it became evident that many structures would be potentially subjected to high ground deformations due to liquefaction. Since it was not practical to analyze each affected structure to the Tier 3 level, 11 structures were identified as "exemplar" structures according to their general building type and configuration. Ground deformation analyses were then prepared for the exemplar structures and then those findings were applied to each structure considered to be similar to a given exemplar structure. These similar structures are referred to within this study as "subsidiary" structures.Variations in the subsidiary structures compared to their exemplar were taken into consideration when applying the exemplar findings.This evaluation process for the subsidiary structures was referred to as a "Tier 1/Tier 2" evaluation. The exemplar structures and their corresponding subsidiaries are identified in TM3. • Several of the structures are concrete water-bearing structures.Typically,such structures we designed and evaluated using the provisions established in ACI 350. However, because one of the major goals of the study is to prioritize mitigation of the structures for planning purposes,it became important to maintain a uniform approach to the seismic evaluation. ACI 350, unlike ASCE 41-13, is intended for the design of new concrete water-bearing structures and includes design parameters, such as importance factors, load factors, capacity-reduction factors, R-factors, and numerous other parameters that have no direct correlation with ASCE 41-13. Therefore, the seismic hazards and structural performance of the water-bearing structures were evaluated following ASCE 41-13 with revisions to ACI 350 parameters (identified subsequent to this list). For the seismic hazard definition, this process was essentially equivalent to that for buildings, but for estimation of the available capacity, it was necessary to classify investigated structural performance as being force controlled or displacement controlled. The classification of these structural actions is documented in the PFM tables prepared for each structure and provided as Appendix E to TM3. Where the structural action being evaluated did not have a similar action defined in the corresponding material chapter of ASCE 41-13,the action was conservatively assumed to be force controlled. • Water-bearing structures were not subjected to a Tier 1 evaluation,as set forth in ASCE 41-13, except where the water-bearing structure is comprised of a lateral load-resisting system that is included in one of the building types identified in Table 3-1 of ASCE M163SPS15-06 Geosymec Project Report-F A4Re 2.d. 7 7/19/2019 Geosyntecl" consultants 41-13 [20141. For example, the Plant 1 Aeration Basins were classified as a Type C2 structure and were evaluated at the Tier 1 level. Other water-bearing structures that did not have a Tier 1 analysis were comprehensively evaluated to a level that is similar to a Tier 2 evaluation and have been noted as such throughout the documents prepared for this study. • For all structures,the evaluation was limited to the lowest Tier per ASCE 41-13,unless a higher tier evaluation was planned or considered to improve accuracy in the findings. Higher Tier evaluations were planned for exemplar structures and used elsewhere when the Tier I findings were considered to be too conservative in nature. The following conditions generally warranted stopping the evaluation at the Tier 1 level: o Tier 1 deficiencies significantly exceed the stress/deformation levels considered to be acceptable for the evaluated performance level. In such cases, by experience, further evaluation using the Tier 2 or Tier 3 procedures is considered to have a very low likelihood of having a compliant outcome.In general,demand-to-capacity ratios (DCRs) that exceed 2.0 have a low likelihood of overturning a finding from non-compliant to compliant. o The Tier 1 deficiency is non-quantitative in nature and the deficiency cannot reasonably be modeled or evaluated. For example, the absence of structural foundation ties is a deficiency that cannot reasonably be evaluated because those elements do not exist. Without an alternative load path or redundant system, the response of the structure is pre-judged to have a performance that cannot meet the evaluated performance level. Many of the non-building environmental concrete structures, such as the digesters and aeration basins,have structural systems, loads,and load paths that me not similar to buildings.Therefore, the non-building concrete structures were evaluated using additional considerations provided in ACI 350.3-06, "Seismic Design of Liquid-Containing Concrete Structures and Commentary," recognizing that no other relevant comprehensive seismic evaluation guides or standards are available for concrete tanks. For example, the development of hydrodynamic loads is well established in ACT 350.3-06. Similarly,steel gas holders and steel domes,where they occur,were evaluated with additional input from American Petroleum Institute (API) 650, "Welded Tanks for Oil Storage." Since these standards are primarily written for new design, modifications for their adaptation to seismic evaluation were necessarily addressed as follows: • Importance factors were assumed to be equal to 1.0; • Capacity-reduction factors were assumed to be equal to 1.0. This practice is repeatedly recommended throughout the material chapters of ASCE 41-13 [2014]; and • Load factors and load combinations per ASCE 41-13 were used. Analyses were performed at both the BSE-lE and BSE-2E seismic hazard levels for each structure.Discussions about the analysis for each structure or group of structures are provided in TM3. 111.163SPS15-06 Geosy wProject Report-FINAI_Re 2.d. 8 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants 2.3.5 Identification of Potential Failure Modes Each structure was evaluated for potential failure modes according to the type of structure and its exposure to geo-seismic hazards.For each structure,PFMs were defined and tracked through the evaluation. The PFMs were identified both before the start of the evaluation and during the evaluation, as the process of evaluating the structures inherently allows for the identification of PFMs. Evaluated PFMs were generally of three types, namely: those due to structural shaking; those due to differential settlement due to liquefaction; and those due to lateral spread. An example of a structural PFM for a building is the failure of a wall anchorage connection between a concrete wall and a steel deck diaphragm. This type of PFM is common to building types with heavy walls and light-weight roof framing systems and is applicable to many of the structures evaluated. The seismic analysis involves the estimation of seismic load and deformation demands placed upon structural members. These demands are compared against their estimated capacity, which is a function of the member proportions,material properties,and desired performance level. The metric primarily used in this evaluation to quantify the degree of distress of an existing member or connection is referred to as the"demand-to-capacity ratio'or DCR. Load Demand DCR = Available Capacity DCR values that exceed 1.0 have been considered as exceeding their capacity for the evaluated performance level, and the investigated PFM is considered a deficiency. PFMs were tracked for each structure, and the results of whether the PFM was a deficiency or not is identified in the PFM tables for each structure. However,not all deficiencies will limit the performance of a building.Engineeringjudgment was used to determine how the deficiency impacts the operation of the facility.Those deficiencies that have little to no consequence, such as a high localized shear stress in a concrete wall, were excluded from the list of PFMs being considered. Some PFMs were found to meet the performance objectives and are noted as such in the PFM table for each structure. The estimated capacity is a function of the material properties. For this evaluation,the material properties have been obtained from the record construction documents.For Tier 2 investigations and beyond, ASCE 41-13 [2014] requires that a knowledge factor be applied to the material property depending on what type of construction documents the material information was obtained from. For any Tier 2 evaluations, a knowledge factor of 0.75 was applied where the material properties were not specified on the construction documents.A knowledge factor of 0.90 was applied where the material properties were obtained from the construction drawings, specifications, mill certificates, or material test results. Information regarding the material properties was available for nearly all structures. The condition of the structure was also considered in the evaluation. Where concrete or reinforcing steel was found to be deteriorated and/or corroded,an estimate of the reduced material HLI63SPS 15-06 Geosy wPrgw Report-FINAL-Rev 2.d. 9 7/19/2019 Geosyntec® consultants properties was estimated based on the information in the corrosion assessment report for that particular structure or structures of a similar age and type. 2.4 Approach for Geotechnical and Structural Mifleations PFMs identified for the structures were categorized as being caused by either ground shaking or ground deformation.Where PFMs due to ground shaking were identified for a structure,structural mitigation to improve the structure performance to the levels established in the criteria for each PFM were developed. Several common structural deficiencies were identified, and standard structural mitigation techniques were developed to address them. Structural deficiencies that are unique to a particular structure were also identified in the study. Structural mitigation for these deficiencies were developed on a case-by-case basis. In each case, an attempt was made to define the scope of the mitigation for both standard and custom mitigation approaches.In many cases,a single mitigation approach was determined to address multiple deficiencies. For example,numerous deformation and connection detail deficiencies at the Plant 1 Control Center can be mitigated by adding steel- braced frames to both stories of the building. Development of structural mitigation measures was limited to structure modifications that may involve removal of structural elements, replacement of structural elements/members, strengthening of existing elements, revision to framing systems, and provision of additional seismic load resisting elements. Complete structure replacement and operational strategies were not considered in the development of the structural mitigation measures. Where the structure could not meet demands imposed by ground deformations, geotechnical ground improvement measures were developed to reduce the magnitude of seismically induced settlement, lateral spread deformation,or lateral earth pressure. Development of the geotechnical mitigations was assessed to meet structural criteria for deformation or earth pressure reduction needed to meet performance criteria. These mitigation measures are described in further detail in TM3. Development of the mitigations did not involve the preparation of design calculations or documentation to prove compliance with any building code or seismic retrofit standard. Rather, the degree of deficiency,known from the analysis,was considered,and the amount of mitigation generally required to improve the performance to the levels required was estimated.For example, to address excessive roof diaphragm shear, the area of the roof that was estimated to exceed the acceptable limit of shear stress was included in the quantity take-off for the recommended mitigation. The evaluations conducted in this report are for planning purposes. Detailed design would ultimately be needed to be completed for each structure to be retrofitted. 111,163SPS15-06 Geoey wProject Report-PINA4Re 2.d. 10 9119/2019 GeosyntecO consultants 2.5 Basis for Risk Rankine of Seismic Projects To prioritize each seismic project compared to the other seismic projects, a risk score was developed, similar to the way it was developed for the Facility Master Plan(FMP), i.e.,Risk of Seismic Failure (RoSF) = Likelihood of Seismic Failure (LoSF) x Consequence of Seismic Failure(CoSF). When this was completed, the seismic projects were sorted from highest risk to lowest risk to establish the priority rankings/groupings. 111.163SPS15-06 Geosy wPrgw Report-FWA4Re 2.d. 11 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants 3. GEOTECHNICAL SUMMARY A geotechnical evaluation was performed for each subject structure utilizing a sequenced approach. As part of this study, the Geosyntec team assessed the seismic setting and developed seismic design parameters, reviewed existing historic geotechnical data and field investigation information, performed supplementary field investigations, and for each subject structure, established idealized subsurface soil profiles, performed liquefaction triggering analyses, estimated liquefaction-induced ground deformation profiles, and developed geotechnical parameters as input to the structural analyses.A brief synopsis of each phase in the geotechnical evaluation is provided below along with a summary of plant-specific geotechnical site conditions, seismic design parameters,and results from the geohazard evaluation.Note that all phases of the geotechnical assessment outlined herein were performed as previous tasks to this report, and detailed descriptions and methodologies are provided in TM2 (Appendix A) and TM3 (Appendix B). 3.1 Seismic Settine and Deshm Earthquakes OCSD Plants 1 and 2 are located in Southern California,an area of relatively high seismicity,and significant seismic sources in the vicinity of the site include active faults with movement or evidence of activity in the last 11,000 years (Holocene age). Major seismic sources new the two plants include the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, the San Joaquin Hills fault, and the Palos Verdes fault. The San Andreas Fault, at a distance of greater than 70 kilometers, is considered a far-field, yet more probable (i.e., more frequent), seismic source for both Plants in the next 30 years. ASCE 41-13[2014]defines two earthquake levels referred to as BSE 1 and2(BSE-1 and BSE-2). Two earthquake levels are provided such that a structure experiences little damage from relatively frequent,moderate earthquakes,but significantly more damage and potential economic loss from the most severe and infrequent earthquakes. For this study, the 225-year return period BSE-lE and the 975-year return period BSE-2E ground motion levels were selected for seismic assessment of Plant 1 and Plant 2 structures. Response spectra were developed at the BSE-lE and BSE-2E levels, assuming stiff soil (Site Class D) conditions using the USGS seismic design maps per ASCE 41-13 [2014] and ASCE 7-10 [20101.Note that per ASCE 7-10,the presence of liquefiable soils indicates that the appropriate classification is Site Class F. However,as liquefaction typically results in changes to response spectra at longer periods and the target Plant I and 2 structures generally have short fundamental periods, it was considered appropriate to perform strong shaking analyses using the unliquefied Site Class D response spectra. More detail on the regional seismic setting and ground motion parameter selection process is provided in Section 4.1.1 of TM3. HL169SP815-06(evs wPrgw Report-FINA4Re 2.d. 12 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants 3.2 Historic Document Review and Supplementary Field Investieation Due to their seismic setting and dense infrastructure footprint,Plants 1 and 2 have both been the subject of numerous past geotechnical studies. As part of the Task 1 document review and data gap identification process, a review of available historical geological and geotechnical data was performed. Following the review of historical information, geotechnical investigations were performed at both plants between January 29th and February 28th, 2018 as part of Task 2. The investigation included 28 CPTs advanced to depths between 65 feet(ft)and 100 It below ground surface(bgs)at Plant I and between 80 ft and 100 ft at Plant 2, six mud rotary borings advanced to depths of between 91 ft and 101 It bgs at Plant 1 and between 80 ft and 100 ft at Plant 2,and a laboratory testing program on collected soil samples. The purpose of the investigation was to provide supplementary geotechnical information in support of the seismic structural analyses, with added emphasis along the Santa Ana River and Talbert Marsh frontages, near critical structures(e.g.,Class I structures)and in regions with limited historical investigation information available. The complete details of the field investigation are provided in TM2. 3.3 Idealized Soil Profiles Following the site investigation and historic geotechnical data review, site-specific geotechnical parameters were developed at each plant as part of Task 3, and unique structure-specific subsurface idealized soil profiles and material properties were developed for each subject structure based on historic and recent geotechnical investigations. These idealized profiles were used in the ground deformation and seismic structural analyses. The methodologies and approaches for developing the soil profiles and material properties are discussed in Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 of TM3 and include evaluation of subsurface conditions and assessment of groundwater levels,respectively. 3.4 Liquefaction Analysis and Structural Inouts 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 a vertical 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. The idealized structure-specific soil conditions and seismic design parameters were used to perform liquefaction triggering analyses in Task 3 for each subject structure. Liquefaction-induced ground settlement and lateral spread deformation profiles were estimated at each subject structure and provided as input to the structural analyses. In addition to the liquefaction ground deformation information provided in the seismic analyses, foundation-specific geotechnical parameters were developed in Task 3 in support of the structural assessments, including differential settlement across the foundation, pile and anchor capacities, lateral earth pressures, soil springs, and bearing capacities for both liquefied and unliquefied M163SPS 15A6 Geoey wPrgw Report-IWA4Re 2.d. 13 9119/2019 GeosyntecO consultants scenarios. The settlement and lateral spread deformation profiles and foundation-specific geotechnical parameters developed for use in the structural analyses are discussed in greater detail in Sections 4.1.4 and 4.1.5 of TM3,respectively. 3.5 Plant 1 Summary 3.5.1 Seismic Design Parameters In both the 20% (BSE-1E) and 5% (BSE-2E) in 50-year hazard scenarios, the demand was sufficiently high to trigger liquefaction in the underlying potentially liquefiable soils at Plant 1. Once liquefaction has triggered and the soil loses its capacity to resist shear stresses, calculated permanent vertical reconsolidation strains (i.e., settlement) and shear strains (i.e., lateral displacement)develop at depth with little sensitivity to the demand level;therefore,only the 5% in 50-year (BSE-2E) hazard level was used to assess liquefaction-induced permanent ground deformations at Plant 1. The liquefaction triggering and deformation results and the ground deformation inputs to the structural analysis presented in TM3 were based on the probabilistic BSE-2E(5%in 50 years)hazard level magnitude of M7.71 and PGA of 0.46g. 3.5.2 Site Conditions Plant I is situated along the Santa Ana River within the Santa Ana Gap,which is bounded by the Huntington Beach Mesa to the northwest and Newport Mesa to the southeast.The Santa Ana Gap began to fill with sediment towards the end of the Pleistocene Era as the sea level began to rise and deposits from the river merged with marine deposits. In its present state, the site is mostly flat with a levee along the Santa Ana River and a concrete retaining wall at the river's edge. Boring logs from past geotechnical investigations indicate that the majority of the site is overlain by approximately 2 to 8 ft of fill and suggest that the material below this depth is comprised of alluvial and esmarian deposits. Ongoing facility improvements at Plant 1 appear to have had little additional impact on the overall site grade. Information from geotechnical reports dating back to the early 1960's suggests that the ground surface at that time was within approximately 2 to 3 it of its current elevation. In general,a silty sand(Unified Soil Classification System [USCS]: SM)layer extends from the ground surface to approximately 15 to 25 It bgs.This includes the shallow fills present at existing grade. This layer is underlain by a 15- to 25-ft thick inorganic clay (USCS: CL or CH) with intermittent inorganic silt (USCS: ML) layers. Potential peat or other organic soil (USCS: PT) seams were encountered within this layer. Below approximately 40 ft bgs, lies a continuous SM layer. At some locations within this layer, an intervening 5- to 10-ft thick CL or CH layer was found.This clay material appears to be more intermittent with increasing distance from the Santa Ana River.A higher degree of continuity in material type and layer thickness was observed closer to the river channel.Additional information on subsurface conditions is provided in Section 4 of TM3. 111.163SPS15-06 Geosy wProject Report-HNA4Re 2.d. 14 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants 3.5.3 Geohazard Evaluation Results The liquefaction-induced deformation profiles developed at each subject structure were used to estimate settlement and lateral spread at the ground surface at Plant 1 as part of Task 3. The resulting best estimate of liquefaction-induced settlement and lateral spread expressed at the ground surface at Plant 1 is shown adjacent to each subject structure in Figure 4.17 of TM3 (Appendix B). A map of the liquefaction-induced surface settlement was generated as shown in Figure 4.18 of TM3 to highlight those structures in the most susceptible areas of liquefaction. Settlement at the ground surface was found to vary between 3 and 9 inches(in.)across the Plant 1 site. Differential settlement due to liquefaction was estimated to be on average 40% in 60 ft of the total settlement.Additionally,contours of the liquefaction-induced lateral spread at the ground surface at Plant 1 are shown in Figure 4.19 of TM3 and are based on the ground surface lateral spread predicted at each structure. The best estimate lateral spread was estimated to be on the order of 3 ft for the study structures nearest the Santa Ana River frontage and reducing to zero at the approximate limit of lateral spread. Additional information on the geohazard quantification and evaluation results are provided in Section 4 of TM3. 3.6 Plant 2 Summary 3.6.1 Seismic Design Parameters In both the 20% (BSE-lE) and 5% (BSE-2E) in 50-year hazard scenarios, the demand was sufficiently high to trigger liquefaction in the underlying potentially liquefiable soils at Plant 2. Once liquefaction has triggered and the soil loses its capacity to resist shear stresses, calculated permanent vertical reconsolidation strains (i.e., settlement) and shear strains (i.e., lateral displacement)develop at depth with little sensitivity to the demand level;therefore,only the 5% in 50-year (BSE-2E) hazard level was used to assess liquefaction-induced permanent ground deformations at Plant 2. The liquefaction triggering and deformation results and the ground deformation inputs to the structural analysis presented in TM3 were based on the probabilistic BSE-2E(5%in 50 years)hazard level magnitude of M7.71 and PGA of 0.48g. 3.6.2 Site Conditions Plant 2 is also located within the Santa Ana Gap, downstream of Plant 1 and near the mouth of the Santa Ana River. The generally level site is bounded by the Santa Ana River to the east and southeast and Talbert Marsh to the south and southwest. Boring data from geotechnical investigations indicate that the site is underlain by approximately 3 to 6 ft of fill. The data show that ground surface elevations at developed portions of the site generally increased by 0 to 3 ft during the time period spanned by the past geotechnical reports. Based on review of the data, the site appears to be characterized by relatively consistent subsurface stmtigmphy. Below the ground surface,a CL to CH and ML interval are present that extends to a depth of approximately 8 to 10 ft bgs. This includes the shallow fills present at the site.This layer is underlain by a 50-to 60-11 thick SM and poorly graded sand(SP)layer.An ML and silty slay (CL-ML) layer with some intermittent SM seams is present at 60 to 85 ft bgs. HI163SPS15-06(evs wPrgw Report-IWA4Re 2.d. 15 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants The soils below 85 ft bgs appear to consist of SP.Additional information on subsurface conditions is provided in Section 4 of TM3. 3.6.3 Geohazard Evaluation Results The liquefaction-induced deformation profiles developed at each subject structure were used to estimate settlement and lateral spread at the ground surface at Plant 1 as part of Task 3. The resulting best estimate of liquefaction-induced settlement and lateral spread expressed at the ground surface at Plant 2 is shown adjacent to each subject structure in Figure 4.22 of TM3 (Appendix B). A map of the liquefaction-induced surface settlement was generated,as shown in Figure 4.23 of TM3, to highlight those structures in the most susceptible areas of liquefaction. Settlement was found to vary between 3 and 13 in. across the Plant 2 site.Differential settlement due to liquefaction was estimated to be on average 40% in 60 ft of the total settlement. Additionally, contours of the liquefaction-induced lateral spread at the ground surface at Plant 2 are shown in Figure 4.24 of TM3 and are based on the ground surface lateral spread predicted at each structure. The best estimate lateral spread was estimated to be on the order of 4 to 6 ft for structures near the Santa Ana River frontage and 5 ft for structures near the Talbert Mush frontage, eventually reducing to zero at the approximate limit of lateral spread. Additional information on the geohazard quantification and evaluation results are provided in Section 4 of TM3. 111.163SPS15-06 Geosy wProject Report-fWA4Re 2.d. 16 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consuhants 4. RESULTS OF EVALUATIONS 4.1 Introduction The structural evaluation of the structures at Plant 1 and Plant 2 involved multi-tiered structural analyses using procedures and methods set forth in ASCE 41-13, ACI 350, and API 650, with adjustments as required to suit the goals of the study previously described. The seismic shaking and ground deformation demands were applied to the structures, and the resulting structure member stresses and deformations were estimated and compared to the acceptance criteria for the defined performance level for each structure. PFMs were identified, tracked, and evaluated for each structure. PFMs were generally either related to the structural response to ground shaking, differential settlement due to liquefaction, or lateral spread. Structures that exhibit vulnerability related to at least one PFM were identified as failing to meet the seismic performance criteria. Where PFMs were found to be deficiencies (i.e., in cases in which DCRs exceed 1.0 for their evaluated performance levels, mitigation strategies were developed). Where mitigation is required to address structural deficiencies due to ground shaking,a structural mitigation strategy was developed. Likewise, where mitigation is required to address structural deficiencies due to response to differential settlement or lateral spread, a geotechnical mitigation strategy was developed. 4.2 Seismic Mitigations Overview 4.2.1 Structural Mitigations Structural mitigation measures were developed to address structural deficiencies caused by ground shaking. Structural mitigation was not developed to address structural deficiencies caused by differential settlement or lateral spread. Because numerous structural deficiencies were identical or similar for many of the buildings being evaluated,a set of standard structural mitigation approaches was identified and developed. The standard structural mitigation approaches we described in Table 4.1. Many of the structures were found to have unique structural deficiencies that required development of a customized structural mitigation approach. Also, for some structures, it was advantageous to address multiple structural deficiencies through a single structural mitigation approach or technique. The structural mitigations are summarized for each structure and presented in the Mitigation Tables located in Appendix F of TM3. The summary tables describe the deficiency requiring mitigation, the recommended mitigation, and notes regarding the application of the mitigation. The Mitigation Tables also include standard geotechnical mitigation approaches, which are described in the following section. 111,1635TS15-06 Geoey wPrgw Report-FINAI_Re 2.d. 17 9119/2019 GeosyntecO consultants 4.2.2 Geotechnical Mitigations A set of standard geotechnical mitigations was developed to address structural vulnerabilities related to ground deformations (liquefaction-induced differential settlement and lateral spread) and increased lateral earth pressure against submerged walls. These vulnerabilities cannot be efficiently mitigated by structural modifications. Standard geotechnical mitigations to address lateral spread include a high-shear resistance soil- mixed gravity wall(Mitigation Al)that can be constructed where sufficient space for installation between buried utilities exists,and a more rigid pipe pile cantilever wall(Mitigation A2)that can be constructed within narrow (<10 ft) corridors between existing utilities. Where lateral spread mitigations are implemented, it is likely that a combination of these two mitigation approaches, or other related approaches developed during the detailed evaluation and design process,will be used. Details of evaluations conducted for the cantilever pipe pile wall concept which illustrate that potential approach are included in Appendix G. Differential settlements exceeding structure tolerances can be addressed by Mitigation Bl (ground improvement below the entire structure footprint)or Mitigation B2(ground improvement below perimeter footings),depending on the structure foundation footprint.Mitigation C(ground improvement adjacent to submerged portions of structures)was developed to mitigate increased lateral earth pressure due to liquefaction. Each standard geotechnical mitigation is described in additional detail in Table 4.2. 4.3 Summary of Evaluation Results at Plant 1 4.3.1 Potential Failure Modes Potential failure modes for the structures at Plant I are summarized for each structure in Appendix E of TM3. After evaluation, not all of the PFMs were found to be deficiencies with respect to the required performance level.However,numerous PFMs were found to be deficiencies.For buildings,some of the common and significant deficiencies identified include the following: • Insufficient capacity of the connection of the concrete or masonry walls to the roof and/or floor levels; • Insufficient shear strength in steel roof deck welds and/or steel ledger anchorage to concrete and masonry walls; • General building instability due to a lack of connections between the building walls and the footings or between the building walls and the floor slab; • Discontinuous shear walls and incomplete load paths(identified at four structures); • Insufficient strength for moment frames(at the Control Center); • Under-sized beams at chevron-braced frames (at Buildings 5 and 6 and the Central Laboratory); HI,163SPS15-06(Rvsy me Prgw Report-FINAI_Re 2.d. 18 9119/2019 Geosyntec® consultants • Excessive overturning forces at braced-frame columns(at the Central Laboratory); • Insufficient separation between adjacent structures occurring between the digester pump room buildings and the digesters; and • Wall and foundation damage due to differential settlement caused by liquefaction. Structures with this deficiency are generally limited to those structures located within a few hundred feet of the Santa Ana River. For water-bearing and non-building structures, some of the common deficiencies include the following: • Excessive bending and/or shear failure of driven piles due to horizontal lateral spread displacements. Structures with this deficiency me generally limited to those structures located with a few hundred feet of the Santa Ana River. • Separation across expansionjoints due to lateral spread at the Secondary Clarifiers.This deficiency is also estimated to destabilize the conveyor support framing that traverses over the expansion joints. 4.3.2 Mitigation Alternatives Recommended mitigations to address structure deficiencies are summarized for each structure in Appendix F of TM3. 4.4 Summary of Evaluation Results at Plant 2 4.4.1 Potential Failure Modes Potential failure modes for the structures at Plant 2 are summarized for each structure in Appendix E of TM3. After evaluation, not all of the PFMs were found to be deficiencies with respect to the required performance level.However,numerous PFMs were found to be deficiencies.For buildings,some of the common and significant deficiencies identified include the following: • Insufficient capacity of the connection of the concrete or masonry walls to the roof and/or floor levels; • Insufficient shear strength in steel roof deck welds and/or steel ledger anchorage to concrete and masonry walls; • Discontinuous shear walls and incomplete load paths(identified at six structures); • Insufficient flexural and axial strength for moment frame beams and columns (at the Maintenance Building); and • Wall and foundation damage due to differential settlement caused by liquefaction. Structures with this deficiency are generally limited to those structures located near the Santa Ana River and/or the Talbert Marsh. 111,163SPS15-06 Geosyotec Prgea Report-IWA4Re 2.d. 19 9119/2019 GeosyntecO consultants For water-bearing and non-building structures, some of the common deficiencies include the following: • Walls, slabs, and foundation damage due to differential settlement due to liquefaction. Structures most impacted by this deficiency are located relatively close to the Santa Ana River and/or Talbert Marsh; • Separation across expansion joints due to differential settlement at the Secondary Clarifiers; and • Excessive bending and/or shear failure of piles due to horizontal lateral spread displacements at Surge Tower No. 1. 4.4.2 Mitigation Alternatives Recommended mitigation to address structure deficiencies are summarized for each structure in Appendix F of TM3. 4.5 Structure Summary Sheets To synthesize the information developed m part of this study,key information for each subject structure was condensed to a two-page structure summary sheet. In addition to providing basic information about the subject structure,such as building number associated with this study,plant number,structure class and risk category,and structure type,the following sections are provided: • schematic cross section and plan view—an oblique aerial image of the subject structure is shown along with a plan map showing the location of the subject structure(outlined in red) relative to other structures in this study (outlined in black) and non-PS15-06 structures (outlined in grey). The locations of CPTs (solid-blue triangles) and borings (blue-circled pluses) identified in this study are also shown on the map. The schematic cross section shows the structure-specific idealized soil profile (see Section 3.3) along with the general foundation type and configuration. The historic high-water level (HHWL) and analysis water level (AWL) me shown in the cross section and also tabulated as both depth bgs and mean sea level (MSL) elevation. Further discussion on ground water levels is provided in TM3. • class-based performance objectives — a brief description of the structure class performance objective as it pertains to wastewater flow and treatment and life loss. • structural components—identifies the key structural components,including foundation and structure type/dimensions,number of stories,date of original construction,previous retrofits and projects, and available documentation. This information was gathered in Task 1 and 3 from as-built structural drawings and information provided by OCSD. • geohazards and seismicity — a tabulation of the design earthquake parameters and resulting deformation at the ground surface from the structure-specific liquefaction assessment. The deterministic and probabilistic seismic hazards were developed M163SPS15-06 Geosy wProject Report-FINAI_Re 2.d. 20 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants (see Section 3.1 above)and the liquefaction-induced surface settlement and lateral spread were estimated from deformation profiles(see Section 3.4 above)in Task 3. • structural assessment and failure modes—PFMs were developed as part of Task 3 for each structure, and the resulting PFM number and description,tier level used to identify the PFM,and the results from the evaluation are tabulated.Note that PFMs that meet both the BSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives are omitted from the list,and additional PFMs considered are discussed in Sections 4.3.1 and 4.4.1 for Plant I and 2,respectively. If applicable,the associated exemplar structure is also provided for reference. • mitigation measures and costs—PFMs that did not meet both the BSE-IE and BSE-2E performance objectives were assigned a recommended mitigation measure, and the geotechnical and structural mitigation,cost,and comments on the mitigation are tabulated in this section. Descriptions of Standard Structural and Geotechnical Mitigations me discussed in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2,respectively.The cost estimates are AACEI Class 5 "Order-of-Magnitude" estimates, are intended for planning purposes only, and were developed in Task 4,as described further in Section 5. • risk ranking—each structure was given a risk ranking evaluation in Task 4,as described further in Section 6. The results of this analysis are shown in the plot of likelihood of seismic failure versus consequences of seismic failure.The subject structure is shown as a red star,and all other structures at the plant are shown as grey circles. In addition,the controlling failure type, controlling consequences, and risk ranking values are also summarized. For structures where future projects are already planned, the next planned project and date me provided at the bottom of the second page. The structure summary sheets for each subject structure in this study are provided in Appendix E. tn163SPS15-06 Geoey wProject Report-R A4Re 2.d. 21 9119/2019 GeosyntecO consultants 5. MITIGATION COST ESTIMATING This section provides a summary of mitigation construction costs for each structure at Plant I and Plant 2 where mitigations were identified. It is understood that these estimates will be used as a basis for planning future related retrofit projects. Appendix F provides details of the costs for structural and geotechnical mitigations proposed. The project team evaluated the seismic vulnembility of structures at Plant I and Plant 2 and recommended appropriate mitigation methods. Construction cost estimates for both mitigation and facility value were prepared in accordance with AACEI guidelines for projects in the Concept Screening phase(Class 5). Estimates prepared at this class are generally prepared at a very early stage of project definition and are therefore expected to have a wide uncertainty range (-50%to +50%). Mitigation costs are construction costs only, and do not include "soft" project costs. OCSD's project controls group should add project costs when seismic projects are budgeted. This will provide accuracy and consistency with the other projects in the overall capital improvement program. 5.1 Structural Mitigations Mitigation costs related to structural items are presented for each structure in Appendix F 1. The project team used the following procedures to produce uniformity and consistency while preparing cost estimates. Direct costs were identified to address each PFM having a seismic vulnerability. Mitigation costs for each structure are a summation of costs of all PFMs for the structure. • Cost estimates were prepared using OCSD's standard cost estimating templates for planning projects. • Cost estimates were prepared as fully burdened construction costs(i.e.,representative of a contractor's bid number). • All construction costs were prepared in terms of November 2018 dollars using a Los Angeles Engineering News-Record(ENR)Construction Cost Index(CCI)of 12,006. • The following procedures were followed when prior projects were used as a reference for a cost estimate: o Mid-point of construction for the referenced project was identified; and o Construction costs were escalated from the referenced project's mid-point of construction using the applicable ENR CCI for mid-point of construction to November 2018 using the Los Angeles ENR CCI for November 2018 of 12,006. HI.1635T815-06 Geosy wPrgw Report-FINAI_Re 2.d. 22 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants 5.1.1 Construction Difficulty For each PFM mitigation method, a value for construction difficulty and work restrictions was added.This cost item included the following: • Cost to comply with operations and sequencing restrictions; and • Cost and efforts for minimizing construction impacts on existing equipment and systems. 5.1.2 Temporary Facilities A temporary facilities cost was added to each structure based on the amount of time required to implement the desired mitigation method. This time allowance was estimated based on typical construction times and recognition that some structures would require working off hours and, therefore,require more time. The cost for this item included the following: • Contractors trailers; • Utilities;and • Support facilities. 5.2 Geotechnical Mitieations A fully burdened construction cost estimate was developed for each structure requiring settlement and/or lateral earth pressure mitigation. Additionally, cost estimates were developed for three circumstances related to providing lateral spread mitigation, one at Plant 1 and two at Plant 2. Geotechnical mitigation cost estimates are presented in Appendix F2. 5.2.1 Settlement and Lateral Earth Pressure Mitigation For differential settlement mitigation, estimates for permeation grouting to improve liquefiable soils beneath each affected structure were prepared, taking into account access restrictions and the depth of required treatment.Estimates were also prepared for permeation grouting around the perimeter of submerged walls where mitigation against increased lateral earth pressure is necessary. Ground improvement estimates were prepared assuming the most practical means of construction for each structure, with consideration given to structure configuration and recognizable logistical constraints. Assumed unit rates for drilling and gout pipe installation, along with unit rates for grout injection were used as the basis of the cost estimates. The costs associated with the potential temporary relocation of fixed equipment or appurtenant features,or unavoidable structure downtime that may be required during ground improvement operations, were not considered. 5.2.2 Lateral Spread Mitigation As described in Section 4.2.2, standard geotechnical mitigations identified to address lateral spread include a high-shear resistance soil-mixed gravity wall (Mitigation Al) and a pipe pile HI,1635PS15-06(evs wProject Report-FINAI_Re 2.d. 23 9119/2019 GeosyntecO consultants cantilever wall (Mitigation A2). Cost estimates were prepared for the following three lateral spread mitigation circumstances for use by OCSD in planning of potential related mitigations: • Along the length of Plant 1 Santa Ana River frontage; • Along only the portions of the Plant 2 Santa Ana River frontage and Talbert Marsh frontage where lateral spread mitigations would be indicated for structures that are the subject of this study;and • Along the length of both the Santa Ana River frontage and Talbert Mush frontage at Plant 2. Where lateral spread mitigations are implemented, it is likely that a combination of the two mitigation approaches(Al and A2)and other approaches developed during the detailed design of these mitigations will be used.Geosyntec's approach to preparation of the cost estimate for lateral spread mitigation was developed in recognition of this uncertainty in the ultimate project definition and the expected level of accuracy of the AACEI Class 5 estimate at the project concept phase. As a basis for the estimate, preliminary evaluations were performed to assess the structural requirements and associated costs for a pipe pile wall(Approach A2)capable of resisting the load imposed by laterally spreading liquefied soils new the Plant 1 digesters. These evaluations and cost basis are described in Appendix G. The large-diameter drilled pipe piles were selected as an initial basis for the cost estimating exercise because they represent a space-efficient solution to reduction of lateral spreading. However, there are several mitigating circumstances around this cost basis: • More detailed analyses (i.e., 2D or 3D seismic numerical modeling)may identify more cost-efficient solutions to the reduced-footprint pipe pile cantilever wall concept; • Where a larger footprint is available, more cost-effective solutions (such as Approach At)may be used and should be reflected in the mitigation cost estimate;and • Some portions of the frontage which were assumed to require lateral spread mitigation may not require it once consideration is given, during analysis and/or design, to effects of other existing or planned improvements associated with foundations of other structures (i.e., planning level analyses did not consider the presence of existing ground improvement or the effects of existing deep foundations in reducing the magnitude of lateral spreading). On this basis, the pipe pile conceptual approach used on a large scale is believed to represent something near the high end of the AACEI Class 5 estimate range for the lateral spread mitigation at the Plant 1 site.While a specific evaluation was not conducted at the Plant 2 site,it is assumed similarly that the evaluation conducted at Plant 1 can be considered a reasonable basis for a higher end estimate. HLIOSP815-06 Geosy wProject Report-FINA4Re 2A. 24 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants Considering the factors outlined above,Geosyntec judged that the estimated cost associated with the Approach A2 type wall should be reduced to represent a"best estimate"cost for large-scale lateral spread mitigation. Applying a reduction to discount this high-end(+50%)estimate to the "best estimate" results in a total estimated cost range to protect only the subject structures at Plant 1 from approximately $50M to $150M, with a best estimate of$100M. Total estimated cost to protect only the subject structures at Plant 2 ranges from approximately $25M to $75M, with a best estimate of approximately $50M. Alternatively, the cost to provide lateral spread mitigation along the full river and marsh frontage at Plant 2 was estimated to be approximately $125M to $350M, with a best estimate of$225M. Refer to the Lateral Spread Mitigation Cost Estimate table in Appendix F2 for additional detail. 5.3 Indirect Cost The following percentages for the cost estimating template were used for indirect costs: • Sales Tax(applied to half of direct costs): 8 percent; • Project Level Allowance: 30 percent; • General Conditions: 15 percent; • Contractor's Profit: 10 percent; • Bid Bond: 2 percent; and • Insurance:2 percent. 5.4 Facility Value Facility values were taken from the 2017 Facility Master Plan Valuation Report or generated in a similar manner.Each value represents the cost to construct the existing structure in 2017 dollars. Facility values were used as an indication of the potential financial consequences of seismic failure. They may also be used to compare the cost of seismic mitigation to the facility value; however,it should be noted that replacement cost may differ significantly from the facility value because replacement may require additional costs for demolition of the existing facility, geotechnical improvements to address seismic hazards,and upgrades for the new facility. Tables 5.1 and 5.2 identify the facility values that were used in this study. HI.163SPS15-06(Rvsy mPrgw Report-IWA4Re 2.d. 25 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants 6. LIKELIHOOD AND CONSEQUENCE RANKING 6.1 Development of Likelihood of Seismic Failure Score As this project consisted of an evaluation of seismic projects only,LoSF was evaluated based on the likelihood that a structure would sustain damage for the evaluated seismic hazard level that renders it unable to meet its performance requirements.LoSF was scored from 0 to 5,with 5 being the most likely. Each PFM for each structure was given an LoSF score based on DCR and engineering judgement. DCR is defined as the load demand divided by the available capacity. The DCR was used to quantify the degree of distress of an existing member or connection.DCR values that exceeded I were considered to have exceeded their capacity for the evaluated performance level. The LoSF scores assigned to each PFM that do not meet the seismic performance criteria can be seen in the structure-specific tables contained within Appendix IT 6.2 Conseauence Descriptions and Weiehts A CoSF score was given for each PFM to reflect the impact to OCSD, its customers, the environment, and stakeholders should a failure occur. Six consequence criteria were developed. Two criteria were identified specifically for seismic consequences: life safety; and primary treatment and digestion. The other four criteria (regulatory, stakeholder commitments, financial impacts, and public impacts)use OCSD's levels of service (LOS) and corresponding goals as a guide, as developed for the FMP. Since not all consequences have the same severity, an importance factor was applied to each consequence criterion. Assigned importance factors (IFs) are as follows: • Life Safety,I17=100%; • Primary Treatment and Digestion,IF=100%; • Regulatory,IF=80%; • Stakeholder Commitments,IF=37.5%; • Financial,IF=80%;and • Public Impacts,IF=16.5%. Each consequence is described in the following sections.Additional detail related to the scoring of each consequence is provided in the General Notes contained in Appendix G. 6.2.1 Life Safety This criterion was used to evaluate PFMs on the basis of whether a seismic failure of the facilities and/or components would result in the potential for serious injury or loss of life of OCSD employees, on-site staff, and the public. The person hours per year were used to develop the occupancy of each structure, shown in Tables 6.1 and 6.2 for Plants 1 and 2,respectively. If the facilities and/or components of a project fail under the PFM and threaten life safety due to the likely presence of people at the facility,then that PFM was given a higher score. M1635P815-06 Geosy wProject Report-FINAI_Re 2.d. 26 7/19/2019 Geosyntecl` consultants 6.2.2 Primary Treatment and Digestion This criterion was used to evaluate PFMs on the basis of whether a failure of the facilities and/or components would result in compromising the ability of OCSD to receive wastewater into the plant and discharge it from the plant with at least a primary level of treatment and/or compromising the ability to provide anaerobic digestion of wastewater solids. If the facilities and/or components of a project fail and directly impact the capability of OCSD to receive and discharge wastewater flow with at least a primary level of treatment,and/or the ability to provide digestion of solids for a longer term,then that PFM was given a higher score. 6.2.3 Regulatory This criterion was primarily used to evaluate PFMs on the basis of whether a failure of the facilities and/or components would result in compromising the ability to meet OCSD LOS goals for spill management, air emissions, secondary treatment standards, effluent water quality, and biosolids reuse. Health and safety of OCSD employees, on-site staff, and the public are also considered under this criterion with respect to Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements and OCSD-specific safety goals.If the facilities and/or components fail and directly impact the capability of OCSD to meet LOS goals for a longer term, then that PFM was given a higher score(i.e., fails to meet goals). 6.2.4 Stakeholder Commitments This criterion was used to evaluate PFMs on the basis of whether a failure of the facilities and/or components would compromise OCSD's ability to meet its water quality and flow requirements for Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) and any other stakeholder expectations. A higher score was given to those PFMs whose failure results in OCSD not meeting its GWRS or other stakeholder commitments for a longer term. 6.2.5 Financial Impacts This criterion was used to evaluate PFMs on the basis of whether a failure of the facilities and/or components would result in a financial impact to OCSD, including repair or replacement of the facility and increased Operation and Maintenance(O&M)costs. Financial O&M impacts include costs associated with equipment failure, emergency repairs,water loss, claims, or other impacts that are financial in nature.A failure that may result in high repair/replacement costs,major fines, property damage, and/or failure to meet OCSD's long-term LOS goals for balanced O&M costs was given a higher score. 6.2.6 Public Impacts This criterion was used to evaluate PFMs on the basis of whether a failure of the project facilities and/or components would result in compromising the ability to meet OCSD LOS goals for odor complaints and response time. A higher score was given to those projects yielding an increase in customer odor complaints or response time should its facilities and/or components fail. Also, potential impacts to the public(i.e.,street closures,traffic disruption,harbor/beach closures)from M1635PS15-06 Geosy wPrgw Report-FINAI_Re 2.d. 27 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants collection systems spills was considered under this criterion.A higher score was given to a PFM that had the potential for longer-term collection system spills and subsequent public impact should its facilities and/or components fail. 6.2.7 Summary of OCSD Input Regarding Consequences OCSD established the basis of consequence rankings as part of the 2017 Facility Master Plan (IMP)and participated in modifying these criteria for this study to include life safety and primary treatment and digestion,because these are important seismic consequences.OCSD also reviewed and modified the importance factor for each consequence of seismic failure based on its importance for seismic vulnerabilities. Similarly, OCSD reviewed and provided input on the CoSF ratings for each structure. Ratings were reviewed with OCSD at the December 12, 2018 and January 9,2019 workshops and adjusted to reflect input received by the participants. 6.3 Calculation of RoSF for each PFM Once PFM's were identified for each structure at Plant 1 and Plant 2,an RoSF was calculated for each PFM.The score is the product of the LoSF and the CoSF.Each PFM could then be compared with others for the specific structure based on RoSF scores, and the controlling PFM was determined to be the one with the highest RoSF. 6.3.1 BSE-1E vs BSE-2E A preliminary class designation for each structure was determined by OCSD at the Plant 1 and Plant 2 workshops. In general, process facilities were designated Class I, and non-process buildings were designated Class II, with a few exceptions. The required performance requirements for the structures Class designations were established as the following: • Class I: Continued occupancy and operation;and • Class II: Repair or replacement in required for continued occupancy and operation, but gravity load-bearing elements continue to function, and there are no out-of-place wall failures. The seismic hazard levels for structures that were evaluated in this study were established using the ASCE 41-13 standard.For the existing structures that were evaluated,the BSE was used with the performance objectives, shown in Table 2.1 of TM3 (Appendix B). The evaluations of the building and the nonbuilding structures at the plants were performed using two BSE levels: (i)BSE-lE; and(ii)BSE-2E,which are seismic hazard levels with a 20%and 5%probability of exceedance in 50 years,respectively. For ranking the structures by risk,only one BSE level was used per structure.When the two BSE levels of a structure had different scores, the level that had the highest RoSF score was used as the representation of that structure.However,in most cases,both levels IF and 2E had the same RoSF score. M1635P815-06 Geosy wProject Report-IWAI-Re 2.d. 28 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants 6.4 Calculation of Structure RoSF Overall structure RoSF was calculated the same way as RoSF for each PFM. Once all PFM's were given an RoSF score,the controlling PFM was identified as the one with the highest score. The PFM with the highest score was identified as the controlling PFM. The score of this controlling PFM then became the overall structure RoSF score. 6.4.1 Controlling Failure Type PFMs were classified as either lateral spread, ground shaking, or differential settlement. The controlling failure type for each structure was determined based on the PFM that had the highest RoSF score. The PFM with the highest score governed the failure type for the specific structure as seen in Tables 6.3 and 6.4 for Plants 1 and 2,respectively. 6.4.2 Controlling Consequence The controlling consequence for each structure was also based on the PFM with the highest overall RoSF score and can also be seen in Tables 6.3 and 6.4. IMIOSPS15-06 Geosy wProject Report-FINA4Re 2.d. 29 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants 7. PROJECT RANKING 7.1 Risk Rankine Within Facility Master Plan Framework A primary goal of this study was to develop a prioritized list of Capital Improvement Program (CIP)projects at each plant that addresses seismic vulnerabilities for the evaluated structures.The seismic project ranking system is risk based, and the prioritization approach allows OCSD to integrate the projects into the FMP at the conclusion of this study. This section outlines the approach to develop and prioritize the CIP projects in accordance with these objectives. It also presents for each plant a prioritized listing of the evaluated structures with information about the controlling seismic vulnerabilities, potential consequences of failure, mitigation costs, facility values,and recommendations to address seismic vulnerabilities. Based on the findings of this study, recommendations were made based on several factors, including the highest overall risk of failure score, cost of mitigation compared to facility value, and the potential for mitigating seismic projects within an already planned project 7.1.1 Based on Highest RoSF Score With the completion of both the structural and the geotechnical evaluations of Plant 1 and Plant 2, the risk ranking of structures per plant was developed using the PFM with the highest overall RoSF score. PFMs were identified for each structure and evaluated individually to identify the controlling failure type and controlling consequence. Tables 7.1 and 7.2 show the risk ranking of Plants 1 and 2 according to the RoSF score. Structures at the top of the list are the ones that have the highest priority based on risk.The structures at the bottom of the table with a score of zero are structures that were judged not likely to fail at the designated seismic hazard levels. 7.1.2 Structures That Can Be Mitigated Using an Already Planned Project In the FMP, there are many structures that are recommended to undergo rehabilitation or replacement to achieve the goals of the FMP. Some of these projects include structures that were identified in the seismic study. Tables 7.1 and 7.2 show the structures that could be addressed as part of a previously proposed project. 7.1.3 Structures Subject to Lateral Spread At Plant 1, there are several structures that include a PFM with a lateral spread failure type. To mitigate these PFMs,the lateral spread impacts to the structure should be addressed. At Plant 1, for practical reasons, instead of addressing lateral spread on a structure-by-structure basis, Table 7.1 indicates a recommendation to mitigate the entire plant frontage(see alignment identified in TM3 Figure ZI). The approximate total cost to mitigate lateral spread of Plant I would be between$50M and$150M with a best estimate of$100M. 111.1635PS15-06 Geosy wPrgw Report-FINA4Re 2.d. 30 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants At Plant 2, the team identified and prepared cost estimates for lateral spread mitigation that address vulnerabilities at the subject structures(see alignment identified in TM3 Figure 7.2).The approximate total cost to mitigate lateral spread at the subject structures at Plant 2 would be from approximately $25M to $75M, with a best estimate of approximately $50M. A lateral spread mitigation for the entire Plant 2 river and marsh frontage is estimated to cost approximately $125M to$350M with a best estimate of$225M. 7.2 Plant 1 Recommended Proiect Prioritization This section provides a discussion of selected structures at Plant 1 to illustrate the prioritization process. 7.2.1 1-8 Control Center For the Control Center at Plant 1,a total of seven PFMs were identified and categorized by failure type. Each of the seven PFMs was given a DCR score and a corresponding LoSF score. Additionally,each PFM was given a score for each of the six consequences described in Section 6 and weighted accordingly. For the Control Center, PFMs 2, 3, and 6 had the highest LoSF score of 5. These PFMs are the controlling failure modes for the structure.The Failure type that corresponds with those PFMs and ground shaking is the controlling failure type for the structure. Next, the occupancy and impact that a seismic event would have on the structure was examined to score the PFMs for the consequences described in Section 6.Because the Control Center has a high occupancy value,the highest CoSF score for each PFM was given in the life safety category, making life safety the controlling consequence of the Control Center. The RoSF score for each PFM was calculated by multiplying the CoSF and LoSF score together. The PFMs with the highest RoSF score control the overall RoSF score for the structure.The RoSF score for the Control Center is 25,the highest possible score. For the PFMs identified,mitigation methods were proposed and a cost was estimated,as described in Section 5. The cost to mitigate the Control Center was then developed based on the total of all PFMs. For the Control Center, the total cost to mitigate the structure is $7.2 million; while the facility value, determined for the 2017 FMP, is about $16 million. Because the seismic risk is high and the cost to mitigate is low compared to the value of the facility, mitigation is recommended to address seismic risk. 7.2.2 1-9 12-kV Service Center The 12-kV Service Center in Plant 1 also has a high overall RoSF score of 25. The basis of developing scores followed the procedure described above,but a higher CoSF score was given to primary treatment rather than life safety.This was because the 12-kV Service Center functions to provide power to the entire plant, which could greatly affect OCSD's ability to provide primary treatment Therefore,this consequence was given the highest value. 111,163SPS15-06 Geoey wPrgw Report-P1NA4Re 2.d. 31 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants From the two PFMs identified,PFM 2 had the highest DCR and LoSF score,so the corresponding PFM failure type,ground shaking,was controlling for the structure. Additionally, the cost for mitigation of the 12-kV service center is $0.23 million, much lower than the facility value of$42.1 million. Since there is currently no planned project that would address the seismic risk of this building,OCSD should consider mitigation through a new planned project. 7.2.3 1-31 Buildings 5 and 6 Buildings 5 and 6 were evaluated and scored in a similar manner,producing a high RoSF score. For the three PFMs identified, PFM 6 was the governing failure mode with a corresponding ground shaking failure type, and life safety as the governing consequence because of the high occupancy of the structure. The facility value, $4.9 million, compared to the cost to mitigate, $1.26 million,combined with the high RoSF score of 25,led to the recommendation for mitigating the structure with a new project. 7.2.4 1-34 Laboratory Complex The Laboratory Complex was evaluated and scored, giving it a high overall RoSF score of 25. Of the six PFM's identified, four had an RoSF score of 25, making them all governing PFMs. All had ground shaking failure type and all were dominated by life safety as the controlling consequence. This structure is valued at $22.8 million compared to the cost to mitigate of$5.1 million. Life safety consequences make the Laboratory Complex a priority recommendation for mitigation with a new project. 7.3 Plant 2 Recommended Project Prioritization This section provides a discussion of selected structures at Plant 2 to further illustrate the prioritization process. 7.3.1 2-23 Surge Tower No. 1 When Surge Tower No. 1 was evaluated, two PFM's were identified,both due to lateral spread. Both PFMs had a DCR score greater than 1, and PFM 10 was given the highest LoSF score. Further evaluation gave the highest CoSF score to primary treatment and regulatory,but with the weightings described in Section 6,primary treatment is the controlling consequence. Since all PFMs in Surge Tower No. 1 were caused by lateral spread,the total cost to mitigate this structure was included within the overall lateral spread mitigation costs for the plant. 7.3.2 2-27 Maintenance Building The Maintenance Building at Plant 2 is a highly occupied building,so the controlling consequence is life safety,leading to the highest scoring for each identified PFM to be in this category.Of the nine PFM's identified,four contributed to the overall RoSF score of 25 and all had the governing failure mode of ground shaking.The cost of mitigation is$18.7 million, compared to the facility HI263SPS 15-06 Geosy wProject Report-F1NA4Re 2.d. 32 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants value of $9.5 million. Because the mitigation cost is high, OCSD may consider complete replacement as an alternative to mitigation 7.3.3 2-29 Ocean Outfall Booster Pump Station The Ocean Outfall Booster Pump Station had four different PFMs identified,all affecting primary treatment, regulatory, and financial impacts. PFMs that had a 5 as an LoSF score all had the governing failure mode as ground shaking and with the weightings described in Section 6. Primary treatment was the controlling consequence. 7.4 Integration with the Facility Master Plan HTMP) The risk ranking of the seismic projects is useful for prioritizing seismic projects compared to the other seismic projects. However, these risk rankings are not conducive to IMP integration, because design-level seismic events are much less predictable and have very low occurrence probabilities compared to non-seismic Likelihood of Failure(LoF) factors, such as deterioration due to age. Lop based on seismic probability is not meaningful, so another approach is needed for integration. Although integration with the FMP was not included within the scope of this seismic study,the following discussion describes how OCSD could perform such an integration,if needed. 7.4.1 Overview of IMP Prioritization An overview of the IMP prioritization process is useful to explain how the approach to prioritizing seismic projects will allow OCSD to integrate the projects into the IMP at the conclusion of this study. The 2017 FMP projects were prioritized using a four-step approach as shown in the green boxes of Figure 7.1 and as outlined below. Step l: Projects were sorted by LoF/Remaining Useful Life. Typically, a facility that needed a project was evaluated to determine the year that it would reach its end of life, assuming that no project was implemented to extend its life. In most cases,the Step 1 evaluation alone established the necessary prioritization because OCSD proactively plans projects to prevent nearly all facilities from reaching their estimated end of life. A facility would reach its end of life due to one of the following failure modes: • Condition; • Capacity; • Redundancy; • Regulations; • Initiative; • Seismic(not used); and • Health and Safety. Step 2: Projects were then evaluated and modified as necessary to comply with the sequencing constraints and overall feasibility. This step adjusted project schedules to avoid construction M1635P815-06 Geosyw Project Report-FKA4Re 2.d. 33 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants sequencing issues,capacity shortfalls,and site conflicts,etc. Some projects needed to be deferred or accelerated to address coordination constraints. Step 3:OCSD analyzed cash flow/resource requirements for the projects,as scheduled by Steps 1 and 2. Then,cash flow/resources were leveled by proposed schedule shifts for selected projects. Step 4: The Consequence of Failure(CoF)was evaluated for each project to rank the importance of maintaining a schedule that would avoid the end of life for that facility. Four consequences, each with a"weighted"importance factor(IF),were evaluated for each project,as follows: • Regulatory,I17=100%; • Stakeholder Commitments,IF-75%; • Financial,IF-50%;and • Public Impacts,IF=33%. The highest score for each consequence governed the CoF score. (Scores for separate consequences were not additive).Overall Risk of Failure(RoF)was then calculated as the product of Lop scores and CoF scores.Generally,CoF scores were used to propose and verify that Step 2 and Step 3 schedule adjustments were made in such a way as to minimize risk. RoF scores were used as a final check on the proposed CIP. 7.4.2 Approach to Integration with the IMP The approach for integration with OCSD's IMP is shown in the blue boxes of the flowchart in Figure 7.1. This approach uses a strategic initiative-based determination of LoF based on the Consequences of Seismic Event (CoSE). The initiative-based approach is intended to allow OCSD stakeholders to customize the criteria that trigger a seismic project to match OCSD's goals and budget. The graphic shows the proposed strategic initiative that would be used for this determination 7.4.3 Proposed Initiative for CoSE The CoSE initiative evaluates the importance of seismic mitigation projects. These seismic consequences are similar to those used for the CoF of non-seismic projects, but are more appropriate for failures resulting from a natural disaster.In particular,consideration of life safety and the duration of consequences are much more important for seismic failures. Accordingly, a facility with a CoSE that threatens life safety may have an LoF score of"5,"meaning a project to address this threat should be implemented within 0 to 5 years. A facility with a CoSE that threatens OCSD's primary treatment/digestion capabilities — the ability to receive wastewater into the plant and discharge it from the plant with at least a primary level of treatment,and/or compromising the ability to provide anaerobic digestion of wastewater solids — would have an LoF score of"4," meaning a project to address this threat should be implemented within 5 to 10 years. Following a major earthquake,it may be acceptable to operate under conditions that would result in regulatory violations for a short duration.However,to avoid long-tens violations,OCSD may M163SPS15-06 Geosy wProject Report-FWAI_Re 2.d. 34 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants choose to implement measures of seismic resiliency. The proposed initiative could provide an LoF score of"3" for regulatory violations, meaning a project to avoid these impacts should be implemented within the next 10 to 15 years. Likewise, following a major earthquake, OCSD may choose to use emergency funding from outside agencies that can provide a cost-effective means of addressing disaster needs if the cost of full seismic resiliency exceeds available budget.This strategy could reduce the financial impact of seismic projects, and the proposed initiative could provide an Lop score of"3," meaning a project should be implemented in the next 10 to 15 years. 7.4.4 Remaining Integration Steps With the CoSE initiative defined, the next step is to review how the seismic projects impact, or are impacted by, the non-seismic projects in the FMP. This step is similar to Step 2 that was performed for the FMP projects. Projects should be evaluated and modified as necessary to comply with sequencing constraints, site conflicts, and overall feasibility. In many cases, it may make sense to address seismic vulnerabilities for a structure when a project for that facility is being implemented to address other issues. In addition,projects should be reviewed to determine the need for an evaluation for"mitigate vs.replace,"since combinations of projects or repackaged projects may impact previous decisions on the most appropriate planning strategy. The next step is to update LoF for all projects that have been added or modified by the seismic projects. This step will include confirmation of the CoSE initiative scoring for seismic projects and LoF evaluations for projects that have both seismic and non-seismic elements. Once this update has been completed, the LoF scoring for all projects, both seismic and non-seismic, will be on the same basis and suitable for input into the four-step FMP prioritization process described in Section 7.4.1.All CIP projects would then be processed though the FMP process.This involves some re-processing of the non-seismic projects that were prioritized during the 2017 FMP projects,as well as adding the seismic projects. Step 3 of the FMP process performs cash flow/resource leveling. At this stage, the schedule for seismic projects may need to be modified to achieve resource leveling. To decide/confirm that schedule changes are acceptable, CoF should be reviewed and projects rescheduled to achieve both resource leveling and overall risk minimization. As shown in the flowchart, the Cop for seismic projects,which allows calculation of the final risk score, is based on complying with the stakeholder commitments,not the CoSE.This is an important distinction,because the use of CoF as this step, instead of CoSE,puts the risk scoring on the same basis as the non-seismic projects, potentially avoiding over-emphasis of seismic projects. Finally, as performed for the FMP,RoF scores should be used as a final check on the proposed CIP.With this step completed,the seismic projects will be fully integrated into the overall CIP. HI163SPS15-06 GeosywPrgw Report-FINAI_Re 2.d. 35 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants 8. SUMMARY This final report of the PSI 5-06 study presents the results of seismic evaluations of a subset of structures at the Plant 1 and Plant 2 sites. These evaluations identified a number of significant vulnerabilities to the subject structures at each plant site. These vulnerabilities are driven by strong ground shaking, liquefaction-induced settlement, and lateral spreading. They have the potential to impact life safety, the ability to provide primary treatment, and the ability to meet regulatory commitments,and they may pose future financial impacts to OCSD. To address these identified vulnerabilities and meet OCSD's performance objectives,conceptual retrofit recommendations were developed along with planning-level cost estimates. This study identifies a total of approximately$136 million in recommended retrofit projects at Plant 1 and a total of$209 million in recommended retrofit projects at Plant 2. Working with OCSD, a process was developed to prioritize and provide relative rankings for implementation of these retrofit measures. Based on this process, the study recommends implementation of these projects with the priority identified in Table 7.1 and Table 7.2 of this report. The implementation of these seismic-related projects will require an integration with OCSD's non-seismic Capital Improvement Program. A potential strategy for this integration is proposed in this report. tn.1635PS15-06(evs ec Prgw Report-r A4Re 2.d. 36 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO consultants 9. REFERENCES American Concrete Institute (ACI) [20061. "Code Requirements for Environmental Engineering Concrete Structures."ACI Committee 350. American Petroleum Institute(API) [20111. "Welded Tanks for Oil Storage." API,Washington, DC,USA. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)/Structural Engineering Institute(SEI) Standard 7- 10 [2010]. "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures."ASCE, Reston, VA,USA. ASCE/SEI Standard 41-13 [2014]. "Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structures." ASCE,Reston,VA,USA. Kleinfelder [2017]. "Fault Displacement Hazard Analysis Report, OCSD Plant No. 2." OCSD Project No.P2-98, 6 November 2017. 111.1635PS15-06 Geosy wProject Report-fWA4Re 2.d. 37 7/19/2019 GeosyntecO co Is TABLES HL1635TS15-06 Qeos"tec Pjeet Report-FINAL-Rev Zdocx 9119/2019 Table 4.1 Standard Structural Mitigation Table OCSD PS15-06 Orange County,California ID Mitigation Name Description Al Wall Anchorage Type 1 Provide steel angles or WT struts with steel hardware and epoxy bonded anchors into the existing wall or perimeter roof beam at 8 feet on center. Struts to extend into the diaphragm as required to develop the wall anchorage force. Struts are to be field welded to the roof deck. A2 Wall Anchorage Type 2 Provide new steel welded or bolted connections to existing beams that are epoxy bonded to the existing wall, pilaster, or perimeter concrete beam.Mitigation includes additional roof deck welding as required for full wall anchorage force development into the diaphragm. The scope of work is expressed as High, Medium, and Low. B1 Roof Diaphragm Replace existing roof deck to the extent the deck is deficient and Strengthening Type 1 provide supplemental steel roof framing as required. B2 Roof Diaphragm Provide additional epoxy bonded anchors at the existing ledger Strengthening Type 2 angle. Drill anchors through the existing ledger angle and embed into the existing concrete or masonry walls. Cl Foundation Tie Type 1 Provide steel angle tie plate that is anchored into the wall and slab at the interior of the building using epoxy bonded anchors. Angles are assumed to be required at a spacing of 4 feet on center. C2 Foundation Tie Type 2 Provide an exterior oast-in-place concrete tie beam that is oast at the exterior of the building below grade and doweled into the existing wall and footings (continuous or isolated pad footings) with an epoxy adhesive. D OOP Wall Bracing Provide vertical steel tube or steel channel members to reduce the horizontal span of the wall, especially where pilasters occur. The vertical member is to be anchored to the masonry or concrete wall with epoxy bonded anchors regularly spaced. The vertical member is required to be braced to the foundation and to the roof framing with additional hardware and training members as re uired. E Cast-in-place Concrete Infill existing window with cast-in-place concrete. Install Infill reinforcing steel dowels into existing wall, beam, and columns at the perimeter of the existing window using an epoxy adhesive. Table 4.2 Standard Geotechnical Mitigation Table OCSD PS15-06 Orange County,Califomta ID Mitigation Name Description Al Ground Improvement Buttress Construct a cemented mass of in-situ soil(by deep soil mixing, jet grouting, or similar method) between the structure and the Santa Ana River and/or Talbert Marsh as applicable. A2 Secant Pile Wall Construct a secant pile wall comprised of closely-spaced steel pipe piles filled reinforced concrete to resist liquefaction- induced lateral spreading towards the Santa Ana River and/or Talbert Marsh. Bl Ground Improvement Under Use one of several available ground improvement techniques to Slab Foundation reduce the liquefaction potential of specified soil strata beneath the footprint of the entire structure. B2 Ground Improvement Under Use one of several available ground improvement techniques to Perimeter Footings reduce the liquefaction potential of a specified strata of soil direct) beneath the structure footings. C Ground Improvement Around Treat the soils immediately outside basement walls,using one of Perimeter of Submerged Walls several available ground improvement techniques, to limit liquefaction in soil backfill and reduce the potential for increased lateral earth pressure on submerged walls. Table 5.1. Facility Values,Plant 1 OCSD PS15-06 Orange County,California Plant No.1 Structure Number Structure Name Value(1) 1 Waste Sludge Thickeners(DAFT) Pump Room $4,000,000 2 Blower Building(A51)and PEPS $109,668,000 3 Plant Water Pump Station and Power Building 6 $6,760,000 4 City Water Pump Station $5,030,000 5 Power Building 2 $6,236,000 6 Power Building 4 $5,382,000 7 Power Building 5 $10,841,000 8 Control Center $16,200,000 9 12 kV Service Center $42,100,000 10 Central Power Generation Building $154,800,000 11 Aeration Basins 1-10 $219,336,000 12 Secondary Clarifiers 1-26 $219,336,000 13 Digester $10,150,000 14 Digester 5&6 Pump Room $6,764,000 15 Digester $10,150,000 16 Digester $10,150,000 17 Digester 7&8 Pump Room $6,764,000 18 Digester $10,150,000 19 Digester 9-10 $22,000,000 20 Digester 9-10 Pump Room $7,322,000 21 Digesters 11-16 $66,000,000 22 Digesters 11-14 Pump Room $14,650,000 23 Digesters 15-16 Pump Room $7,322,000 24 Gas Holder $454,000 25 Effluent Junction Box $2,012,000 26 Solids Storage Facility $29,540,000 27 Chiller Building $682,000 28 Warehouse Building $2,739,000 29 Shop Building $1,956,000 30 Shop Building B and Building 3 $4,230,000 31 Buildings 5 and 6 $4,893,000 32 Auto Shop $1,853,000 33 PEDB2 $4,585,000 34 Central Laboratory $22,840,000 (1)Generally taken from Facilities Valuation Report 2017 under Project P515-10, where information was not available from this source,very approximate estimates of value were used(note that the analysis only requires identification of the financial ranking) Table 5.2.Facility Values,Plant 2 OCSD PS15-06 Orange County,California Plant No.2 Structure Structure Name Number Value(1) 1 DAFT A-C Gallery $5,444,000 2 DAFT D Gallery and WSSPS $3,629,000 3 RAS PS East $27,804,000 4 RAS PS West $27,804,000 5 PEPS&MAC $55,609,000 6 Operations/Control Center $21,312,000 7 12 kV Service Center $42,100,000 8 Power Building $5,063,000 9 Power Building $4,361,000 10 Power Building $3,947,000 11 City Water Pump Station $8,629,000 12 112 kV Distribution Center B $9,686,000 13 12 kV Distribution Center D $2,520,000 14 Headworks Power Bldg A $5,063,000 15 Headworks Power Bldg B $5,063,000 15 Headworks Power Bldg B $5,063,000 16 Headworks Standby Power Building $5,972,000 16 Headworks Standby Power Building $5,972,000 17 Central Power Generation Building $330,240,000 17 Central Power Generation Building $330,240,000 18 Aeration Basins A-H $222,436,000 18 lAeration Basins A-H $222,436,000 19 Gas Holder $600,000 19 Gas Holder $600,000 20 Secondary Clarifiers A-L $222,436,000 20 Secondary Clarifiers A-L $222,436,000 21 DAFfs A-C $16,333,000 21 DAFTs A-C $16,333,000 22 DAFT D $3,630,000 23 Surge Tower No. 1 $18,300,000 24 Surge Tower No. 2 $18,300,000 26 Truck Loading $27,300,000 27 Maintenance Building $9,489,000 28 Boiler Building $2,000,000 29 Ocean Outfall Booster Pump Station $109,650,000 30 12 kV Distribution Center A $8,717,000 (1)Generally taken from Facilities Valuation Report 2017 under Project PS15-30,where information was not available from this source very approximate estimates of value were used(note that the analysis only requires identification of the financial ranking) Table 6.1. Sturcture Occupancy, Plant 1 OCSD PS15-06 Orange County,California Plant No. 1 Occupancy Hours per Year Structure Number Structure Name Life Electrical and Safety Instrumentation Maintenance Total(1) Rating 1 Waste Sludge Thickeners(DAFT) Pump Room 1500 2500 4,000 3 2 Blower Building(AS1)and PEPS 750 750 2,000-10,000 3 3 lPlant Water Pump Station and Power Building 6 500 250 <2,000 2 4 City Water Pump Station 100 100 <2,000 2 5 Power Building 2 200 400 <2,000 2 6 Power Building 200 400 <2,000 2 7 Power Building 200 400 <2,000 2 8 Control Center >20,000 5 9 12 kV Service Center 250 0 <2,000 2 10 Central Power Generation Building 6000 6,000 3 11 Aeration Basins 1-10 100 250 <2,000 2 12 ISecondary Clarifiers 1-26 200 500 <2,000 2 13 Digester <2000 2 14 Digester 5&6 Pump Room <2000 2 15 Digester <2000 2 16 Digester <2000 2 17 Digester 7&8 Pump Room <2000 2 18 Digester <2000 2 19 Digester 9-10 <2000 2 20 Digester 9-10 Pump Room <2000 2 21 Digesters 11-16 <2000 2 22 Digesters 11-14 Pump Room <2000 2 23 Digesters 15-16 Pump Room <2000 2 24 Gas Holder <2000 2 25 Effluent Junction Box <2000 2 26 Solids Storage Facility 3,650 3 27 Chiller Building <2000 2 28 Warehouse Building 30,000 5 29 Shop Building 10,000 4 30 IShop Building B and Building 3 14,000 4 31 Buildings 5 and 6 100,000 5 32 Auto Shop 10,000-20,000 4 33 PEDB2 0 2 34 Icentral Laboratory >20000 5 (1) Compiled from various sources of data supplied by OCSD Table 6.2.Structure Occupancy,Plant 2 OCSD PS15-06 Orange County,California Plant No.2 Occupancy Hours per year Structure Number Structure Name Life Electrical and Safety Instrumentation Maintenance Total Hours Rating 1 DAFT A-C Gallery 3,000 3 2 JDAFT D Gallery and WSSPS 1,100 2 3 RAS PS East 1,100 2 4 RAS PS West 1,100 2 5 PEPS&MAC 400 2 6 Operations/Control Center 8,760 4 7 12 kV Service Center <2,000 2 8 Power Building B 730 2 9 Power Building C 400 2 30 Power Building D 730 2 11 City Water Pump Station <2,000 2 12 12 kV Distribution Center B <2,000 2 13 12 kV Distribution Center D <2,000 2 14 Headworks Power Bldg A 730 2 15 Headworks Power Bldg B 730 2 15 Headworks Power Bldg B 730 2 16 Headworks Standby Power Building 730 2 16 Headworks Standby Power Building 730 2 17 Central Power Generation Building 2,000-10,000 3 17 Central Power Generation Building 2,000-10,000 3 18 Aeration Basins A-H 3,650 3 18 Aeration Basins A-H 3,650 3 19 Gas Holder 400 2 19 Gas Holder 400 2 20 Secondary Clarifiers A-L 3,650 3 20 Secondary Clarifiers A-L 3,650 3 21 DAFTs A-C 3,000 3 21 DAFTs A-C 3,000 3 22 DAFT D 3,000 3 23 Surge Tower No. 1 <2,000 2 24 Surge Tower No. 2 <2,000 2 26 Truck Loading 3,650 3 27 Maintenance Building >20,000 5 28 Boiler Building 1,600 2 29 Ocean Outfall Booster Pump Station <2,000 2 30 12 kV Distribution Center A <2,000 2 (1)Compiled from various sources of data supplied by OCSD Table 6.3.Controlling Failure Type and Controlling Consequence, Plant 1 OCSD PS15-06 Orange County,California Plant 1 Control. Failure Controlling Consequence a m n Structure 0 Structure Name GS DS LS ;n° E E '—° t c E Number '^ ' ;f 10 u w a` w m n r c z a 1 Waste Sludge Thickeners(DAFT) Pump Room x x x 2 Blower Building(ASI)and PEPS x x x 3 IPlant Water Pump Station & Power Building 6 x x x 4 City Water Pump Station x x x 5 Power Building x x x x 6 Power Building x x 7 Power Building x x 8 Control Center x x 9 12 kV Service Center x x 10 Central Power Generation Building x x 11 Aeration Basins 1-10 x x x 12 Secondary Clarifiers 1-26 x x x 13 Digester x x 14 Digester 5&6 Pump Room x x x 15 Digester x x 16 Digester x x 17 Digester 7&8 Pump Room x x x 18 Digester x x 19 Digester 9-10 x x 20 Digester 9-10 Pump Room x x x 21 Digesters 11-16 x x 22 Digesters 11-14 Pump Room x x x 23 Digesters 15-16 Pump Room x x 24 Gas Holder x x 25 Effluent Junction Box x x 26 Solids Storage Facility x x 27 Chiller Building x x x 28 Warehouse Building x x x 29 Shop Building A x x 30 Shop Building B and Building 3 x x 31 Buildings 5 and 6 x x 32 Auto Shop x x 33 PEDB2 x 3RF4 x Central Laboratory x x Table 6.4. Controlling Failure Type and Controlling Consequence,Plant 2 OCSD PS15-06 Orange County,California Plant 2- Risk Ranking Control.Failure Controlling Consequence ti Structure Hazard E E m o - E Structure Name GS DS LS E r c Number Level 1 DAFT A-C Gallery lE x x 2 DAFT D Gallery and WSSPS 3E x x 3 RAS PS East 2E x x x 4 RAS PS West 2E x x x 5 PEPS&MAC 1E x x 6 Operations/Control Center lE x x 7 12 kV Service Center 1E x x 8 Power Building 3E x x 9 Power Building 1E I x I x 30 Power Building lE x x 11 City Water Pump Station 3E x x 12 12 kV Distribution Center B 1E x x 13 112 kV Distribution Center lE x x 14 Headworks Power Bldg A 3E x x 15 Headworks Power Bldg B 1E x x 16 Headworks Standby Power Building 1E x x 17 Central Power Generation Building 3E x x 18 Aeration Basins A-H lE x x x 19 Gas Holder 1E x x 20 Secondary Clarifiers A-L lE x x x 21 DAFTS A-C lE x x 22 DAFT lE x x x 23 Surge Tower No.1 lE x x 24 Surge Tower No.2 1E x x 26 Truck Loading 2E EXXX x 27 Maintenance Building lE x28 Boiler Building 3Ex 29 Ocean Cattail Booster Pump Station SE x 30 12 kV Distribution Center A lE x Table 7.1 Prioritized List of Recommended Mitigations with Costs,Plant 1 OCSD PS15-06 Orange County,California Plant 1-Risk Ranking Cog Information Recommendations Control.Failure Controlling Consequence Br E Z -`ao _ m Address with Mitigate with tf o o _ Geotechnical Total Structure o E Overall Structural a NO Project, Previously New Project Replace Structure Name GS DS IS u - Mitigation Mitigation Facility Value Comments Number m - RoSF Mitigation Cost LOSF=0 Planned Identified in Facility E 8 - - Cost' Cost - Project TM3 8 Control Center x x c 25 $6,610,000 $0 $6,610,000 $16,200,000 X 9 12 W Service Center x x 25 $220,000 $0 $220,000 $42,100,000 X 31 Buildings 5 and 6 x x 25 $1,260,000 $0 $1,260,000 $4,893,000 X 34 Central Laboratory x x 25 $5,130,000 $0 $5,130,000 $22,840,000 X 2 Blower Building(AS1)and PEPS x x x 20 $2,440,000 $0 $2,440,000 $109,668,000 X-048 10 Central Power Generation Building x x 20 $2,280,000 $2,130,000 $4,410,000 $154,800,000 PI-127 12 Secondary Clarifiers 1-26 x x x 20 $0 $0 $0 $219,336,000 X-049 19 Digester 9-10 x x 20 $0 $0 $0 $22,000,000 X 21 Digesters 11-16 x x 20 $0 $0 $0 $66,000,000 X 30 Shop Building B and Building 3 x x 20 $440,000 $0 $440,000 $4,230,000 X 32 Auto Shop x x 20 $410,000 $0 $410,000 $1,853,000 X X-043 will demolish DAFT's;electrical 1 Waste Sludge Thickeners(DAFT)Pump Room x x x IS $840,000 $0 $840,000 $4,000,000 X-043" room and lab will stay in place. 26 Solids Storage Facility x x IS $60,000 $0 $60,000 $29,540,000 X 28 Warehouse Building x x x IS $690,000 $0 $690,000 $2,739,0001 X 16 Digester x x 12 $0 $0 $0 $10,150,000 X 18 Digester x x 12 $0 $0 $0 $10,150,000 X 29 Shop Building x x 12 $280,000 $0 $280,000 $1,956,000 X 3 Plant Water Pump Station&Power Building 6 x x x 10 $420,000 $0 $420,000 $6,760,000 %-039 4 City Water Pump Station x x x 10 $590,000 $1,200,000 $1,790,000 $5,030,000 %-038 7 Power Buildings x x 10 $220,000 $1,170,000 $1,390,000 $10,841,000 1-124 22 Digesters 11-14 Pump Room x x x 30 $1,080,000 $0 $1,080,000 $14,650,000 % 23 Digesters 15-16 Pump Room x x 30 $420,0001 $0 $420,000 $7,322,000 25 Effluent Junction Box x x 30 $0 $0 $0 $2,012,000 33 PEDB2 x x 30 $0 $840,000 $840,000 $4,585,000 X 6 Power Building x x 8 $270,000 $0 $270,000 $5,382,000 X 5 Power Building x x x x 6 $390,000 $2,790,000 $3,180,000 $6,236,000 X 14 Digester 5&6 Pump Room x x x 6 $200,000 $1,420,000 $1,620,000 $6,764,000 X 17 Digester 7&8 Pump Room x x x 6 $250,000 $0 $250,000 $6,764,000 X 20 Digester 9-10 Pump Room x x x 6 $340,000 $0 $340,000 $7,322,000 24 Gas Holder x x 2.4 $0 $1,801 $1,800,000 $454,000 J-124 11 Aeration Basins 1-10 0 $0 $0 $0 $219,336,000 % 13 Digester 0 $01 $0 $0 $10,150,000 X 15 Digester 0 $0 $0 $0 $30,150,000 % 27 Chiller Building 0 $0 $0 $0 $687 00 % Subtotal $24,840,000 1 $11,350,0001 $36,190,000 $1,046,895,000 Plant-wide LS mitigation NA 1 $100,000,000 $100,000,000 NA Notes: Total $24,840,000 $111,350,000 $136,190,000 $1,046,895,000 1.Mitigation costs are construction costs in Nov 2018 dollars,ENRLA 12006.These costs do not include"soft"project costs. 2.Structure-specific geotechnical mitigation costs do not include lateral spread mitigation costs. 3.Facility values are approximate values of existing facilities as identified for the 2017 Facility Master Plan 4.Requires lateral spread(LS)mitigation.Total LS mitigation cost for Plant 1 is$100M. S.The lateral spread for Digesters 11 and 12 would be less than Digesters 13-16,resulting in a reduced risk score of 12 for Digesters 11 and 12 if they were evaluated separately. Table 7.2 Prioritized List of Recommended Mitigations with Costs,Plant 2 OCSD PS15-06 Orange County,California Plant 2-Risk Ranking Cost Information Recommendations Control.Failure Controlling Consequence > E _ `u _ Address with Mitigate with v t `o_ o 'o q Structural Geotechnical Total StructuNumberr lace Structure Name GS DS LS m t M E ROSFII Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation Facility Values NLOSF=Ot Previously Identified in Fa New Project cility Comments E a v — � Cost Cost' Cost i Project TM3 23 Surge Tower No.I x 6x 25 $0 $0 $0 $18,300,000 27 Maintenance Building x x 25 $3,430,000 $15,300,000 $18,730,000 $9,489,000 X 29 Ocean Curial Booster Pump Station x x 25 $2,500,000 $8,230,000 $10,730,000 $109,650,000 X 5 PEPS&MAC x x 20 $0 $7,600,0001 $7,600,000 $55,609,000 1 X-052 6 Operations/Control Center x x 1 20 $2,090,000 $6,780,000 $8,870,000 $21,312,000 X-008 7 12 kV Service Center x x 20 $780,000 $2,300,000 $3,080,000 $42,100,000 X-047 8 Power Building B x x 20 $210,000 $0 $210,000 $5,063,000 x 17 Central Power Generation Building x x 20 $3,890,000 $0 $3,890,000 $330,240,000 P2-119 Project P2-119 may be cancelled 18 Aeration Basins A-H x x x 20 $0 $28,400,000 $28,400,000 $222,436,000 X-050 21 DAFTs A-C x x 15 $0 $4,970,000 $4,970,000 $16,333,000 X 22 DAFT x x x 15 $110,000 $1,940,000 $2,050,000 $3,630,000 X 24 Surge Tower No.2 x x IS $0 $0 $0 $18,300,000 X, 20 Secondary Clarifiers A-L x x x 12 $0 $30,240,000 $30,240,0001 $222,436,000 X-051 9 Power Building C x x 10 $280,0001 $2,500,000 $2,780,000 $4,361,000 P2-119" Project P2-119 may be cancelled 30 Power Building x x 10 $670,000 $0 $670,000 $3,947,000 X 14 Headworks Power Bldg A x x 10 $60,000 $2,150,000 $2,210,000 $5,063,000 P2-98C 28 Boiler Building x x 10 $250,000 $0 $250,000 $2,000,000 X 30 12 kV Distribution Center x x 10 $670,000 $4,000,000 $4,670,000 $8,717,000 X-037 To be demolished by Project X-037 3 RAS PS East x x x 9.6 $180,000 $1,800,000 $1,980,000 $27,804,000 X-052" 4 RAS PS West x x x 9.6 $180,000 $3,330,000 $3,510,000 $27,804,000 X-052 1 DAFT A-C Gallery x x 9 $0 $5,160,000 $5,160,000 $5,444,000 X 11 City Water Pu mp Station x x I 8 $740,000 $4,040,000 $4,780,000 $8,629,000 X-036 13 12 kV Distribution Center D x x 8 $0 $1,500,000 $1,500,0001 $2,520,000 X 15 Headworks Power Bldg B x I I x 1 1 8 $130,0001 $2,400,000 $2,530,000 $5,063,000 X 16 Headworks Stand by Power Building x x 8 $130,000 $2,970,000 $3,100,000 $5,972,000 X 2 DAFT D Ga llery and WSSPS x x 6 $0 $0 $0 $3,629,000 X, 12 12 kV Distribution Center B x x 6 $0 $5,170,000 $5,170,000 $9,686,0D0 X, 19 Gas Holder x x 2.4 $0 $2,300,000 $2,300,000 $600,0D0 1-124 26 Truck Loading 0 $0 $0 $0 $27,300,000 X Subtotal $16,300,000 $143,080,000 $IS9,380,000 $2,223,437,000 1.5 Mitigation to Address PS25-06 Structures Only NA $50,000,000 $50,000,000 NA Total $16,300,000 $193,080,000 $209,380,0D0 $1,223,437,000 Subtotal $16,300,000 $143,080,000 $159,380,DDD $1,223,437,000 Plant-wide LS Mitigation NA 1 $225,000,000 $225,000,000 NA Notes: Total $16,300,000 $368,080,000 $384,380,000 $1,223,437,000 1.Mitigation costs are construction costs in Nov 2018 dollars,ENRLA 12006.These costs do not include"soft"project costs. 2.Structure-specific geotechnical mitigation costs do not include lateral spread mitigation costs. 3.Facility values are approximate values of existing facilities as identified for the 2017 Facility Master Plan. F.Requires lateral spread(LS)mitigation.Total LS mitigation cost for Plant 2 structures included in study is$50M.Total LS mitigation cost for entire Plant 2 river and marsh frontage is$225M. GeosyntecO co Is FIGURES HL1635TS15-06 Qeos"tec Pjeet Report-FINAL-Rev Zdocx 9119/2019 Geotechnical Geotechnical Investigations and Mitigation Evaluations Measures and Costs OCSD Seismic Document Risk Based Seismic Project Evaluations Reviews and Site Prioritization Recommendations Visits 5tructural Lstructural Mitigation Evaluations Measures and Costs Task 1 Task 2/Task 3 a Task 3 PROJECT APPROACH FLOWCHART Task 4 OCSD PSI 5-06 s ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 3 ntec° Figure Geosy consultants t c Project No:HL1635 I JULY 2019 PLANT I STRUCTURES LEGEND .v Y 1-1 Waste Sludge Thmx ddm ump ao 1-]Donal Buill(xB,and PEPS 14 Cb Wabr P.."gul 1 ■ I . � . . 1-5�SoldingT- 1 I ♦ 1-1 PcwereuueinB6 1 I ♦ 1-7 FcandarBoldil 1 / 1-9 Controlr Se 1 1 1 -1 1 mon CarlandalPlre I 1 1 ♦ 1-11 AeStion Basns t-10aWn Bull 1 ♦ 1-12 Semndery CleeeB fl 1-26 1 ' ^ 1-28 TO 1-32, AND 1-34 1-19 Digal 1 I 14 ./ " BIBi.........in 1 1-15 l g gaeabr 1 + 1 1-27 /a. ♦ 1- este d, L----------------------------J / �� ♦ 1-1]17 Dig Digesteri gooddr.7-9 Pump Room / 1-9 DBealere 1 11 -8 ige81aB 610 1-20 Digested,910 Pump Room 1-21 Digiesudi j �•�♦ 1-22 Digested, -16 Pump Room 1-6 //.` ; 1-29 ipeeBB 15-16 Pump Room 1 , ` •/% 1-26 Ga.Hold., 1-26 Emuent Junction Boa %� `;♦ i• 1-29 Sooea Storage Feculb 1-28 Shop Bmmme 13 Snopng"an 1 // / 1-21 TO 1-23 f 13 1 a, nnBa an 6 1 .♦ i �♦ 132 Auto Sam, �� • /♦ 1S9 PEDB2 136 l.e«awa C."i 1 ����� ` j •� LEGEND 1-7. 1-10,1-13 TO 15, AND 1-24 / - _ — _ - — - - `;• �e/� -- y PLANT 1 BOUNDARY _ `��• I� ■ NO DEFICIENCY IDENTIFIED 1 v/ -16 T01-20 - DEFICIENCY AT BSE-1EONLY 1-2 ` ♦ ■ E 1-33 ♦ DEFICIENCY AT BSE-1 E AND BSE-2 1 _ 1-26 0 1 1-1 / 1 ni w I _ ♦ I N1 .. . . .. �'r2 ♦ .. mi N /1 1 1-12 1-3 0 300 I 1 ♦ — 'o SCALE IN FEET 1 ♦ RESULTS OF STRUCTURAL EVALUATIONS PLANT 1 1-9 I ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT z FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA al Geosro& FIGURE ccn9l 4.1 d PROJECT NO HL1635 JULV 2019 �r � — . . . ,{, , '—"' �,� PLANT 2 STRUCTURES LEGEND 1. om.- --T --.� - ^l•~ _ �_ - 2-t VP TA.9.d L Gelwn 2-z DGellory s wssPS F 23 RS PS Eem ._^- . � 2A RAS GS Wem . . �- 2b PEPS&MAC 2a PEPS & comAl cenleremg z-i tz vseu a.cB 2d 2 r MPe .� � • •2-11 2-11 12 wel«Pomos MiMr \ z-1z lz kv ofnnmuon cenlere z-13 Ha... orxr 9 — L 2-13 2-15 HwawoNf Fwrer Bltlg B � Z-.27 '12 e .Ms tans Y o r m ng Y- - 2-1T c,MMI.Gmerellm BuIMln9 2-b z-15 Ae2lbn Banns 0.X _ 2-19 Gas Holtlw ew ry ari 2-26� 2-21 13 F ML z-21 DAFT. ♦• zza SuW T4 rNoo.1 wg o H / 2-25 (S MmD IMM tmm sluay) ♦• z-ze Trurk Loading 2-V McOMMMwBullding z-zs of r of ing 2-9� , ♦♦ 2-N OOBS 000 ' za0 1 sN aw enlw ier l r 12-10 / 2-31 seda •• z-31 Jsc /♦• LEGEND 2-22 2-1] •♦ PLANT 1 BOUNDARY 2-8 2-14 ♦ ♦ NO DEFICIENCY IDENTIFIED 2-21 --2-28 2-16 ^ ♦ ♦/ j22 —2-29 ♦ DEFICIENCYAT BSEAE ONLY 2-19 ir (`, 2-15 ♦ NO EV -UATIONCY AT BSE-1E ENTIA_ND -2E / AEI •• ■ NO EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL DEFICIENCIES 2-30 J 2_q 2-18 \/ o ^2_5 000, 2-32 N ♦• n / M -231 •♦ �224/ /• ' 2-20 2-12 I �23 • •/ 1 > 1 ° � 2_2g ♦• 'o I SCALE IN FEET RESULTS OF STRUCTURAL EVALUATIONS O , /♦• PLANT > 14ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT • HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 'o a GeO r u FIGURE o mn81� 0 4.2 1 PROJECT NO:HL1635 JULY 2019 0 Abbreviations: COSE-Consequence of Seismic Event RUL-Remaining Useful Life LOF-Likelihood of Failure CoF-Consequence of Failure ROF-Risk of Failure seismic analysis Dasoribe CoSE: Proposed lniludive far CeSE >Life safety? CoSE RUL LOF >Water iMvater out impacts? Lde safety 0-5 ym 5 >Long-term reg.violations? -'" Water in/out impacts 5.10 yrs 4 >Long-term public impacts? Long-term reg.violations 10-15 yB 3 •Other? Long-term public impacts 15-20 yra 2 y Ogler? 20'yrs i Develop seismic projects and modify affected FMP prioritization non-seismic projects (Mitigate vs. Replace) Develop initistive-based LOF/RUL for seismic J projects based on COSE -,,,,,,, 2j Establish stakeholder- based!COF for seismic projects PROJECT • - • APPROACH OCSD 0 ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA GeosyntecO co Is APPENDIX A Technical Memorandum 2 (provided under separate cover) HL1635TS15-06 Qeos"tec Project Rep d-FINAL-Rev Zdocx 9119/2019 GeosyntecO co Is APPENDIX B Technical Memorandum 3 (Volumes I through 3 provided under separate cover) HL1635TS15-06 Qeos"tec Project Rep d-FINAL-Rev Zdocx 9119/2019 GeosyntecO co Is APPENDIX C Meeting Minutes HL1635TS15-06 Qeos"tec Project Rep d-FINAL-Rev Zdocx 9119/2019 List of Meetings with OCSD Staff OCSD PS15-06 Orange County,California Subtask No. Meeting Title Meeting Date Notes 1.5.1 Kickoff Meeting 2017-08-15 1.5.2 Plant 1 Workshop 2017-10-10 1.5.3 Plant 2 Workshop 2017-10-11 1.5.4 Pre-TMI Workshop 2017-10-25 2.6.1 Plant l Pre-Investigation Workshop 2017-12-20 Meeting Minutes Not Included 2.6.2 Plant 2 Pre-Investigation Workshop 201742-19 Meeting Minutes Not Included 2.6.3 Project Progress Update 2018-08-15 3.9.2 ITechnical Exchange Meeting#3 2018-08-27 3.9.3 Technical Discussion 2018-09-06 Meeting Minutes Not Included 3.9.4 Technical Exchange Meeting#1 2018-04-26 3.9.5 Technical Exchange Meeting#2 2018-07-10 4.6.1 TM3 Review Meeting 2018-11-05 4.6.2 Task 4 Kickoff 2018-11-14 Meeting Minutes Not Included 4.6.3 TM4 Consequence Ratings 201842-12 Meeting Minutes Not Included 4.6.4 TM4 Project List Review Meeting 2019-01-09 4.6.5 TM4 Review Meeting 2019-05-22 Meeting Minutes Not Included N,V SPNI O� tNry Geosyntec consultants FCt/ry iME EMS MEETING MINUTES SUBJECT: PS15-06 Kickoff Meeting DATE: Tuesday,August 15, 2017 TIME: 10:30 a.m. PST LOCATION: OCSD Eng. & Const. Conference Room 1 MEETING ATTENDEES: Geosyntec—Chris Conkle, Chris Hunt Corolla—James Doering,Doug Lanning InfraTerra—Ahmed Nisar OCSD—Don Cutler,Mike Lahlou,Kathy Millea,Eros Yong,Martin Dix,David Halverson,Cyril Davies, Jeff Mohr, Mike Dorman 1. Safety Moment a. Presented by Chris Conkle b. Topic: Personal Earthquake Preparedness 2. Introductions a. Mr. Conkle introduced Geosyntec's team b. Mr. Cutler introduced potential OCSD stakeholders. c. OCSD Engineering will have a leading role while O&M will have a more limited role. 3. Project Objectives a. Geosyntec outlined its project objectives culminating in a Seismic CIP & Implementation Plan Mtg Minutes-OCSD 8-15-17 -a4%§1 JagVtists I innovators 2 PS15-06 Kick-off Meeting Minutes August 15,2017 Page 2 4. Project Organization a. Geosyntec outlined its organizational structure. 5. Project Approach a. Geosyntec described its project approach. See Evaluation Flow Chart and Meetings List attached. 6. Scope of Work a. Geosyntec provided a description of the four scope of work tasks. i. Task 1 - Background Development ii. Task 2 - Geotechnical Evaluations iii. Task 3 - Structural Evaluations 1. Discussed that Tier 2/3 selections will be made based on input from OCSD,Geotech and Structural team members iv. Task 4—Project Report 7. Baseline Schedule a. Geosyntec described the schedule which includes the following draft deliverable dates. See attached schedule handout. i. TM 1 Dmft:10/31/17 ii. TM 2 Draft: 8/9/18 iii. TM 3 Draft: 8/9/18 iv. TM 4 Draft: 1/24/19 8. Data Review Process a. Discussed the Geosyntec team's approach to geotechnical, structural, and surface fault rupture data review 9. Other Discussion Items a. Technical support for OCSD will be provided by Jacobs (Kirk,John,Elias) b. Geosyntec's structural cut sheets will include the timeline for the next planned improvement project for each structure to aid in planning z z z z x Attachments • PowerPoint slides from OCSD Presentation 8-15-17 • Meeting handout: Evaluation Flow Chart • Meeting handout: PSI 5-06 Meetings • Meeting handout: PSI 5-06 Draft Schedule PsengineeCS•Ialsscientists I innovators a KICKOFF MEETING q . SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2 "r 'a /9uan OranDistrict � = � District PS 15-06 August 15, 2017 X l_Y Personal Earthquake Preparedness • Anniversary of the August 15, 2007 Pisco, Peru EQ (Mw 8.0) PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 5 Orange County Sanitation Distnct GEER 2007 2 Personal Earthquake Preparedness • Your Minimum Home Earthquake Kit A • Food — 3 days 21 • Flashlights and Spare Batteries �� • Water — 1 gallon per person per day (3 days) • Portable Radio and Spare Batteries • First Aid Kit (a good one) O • Fire Extinguisher (ABC) 4 • Important papers and Cash 0 • Gas/Water Shutoff Tools • Home Preparedness A • Secure contents — these are what injure people kaw • If in doubt - Consult a structural (and geotechnical) engineer! O PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 6 Orange County Sanitation Distract 3 Agenda • Safety Moment • Introductions • Project Objectives • Project Approach • Project Organization • Scope of Work • Task 1 - Background Development • Task 2 - Geotechnical Evaluations • Task 3 - Structural Evaluations • Task 4 - Project Report • Baseline Schedule • Data Review Process ii� � PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 7 � Orange County Sanitation District 4 Introductions OCSD • Don Cutler — Project Manager • Mike Lahlou — Project Engineer • Jacobs (Technical Review) Geosyntec • Chris Conkle — Project Manager • Chris Hunt — Project Director/Hazards Carollo • James Doering — Vulnerability • Doug Lanning — Strategic Planning InfraTerra • Ahmed Nisar — Alternatives & Recommendations PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 8 Orange County Sanitation District , 5 Potential Stakeholders Department Planning Kathy Millea/Eros Yong 740 Engineering Dean Fisher/Martin Dix/ 760 and Mike Dorman 770 Operations Jon Bradley/Tony Lee/ 830 and Umesh Murthy 840 Maintenance Jed Gonzales/Don Stokes 870 and 880 Risk Rich Spencer 161 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C Orange County Sanitation Distract Background and Justification • Many structures built prior to CBC 2001 • Many structures built prior to consensus on liquefaction (1998) • Many of these structures are at risk of damage and could take a long time to put back to service • Plant 2 is located over a major fault system (Newport- Inglewood Fault) lam. PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C Orange County Sanitation District 7 Project Objectives • Understanding of site geo-seismic hazards • Efficient structural assessments • Combined approach to the geotechnical and structural aspects to develop mitigation options/costs • Focus on OCSD selected structures to allow for ultimate prioritization • Report findings effectively to OCSD stakeholders • Seismic CIP & Implementation Plan • Project Planning Level Costs • Project Prioritization PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 11 Orange County Sanitation District Project Team Approach provides expertise in three critical areas: Geosyntec° Structurall 4W carol/® consLdtants EngineeringEgnen...MpM qm p . MM wsm ^ Ino•Two Wastewater Erzgrwna..vrNmp NY NNs Mln Waw' L le AA PSI 6-06 TM4 Appendix C 12 Orange County Sanitation Distinct 9 Project Organization Orange County Sanitation District OCSD Project Manager Don Cutler, P.E., BCEE OCSD Project Engineer Mike Lahlou Project Director Chris Hunt, Ph.D., P.E., G.E. Project Manager Chris Conkle, P.E., G.E. Risk & Reliability Technical Team Chris Hunt, Ph.D., P.E., G.E. James Doering, S.E., P.E. Ahmed Nisar, P.E. Doug Lanning, P.E., PMP (Geosyntec) (Carollo) (InfraTerra) (Carollo) Hazards Vulnerability Alternatives and Strategic Planning Recommendations s' 0• • . v • . A it it • . Combined Geotechnical & Structural Evaluation Flow Chart Eetimuebr • . • Structural Mitigation Evaluations Recommendations Report eofxl mnel _ $11YCIpIBI p E•wrlly, Ewue ion 'nun ayr {�.bm�b nlV rvor bp:ortn EValu]IMn Yn R pl a Wion ' Y nnssp:on imnnw� Y Meeting with OCSD Meetings • 17 Formal Meetings Planned • Numerous Informal Meetings • Timing selected to allow efficient decision making • Proven program management approach PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 15 Orange County Sanitation District 12 Task 1 - Background Development Job Ind"Mey nee4niatbn P4w11 LEGEND JIMnI r -'Lg I � I �ciin nwevan 1 911M';lIY� `- S1bGNiESNT - - na.aeo eanor OCVKD��r�`i( _ — wm "G• - - nu 1"6 TM4 Appendix C Orange County Sanitation Distract 13 Task 1 - Background Development OY4 Job Index Map Tnei itt PlnntB ocsD y 5� 'ir 'J.' • • s� • __ LEGEND �s k �o,rea' a�u+r�•u o� ate iu it Me41Imo.¢ t �.. Fix tz u, _._. !wmxr�uarcnx xisxaa�nwrs„n, - a zr F PSI506 TM4 Appendix I Orange County Sanitation District 14 Task 1 - Background Development 7Photograph me Idealized Soil Profile 77 Seismicity and Seismic Evaluation Geohazards and Performance Objectives Structural Assessment Mitigation & Failure Modes Measures & Costs Process criticality, etc. Discussion of Risk Ranking and Prioritization PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 78 � Orange County Sanitation Distract 15 Task 2 - Geotechnical Evaluations Plant V,31 y 7 4 � � z � j � - F Plant© • . . Lauesal Sgeadin9 • • • 0.5'< • Lo:atlw of Proposed Caro hnkal mv,Qn itluns • • •.• ♦ • • twetion dPr�o.Gcaa<hnicallmcstigulons •• � Stmctum Indutled in this SlWy q'-$" ❑queBation lntluced Senkmem flange PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 19 I Orange County Sanitation Distract 16 Task 3 - Structural Evaluations Digesters / DAFTs Process Buildings -r- Misc Structures .r Basins & Clarifiers PSI Non-process Buildings mnge C wtyTM4 a a Lion D 20 Orange County Sanitation Distract 17 Task 3 - Structural Evaluations Tier 3 - Systematic Tier 2 — a -s Closer look -_ - Tier 1 - Screening` =yam` PSi6-06 TM4 Appendix 21 Orange County Sanitation District �tr- 18 x ENJa`"W61- s 3 � CtuCa ed by buy\ding type ScCee609 \s r y>" �M w p515-�j ,5�y ,11111 1 Oda GW Task 3 - Structural Evaluations Tier 2 — Deficiency-based Evaluation (Targeted) rr.•...a..w.m. rr.. h c.eN sr.aceu.z.�MreCaMamng L 41 - - _ w 4mencan ConpMe lnsfitlNe' �wm R;: u IEU J eY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 23 � Orange County Sanitation Distract 20 Task 3 - Structural Evaluations Tier 3 — Systematic Evaluations for Special Cases loop I;; PS15-06 TM4 App,16lx G 24 Orange Coucty Szn'a:ior District 21 Task 4 - Prioritization High Likelihood of Failure (LoF) Low Low Consequence of High Failure (CoF) PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 25 � Orange County Sanitation Distract 22 Task 4 Consequence • Recommendations Ezemple Initiative for CoSE seismic analysis CosE RUL L ���; Life safety 0-5 yrs 5 >�*..arr, Water in/out impacts 5-10 yrs 4 >wa..��aa..m nnpero+ Long-term reg. violations 10-15 yrs 3 >Loyrorm pep .wew..+ Lo term ub6c im acts 15-20 rs 2 >w twro pua.im+au+ ng' P P Y >nmen Other? � 20+yrs 1 o..rw�ae�prge.• .,nmeenr•�.cr.e FMP prioritization rwr..rome wWew. tW Were ra.aepYce) DerNap mwerr<.asea .... teamu�iw wiemm proleers eeeea on coee ___7 1 Eal.bptll Fi I�nfMCpF WI Omnge County Sanitation r Baseline Schedule 005DPS15-06 SCHEDULE ID Task Name Duratlnn 'Start kiirosti Ju 1ul A.aseL.Oc11 Na,Deoxs!fek Ma A_r' J.-11AAdisetiocti Nol Qerlan jet,Me 1 Notice to Proceed 0days 1/26/17 7126117 i tr Notice to Proceed 2 Task 1-Background Developmetd 95 days 7/26/17 12/7/17 cold-Bd[kground Development ^ter 50 Task2-Geotemniral Investigation, 229 days 10119/179/13/19 Talk 2-Geutecnnital Investigation,Evaluation,Options,and Recommendations Evaluation,Options,and �Recammemiations, 95 Task3-Seismic Evaluation,Options, 194 days 12/15/179/20/1¢ Task35eismic Evalual ion,Optionz,and Petommendations Jand Recommendations 141 'Task4-Project Report 112days 9/21/13 318/19 Task4-ProjnCRepo 168 :Task S-Project Management 406days? 7/26/17 3/8/19 Task S-Project Management I PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 27 I Orange County Sanitation Distract 24 Data Review Process - Geotechnical • Identify/catalog existing information • Develop tailored investigation (CPTs and Borings) approach in TM1 to supplement existing information where needed • Develop appropriate assumptions � . PSI 6-06 TM4 Appendix C 28 Orange County Sanitation District 25 Data Review Process - Structural • Identify/catalog existing representative information for each structure • Proceed with site visits and confirm as-built information • Develop appropriate assumptions � . PSI 6-06 TM4 Appendix C 29 Orange County Sanitation District 26 Data Review Process - Surface Fault Rupture • No new field investigation planned • Use best available existing . hazard information to identify affected structures • What is the magnitude of the hazard? • Develop appropriate assumptions • Evaluate retrofit options to address the combined seismic hazards _t '4 1. PSi6-O6 TM4 AppendixC t Orange County Sanitation District Bray and Oettle, 2012 . 27 7 i`k r } i a e.' p PSI 6-06 TM4 Appendix C 31 � Orange County Sanitation District 28 Thank You '. PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 32 � Orange County Sanitation Distract 29 Combined Geotechnical & Structural Evaluation Flow Chart Strategic Planning All HazardsNulnerability/Mitigation Vulnerability Cost Estimating Prioritization CIP Development TASK 1 TASK 2 TASK 2 AND 3 TASK 4 Prepare Cost Estimate for Ground Improvement Seismic Hazard Ground e Initial VES Finalize Deformationseismic Geotechnical structural Mitiation unacceptable � Structural Mitigation Plan Evaluation Evaluation ti Structurally? Evaluation Performance 100mbign [Ions and ti meets OCSD Seismic Approach Acceptable? p Objectives? Improvement Impleme ost Estimates Develop Geotechnical Groun Investigation Improve ti Prepare Cost Estimate Conduct Retrofit/ Additional Study Replace of MIB adon ti Prepare E Meeting with OCSD Back to any step as necessary r. SCOPE OF WORK—ATTACHMENT 2 Proposed Project Meetings Z } o� Task Section Meeting General Objectives Technical Objectives Principal OCSD Participants Notes on Timing Meeting Duration c w E c c N N N U X 0° Z a Task 1 $= $= Available by Attendee Phone Discuss data gaps and Management Introduce CONSULTANT'S approach CONSULTANT'S project for either acquiring the Kick-off team; missing data or 1.5.1 Meeting establishing appropriate Project start $ # $ # $ 2 hours N Discuss scope and assumptions as well as schedule of project anticipated time impacts to the project due to data gaps. Review the various Key Plant during the course structures, stakeholder Operations and of the Plant 1 provide their priorities Maintenance development of 1.5.2 Workshop (which structure can be off Staff the TM1 $ $ $ $ $ 3 hours Y line after EC, etc.) (approximately 1- 2 months into the project.) Review the various Key Plant during the course structures, stakeholder Operations and of the provide their priorities Maintenance development of N Plant 2 (which structure can be off Staff the TM1 1.5.3 Workshop line after EC, etc.) approach and $ $ $ $ $ 3 hours Combine (approximately 1- with 1.5.2 2 months into the project.) 1.5.4 Pre TM1 Review proposed Management prior to the meeting with approach as outlined in delivery of the $ # $ # $ 2 hours Y OCSD Staff TM1 with OCSD draft of TM1 for management review Task 2 Prior to conducting Key Plant subsurface testing to Operations and Plant 1Pre- coordinate with Maintenance Prior to field 2.6.1 Investigation SANITATION DISTRICT Staff investigation $ $ 2 hours Y Workshop staff on potential interruption to operations. SOW ATTACHMENT 2 PROJECT NO. PS15.06 1 of 3 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 34 Z } Principal OCSD of Task Section Meeting General Objectives Technical Objectives participants Notes on Timing Meeting Duration c E Y C N N C C N y i x o Z' o a Prior to conducting Plant 2 Pre- subsurface testing to Key Plant N 2.6.2 Investigation coordinate with Operations and Prior to field $ $Workshop SANITATION DISTRICT Maintenance investigation with 2 hours Combine bine staff on potential Staff interruption to operations. Geotechnical team and the structural team Pre-TM2 communicate general After completion 2.6.3 Meeting with findings and alternatives Present Pre Draft TM2 Management of bulk ofanalysis, prior to $ $ $ t ? 2 hours Y OCSD Staff for soil improvements based on the identified TM2 Completion deficiencies Task 3 Plant 1 Prior to completion of Workshop to TM2/TM3 present the Management, Prior to 3.9.2 Review Draft draft findings and Present alternatives for Plant completion of $ $ $ $ $ 3 hours Y Findings incorporate comments retrofiUmitigation. Stakeholders TM2/TM3 draft former 2.6.4)includes received f Plant 2 Prior to completion of Workshop to TM2/TM3 present the Management, Prior to 3.9.3 Review Draft draft findings and Present alternatives for plant completion of $ $ $ $ $ 3 hours Y Findings incorporate comment includes s retrofiUmitigation. Stakeholders TM2/TM3 draft former 2.6.5) received 3.9.4 First TM3 TBD, prior to Informal meeting during Findings Cutler and 3.9.2 and 3.9.3 Meeting with development of Lahlou $ t $ t $ 31hours N OCSD Staff recommendations 3.9.5 Second TM3 TBD, prior to Informal meeting during Findings Cutler and 3.9.2 and 3.9.3 Meeting with development of Lahlou $ t $ t $ 3 hours N OCSD Staff recommendations Task 4 Plant 1 Pre- Obtain OCSD review and Final input on retrofit Plant 1 month prior to 4.6.1 Report input when we have our options Stakeholders TM4 draft $ t $ $ $ 3 hours Y Workshop findings SOW ATTACHMENT2 PROJECT NO. PS15.06 2 of PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 35 Z } Principal OCSD of Task Section Meeting General Objectives Technical Objectives participants Notes on Timing Meeting Duration c E Y C N N C C N y i x' oo Z a Plant 2 Pre- Obtain OCSD review and Final input on retrofit Plant 1 month prior to 4.6.2 Report input when we have our options Stakeholders TM4 draft $ t $ $ 3 hours Y Workshop findings Present the findings in Management. Plant 1 the draft technical Plant 4.6.3 Workshop to memorandum to Stakeholders Upon completion $ t $ $ t 2 hours Y Present Draft SANITATION DISTRICT of TM4 draft Findings staff and receive comments Present the findings in Management. Plant 2 the draft technical Plant 4 6 4 Workshop to memorandum to Stakeholders Upon completion $ t $ $ t 2 hours Y Present Draft SANITATION DISTRICT of TM4 draft Findings staff and receive comments Follow-up Discuss SANITATION Management 4.6.5 Meeting to DISTRICT's comments Upon receipt of $ $ 2 hours y Discuss OCSD on the draft Project TM4 comments Comments Report Informational All relevant 4.6.6 Presentation of presentation to district staff Upon report $ $ $ $ 3 hours Y Final Report SANITATION DISTRICT finalization staff SOW ATTACHMENT2 PROJECT NO. PS15.06 3 of3 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 36 OCSD PS15-06 SCHEDULE ID Task Name Duration Start IFinish Jun Jul AugSep I Oct I Nov I Dec Ian Feb I Mar I Apr IMay IJun IJul I AugSep I Oct I Nov I Dec I Jan I Feb Mar 1 Notice to Proceed 10 days 7/26/17 7/26/17 Nc tice to Proceed 2 Task 1-Background Development 95 days 7/26/17 12/7/17 Task 1-Background Development W. 3 1.1-Review Documents 35 days 7/26/17 9/12/17 1.1 Review Documents 18 1.2-Identify Data Gaps 15 days 8/23/17 9/12/17 1.2-Id antify Data Gaps W.-W 22 1.3-Develop Evaluation Approach 60 days 7/26/17 10/17/17 1.3-Devek p Evaluation Approach W. 33 1.4-Technical Memorandum 1 45 days 10/4/17 12/7/17 1.4-Technical Memorandum 1 45 1.5-Meetings/Workshops 54 days 8/15/17 10/27/17 1.5 Meetings/Workshops 50 Task 2-Geotechnical Investigation,Evaluation, 229 days 10/18/17 9/13/18 Task 2-Geotechnical Investigation,Evaluation,Options,and Recommendations Options,and Recommendations 51 2.1-Geotechnical Investigation 37 days 12/1/17 1/30/18 2.1-Geotechnical Investigation 58 2.2-Geotechnical Engineering Analysis 94 days 10/18/17 3/8/18 2.2-Geotechnical Engineering Analysis 72 2.3-Strategies to Mitigate Deficiencies and 15 days 2/23/18 3/15/18 2.3-Strategies to Mitigate Deficiencies and Geotechnical Recommendations Geotechnical Recommendations r� 76 2.4-AACEI Cost Estimate 10 days 3/9/18 3/22/18 2.4-AACEI Cost Estimate 4� 79 2.5-Technical Memorandum 2 75 days 6/1/18 9/13/18 2.5-Technical Memorandum � V 91 2.6-Meetings and Workshops 129 days 12/11/17 6/15/18 2.6-Meetings and Workshops 95 Task 3-Seismic Evaluation,Options,and 194 days 12/15/17 9/20/18 Task 3-Seismic Evaluation,Options,and Recommendations Recommendations 96 3.1-Site Visits 20 days 12/15/17 1/19/18 3.1-Site Visits 303 3.2-Identify Non-Destructive Testing 4 wks 1/22/18 2/16/18 3.2-Identify Non-Destructive Testing Date:B/14/17 Task 4^""W Summary 4^ ...W Manual Milestone Page 1 of 2 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 37 OCSD PS15-06 SCHEDULE ID Task Name Duration IStart Finish Jun Jul Au R Sep I Oct Nov Dec lan I Feb I Mar I Apr IMay IJun IJul I AugSep I Oct I Nov I Dec I Jan I Feb Mar 104 3.3-Tier 1 Evaluations 140 days 2/16/18 4112118 3.3-Tier 1 Evaluations W--- � 111 3.4-Tier 2/Tier 3 Evaluations 65 days 3/2/18 5/31/18 3.4-Tier 2/Tier 3 Evaluations �W 118 3.5-Evaluate Structures that do not Comply with 11 wks 3/16/18 5/31/18 3.5-Evaluate Structures that do not Comply with ASCE 41-13 ASCE 41-13 119 3.6-Recommend Strengthening/Retrofit 50 days 4/13/18 6/21/18 3.6-Recommend Strengthening/Retro0t Improvements Improvements 123 3.7-AACEI Class V Cost Estimates 8 wks 5/25/18 7/19/18 3.7- 7CI.- Cost Estimates 124 3.8-Technical Memorandum 3 65 days 6/22/18 9/20/18 3.6-Technical Memorandum 3 � V 136 3.9-Meetings/Workshops 27 days 6/22/18 7/30/18 3.9-Meetings/Workshops 141 Task 4-Project Report 112 days 9/21/18 3/8/19 Task 4-Project Report 142 4.1-Compile Task 1 through Task 3 Work 16 days 9/21/18 10/12/18 4.1-Compile Task l through Task 3 Work W--W 143 4.2-Geotechnical8,Structural Mitigation 30 days 10/15/18 11/27/18 4.2-Geotechnical&Structural Mitigation Recommendations. Recommendations 147 4.3-Criticality Determination and Ranking 5wks 11/28/18 1/10/19 4.3-CriticalityD termination and Ranking 148 4.4-Risk Ranking 5wks 11/28/18 1/10/19 4.4- isk Ranking 149 4.5 Project Report 55 days 12/5/18 2128/19 4.5 Project Report 161 4.6- Meetings/Workshops 51 days 12/19/18 3/8/19 4.6-Meetings/Workshpps 168 Task S-Project Management 406 days? 7/26/17 3/8/19 Task S-Project Management Date:B/14/17 Task W"' ......W Summary W.......W Manual Milestone Page 2 of 2 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 38 tV SPNI Ode tNX Geosyntec consultants FCt/X iME EnN MEETING MINUTES SUBJECT: PS15-06 Plant 1 Workshop DATE: Tuesday, October 10,2017 TIME: 2:30 p.m. PST LOCATION: OCSD Plant 1,Conference Room C MEETING ATTENDEES: Geosyntec—Chris Conkle, Chris Hunt Corolla—James Doering,Doug Lancing InfraTerra—Ahmed Nisar,Nikolay Doumbalski OCSD—Don Cutler, Mike Lahlou, Kathy Millea, Jim Spears, Jeff Mohr, Eros Yong,Nasrin Nasrollahi, Jon Bradley 1. Safety Moment a. Presented by Chris Cockle b. Topic: NFPA Fire Prevention Week 2. Meeting Objectives 3. Introductions a. Mr. Conkle introduced Geosyntec's team 4. Review Project Background/Objectives a. OCSD input regarding overall project vision: i. Project is focused on the structures, as there are already programs in place that look at other elements from a non-seismic standpoint ii. The FMP lists structures that are in the pipeline over the next 20 years Mtg Minutes-aCSD 10-10-17 $W-ae%sA J4gTtists I innovators 39 PS15-06 Plant 1 Workshop Minutes October 10,2017 Page 2 iii. This project is set up to result in rankings so that OCSD can incorporate seismic projects into the IMP priority list b. Per Mr. Cutler, within the confines of 15-06, OCSD will get a good idea of the vulnerabilities at the plants. This will inform some of the planning associated with non-15-06 projects. 5. Review Project Approach a. Structural/Geotechnical Interaction is a key project element. 6. Geotechnical Hazard Primer 7. Task 1 —Background Development Update a. Geotechnical Conditions at Plant 1 b. Structural Information at Plant 1 i. A lot of the missing information maybe foundation related. Drawings show different pile types, but not which one was actually built. 8. Stakeholder Input—Plant 1 a. Equipment failures are a significant performance concern. Though not an integral part of current scope, some qualitive comments with regard to performance of these elements may be made. b. Maintenance may have opinions on criticality of structures and their buildings. 9. Q&A Q: Are we looking at critical junctions across the site and other elements aside from the structures? A: Some elements are to be looked at under separate projects, and it not the intent of PSI 5-06 to duplicate that effort. Q: Should we identify critical junctions that need to be added to the program? For example, PEDB2 junction box: 30'x40', 25' below grade and 10' above. Pile supported. A: Geosyntec will discuss with Cutler an approach to evaluating additional example junction structures as part of this project. 10.Additional Discussion Items a. Connections between elements will be key to seismic performance.This isn't incorporated into the current scope. While detailed evaluation will not be performed some qualitive comments will be provided in PS15-06 were pp grelevant to study structures. PsengineeCSe lalsscientists I innovators 40 PS15-06 Plant 1 Workshop Minutes October 10,2017 Page 3 b. Truck Loading Facility (1-32) - should be Class I- need to get solids out of the plant. c. Should warehouse be critical structure because all parts are stored in there? Want a yellow/green tag after the earthquake. Potentially consider warehouse a Class I. d. The results of this study may not change the order of projects,but more likely may change the type of project. Attachments • PowerPoint slides from OCSD Presentation 10-10-17 • Meeting handout: OCSD PS15-06 Task 1 to 4 Approach Flowchart • Meeting handout: Structures Data Gap Summary • Meeting handout: Plant 1 Structures for Seismic Evaluation Map • Meeting handout: Plant 1 Hydraulic Flow Diagram PsengtneeCS•Ialsscientists I innovators 41 PLANT 1 WORKSHOP �► SEISMIC EVALUATION OF 1 Orange County STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & Z Sanitati nDistrict PS 15-06 1 OCTOBER 10, 2017 Fly . o ► Agenda • Safety Moment • Meeting Objectives • Introductions • Review Project Background/Objectives • Review Project Approach • Geotechnical Hazard Primer • Task 1 —Background Development Update • Geotechnical Conditions at Plant 1 • Structural Information at Plant 1 • Stakeholder Input — Plant 1 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 43 Orange County Sanitation Cistrict 2 Moment:Safety NFPA • Santa • Tubbs Fire I - PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C Photos: Kent Porter, Santa Rosa Press Democrat Orange County Sanitation Ustrict Safety Moment: Fire Safety Week Harden your home OUTSIDEIN O ® ® California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Design/Consrru<tion 4Lendscape Homeowners IDesign/ o - ° ° p.�r�mmrm�mu�oo Nmmmee.sYlm�r�mrr ° crt.un-uw,cuw.r wum zosz- ..mAe..wm+"rm.e.r..ee�rm Checklist �. r,.mmb,nla..n.rvn^Jn.e.xn.bnn,. ° mao..rrpYwNrNraw.lebmlmW ° mn�,.m.n-nobcm rim zor��mm. .A.m..re ma.mhh aar.rrm.mn.h rtm.mmR>o r,..�..,„.v,.p-".r��. www.Ara.co.gw ° BAwryv 100 rem 0.M1peWbBpea.m pW qm Yeu Awelrvvmivn.ly Jh.vmo ° ep b{A pomeu N^ How To Make Your Home Fire Safe erp} e•prM nn i�n.u.�p O CmeNer inWJWq rNhn lsl gavM1len tl�M1r xiv�J Y'uu O Nek..un Nnl eXauiemraive timefiee boa. L Ao 1n1 h-,M1n".rv"e. utl uimm Artebeernh ert imulbtlnMnnu1 q� nm ° Pemwe or a M ,-via(nn O W r&tl" J"tlu b qrr le"rvel homJ �nl �? ntl W O Wul rxm . Z ° W' Il plan m A mr nJ Yaep 2nccess btlbnanuk a aMln rtmwel /�/• � �♦ La� �� � yzS t .N �Iz cI}"0. .I'• "i < r r ° .wa r .nmmr wmaArnm mo $Yard e ea a ° sun ooev b. k.0 soy rnm.0 a prn<iA_ ne .evn w ioraetrmeptw � + i- "-T3.— `q+,� � ° mom. n r..mmam�mh.�ior.ra� unw poo ✓ia rim ma.�e< _ _ _ �Y--4r- _ '~Z� _° aaAme n..m.n�qu.nuemn,.m..w. warns�� .nrra�nrn.cpe� � -- �� m.ea ° xnmme en.rrN un.I..pA,. �� O Camrvn m3eme�nlbr no-vµ�nm 'I"fJlae.lee°e` ml°W a- - rao fou.Yanl - \` � CI tleh tl e Futl M tl Ya O Cu Ym Ifl tlepnnvun weee'/Jebry - :.e. a .Ne nm�q r r w n. .a Y � Amee d. uy tl Ib. ° A°kli"AMpn ,m nn 6Ennergency Supply ly i J A enw mmea..mw..pgh n.ne mam,. 31teef Y 1 ul"tle 1Le (CgamnA nua oml6n nrinmrt'°n emeryeM m"Ye untrhA .h r -ym/ by b.mm�aM equ menu _-.r ° mervna..e. m.nm.oe�meeh.o.mrmrmN -�w:rq:n`r"Sa..°°bp.eflvA°°pmP�mlrmr - nmheeJ1�Jma ° cbmnmmhw..mvro..rmemm ° ImpYYnpmM.nr rxa~'n em Ywr �w ° pammerrrappu.msmYm.ehw '..� ,Fiacm w® p'�A. ° eYmnm®Y.r..na me.Np.•m. eme.ommymmmnm. rya - =y .J. ra'.rwe. 9nmmeAYeertee.r lRfnamwlle.meeA ° a.1 x,— w mt,r .— mnyoweMfmury o lAe Wmp yrorymMgreelaee PSI 6-06 TM4 Appendix ux.�^r `�\ ^r°^'r^'�.•rmr^NJ'm'. 4 Meeting Objectives • Gather information regarding particular concerns at Plant 1 • Illustrate the project approach at Plant 1 • There are hazards — need smart solutions • TM1 approach that meets OCSD needs PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 46 Orange County Sanitation Cistrict 5 Introductions OCSD • Don Cutler — Project Manager • Mike Lahlou — Project Engineer • Jacobs (Technical Review) Geosyntec • Chris Conkle — Project Manager • Chris Hunt — Project Director/Hazards Carollo • James Doering — Vulnerability • Doug Lanning — Strategic Planning I nfraTerra • Ahmed Nisar — Alternatives & Recommendations PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 47 Orange County Sanitation District 6 Plant 1 Stakeholders Department Planning Kathy Millea/Eros Yong 740 Engineering Dean Fisher/Martin Dix/ 760 and Mike Dorman 770 Operations Jon Bradley/Tony Lee/ 830 and Umesh Murthy 840 Maintenance Jed Gonzales/Don Stokes 870 and 880 Risk Rich Spencer 161 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 48 Orange County Sanitation Cistrict Project Background • Recognized potential for structural and geo-seismic vulnerabilities • An overall system wide approach is needed for identifying and addressing deficiencies PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 49 Orange County Sanitation Cistrict 8 M'ah30-Year(201 J —7 e. UGERF)USGS, SCEC) a . i h\\ W i 010 �KV� P 3% �0 T Waste Water Systems Past Earthquake Performance UM r Sloshing damage to sludge Broken Tie-Down Straps— Gasholdingtanksin scraperchain rail at Tillman Larwin Tank;1994 Northridge Oshamanbe area on soft soils water reclamation plant,Van Earthquake were not damaged butthe Nuys-1994 Northridge underground piping was Earthquake damaged byground settlement-1995 Hokkaido Earthquake Damaged waterstop in Damage to scraperchain in Wood baffles afloat after aeration basin-1995 Kobe sedimentation tanks-1995 being dislodged by sloshing at Earthquake Kobe Earthquake a watertreatment plant— PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix 1964 Nigata Earthquake 51 Orange County Sanitation Cistrict Waste Water Systems Past Earthquake Performance Sedimentation basin ofthe Wood baffles damaged by Damage to overhead bridge— "Tamongawa"pumping sloshing at water 1964 Nigata Earthquake station was broken at the treatment pl ant—1964 center-1964 Nigata Nigata Earthquake Earthquake - i Gasholder (2,300 cu.m.) i nclined about 4inchesas "Nuttarr area —1964 Nigata PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C Earthquake 52 Orange County Sankation Cistrict Project Objectives • Overall PS15-06 • Develop system for addressing these vulnerabilities going forward • Apply this procedure to select structures first • Understanding of site geo-seismic hazards — Task 2 • Efficient structural assessments — Task 3 • Combined approach to the geotechnical and structural aspects to develop mitigation options/costs — Task 2/3 • Seismic CIP & Implementation Plan • Project Planning Level Costs • Project Prioritization PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 53 Orange County Sanitation District 12 What is the Overall Vision ? PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 54 Orange County Sanitation Cistrict 13 PS15-06 Outcomes Prior rojects PS15-06 Outside PS15-06 PS15-06 Seismic Future CIPs on CIP / I Non PS15-06 Implementation Facilities (Vulnerable Produces Structures) Geotechnical/ Prior PS15-06 Structural Studies Project Report Evaluations of Informs Non PS15-06 Produces Structures Evaluation of Understanding of Other System Broader Site Issues Components (Geotechnical/ (Piping, Structural) Electrical, etc.) PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 55 Orange County Sanitation Cistrict 14 Project Approach Fwlt arriva ) my $eivwic &aRme Npuls Sp In R Vues Dorumams �noa Neia-1 lnvcsligalim/ xo 1 GapsyGaps SiR Vifi4 Crelunh 1 fum[e@ GCSD Seifmic Reumenl y Oata hq Memal Yes EvAwmn Ream Gapst p xnE Srmtlurc J Clem 6mrf[n/ Na1a5i0mtion Yes Yes 9huvOim -Buil[$urvey& No No mr-0ssYiWve T:k1 aadpound DevticpmeM Yes Yes - GeWecM1nkal EvaluNion Ho Ve No 1'eilJ Anaural Evalwion w No - Critical"&awaiting rfc—tonnmiarMlon N Yes Antlurallnputb GeNmM1 Yea No Yes GeottcN lnpM to SbuMnl PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 56 Orange County Sanitation Cistrict 15 Seismic Hazards to be Evaluated? • Ground Shaking ` + ' • Other Effects • Liquefaction • Lateral Spreading • Surface Fault Rupture (Plant 2) ` Gas holder(Z300 cu. m.)inclined about 4- inches in"N uttari"area-1964 Nigata Earthquake PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 51 Orange County Sankation District 16 Ground Shaking • Cause of other hazards • Need to understand characteristic of ground motions • Effects of site conditions on shaking • Consider the effects of numerous sources/events • Amplitudeof Shaking • Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) • Most Common Measure • Frequency • Structures are very sensitive to frequency of loading • Soil Deposits act as filters PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 58 Orange County Sanitation District 17 Ground Shaking UNAM Station 0.06 0.04 0.02 Component 90 A : g 0 ar/Vwrw -0.02 -0.04 0.055 g -0.06 t : S 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 Source:GARINI,E and GAZETAS,G "M 7.1 Puebla(Mexico)19-9-17 Earthquake:A near"repeat'of the M 8.1 Earthquake of 1985 that had devastated Mexico City (19 000 deaths)"Preliminary Report Dated:25 September 2017 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 59 Orange County Sanitation District 18 Ground Shaking UNAM ------__251 30 40 Mexico Clay 1 T=1.4 sec — Natural Period of 5-10 sty structure 0e SA :g oe 0.4 0,2 0 0 OS 1 15 2 2.5 3 35 6 T:s Source:GARINI,E and GAZETAS,G "M 7.1 Puebla(Mexico)19-9-17 Earthquake:A near"repeat"of theM 8.1 Earthquakeof 1985 that had devastated Mexico City (19 000 deaths)"Preliminary Report Dated:25 September 2017 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 60 Orange County Sanitation Cistrict 19 Ground Shaking Lag PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 61 Orange County Sanitation Cistrict 20 Liquefaction • Generation of excess pore pressures under cyclic loading • Contractive Response • Rapid Loading -"Undrained" • Leads to softening of soils PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 62 Orange County Sanitation District 21 Liquefaction . s was now PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 63 Orange County Sanitation Cistrict 22 Liquefaction • Liquefaction Effects • Level Ground Liquefaction - settlement of buildings, retaining wall failure • Lateral Spreading PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 64 Orange County Sanitation District 23 Liquefaction Effects Level Ground Liquefaction — Ground Oscillation • Effects: settlement of buildings, retaining wall failure PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 65 Orange County Sanitation Cistrict Lateral Spreading Z^� \ �C `}I i r iJ PS}5-06 TM4 Appendix C 66 Orange County Sanitation Cistrict 25 Lateral Spreading — Plant 1 Digesters �. Liquefaction Damage Induced to Piles Settlement Loose Sandy Fill Santa Ana S River Lateral Sandy Soils- Spread Liquefiable 25' — — — — — — — — — — CIayS & Sllh Sands - Liquefiable 65' — — — — •L_ — Dense Sands- Unlikely to liquefy PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 67 Orange County Sanitation Cistrict 26 Liquefaction Evaluations • Is soil susceptible to liquefaction? • Can liquefaction be triggered? • If triggered , will damage occur? • What remediation is required? �+ PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix 68 1 Orange County Sanitation District 27 Na!- g T r Ii Task 1 - Geotechnical Evaluations - Plant 1 �DDEALIZED SOL MR LE A ZWEYPNOFIL 25 . r-,e-m INEAIIZED _ ��4 VIF �aLLON�E„E rnvsn- 121 B ��A ZONE AREA . 0 ZONE,(E SEf,6'LD) 0 z E2Cr-,RSET,r-,4LD) ZONE Q ZONE3(r-IWSET,I14YLD) ZONE 4(r-1P SET,VB W) \. _,. N O ZONES(10'-ti'SEf,052'lD) aaorllt LEGEND �B' •nzr,n+„CPT NUMBER FROM STUDY TOADEOFZZ- �Hwr BONNG NUMBER YYY FROM STUDY% 1e nTOADEPTNOf=Z • COMPLELE DATA SET EQ ' • MISSINGSOMEDATA • NO DATA • ❑ PSIS STRUCTURE-CIASSI - 1p ❑ PS1S STRUCTURE-CLASSII NON-PSISWSTRUCTURE Prelir�i'[ffig'�'� n-"%Based on Limited Information Z°NEBOUNZED D PROFILE ° ZONE BOUNDARY 29 Task 1 — Geotechnical Evaluations — Plant 1 31DG0 &➢GA vC01 CEWRRLP ERG ERATp BUUxNG D11 013 PROJECT: A a aoe A' 410° PRWECT19.4 N HR1 Be PR6IFCT-3P5 PRaU�10 G j MG3 PR31CC(:IW% Flm m RiQIELT:2153'S C'® GO11 PRDJELT:]0!'N PRUELT:150%5 �1 PHp1ELT:IRP MCUECT M.Ts —C'!Al GO°R Boa! R10JECT:IZ55 Wi0.1ECT.274e's RtOJECT:t-T a I G013 PNDJECi:18BZN PROJECT:]]°RS pp 60°5 p ICGWE 0012� PROJECT 1!i]'N G-0°3 pC¢I 6CCT:2➢!ZS RIDE T°II Ri�,a1aT PRDJCCP.115BN PRaEcr rotes 20 4 A �y 10 ID Z LL_ p-ID 108 0 m § p13 1 a F 40 y� CC FF -00 50 — F I i 50 "ZONE 1" I- TO M U40 I'm 2-00 Hw a00 5,00 a.cc 7-00 FDo MO 1W 1140 1240 13�00 1� 15� 161 1Td 11rb0 1940 21w8 =.DG DiSTMCE(FEET) SOILBEHAMRTVPE � ,ermEr�mam Preliminary — Based on Limited Information PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix 71 Orange County Sanitation District 0 sxnmxomi 30 Task 1 - Geote[chnical Evaluations - Plant 1 �yLr1. 6�` rrm "^ram » j e 9oIIBeMvIou TYOeiw o Vertical wMemerits 6 Lateral Anplai ments 2 01 6 UN 1 ry 1 y 1mcr � e a a t n DIPIn // Iptn -11 4' /1 2LN as:b sa4 R 2mW /ffJ U l4 14 - ht, 26 m strsa4ai+M to A A N) w !1 a a z4 x X. CIN 6tib elN t-m sb sawasadrs4 32- Cw a{iq stir 3 26 CLN 36 36 { st,r,waiaayia 38 Be - - N SV44"bsaq 50 W ZONE AREA Q 9b sawa{awi ie 42 42 zQEtl-65ET,s1n) N SM N N ZQEl(I'-1P SET,T-161D) $ $ Is '-ts1n1 ® 40 0 ZONEI(1'-1P SET, 5, m m sz1n1 S2 eNetsw6 saw 52 52 S4 sr s4 % ry ei Preliminary — Based on UN Limited Information 62 Um&,rgsaw a 62 0 2 4 6 0 W 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 0 20 40 64 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix SBT( dvtsd'etai' M) settkrErA(n) Di50IM"Wrt(n) Orange County Sanitation Cistrict 31 Task 1 — Example Structural Summary RAS PUMP STATION(FAST) -� If PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 2-3 2 1 IV BUILDING class based performance objectives almost Essentimlfo maintenance of vnsteemater flora and tmalment. Structures substardially retain original Mrengur and stiffness and oil continued acupancy and opera)ion are IikeN. structural components fonndatlon Type/Olmonslons:Basement witM1 2'mN al J'ekv(l).S Immge Sowee MlaosoBBing Maps r...brd orenQ:po.l densicmerl one M1ors(l-d'Iam,3S'bonded,46'tola1), Building Tyeri Dime ons nsi : SouM CateturePad: Date of Construction:19Z7 Retrofit(if any): Available inlormatien: d ❑Design Drawings ❑As-Buiit Drawings ❑Gen.Report 'in it ❑fkld and Site Visits ❑Specifications ❑Other - Orerational UrIily Comporenla ❑Ektlroal/vowel ❑Communication ❑Other ❑Backup Generators ❑Connecting pipes ❑Other geohazards and seismicity pun View Seismic She Chas:Class D(w/m Hyuef),cps i(with Ipal) Liquefaction potential(Nigh/MedAme):High Settlement MaBnhude: lateral Spread Displaterment: i mull Rupture potential(High/Med/ldw): Fault Rupture MabnRude: Determinism fault Name M DIM.(km)PGR ur s.m/ wm�te Nrai l irld Newport Inglewood 7.5 0 OAS I ar i"d San Antlreas 8.0 8a 0.12 probabilistic Naardlevel Sa(g) A(g) SrW + + + BSE-lE 20%in SO, 0.29 0.73 OAO tsrNgdy BSE-2E 5%in SO, OAS 1.20 0.66 a III P(W Schematic Cress Section structural assessment and failure modes Ste Visit Observations:Corrosion,cracking set tkmenl,Or. S )(allure Mmda Evalwlion Conye crime Assessment Pnge Co my Ap 73 Orange Coun[y ; Oerrnzding Shear Wal Ter( Wall(ollapse Lriskolfailure OserloatlinRGavityWall Ter( Wall(ollapu lowavriskmlfailure. 32 Task 1 — Example Structural Summary mitigation measures and costs MMpDen lwwdw coal Cemm... Geotechninl Mltiption: Structural Mitigation: Geotechniol/Structural Mitigation: Operational Mitigation: process criticality . mdundam,lmterplant.Ineapland discussion of risk ranking and prioritization NO Panun, Prioildnkion: comments and clarifications lepoa to odd.,Wdlrlonm or).-Ion or am.i/imii—m above rexyaerrnwi ROK rMIRIR E10 BE DEVEWNDI Na d n.nn.d Prelwt.nd D.M: PSI 6-06 TM4 Appendix C 74 Orange County Sanitation District Nem.tnmµIM 0 gtrunur.: 33 Task 1 — Structural Evaluations • Review Available Structural Information • Drawings • Specifications • Corrosion Assessment Reports • Seismic Evaluation Reports • Site Visit • Identify Data Gaps �+ PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix 75 �1 Orange County Sanitation District 34 Task 1 - Background Review - Structural Information Digesters / DAFTs 'f Process Buildings T Misc Structures r Basins & Clarifiers PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix Non-process Buildings Orange County Sanitation District 35 1 — Site Visit— Plant 1 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 77 Orange County Sanilation Qstricl 36 Task 1 — Site Visit— Plant 1 t PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C "ddlL 78 Orange County Sanitation District Task 1 — Structural Evaluations • Review Available Structural Information Review Project Any missing Drawings for Original information Construction ? Request/Search for Additional Identify Data Gaps Information PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 79 Orange County Sanitation Cistrict 38 Ground Deformation - Digesters , T �IIBeYnNax i}pe Vertical settlements tateraldlsplxemenu / / r�W s.4 / 0 'T,an3S Sd 0 0 2 `+ndfisiXr sent y 2 i �d 1 ' 9 4 J � ,01Q 1 9N s m08aanit sa 12, 01 t-21cros I� ,o M. t-1A Ip121 -21 �1.�� e 14 £and8silff sent 14- Q m1q N a k 0 As N 91 snd85en11 sit A m u mai t-u ti �, 72 Cry .. 24 .a :a m x y- s Cly 6s0h cly loll CIA./... to b A_ 30_ t 2 9dyrndBseM)se [lyedj ely M c,y x i 9tps ed LcaMy to N _ - ZONE AREA 4! :an08fOn 9eM. sD. 40. 9rysydasrngra ZQE1f-6sET,PID) M Card 44 ZQEl(I'-1P SET,T-1PID) 4� dS � 49- 0 ZONEI p'-1P SET,1'S lD) .1 m ro 51rn1 YNadiNOaw 2 `2 ;y. t4 q Preliminary — Based on Limited Information 0 2 4 0 8 0 12 N 16 R 0 2 1 6 8 0 .[ 40 60 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix TTQs Iweld1, 1986) $ettleselt[n) -)901aceart(n) Orange County Sanitation Cistrict 39 Digester Details • All digesters are supported on piles ' • Good rebar detailing for mosth 'k`. digesters r • Dome to wall connection • ^ * y �. • Wall to base slab connection ' b ,4 • Potentially vulnerable pile hoop - �- ' --�'- reinforcement 10 • Potentially vulnerable piping ' - connections ' PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 81 Orange County Sanitation Cistrict Digester Rebar Details �tl jw PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 82 Orange County Sanitation Cistrict Pile Damage I yy �,/ '^ i —T (a) Failure of pile head (b) Failure of pile due to due to lateral force overturning moment largeground subsidence nea rthe waterfront at the Maya Wharf District- 1995 Kobe Earthquake (c)(c) Settle (d)(d) Tlltln9� . bearing capacity turning moment II failure 7777777 7777777777777)777717 (a)Settlement due to (1) Tilting due to over- bearing capacity turning moment failure -argegap due to Liquefaction-induced PS15-06 TM4 Appendix C settlernmentof building in Por4$land— Orange County Sanitation District 1995 Kobe Earthquake Pile Damage - Lateral Spreading 7,71 1r YJ (a) Failure of pile due to (b) Failure of pile due to lateral spreading lateral spreading Damage to piles due to lateral sp mad ing- 1995 Kobe Earthquake a a IL777� 77 (c) Differential settlement (d) Differential settlement due to lateral spreading due to lateral spreading PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 84 Orange County Sanitation District Typical Pile Details j+p�Ir PI�Le DifN D0.1YlN 40. �p �6�1 6-PS'nEsg O' � I J � ^ALIGOHc eke prCl�pf� a i M PD1NT 'i I � 8 � K j1F5�V. W N�elMh p 9f (ANckETf Q ar �ry � 4118 IF D601 {� d IAA J 7I PItKVP/ Si1E5 Nb POINT y N 6-•a Tdi({ 5' • Po NT cUT PT£ ____ - 2- 5• DENT 9 M1� A ECA5T__ PIPE PILE (ST6 A ER P LEER P L- "� CONCRETE PILE Yi •�-o^ "' Hz • c-a• PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 85 Orange County Sanitation Cistrict Vulnerable Piping Details sn u9�P+a Y it r�rl� ' • _.� M19ibn .___________;J - ____________._________________ _�______________ - • u r � PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 86 Orange County Sanitation Cistrict Review Structure List Plant 1 — OCSD Input Job lndm Ma? .7— 0 C SD AT, LEGEND Qmjg Fab 6TRUGT�� it�i PCVVD- OR F5 -TW w� PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 87 Orange County Sanitation Ustrict 46 Review Structure List Plant 1 — OCSD Input A ZIXE3 rnr m PLANT 1 STRUCTURES LEGEND 1-1 Waste Sludge Thickened (DAFT)Pump Room 1-2 Blower Building(AS1)and PEPS ,a `® • " ,� 1-3 Plant Water Pump Station and Power Building6 na r M M ��, e^ em 1-4 City WaterPump Station '^ `•°`� "• Power Building ^ •aM' .^ y+-m "" ,,,, 1-6 Power Building 1-7 Power Buildings .•.". '" _ 1-8 Control Centeric n 1-9 12 W Serve Center zone+ 1-10 Central Power Generation Building m, -11 Aeration Basins 1-10 < D � v 1-12 Secondary Clarifiers 1-26 1-13 Digester M , 1-14 Digesters 5-6 Pump Room 1-15 Digester Digester Digesters 7-8 Pump Room 1-18 Digester M T-1VS 1-19 Digesters 9-10 1-20 Digesters 9-10 Pump Room 1-21 Digesters 11-16 --- LEGEND 1-22 Digesters 11-14 Pump Room .•. cvr xuxeeevvv I....x 1-23 Digesters 15-16 Pump Room 14, r°x°evrx°r zz.^ 1-24 Gas Holder e°ex°ruxeEx rvv rnou arumx 1-25 Effluent Junction Box Jimwxnerewuen 1-2 Chiller Bu ng xieexowxewu 1-27 8 Were house Building zonEs °„'," x°wre 1-2 Shop Sul l ding A 1-29 Shop Building B and 05'-zm .1.mill 1.1 1-30 Buildings 5 and 6 M•,z ® n,eaereucraec...11 1-31 Auto Shop xw.veuwereumwe 1-32 Solids Storage Facility mraue°eonxecnu xavEeaxwnr STRUCTURE FOUNDATION LEGEND �^ a•�' neexx,°o..+c°°x.,r°°x°.,i°x PS75-06 Ti Appendix C M ■ MNNE1x 88 Orange County Sanitation District ncs 47 Review Structure List Plant 1 — OCSD Input stnaoral mu 6a B xmaa listill st nrcl elate tee1 leedz rte sl Mbeners F m Xwm I I BUIIEI IlK e1363 site. "is Isis mnamon aeAsrmenta 13 9oxtt WIAIst Astiand PEPS 1 I BUIIEI eld6 e1361 P13(4 P1 site visit %le ink PER ]3 %aM Water Pump Statim ato Power loading 6 1 1 Buid 11to] site Visit File into site Ies M h osr I. ] 1 BullEl R3 3 P1-16 P133 P141 Site Vlslt 1. For ste BUIIEI to a dBYla 5 1 I Buie P13H site etit 1. N 4.d! 1 1 BUIIEI t9 In IV Servl¢@nrer 1 BullEl It site VlsX ral ewerfienenoon assole Bmlm 1-19,1 .to Veik It I. mnaitim A,-,-.hqN PIIe I.,Inset lrMb to 1'a 1 Tank tle 1. .no.l saMa mneitlm 112 e¢nEe uaxnae 11s Tank ru n erc.Bt Ale 1. in Pasts 1 I Tank It, File i. GMXim ooessmenr nk Tank alnfn veal dneliRn fnnEXlm aazmrc Tank Nle mk [uisIitio,risers[ is. Costs- Forma T.nk it.l. I,Io— Ale is. AIe is. mnnnlm wnel Pam mnEl amlElsit'VI I kell aaammm me .1 SI to llanaitim 89 Orange County Sanilatpn District 48 Action Items/Summary • Incorporate OCSD input into Approach • Next Workshop TM1 — 10/25/17 • TM1 Draft — 10/31 /17 �+ PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix 90 �1 Orange County Sanitation District 49 Thank You ! PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 91 Orange County Sanitation Cistrict 50 OCSD PS15-06 Task 1 to 4 Approach Flowchart S October 2017 Settlement Evaluate Structure Ground Cceicchnicel� site"Iodcl �Ocotechnical Or d lateral Deformation Def. No Improvement Coat Investigation Analysce Def,mm�nms Spread On ifs OK? Measures Yes Fault Rupture Key Foundation Structure? e/Capacity Seismic Response Site Response Inputs Spectra Analysis Request Plan Documents Doc Field Investigation/ No Gap" Gaps Site Visits Compile Incorpora Criticality, OCSD Seismic Document Data Tech Memo 1 Consequences Ves Evaluation Review Gaps? TM 1-3 Mitigatio &Ranking Information Measures OK Appropriate? Stuctme Classification/ Reclassification Yes rform. Yes K? As-Built Survey& No No Non-Destructive Testing Task 1 Background Development Ves Yes - Geotechnical Evaluation / \ Strengthening/ Structural / Data No Analysis Yes Finite Element/ Perform. No Tech Memo 3 Warranted?aranted? Tier 3 Analysis OK? Retrofit Structural Evaluation Improvements No - Criticality&Ranking Information Flow Direction No Yes No Structural Input to Geotech Ves No I Perform. Yes 9 � Geotech Input to Structural PV PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 92 OCSD - PSIS-06-Structure Data Gap Summary o-ith el 6mdinn ArununIDm Ga e In number Struature Name went fciaeel "Pe %a. Rill PrcM nuesSmmlBaan Leuell text: Notes 1.1 W.M Sluaee Thelon—(DAR)Pump Romen, I talked P1.16 Pla6z Ste rek Pue mm Condition assessment0 1Q Ill Build In I and PEPS 1 I eaddin PY 16 P1-361/I M 2/P1 Rw Ysit Plle Info PEPS Id Plant Water Pump 4 Ion and Manor 1116 1 I thinking PI Nees lsn Plle Into 14 -W Weser Pump SPhtmh 1 I thalik a Pl-3b1 S[e YeR It Power Buildlim x 1 1 Bulbin %9 Pl-x6 P.t Pl-VVx Nees Van 1.6 Pahoor Buibine0 1 1 Buibine P1 S[e YeR II Power Buildlim 5 1 1 thinking PI-Al 9ttVlan 1.8 GMrdf Nr 1 I Buntline 1-13.1 SIIe Nr[ I 12 W Sena¢Cener 1 I thinking PI-34x 311.Nat 1-ID Cental Pmerer Generation Bodire 1 I Buibine L191 SIIe N9[ Pile info Cxdkion Patti Plle l nt,tinter Info 1-11 Aeration Ba:IneI 10 1 I Tank PI-11 PI-363 Per No. nor Ba0les Cana n �Madd Reports for Nas.I.xl.xx, 1-I2 Sxontlary llaimi—126 1 Tank P146 Pl-36z/PLBx 33 Pile info 1-13 Ex ater5 1 I Tank P1-2 Plle Into COMItIan amoserent 1-I< pewter S Pump Room 1 I Tank P1.1 SIIe Viv[ Pile Into/eteN 1-15 Ndenter6 1 1 Tank It dame Into Cand".assessment 1-16 adindideal 1 I Tank Pi PI-3S1 Plle Into CorAbw assessment 1-17 Nithater l Pump Room 1 I Tank 111 P1-14 Sde Veit 1-1B adindider. 1 I Tank P1-30 PI-3S1 Plle Into Condition assessment 1-19 q [er910 1 I Tank 1116 1.12 Pile Into GMifim ae:eflmenl 180 adeader9 0 Pump Room 1 I Tank P1-11 SIIe onal CcedNlon Poweentim pv e 131 ..a.es 11-16 1 I Tank It. for 01.,No.13 Plle Into 132 Dito em 11-I6 Pump Room I 1 I Tank P,- t in.omit Pile into IQ3 at esters 11-16 1 Rwmx 1 1 Tank n. 3Ite let Plle Into mndamo 1-z4 6x Natler 1 I 31a.Tank 11-311 Asseeemam Re 1-25 EHloent lunamm Pox 1 I Tank P133 Plle Into leend"m meflment 186 Diller B,,Id,hg k Wildina ITd Pi he Viei[ 1-27 Wealouse imanding II Budtlm J-13 1-t.x/I Sile let 188 SM1op BoiltlineA 1 k Buildind, 1-13 P. site Voh . 5M10 Budtlin Band Builtlln 3 1 II Budtlin J-13 110/ld9/1. Site Nat 1-30 Buntlines 5 and 1 k Building 1-20 P. site Vlal 1-31 am.1h.m 1 II Paid J-12 P1 Site Nat Leann,addition on the wuNSlde/gmtllYon I-33 Salitli Storage Fatlllry 1 II lank It 312 Plle Into PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 93 a °• Vuol_: Jo b Index M a p HPANWO9 ADMINISTRATION ) METERING AND Reclamation Planl 1 _ P14 (61) DIVERSION O D J-7 (64) J-108 (12) J-5C (62) STRUCTURE (96) • J-7-1 (68) J•17-2 (96) P1-10 (63) 1-8 (71) J-35-2 J-7-2 (71) SP1995- (99) 1-7-2 (69) 1-8-3 (75) P144-1 (96) PI"e' River ci' J-7-3 (76) J•57 (00) 1-7-3 (72) PW-052 (77) P1-38-2 (97) J-7-3A (77) P1-48 (00) P1-3-1 (72) PW-055 (77) P1-38-4 (97) J-74B (79) P1-44-4 (00) P1-3-2 (82) PW-055-1 (78) P146.2 (00) SANI r PW-088 (81) SP2001-0 2(01) P1-22 (88) P1-3-2 (82) J-24 (00) n se OJNtV AT�O✓ J-74 (92) FE05-17 J-16 (89) PW-132 (85) P143 (00) 2-10-1 FE08-1 (08) FE0J-96 8 P1-38-1 (97) PI-27A (89) PI-62 W-0 (00) Esc m PI-37 1 (10) J-96 P1-38-4(97) P1-27 (89) PW-001 (01) Pi-37 (10) P1-38-4(97) J-16 (89) SP2001-02(01) c P1-482(00) J-24 (90) J-71.1 (02) o¢ y III* - Ellis Ave Ellis Ave E111• Are - - - P1-71Av100)- PI-20 (921 J-71-2 Eu�.(02) e• . , fills five _ -- r.. . PURCHASING 34-1 92 - - vse _ AND J-108 12) WAREHOUSE - __ _ ' SAFETY TRAILER - " BUILDING NO. 7 J-13(74) P1-43 (00) pW.070(}9) BUILDING NO. B J-75(00) _ sTevE A6De6soN GUARD HACK P�TTNG THE EN,\Poa o_ J-20 (90) p1-443196) FE04=03 SUN WER P1-27 89 - - 6o J-13-2R(SO) ypg-IggIJ LIFT STATION PUMP" ATION�Pt-38- (93) NORTH ENTRANCE - WASTEHAULER 3 P143 (00) P1-443(96) • - I-10B(11) __ P1-20 90 IS 1 Pi-27(89) BUILDING BUILDI�G NO. 4 y16 (89s) ':� - Pt 38 (93) _ -J408 tl21- J-108 (12) DUMPING STATION ' N0. 1 J-20 (90) J-108 (12) HUMAN - HEADW RKS ( - 1" -- 1 7 3 p2) P7-44-3 (96) _ / J-35-2 (96) J-20 (90I - NO. 2 - P1-27 (89) RESOURCES JJ�� P1=43 P1-43 •(96) SP20(001 _ 012 SHOP ( )� ( JI _. P1742 (96) Z- DUMPING P1-27-1 (91) LEGEND SP2000-22101) - J 11 (71) 44ff' P1;42 96 P1-62 (00) • spi9 (00) BUILDING • ,P1) PW-073 81 • ( ) I-108 (11) • • PORTS P1-27-2191) ear SP1995-63(00) NO. 3 (99) PW111- 83 / J 35-2 _(96) P1-481 (00) J- O ' (90)., (96) J11R1 ---_(85) Pi - (97) �� le • P1-51 (00) (96) J 3 .2 (98) J-71-3 (06) SP2000-22(01) P1221 (87) / lAIF � CONTRACTS -22(01) J14 (97) Pi 3 (00) qJ • SCRUBBERS •BUILDINGB BUILDINGA -22(01) P1- • 9 & 10 ADMINISTRATION SP199615190) - CHL R NEE05-3302(01) • P7-71 (11) J;13 (81) J 13 IV) J42(04)LJ FE05-33 -- 05 _ J 11 (00' STATION P1-38-2(00) • PUMPING STATION PW-089 (81) pW-,gq g7 - ( ) - PUMPING STATION ( ) J 0 1 `06) CHAMBER RAG ROOM J-35 (00) Pt-27-2(00) J�16 (89) J 17-2T 96 FE05-17 P1- 2 (82) P1-20 J-71-7 (00) o P R1-44-3 (96) J i6 96 -- - -- FE0542 O6 FE07-29 OB SP1999-47(99) p,-qq-g7(g'g; l ' - .. 1 1 ( ' - / OCSD STRUCTURES SP2000-22(01) ^ PW- 85 S3 HEADWORKS 2 BUILDING SP2001-02 01 P1-20 (96) • ( ) .CHAM ER • J-35-2196) /.• �V� 11 NOS: 2 J-59 03 - CITY WATER ( ) LABORATORY HEADWO KS 1 \/ 11 1-20 (90) WASTE SIDESTREAM r J-17 • (92) ,�/ -P1-13 ( 5) • �e •� PUMP STATION Pi-443(96) a PUMP STATION - J-17-2 (96) - P1-3-112) f� _ j - Pi-34-1 (92) ; o Pi-43 (00) BUILDING NO. 5 BUILDING No. 6 SP1995-67(98) ARy - • (� L P1-38-1 (97) vi CJ-20 (90) J+2090) • � . . .-- J-58- (05) . - PRIMARY - *jr FOUL AIR/ CHEMICAL Pt-443 (96) p,.gq.g 9`g) J-57r--(00). - WER CLAR FIERS CLARI FIER-3 ~ • CHILLER- t • • 1R HANDLING FACILITY Pt_48�(00) PW-144(57) CONTR FE04-15 (04) BUI DING4 3 4 ' P1=1 57) BUILDING I `•le / P1-20 POWER OTHER STRUCTURES SP2000-22'(01) - -Pi-33 (92) FE05-26(05) Pi- 2-1 87 PUM ROOM PIAR-1 (72) J-74 (92)POOCC44MER - - Pi-34-1 (89) CENT R ( ) BUILDING 62 P7-40 (00) J-23-1 - 3 J-96 S p,- 2 PI-24R (86) Pi-38-3 (97)FACI FACILITY -CHLORINE Pi-34-3 (96) - ( 1 Iggl --BUILDING - Pi-42 P1-22 (88) P1-62 (00) P1-40-2 (00) J-23-2 ( 5) J-96 P1- 3R (89) PI-24R (B6) SP2004 (01) P1-3- (72) - �� (97) _ P1-20 P1-25 (90) SP2000-22(01) p,-3-1 72 TUNNEL 6 PW-OBS (83) - Pi-3-7 IgOI FE02-15(02) PE 37-(10) J-17-2 ( fi) P,1 Ail (93 PRI ARY ( 1 FE03-24 P1-41-1 94 --PW-OBS-1 64 J-71-7 00 PROCESS J-19-1 (9q) FE04-O510q) 1 P1-40-2 ( 0) -P'1- 4-1 (93) CLA El 4 ( 1 -- ( 1 /�� ( 1 J-23-2 (95) FE05-30(05) i 0 - P1-48 0 - J-1 1 94 P1-38-2 (97) _._ -P1-38-2 (00) P7-03 (00) CONTROLS/ ( ) ( ) ' DIGESTER 16 y17.2 gg o - P1-1 �51 p (001 - J-35 - (00) J-53 (00) INFORMATION ( ) J-33-1A (11) STRUCTURES ' - - J-57 ( • J-1 2 (00) P1-1R-1 72 DISTRIBUTION BUILDING H -` Pi-34-3(93) - P1-44-1 (96) P1-71 (11) P e 0 - Pt-37 (10)- • Pi 3 (00) ( 1 P1 37 (10) J -3 (00) TECHNOLOGY PW-134 (86) -� BOX P1-4 (61) W P1-38-2(93) P1ll. 00 J-338-4197) J-79-1 (12) J-79-1 (12) - FEO -15(02) PRIMARY ( P1-48-1 (96) J-33-2 98 P1-24R (B6) CLARIFIERS P1-34=1 (92) SP2001-0 01 ( ) FE04-05 PRIMARY CLARIFIERS - J-108 (12) FEB -31.(05) •, J Z P1-100 (00) ( , E-265A (96) P,.43 INCLUDED I N FE05-32 ~ J-3 1A 09 P1-25 •,90) • SAND 31 P7-45-(00) (14) (Og) 100I FE05-30 v N 6 THROUGH 15 r ( 1 .al SWDGE M-044 (97) J FE07-08 __ Pi- 7 10 P1-41-1 (94) ,• FE04-05 F- P1-33 (93) CARTz ( ) P1-38-2 (97) = PUMP ROOM/ FE05-17 • DIGESTERS 15 & 16 _ Z SP1996-59(96) FE09-17 • 1 = P1 38 4 97 = ELECTRICAL , STUDY (BUILT BUILDING 1n ( ) BUILDING PUMP ROOM i. z P7-42 (96) PR'dARY • P2-48 (00) �e P1.11 (74) {P 1 E P1-48 (00) POLYMER J-23-1 (83) N - Pt=37- 10 PW-07479 Pt-22' (80) DIGESTER15 BEFORE 2001 ) P7-38-5 (00) - `I TUNNEL 14 ( 1 ( ) (OLD) OPE IONS i FACILITY P1-24 (82) J-33-1A109) /Pi-34-3(89) / P: p,_37 (10) PRIMARY • 11 CONTROL CENTER P1-33 (92) SCRUBBERS P1-24 (86)/ /"-i �o Pi-38-2r(93) J-36 (11) Pi-38-4 (97) P1-25 (90) CLARIFIER 5 PI-24R (86) DIGESTER 12 Pi-48 (00) J-5A (62) P1-1, (86) J5C (62) STRUCTURES NOT 1 Pi-40-2 (00) P1-33 (92) P1-23R'(89) 4i Pi-100 (14) rnrv,n pre P1-38-2(97) PW-134186) P1-34-3 (93) Pi-48 (00) • PI-3S-4 (97 w0 POW R 2 J-5B (63) TUNNEL 14 SP1999-75 01 P1-38-4 97 Pi-24R (86) P1-38�2 (97) 2 P1-8 (63) 1 1 1 1 P1'-38-2 , BUILDI G S J Pi-PI 10 P1482 00 Pi-25 (90) P1-48 (00) A, Pi-i6 (78) f ) ( ) P1-37` (10) 4/ P1-U (92) (88j P143 (00) P1.38.2 (93) P1-33 ` 89 • P1-100 (14) CENTRAL POWER Pi-22 3J717.2 (96) INCLUDED IN STUDY PI-37 00 P2-41-1 (00) DIGESTER 6 ,� ( ) DIGES ER 14 GENERATION BUILDING SP7995-72(96) ani PB 7 P1-37 (10) P2-46 (00) G SP1995-76 6 P1-34- (89) Pi-38-4 (97) pg 8 FE06-03(06) P1-5 (62) *1' ) DIGESTERS l P1-381 (93) FE05-32(05) J 96 _ Pi-37 P7-37 (10)/PW-061 (80) yl1` P1-43 (00 11-14 ` Pi-38- (97) J-19-1 (94) J-79-1A (08) BUT BUILT BEFORE (08) Pi-76(09) �� / P4-100 A (14 Pi-48 (00)� J-17,:4 96 J-33-1A 09 0 o FE07-29 (OS) �� FE06-03� PW-0 �(87) 1 PUMP ROOM ( ) ( ) _ PW-061 R-1 (87) � • V/� DIGESTER P1-10o (1a) P1;382 (00) P7-37 (70) TR P1-38-4 (97) FLARE' 2= 'P7=343-(93), P1-40-2R (00) P7-97 (11) 2001 m o PRIMARY FILTER STATION P • P1-100 •(14 W P7 48(�0) '�J RI-4a 2(00 J-5 (00' J-79-0 (14 DIGEST 5 & 6 1 (_t� PUMP OOM /J-57 00 P7-100 74 CLARIFIERS _ \ \ J57 (00) DIGESTER13 SP1996-49(00) FE05-19 P1-76 j091 \/• 16-31 *PEJ .(J� - • P7-100 (14) P1.34-3 (83) P1-37 (10) - DI ESTERS'. Pt-38-2 (93) - FE06-02(07) DIGESTERS Taa DIGEST P1-48 GAS *TFEB PU PROOM b p,-,g ,q TRICKLING FILTER TRICKLING FILTER ��ILER\ . \ P7 2 (59) P1.14 (70) ( 1 COMPRESSOR NO 2 NO. 1 BUILDING PW 061 (So) J-16 (891) Qr� BUILDING r P1-76109) P1-9 (64) P1-20 (90) Pl-38 4R 1 (8. P1-36-1 (97) 22 DIGES GAS HOLDER Pi-34-1 (92) J-79-1 (12) - (93) P1-38-4(97) J P1-38-2(93) P1-76(09) Pi-100 (14) • • P1-100 14 A P1-16 17 ) E� ( ) P1-341 (00) PI-9 �� (89)4 J-35 (00) Pi-9-1 *TFSE JB-1 TRAN IF �� ATV P1.35.2193� 1428 STATI N C 4J DIGES ER 7 '�'hF J-35 (00) Pi-16 (78) • //��P1.9 (64) 7? P'I-'100 (14) SOUTH PI-37 TUNNEL - PW-O66-2(90) pO'�yM ER 1J-16 • l8gli i Pi-34-2 (91) • P1.35-1 (90) STORAGE / DEWATERING Pi-7-2 (94) SP2001- 2 01 o BED NO.I I AREA BUILDING C _ e6o No.1 SECONDARY SECONDARY DEWA �Pi-100 (14) DIGESTER �9 & 10 l P7-106(09) CLARIFIER CLARIFIER BUILDING M P7-38?(97) DIGES ER 9 PUMP R OM Pi-7-1 (62) PW-066-2(90) SAWDUST P7-22 (88) b P7-101 STORAGE NOD2 NO. 1 P7-r19 (82) Pi-38-4(r ) w P1-16• Pi-7-2(94)J-23-2 (95) P1.9 (64) Pi-9 (64) P7 79-2 (83):Pi-44-4(00) • _h w J-16 (89) Pi-15 (71) P7-44-4 (00) PW;107184) Pi-43 (00) 'tiF 2 P1-35-2 (93)?.- Pi-i6 (76) P1-43 (00) DE RING I P1-76109) SLUDG ISCUM Pi-76(09) (. a N'01 DEWATERING BED J-36 (11) PUMP TATION J-36 (11) P1721 (85)J.71-3 (06) ?q J2 P1-1�) Pi•18 (82)J-71-3 (06) P1 34-2 91 Pi-21 88 P1-- Ofi(09)� N 6( Pi- 6(09) � - (95) 1 " J-16 (891 p1101 RED LABELS INDICATE STRUCTURE NAME p,. 0, P1-106(09) / /J-23-2 (95) BARE• SCRUBBERS ( 1 IJ TRUCK AWK AW SH • P1-101 - • / TRANSFER • P1-21 (88) STATION BUILDING STATION M Gag J-7+-7(03) BLUE LABELS INDICATE JUNCTION BOX NAME P7-106(09) J-16 (89)Pi-51 (00) *JB-3 *JB-B Pt-342191) V • LODGE FEED P1-101 J-23 (89)Pi-44- (00) W PUMPS J-23-2 (91)Pi-36- (00) "J-87 COMPRESSED *JB C = Pi-21 (88) P7-36-1 (93)J33-1 ! NG STATION - • BLACK & p,_gg_q (gg)p,•gy („) �15GDs V. POWER LABELS INDICATE PROJECT NUMBER *PEDB J-19-1 (94)Pi-102 (]1) �PAD� • BUILDING PEJj1 ,a WHITE cmam j STORAGE J-23-2 (95)FE0443 TRANS_ORMER b P1.9 (64) g 6 BLOWER BUILDING `PEPS-2 SP1995-20(96) I FACILITY I P,-16 (78) � LABELS INDICATE OCWD STRUCTURE P1-34-2 (00) NAME I - ° P1-102(11) JB P1-40-2 (00) Z Pi-22 (88) • - 0 a TUNNEL-2S *JB-5 W z J-16 (89)- - TUNNEL30 *JB-4 z F J-19.1 (94) GOLD & OO TUNNELI7 z P144-1 _(96) - - LABELS INDICATE TUNNEL NAMES 0 00 - AER�N - - ~ P143 (00) - y BLACK GO BASINS - - - FE05-29(05)- AERATION BASINS J-33-IA (09)- 111-181-10 PI-100 . 14 `1 ' °P1�10z(11) ° , P1-16 (fie) 1 ) \ ABBREV DESCRIPTION evil P7-36-2 (00) a c6 • : : 2 : m m m PUMP" FE03J1 (633) *GWRS GROUND WATER REPLINISHMENT SYSTEM ' Z m STATION J57 '(O�j III BLEACH - F z ATION. P1-zz (aa, P1-az (a1)' F [JS18T7 (02) JB JUNCTION BOX *RASP -102(11) J-17-2 96 Pi-76 P1462 (00) BLEACH *PB POWER BUILDING ------- � P1=52 (11) STATION ��*WSSPS P1-102!(11) f NO. 2 _ _ TFSE JB-z PEDB PRIMARY EFFLUENT DISTRIBUTION BOX J P1-102(11) ruNNEL zo _ *PEJB PRIMARY EFFLUENT JUNCTION BOX SECONDARY -- �\ POLYMER FUTURE CLARIFIER �O�C / THICKENER DAFT DAFT DA i J rrr SECONDARY 2 3 *PEPS PRIMARY EFFLUENT PUMP STATION CLAR FIER SECONDARY NO. 27 FACILITY / Egret Ave CLARIFIER Pi-102 (11) P1-36-2 (00) 1 ND. 26 ELECTRICAL - BUILDING WASTE SLUDGE *RAS RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE w-1D2(11) i'!'N THICKNERS (DAFT) ENGINEERING • NN PUMP ROOM TRAILER F JJ *SEJB SECONDARY EFFLUENT JUNCTION BOX J-36 (11) ENGINEERING zz J DAFT DAFT DARFT P1:18 �82� *TFEB TRICKLING FILTER EFFLUENT BOX TRAILER Ezz u J-36(11) W �J-16 (69) FUTURE SECONDARY ~~ z POWER J-17.2 (96) SECONDARY CLARIFIER SECONDARY CLARIFIERS BUILDING 6 P1-36-2 (00) CLARIFIER W NO. 29 *GWRS 1_y4 ~ Pi-34-2 (91) SP-94 (07) - "' *TFSE TRICKLING FILTER SECONDARY EFLUENT z J-19-1 (94) J-33-1A (09) NO. 30 z P1-102 11 METER P1.16 (768 ( ) J-17-2 (96) - FE02-23(02) g F VAULT PW-072 n9) SP1995-76 97 FE02-54(02) - ) P1-102 (11) WSSPS WASTE SIDESTREAM PUMP STATION Y Pi-16 (82) Pi-38-2 (97) p E�1tECTRICAL J-16 (89) O 3 ROOM JJ6(11)= J576 2 (04) P1-43-- (00) + TUNNEL 28 .4 Pi-36-2. (00) Q SEJB-3 J-67 (07 Sp-94 - (07) Irvx• n GWRS o *SEJB-2 FE02-23(02) • PLANT WATER �. DISCLAIMER Tear Cie SECONDARY SCREENING P7-82 71 r SECONDARY 4 ) CLARIFIER FACILITIES PUMP STATION Map prepared b Orange Count Sanitation District. CLARIFIER Y 9 Y NO. 31 P1.76(09) P1-19 (74) This ma Is intended for graphical representation only. No level NO. 32 J-36 (11) *dB-A Pi-19: (82) P 9 P P Y Pi-102 11 P1-102(11) -Pi-21 1 ) (sa) of accuracy is claimed for the base mapping shown hereon and Pi-34-2(91) graphics should not be used to obtain coordinate values, bearings No.9 Pi-43 PUMP ROOM PROJECT LIST , or distances. Portions of this derived product contain geographical P,-102(0066) / " information copyrighted by Thomas Brothers. All Rights Reserved. �J *SEJB-1i DIGESTERS AND 6 PUMP ROOM DIGESTERS AND 8 PUMP ROOM DIGESTERS AND 10 PUMP ROOM DIGESTER1Se 1slHROUGH 14 *SEJB-5 • *SEJB PI-2 PI-9(64) PI-16 VS) P1414.3(93) .Source: SECONDARY SECONDARY 1sc(6z) P31apo) P3-1aPz) J38-2(9)) OCSD GIS Data, Blue Book (CIP Database), Drawing Access System, CLARIFIER CLARIFIER SECONDARY'CLARIFIERS PWo61(80) PI-18(82) P1-354(93) - 1-57(00) ThomasBrother� 2010, NO. 34 NO. 33 25 & 26 Plas(az) P335-1(90) 1.234(95) P1-100I1Q ;. ENGINEERING Pl-102(11) p�-10211�) p1-52y11) PW4161R-1Ia7) Plaoo(Ia) PI-Ioo(14) TRAILER ENGINEERING *SEJB-4 J-36 (11) a J-90 (05) TRAILER D ! Pl-21(a8) _ SEJB-6 FE07-12108) -� - i 1-23-2(95) _ over n, P7-97 '(11)• • OCWD-GAP 17 KV-DISTRIBUTION ENGINEERING PUMP STATION P3-38-2(97) - TRAILER B 12 KV SERVICE Pi-36-2(00) CENTER PI1oo(14) J-90 (05) EAST66KV CENTER 'SEJB-7 p,-22 (88) a FE07-12 (08) OPERATING Pi-34-2(91) • • J-19-1�,94) P1.33 (92) P1-44-1 (96) BUS J-18'1 (94) J-16 (89) DIGESTERS IS AND Ifi PRIMARY CLARIFIER 3-4 PUMP ROOM P197(11) P,•43 (00) P1-34-3(93) PI-1(57) - J57 (11) L /r- PI-100(14I Gisler Ave )-SC(62) Gi ziu Ave C r A- PI-97 (11) �_ i PIaR-I Pz) ,g571 _ PI-I8(82) Garaere Ave Garfield Ave Garfield Ave PW104(85) nr,rrrrri r..r a.,. : PI-24R(86) PW-134(86) EFFLUENT N JUNCTION BOX 1-6.1 (66) P1-33(92) J-876(03) ve J-67 (07) 1-9 (93) 0 60 120 240 360 480 Feet PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 2 UPDATED : JA N U A RY 2017 Sources:Esri,HERE, DeLonne,USGS, Intennap,increment P Corp.,NRCAN, Esd Japan, ME 54 R q gg a Rr� q J e r _ 1 _ _ 1 _ i r AR o 11 � aa � 6a � � a w M RSION DAIS: 04-01-2014 yry � PLANT NO. 1 2012 HYDRAULIC FLOW SCHEMATIC a jgQ Orange County Sanitation District 4z eqj° PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 95 elV SPNI O� rNry Geosyntec consultants FCt/ry iME EeN MEETING MINUTES SUBJECT: PS15-06 Plant 2 Workshop DATE: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 TIME: 10:00 a.m. PST LOCATION: OCSD Plant 2,Ops Center Training and Conference Room MEETING ATTENDEES: Geosyntec—Chris Crinkle, Chris Hunt Corolla—James Doering,Doug Lanning InfraTerra—Ahmed Nisar,Nikolay Doumbalski OCSD — Don Cutler, Mike Lahlou, Jeff Mohr, Eros Yong, Nasrin Nasrollahi, Tony Lee, Martin Dix 1. Safety Moment a. Presented by Chris Crinkle b. Topic: Strokes 2. Meeting Objectives 3. Introductions a. Mr. Conkle introduced Geosyntec's team 4. Review Project Background/Objectives 5. Review Project Approach 6. Geotechnical Hazard Primer 7. Task 1 —Background Development Update a. Geotechnical Conditions at Plant 2 Mix Minutes-aCSD 10-11-17 $W-a4% 1 J4g cntists I innovators 96 PS15-06 Plant 2 Workshop Minutes October 112017 Page 2 i. P2-98 will be available within a few weeks. ii. Upcoming fault study evaluation. b. Structural Information at Plant 2 i. There's a lot of information on P2-89 regarding some of the DAFTs. Looked at structural issues,but not at the soil issues. 8. Stakeholder Input—Plant 2 a. MAC building is currently empty, but connected to PEPS building. It may be used for storage or other maintenance function. 9. Q&A Q: Do we need to look at outfalls as part of this study? A: The group decided that outfall didn't need to be included in the study. Q: Can we get a condition assessment for structures that don't currently have them? Can reliability group develop them? A: A meeting with the corrosion/condition assessment engineers will be scheduled Q: Can gas holder be Class II? They can run the gas compressor directly if necessary. A: Could potentially make it Class 11,but best to keep it Class I. Q: How do the analyses we do and the "regional" geohazards we develop provide qualitative input on other facilities that are not in scope? A: The study will give OCSD a good idea of the vulnerabilities at the plants. This will inform some of the planning associated with non-15-06 projects. PsengtneeCSe lalsscientists I innovators 87 PS15-06 Plant 2 Workshop Minutes October 112017 Page 3 10.Other Discussion Items a. What are operational lessons from other earthquakes?How long does it take to get back online? b. Include on section on Summary Sheet for other influenced structures. c. OOBS building probably needs to be added to the building list, critical to water in/water out. d. Truck loading needs to move to Class I. e. There hasn't been significant emergency repair planning by the Engineering department. Attachments • PowerPoint slides from OCSD Presentation 10-11-17 • Meeting handout: OCSD PS15-06 Task 1 to 4 Approach Flowchart • Meeting handout: Structures Data Gap Summary • Meeting handout: Plant 2 Structures for Seismic Evaluation Map • Meeting handout: Plant 2 Hydraulic Flow Diagram • Meeting handout: Scope of Work-Attachment 1,Proposed Structures Classification and Proposed Seismic Evaluation Approach PsengineeCSI• alssc 9a scientists I innovators PLANT 2 WORKSHOP SEISMIC EVALUATION OF Orange County STRUCTURES AT PLANTS' 1' & 2 Sanitation District PS 15-06 OCTOBER 11 , 2017 F � t , X. Safety Moment: Strokes - "Time is Brain" • For every hour without treatment, the brain effectively ages by 3.6 years • Stoke Causes Ed Yong: First response:Race against time Nature 510, S5 • caused by a clot (85%) (26 June 2014) • burst blood vessel (15%) • Use tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) to dissolve a clot • UCLA and the City of Santa Monica Fire Department - first mobile stroke unit in California • Mobile CT Scanner / Telemedicine • Shorten treatment time from 3 hours to 90 mins • Remember "FAST" to get treatment started �,.wlo SFfON I I i I AMBU ANCE 90 - MOLIIe 5 x.."rXen°roww Safety Moment: Strokes - "Time is Brain" SPOT A STROKE F A S ,r y O Q FACE ARMS SPEECH TIME ONE SID{ OE I I If ARM OR LEG SPEECH MET ICULTy TIME TO CALL FACE IS DROOPING WEAKNESS FOR AMBULANCE IMMEDIATELY CALL 911 IMMEDIATELY PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 101 Orange County Sanitation District 3 Agenda • Safety Moment • Meeting Objectives • Introductions • Review Project Background/Objectives • Review Project Approach • Geotechnical Hazard Primer • Task 1 —Background Development Update • Geotechnical Conditions at Plant 2 • Structural Information at Plant 2 • Stakeholder Input — Plant 2 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 102 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 4 Meeting Objectives • Gather information regarding particular concerns at Plant 2 • Illustrate the project approach at Plant 2 • There are hazards — need smart solutions • TM1 approach that meets OCSD needs PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 103 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 5 Introductions OCSD • Don Cutler — Project Manager • Mike Lahlou — Project Engineer • Jacobs (Technical Review) Geosyntec • Chris Conkle — Project Manager • Chris Hunt — Project Director/Hazards Carollo • James Doering — Vulnerability • Doug Lanning — Strategic Planning InfraTerra • Ahmed Nisar — Alternatives & Recommendations PSI Orange Co TM4 Appendix D 104 Orange County Sanitation District 6 Plant 1 Stakeholders Department Opp Planning Kathy Millea/Eros Yong 740 Engineering Dean Fisher/Martin Dix/ 760 and Mike Dorman 770 Operations Jon Bradley/Tony Lee/ 830 and Umesh Murthy 840 Maintenance Jed Gonzales/Don Stokes 870 and 880 Risk Rich Spencer 161 PS15 06 TMn Appendix C 105 Project Background • Recognized potential for structural and geo-seismic vulnerabilities • An overall system wide approach is needed for identifying and addressing deficiencies PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 106 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 8 1 / o N (� � O O M NE : ( ° 0 t�0 „t \0" N • i / 10 V Waste Water Systems Past Earthquake Performance ny*``C • ''moo b Sloshing damage to sludge Broken Tie-Down Straps— Gas holding tanks in scraper chain rail at Tillman Larwin Tank;1994 Northridge Oshamanbe area on soft soils water reclamation plant,Van Earthquake were not damaged but the Nuys—1994 Northridge underground piping was Earthquake damaged by ground settlement—1995 Hokkaido Earthquake Damaged water stop in Damage to scraper chain in Wood baffles afloat after aeration basin—1995 Kobe sedimentation tanks—1995 being dislodged by sloshing at Earthquake Kobe Earthquake a water treatment plant- - PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix 1964 Nigata Earthquake 108 Orange County Sanitation District Waste Water Systems Past Earthquake Performance Sedimentation basin of the Wood baffles damaged by Damage to overhead bridge— "Tamongawa"pumping sloshing at a water 1964 Nigata Earthquake station was broken at the treatment plant—1964 center—1964 Nigata Nigata Earthquake Earthquake -1;� Gasholder '- (2,300 cu. m.) inclined about 4-inches as "Nuttari"area —1964 Nigata PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C Earthquake 109 Orange County Sanitation District Project Objectives • Overall PS15-06 • Develop system for addressing these vulnerabilities going forward • Apply this procedure to select structures first • Understanding of site geo-seismic hazards — Task 2 • Efficient structural assessments — Task 3 • Combined approach to the geotechnical and structural aspects to develop mitigation options/costs — Task 2/3 • Seismic CIP & Implementation Plan • Project Planning Level Costs • Project Prioritization PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 110 Orange County Sanitation District 12 What is the 0 0 Overall Vision ? PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 111 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 13 PS15-06 Outcomes Prior Projects PS15-06 Outside PS15-06 PS15-06 Seismic Future CIPs on CIP / Non PS15-06 Implementation Facilities (Vulnerable Produces Structures) Geotechnical/ Prior P515-06 Structural Studies Project Report Evaluations of Informs Non PS15-06 Produces Structures Evaluation of Understanding of Other System Broader Site Issues Components (Geotechnical/ (Piping, Structural) Electrical, etc.) PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 112 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 14 Project Approach GWmrm late She MOEM Ye pan Ferudan-, Arunure, oure, tyuen Fill � 77 W[umem: ~oo[ Reld'�InvestiynllMt No sap:y eap: su1vlene CCSU Selemc Ox New tree, _y ' Tech Memo Yea EWWwn Re Go 1p\e?\ yCloi 0.alrorififlf Vai Yes No No Tank Background Development Yes Yea - Geole[M1nl[a1 Evaluation No No iat3 ---ural Nalu,lon No ® Charming.came, mmrma(tn lmw preen, No Y. Structural In W[No Ge,e[N Yas NO You Ge,eth Input to Structural PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 113 Orange County Sanitation District 15 Seismic Hazards to be Evaluated? • Ground Shaking • Other Effects • Liquefaction • Lateral Spreading - 1, ; • Surface Fault Rupture (Plant 2) ' Gas holder(2,300 cu. on.) inclined about 4- inches in "Nuttari"area—1964 Nigata Earthquake PS15-06 TM4 Appendix C 114 Orange County Sanitation District 16 Ground Shaking • Cause of other hazards • Need to understand characteristic of ground motions • Effects of site conditions on shaking • Consider the effects of numerous sources/events • Amplitude of Shaking • Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) • Most Common Measure • Frequency • Structures are very sensitive to frequency of loading • Soil Deposits act as filters PSI Orange CS TM4 Appendix D 715 Orange County Sanitation District 17 Ground Shaking UNAM Station 0.06 0.04 0.02 Component 90 A : g o Mry v Mti /u di/w✓� -0.02 -0.04 0.055 g -0.06 t : S 60 70 60 90 100 110 120 130 140 Source:GARINI, E and GAZETAS,G "M 7.1 Puebla (Mexico) 19-9-17 Earthquake:A near"repeat'of the M 8.1 Earthquake of 1985 that had devastated Mexico City (19 000 deaths)" Preliminary Report Dated: 25 September 2017 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 116 Orange County Sanitation District 18 Ground Shaking UNAM 25 30 40 1 Mexico clay 1 T=1.4 sec — Natural Period of 5-10 sty structure 09 SA : 9 0.6 04 02 0 0 ns t 1.5 2 25 3 3.5 4 T: 5 Source:GARINI, E and GAZETAS,G "M 7.1 Puebla (Mexico) 19-9-17 Earthquake:A near"repeat'of the M 8.1 Earthquake of 1985 that had devastated Mexico City (19 000 deaths)" Preliminary Report Dated: 25 September 2017 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 117 Orange County Sanitation District 19 Ground Shaking ' 1 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 1 t A Orange County Sanitation Distnct Liquefaction • Generation of excess pore pressures under cyclic loading • Contractive Response • Rapid Loading "Undrained" • Leads to softening of soils PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C iJ Orange County Sanitation Distnct Liquefaction . . ■ ow . . . PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 120 Orange County Sanitation Distnct Liquefaction • Liquefaction Effects • Level Ground Liquefaction - settlement of buildings, retaining wall failure • Lateral Spreading PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 121 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 23 Liquefaction Effects Level Ground Liquefaction — Ground Oscillation • Effects: settlement of buildings, retaining wall failure PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 122 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 24 Lateral Spreading PS15-06 TM4 Appendix C 123 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 25 Lateral Spreading — Plant 1 Digesters Liquefaction Damage Induced to Piles Settlement Loose Sandy Fill Santa Ana River Lateral Sandy Solis- Spread Liquefiable 25' — — — — — — — — - — 0 Clays & Silts 50' Sands - Liquefiable Dense Sands- Unlikely to Liquefy PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 124 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 26 Liquefaction Evaluations • Is soil susceptible to liquefaction? • Can liquefaction be triggered? • If triggered, will damage occur? • What remediation is required? PSI Orange Co TM4 Appendix D 125 Orange County Sanitation District 27 Surface Fault Rupture — Plant 2 Strike-Slip Fault Rot laleial • Use best available existing SK&S hazard information to identify affected structures Y • From Previous Studies C • Estimate the magnitude of the hazard • From Previous Studies • Develop appropriate offset I demand for structures • PS15-06 • Evaluate retrofit options to address the combined , seismic hazards • PS15-06 PS15-06 TW Appendix C Y'ti Orange County Sanitation District Bray and Oettle, 2012 28 Surface Fault Rupture — Plant 2 • General Mitigation Strategies • Diffuse rupture with ductile fill or soil • Create rigid body movement with thick mat foundation and isolation • Divert / deflect movement with ground improvement, subsurface walls, anchors, etc. • Retrofit structure to handle max soil loads without failing 'W. Source:GEER/NSF M7.0 Kumamoto Earthquake Reconnaissance(Oettle,2016) PS15-06 TM4 Appendix C 127 Orange County Sanitation District 29 _ y a ww-\\ \\\ \\� \ � . o � CAL\FOR•N�P'--- \����\\\,.. T 4 ��� •4 Task — Background Review — Plant � 2 - . {�� � � °\ 3 ^ : x \ . Omng._,___, - 31 Task 1 — Geotechnical Evaluations — Plant 2 PL ZGWO MI fPfV nN_ � A l0�' A '_l Lmy � � _ MVE611GANlFGENG — IXEI 1Q 9 13 PIAMt2 nMEl IFGEMG AEIx�LZAnr£ ` 9✓w _F7Dnesi.—ems � , -- son esxnvxMTme LE(1EMLI � � ®�� scueMFEEr SSV) i m • xISMICCPInxoN NGLCCATDxs y ��,��I / NmucrvNeo oAnox LeGeNG 0 • OU. oxnxcE cauxry srNnnnox NuxrlxGTou eEwcx.uuEoxxu ® m.wnr.m. nrcse�we�ue-a.®. G• D tscD FlGVNE 2 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 130 Orange County Sanitation Eustnct 32 Task 1 - Geotechnical Evaluations - Plant 2 CBlIRAL PJVRi 6BHiPT1ON q au��rc E rov�wnco—�-}— U-Rto q 20 PROJECT:ISS'S 20 W" PROJECT:W S 10 - 10 0 0 10 -10 ;D ao F w -30 ao w LL_ LL_ Z Z 0 =D 40 p r F a a w Sa 5o w id w 66 -60 afi - -To �D ao zt � -fio .100 -too D.DD 1wo two 6wo awo swo 6wo Two 8w fiwo Iowa 11wo 12 o 13wo 14w0 1fi 16wo 17wo 15w DISTANCE(FEET) SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE 6� —x�xPn � a..Ylarnal 6� an.voanw..w+u PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix 131 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 0 waim.xromi 33 Task 1 - Geotechnical Evaluations - Plant 2 —100s1 V-Ti _ SA B"I iw Type Ver4calsord menu Lateralclsplalowrns � —'O3sr - or.a o _ iss sr s o_ e- UJ2,5� Sir saddsmdysi r 10'.FT s ciw 5_ T:4 O T� cwiae-rPu S- Puia a,0q Sly sad&sadysi -FT Y- 10 64'&sitr eW 9- 1p- O.tii:3 90F Sly sad&sally AZII-F- - to �C N-3UI 1 T 6 15- 15- '-Ip 51 2-1 p Sa &'ity ssE 20- 0 4 I Sag �a- ��((�� ID S" 30- 30- 61!#Tt 35 35- 35- q0 Ssd Bsly sell N- �- Vd r4 0 91=T Y 4S IS 50 Sad 50 50- ' N-0Ce ! T e -f7 u[3 O 55 55- 55- a 4.'.- SaA&silt'sad 2 ` 60 60- 60- . I Sly sad8zady zi 63- 65- C14 deity cw 10 )o- 10- .� Sly sad Bssdyzi Sly sad 8 snOy zi ZONE AREA sly sad&sa rs- 75- S11,sadd sall"y"i P-T IDI saddslysad e0 80 Slyss08 sadg si ZONE 214-A'9ET,OSd'LD) 85- 85- s,d a.ly sad ZONE I V2 SET,r-T WD 80 Sad 90- 90- 0 ZONE411'd-SET,T-ZW) 95 S"dsiysad96- too Sao 100- DO- 0 2 4 6 8 M 12 14 16 10 0 1 2 3 ♦ 0 10 20 30 A PSI 5-06 TM4 AppendixC �T(Rd3atsmeta', M) $6ldmRl(in` LYSplacmai[On) Orange County Sanitation Distinct 34 Task 1 - Example Structural Summary RAS PUMP STATION (EAST) k PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE 2-3 2 1 IV BUILDING class based performance objectives Clasl:Essentalto maimenance ofwastewaterflow and treatment. _ Structures substa dially retain original strength and stilfnesand continued occupancy and operation are likely structural components Foundatlon Type/Dimensions:Basementwith2'matat-)'elev(l).5' Image Source:Mlcmwaeing Maps embedment);post tensioned anchors(1"dlam,35'bonded,46'total), Building Type/Dimensions: Strotmon Period Date m construction:l9)) Retrofit Of any): Available information: d "" ❑Design Drawings ❑Asguilt Drawings ❑Gen.Report �280 it ❑Field and site Visits ❑Specifications ❑Other operational Utility Components: ❑Electrical/Power, ❑Communication ❑other ❑Backup Generators ❑Connecting Pipes ❑Other geohazards and seismicity Nan View Seismic She sass:Cass D(W/o Honer);Case F(with liyuef) uyuefaaim Potemial(Hlgb/Med/Low):H4h F < Settlement Magnitude: Literal Spread Displacement: Farm Rupture Potential(High/Med/Low): Fault Rupture Magnitude: Deterministic fault Name M Dim.(km)PGA(gDeterministic Near Field Newport Inglewood75 0 048 H1ry Ln0 ce 4mrors Far Field San Andreas 80 84 0.12 w I I Probabilistic HMerd bW S,(9) Se(g) Sr(9) + + BSE-1E 20%in So yr 0.29 on 0.40 owNlryun BSE-2E 5%In 50 yr 0.48 1,20 0.66 s Median PGA Stlrematic Cross Setlimi structural assessment and failure modes Site Visit Observat ions Corrosion,cracking.settle ment,etc. PSI 5-06 TM4 Appft" tllure Mod' Ewlu consequence Amendment 133 Orange County: Overloading Shea r Wall Tie'tion it WallCollapse Lowriskoffailure. overloading Gravily Wall Tier WallCollapse Lowriskoffailure. 35 Task 1 - Example Structural Summary mitigation measures and costs MMrytlnn Snrurlw Cq1 CgnmeMa G.,h.ital MiLigaNOn: Structural Wigan— GeBWxJBnirll/Structural Minotion: Operational Mitigation: process criticality • Reewdanq pnterganv,mtoplant) discussion of risk ranking and prioritization RM RanWIM: Pnoridwion: comments and clarifications (spore ro odd on,oddi!of inl mwf wtrwlr..,. above rext(EernpMl RISK MATRIK (TO BE DEVELOPED) Nett Planned Pro,eet end Oete'. PSI C TM4 Appendix C ffi4 Orange ' County Sanitation Distract RamslMne weOrnrvanrc: 36 Task 1 - Structural Evaluations • Review Available Structural Information • Drawings • Specifications • Corrosion Assessment Reports • Seismic Evaluation Reports • Site Visit • Identify Data Gaps PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 135 Orange County Sanitation District 37 Task 1 - Background Review - Structural Information Digesters / DAFTs Process Buildings i _ r Misc Structures Basins & Clarifiers PSi6-06 TM4 Appendix Non-process Buildings 136 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 38 Task 1 - Site Visit- Plant 2 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 137 Orange County Sanitation Distnct �I _ Task 1 - Structural Evaluations • Review Available Structural Information Review Project Any missing Drawings for Original > information Construction ? I Request/Search for Additional Identify Data Gaps Information PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 139 Orange County Sanitation Distnct Task 1 - Structural Evaluations - Plant 2 Central Generation � mr via PS15-06 TM4 Appendix C 140 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 42 Task 1 - Geotechnical Evaluations - Plant 2 —100s1 V.TD2 9A 8"Imm Type Yer=1c9tl1aeenu LateraldspimmellN —'OpiT _ � {' 0 0_ U.3z,,� S6 sane 8sadysa IU'.FI 5 — Cw S_ Cwicea0u 0_ @uo]c:uo -TT U-R ,U S6 sad 8srdrsi v-r;4 10"FT m Cla/bzlM<h" ID- ID- '?uC] 90F sir sane&sadr s■ 2 _ o NAUI 1 T� 15 15- IS- ?-�i sl. 2-7 � sanearissana zs- zo /J 1 a 25. 25 4 l Sad ��- K� Sane 30- 30 51 ;5 35- 35 q0 Sad&s6 sane 40- _ 40 V-Ilr4 O Y A ^.., 4- 45- 91-T T Sad L 50- SD ' N-0Cd !Y.)fT 1,10 S 9 SAW bf i/fad 55 q`- - 55- 1 .03 S6 sad&Sadr si 65 85- 65- i� m CW bsip cW /0- - /0- Sir sad a Sally si - sb sadasadrsi ZONE AREA - sir sddasady'si 15" - -- 75- S111rsadbsadrse iI,rwI Sadasry sad on- 80- 56sad dsadr se ZONE Z(d'-e'SET.0.54lD) 0`+ 85- 85- _....._.. Sad&SW Sad ZONE3Q'-e'SET,T-T'1D) 90 Sad 90- 90- 0 ZONE4(1- 'SET.3'-21D) 95 Sad&S6 sad 95- 95- bans 100 Sad NO- 100- 0 2 4 6 0 N 12 14 16 to 0 1 2 e 4 0 ID 20 30 0 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix ST(gdetw,eta. L%6) 9ettle1131t dn) 05p6mID31t On) Orange County Sanitation Distnct 43 Task 1 - Structural Evaluations - Plant 2 Central Generation @uM - ---� I �. ---------- ------ --------- ---- ------ f RORTR ELEVATION ro PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 142 Orange County Sanitation Distinct 44 Task 1 - Structural Evaluations - Plant 2 Central Generation ��v/ BUILT-UV ROOFING C R.'G IxsLLAnox IR-rel BI B A T METAL OECX CR ICX ET RE REG'0 G pK4ET RS REG'0 2RI2 9ALI&1T III EL SStl I MISit •.O.S.EL-IB.16' TOSEL 4"W o B eEEMFzz. H Sy _ 2All SIMIC! ql CRANE SEE STRUCT. JEL:MA �TQ IpH0.E4]W FILTERS � J - zaa RC 8 L AN FL-MBL- 9E 11 7-7 HUI EL NW _S EL.-AG' b __ it PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 143 Orange County Sanitation District 45 Task 1 - Structural Evaluations - Plant 2 Central Generation • Potential Failure Modes to Investigate — Structural Pounding a 6" SAP I j • "�•'^ I A14 r I [ al VINYL . WATER i Gener ion 5E1gLE1. SEL. ...E. PLATE e'.e PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 144 Orange County Sanitation Distinct 46 Task 1 - Structural Evaluations - Plant 2 Central Generation PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C Orange County Sanitation Distnct 47 Task 1 - Structural Evaluations - Plant 2 Central Generation • Potential Failure Modes to Investigate — Wall Anchorage D 5 E 51W v hEE ROcf R3M q Y �� tq}4*Ki2-IYGT/P zrc 9Ci KM.Sm TLRRGo c I Y 5ee ccY o�x s' Ex�ti�f-u K 4 4 4W'S4RWK Q _ GGpR 4-16 nbry Q J � 6ID.9B iYP Gd.R4.II _! wl4b fiNAEOMENt 4e1511ON4 4-}4 n6'o@12 oG. fiNU N METAL DEOKING 5EE ROOT PLAN OIKECTION OF 5FAN 5EE DET 4�2509 TOP OF 5TEEL(iOs) ROOT YI.AN m .-.R �N 2-08C TOAWO L5*5%E 01e LEDGER 5• STOP 1' GLK Or 6LL EEAMS V: ,p BOLT • Ep 0.0. PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix b 146 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 48 Task 1 - Structural Evaluations - Plant 2 Central Generation • Potential Failure Modes to Investigate — Liquefaction / Settlement Central Ge:nerationEOOBS Potential for rigid differential rotation and/or lateral spread PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 147 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 49 Task 1 - Structural Evaluations - Plant 2 Central Generation • Potential Failure Modes to Investigate — Seismic soil load on basement walls AE „ d4 1WN �Yr Kb OrangPSI e Co TM4 AppendixSanitation D 148 Orange County Sanitation District 50 Task 1 - Structural Evaluations - Plant 2 Central Generation • Practical considerations What is the consequence? Will the consequence impair z _ performance? m PSI t ,6 dhbhhh .idddddddddd � dd ddh 6 G bbd dbbd bfv Orange Co TM4 Appendix D 149 Orange County Sanitation District 51 Review Structure List Plant 2 - OCSD Input ME t uq m n 51 S $p°.. £/xxxxxppp��JJJ/ e L..- F aqy y 'S y P Met MI AQ&CTLMT 9-RME VL Z:Z JJJ � I w PSiS�ITM4 AP ndN C". ••" w:a :�','1F a�z1 K 150, Orange County Sanitation Distnct 52 Review Structure List Plant 2 — OCSD Input LPT� � LONE1 � O }}r grm • • • • • `F m •�• titiA ?L13J �0�/ �� \ III. • • • • ��s ••� \,� � (\ I Ir PLANT 2 STRUCTURES LEGEND as ��• �. � I •• �� _ . :. .,.. \ - �� 21 ' � . . aJ•M� w• k3 : 22 DP- TDG II ,&ice-, 3 r Y 23 RFSPSEmi 2S • AX�' .211 - • I� 24 RAS PSVJeS I-� /� • �.\� 25 PEPS B MAC �i. . .O v ?� • ( 26 Gpeelo 50rtrolDnterBW 't1 J `�t/•t _, >]- ° 2 T 121,V Sery ce Cerler 28 Power BugngB ••M• , 29 PowerBuldngC 210 Powx BumngD •\ C� / _ - 211 Cry Watt/PumP Sto,on •Y_ 2-12 12 kV Did,dulun Center B 2-13 12 kV DIMrDlton Center D AA - )!.p - `\• 2-14 Heal .rkS Power Bid,A LEOFND 2-15 Hea Ow SPower Bldg 2-16 Heallofios S1e„dBy ProverBndn, rOXxodmxoFS9rl}MTUMx 2-17 Cr d Power Ge,reretlon 6.1d,ng \_ I •,oxwrtvrvv vnoNanlry 2-18 Farallon Resins hH 2-19 Gas Holder f r7 MXUCTYPE FOBXMl10N 181Q1O CWKEMwnPrmMewxa 2-21 DFFT 2- S000nSA-CCIenIgS hL _ 2-22 DFFT D *w 2-23 Surge T N I oxer o LONEY ��/J,_��JJ ' rower r x¢,swalwcnaE-cusal 2-2M 5 geT N 2 I.A.� r�`nf11.YRS W1f�y,m wrso¢srxucmxe cwsen 2-25 EXLentJ dion Stroll. SS LO j xebamxt eiax¢ -_ 2-26 MantenanCo 3,i1d, u1 -06 �PPe dlxC rFo°""^4LNO"O xwn,sasrwcnnE 2-22 Bolen Bul6,g 161 Orange County Sanitation Distract --- E�Px�iamomE a>�a To Mkl rwdua 53 Review Structure List Plant 2 - OCSD Input ,s �Isl k s. I,T D s I 1.k It's, zi _W—d....h,p ti a Ism PSI 5-06 TM4 Append C ' E 152 Orange County Sanitation Diettict 54 Action Items/Summary • Incorporate OCSD input into Approach • Next Workshop TM1 — 10/25/17 • TM1 Draft — 10/31 /17 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 153 Orange County Sanitation District 55 Thank You '. PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 154 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 56 OCSD PS15-06 Task 1 to 4 Approach Flowchart S October 2017 Settlement Evaluate Structure Ground Cceicchnicel� Site�[odcl �Ocotechnic.1 Or d lateral Deformation Def. N° Improvement Coat T Investiation Analyses Defi,nnaiions' Spread puursOK? Measures Yes Fail[Rupture Key Foundation Structure? e/Capacity Seismic Response y Site Response Inputs Spectra Analysis Request Plan Documents Doc Field Investigation/ No GapsyGaps Site Visits Criticality, Compile Incorpora OCSD Seismic Document Data Tech Memo 1 Consequences Yes Evaluation Review Gaps? TM 1-3 Mitigatio &Ranking Information Measures OK Appropriate? Stuctme Classification/ Reclassification Yes Yes As-Built Survey& No No Non-Destructive Testing Task 1 Background Development Yes Yes Geotechnical Evaluation S[ruotural �ata No FE Analysis Yes Finite Elem No Strengthening/ Tech Memo 3 Gaps? Warranted? Tier 3 Analy OK? Retrofit Structural Evaluation Improvements No - Criticality&Ranking Information Flow Direction No Yes No Structural Input to Geotech Ves No 'Perform. Yes 9 � Geotech Input to Structural PV PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 155 OCSD - PS15-06 - Structure Data Gap Summary Facility Original Additional Structural Data Gaps ID Number Structure Name Plant Class Type Project Projects Condition Assessment Basis Level 1 Level 2 Notes Post-tensioned 2-1 DAFT A,B,&C Gallery 2 I Building P2-23-6 P2-42-2 Site Visit anchor info 2-2 DAFT D Gallery&WSSPS 2 I Building P2-42-2 Site Visit Post-tensioned 2-3 RAS PS East 2 I Building P2-23-6 Site Visit anchor info Post-tensioned 2-4 RAS PS West 2 I Building P2-23-6 Site Visit anchor info Post-tensioned Condition assessment of 2-5 PEPS&MAC 2 I Building P2-23-6 P2-23-2 Site Visit anchor info PEPS 2-6 Operations/Control Center Bldg 2 I Building P2-23-5 Site Visit Roof decking 2-7 12 kV Service Center 2 I Building P2-23-3 Site Visit Roof decking 2-8 Power Building 2 I Building P1-15 P2-24-2 Site Visit Roof decking 2-9 Power Building 2 1 Building P2-24-1 J-6-2 Site Visit 2-10 Power Building D 2 1 Building 1-6-2 Site Visit 2-11 City Water Pump Station 2 1 Building P2-46 Site Visit Post-tensioned 2-12 12 kV Distribution Center B 2 1 Building P2-23-6 P2-23-2 Site Visit anchor info 2-13 12 kV Distribution Center D 2 1 Building P2-35-3 Site Visit 2-14 Headworks Power Bldg A 2 1 Building P2-37 1-33-1 Site Visit 2-15 Headworks Power Bldg B 2 1 Building P2-42-1 J-33-1 Site Visit 2-16 Headworks Standby Power Building 2 1 Building 1-33-1 Site Visit 2-17 Central Power Generation Building 2 1 Building 1-19-2 1-15 Site Visit Condition Assessment Post-tensioned 2-18 Aeration Basins A-H 2 1 Tank P2-23-6 P2-23-2 Report for Basins A and H anchor info 2-19 Gas Holder 2 1 Steel Tank P2-24-1 Condition assessment Post-tensioned 2-20 Secondary Clarifiers A-L 2 1 Tank P2-23-6 P2-42-2 anchor info Condition assessment Condition Assessment Report for DAFT C/Site Visit Aluminum dome shop 2-21 DAFTS A-C 2 1 Tank P2-23-6 for DAFT out of service drawings Condition Assessment Report for DAFT C/Site Visit Prefabricated dome shop 2-22 DAFT 2 1 Tank P2-42-2 for DAFT out of service drawings Condition Assessment Report for Surge Tower No. 2-23 Surge Tower No.1 2 1 Tank J-34-1 2 Pile info Condition Assessment Structural drawings for Report for Surge Tower No. steel extension after J-34- 2-24 Surge Tower No.2 2 1 Tank J-9 J-34-1 2 1/Condition assessment Condition Assessment Report for Effluent Junction 2-25 Effluent Junction Structure 2 1 Tank J-3 Structure Condition assessment 2-26 Maintenance Building 2 1 11 Building P2-35-3 Site Visit 2-27 1 Boiler Building 1 2 1 11 Building P2-17 I Site Visit 2-28 ITruck Loading 1 2 1 11 Tank P2-60 I I lCondition assessment PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 156 DIGESTERS PUMP ROOM PROJECT LIST Job Index Map DIGESTERS A AND B PUMP ROOM DIGESTERS C AND D PUMP ROOM DIGESTERS E AND H PUMP ROOM DIGESTERS F AND G PUMP ROOM I4 P2-2(6 ) P P2-5 (63) PW-108(84) P2-01621 P2-174) I-4-2(67) Treatment Plant 2 PW-141(85) 1-42(67) PW-141(85) PW-061(80) O /�/V� D PW-144(87) PW-061(80) P2-30(87) PW-141(85) TRICKLING \ J-16(89) PW-141(95) J-16(89) PW-061-112(86) FILTER P2-37(88) PW-061R-2 (86) P2-43-1(96) J-16(89) CLARIFIER F J-19-2 P2-43-1(96) P2-43-3(96) P2-43-1(96) JN11 SANJT4>O PUMP P2-90(11) r yf P1-38-4 P2-43-3(961 P2-39(00) 1`243-3(96) STATION C TRICKLING PUMP STATION '( ( ) P2-39-1(00) P2-39(00) = 9 P2-90(11) FILTER B P2-39(00) P2-91 P2-39-1(00) c� CLARIFIER P2-so(11) P2-91 P1-38-4 P2-50(00) o ti P2-90(11) P2-38-4 PW-061R-3 P2-91 TRICKLING PI-38-4 Ole 9 ? FILTER S. TRICKLING TRICKLING � G CLARIFIER C 14 FILTER FILTER THE EN Pz-e0(11) O'F • CLARIFIER D . DIGESTERS I,J AND K PUMP ROOM DIGESTERS LAND M PUMP ROOM DIGESTERS N AND O PUMP ROOM DIGESTERS P AND Q PUMP ROOM PF CLARIFIER D /�] P2-14 7o P2-19 P2-901,9 P2-80(it) - i' 1 1 I7z, Pz-u(7a, Pz-za-1(az) R9Tj P2-16(72) PW-141(85) PW-141(85) PW-141(85) TRICKLING oN S /O D2-1 1 J-16 J-16 P FILTERO PW-141(85) P2 -39(00) Pz-39(00) J-16(89)CLARIFIER B LEGEND P2-90(11) • CO,tr P2-28-1(87) P2-56(00) P2-56(00) P2-39(00) 4pT 11 1 J-16(89) P2-91 P2-42-2 P2-56(001 R TRICKLING p CT P2-39(00) P1-38-0 P-391 P2-39-2 Q� P1`24(00) PI-38-4 PI-38-4 FILTER 100 PUMP STATION CLAR FIER A />>, S p2-47 2 P2-e0(11) P290(11) OCEAN OUTFALL Pi? TRICKLING 3S-0 OCSD STRUCTURES FILTER B TRICKL-IIJG L'�` BOOSTER DIGESTERS R AND S PUMP ROOM DIGESTER T PUMP ROOM P2-90(it) ss PUMP STATION P2-24-1 82 P2-24-1 82 FILTERC R J-15(90) ( ) ( ) 1-9(93) PW-141(85) PW-108(84) DISTRIBUTION P2-90(11) O� P2-42.1(94)(94) PW-144(87) PW-141(85) CENTER J� TRICKLING P2-43-1 (96) ¢Q J-16(89) PW-144(87) P2-90(11) FILTER CLARIFIER 2 J.p138-4(9'96)7) a 1-17-2(93) P1-38-4 PUMP STATION = _o P2-5800 OTHER STRUCTURES P2-90(11) r�wQ F.qs J-31-2(0 1 % P2-43-1(96) P2-50(00) "+ P2-39(00) P237-1 (00) P2-56(00) 4 ag R'�FT 03) P2 82'(08) P1-38-4 CTRACTOR WORK TRICKLING J-334A(09)RQO J_79-1 (17) STRUCTURES FILTER A '40 J-794A AREA P2-90(11) RADIO FE02-58 INCLUDED I N \\TOWER J-67 ( MPORARY) PLANT WATER STUDY (BUILT ao� PUM 24 (54) ON gLEAC�I 6;ATION BEFORE 2001 ) FUTURE METER TEST P2-23-6(83) TRICKLING FACILITY J-16(89) -EMERGENCY P2"17(72) FIL•TERD HEADWORKS pw-tte(85) P2d2-1 (91) Jr-1 (74) ODOR CONTROL PW-,32(85) P2-43-3(96) POWER J-4-2(79) P2-03-1 6 P2-7(65) J-0-2-t (83) P2-03-19 FACILITY P,-38-a(96) P2-7-1 (65) PW-085(83) P286(14) PEROXIDE P2-a7- (97) P2-8-3(69) PW-110(84) FP255(0)2 J791(11) P2233(82) Pwo853-,';851 STRUCTURES NOT P2-24-1 82 'O SCREENINGS FE02-08(8) *JB-1 J-17-2 P7-38-4 97 J-16((9) P2-82(OS) J-79-2 ( ) 2-437((93 INCLUDED IN STUDY P2-07-1 (00) P 2-55 (93) BUT BUILT BEFORE LOADING • R-o2i-1) Pz-ss(oo) �� *JB-G pz-so 00 BUILDING F� HEADWORKS Pz86(14) R-03-21 J-87(oaj CONSTRUCTION D/S7-"g KV BISULFIME R-003-2R 2001 �p TRAILERS ONSTR C UCTION P7'3B'VT/O FACILITY ~�? 9 P2-66-2 MANAGEMENT DISTRIBUTION NC -COMPLEX SCREENINGS CENTER H r0sl yg71g3) FOSTER BOOSTER INFLUENT HUNT POWER BUILDING M-044 WASHING Pz86(14) EFFLUENT i PUMP STATION CENTRAL POWER DIGESTERS �P2-23-3(79) JUNCTION P2-06-1 (98) BUILDING J8-2(87) P&66-2 & GENERATION r, A& B pz-s0(00) STRUCTURE PRIMARY POWER P2-70(00) P2"66(14) BAR DISCHARGE BUILDING 2 PUMP ROOM PEROXIDE SCREEN CHANNEL J-,s-z(ss) J-33-,A(o9) J Pz 533(94) Pz z'S8o PRIMARY CLARIFIERS BUILDINGA FACILITY 2 1-0-z 187) p,Jsd(97)\ ( ) A, B, AND C SLUDGE P286114) P2-51 (93) Ja9-1 (11) P2-2 P2-,6 71 P2-, (54) P2d9196) FACILITY 3 P2-66(14) P249(93) P2-66 14 (60) P2-47-1"(98) ( ) PUMP ROOM P2-8-, (66) P2d3-1 (96) P2-55(00) 4 ( ) P239(00) J-77(09) P2-18(71) Ail-A(95) P2-47-2 STANDBY/ *JB-A J-77 P242(67) J-17-2(96) FE02-08(OS) P2-0(62) P2-03-1 (96) FE04-45R / P2-20(75) P2-50(00) P2-82(O8, )\ GRIT BASINS r POWER P2-03-1 (80) `\/70 Pt-36-0(9T) J-79-1A J-0-2(78 J-S-t ((0) �'& J-33-1 (99) J-17-2 FACILITY/ PW-O6t (80) P2-23-3(79) P281 (00) INFLUENT PW11 1R-2(86) PRIMARY SPUTTER J-s7(oo) J-67 J-77109) PW-118(85) J33-tA(09) Pw-1a1 (ss) METERING P2-gg FE05-13 (04) pyygp$ J-6-2(87) J-77(09) TRUNKLINE ODOR GRIT (11) DIGESTER B STRUCTURE pz-so(�,) *pz3z(oa) P2-16(89) ) Pz J- (11) CONTROL FACILITY \p286,14) HANDLING GAS pz-11541 J-16(89) J-s7 BUILDING STORAGE P2-37(90) DIGESTERA P286 ha) P2-66(141 SPHERE P2-t (54) OPERATION L �FSTjOFRi,yjFT SDIVERSION IMARY TRUCTURE INFLUENT *PEDS I!a9R93)�) PD F2-37(90) S(OUG O P2-23-5(79) • 12 KV pw-07e'(eo) FRROgO P2-66(14)pRIMARY METERING *HBPB �STAN BYKS BUILDING14 ( 7) u N PRIMARY R' ( DISTRIBUTIONB RED LABELS INDICATE STRUCTURE NAME PW-112(84) s CART • P2d2-1 (94) PB P2-8-3(69) CLARIFIER P2-23-2(81) P2d7-, (98) IDB-48 P2-66 t4 PW-066A 79 O PW-080(84) BUILDING TREATMENT FERRIC ( ) P138d(96) J-33-7199) r1 ) A-C P2-23-6(83) P2-50(00) P2-23-5-1 (93) 'm P2-23-5-1 (93) CHLORIDE P2d34 (98) *HW 121< FE05-34 P2$0,„) / *Jg"8 SURGE pW-131 (84) P2d73(OS) BLUE LABELS INDICATE JUNCTION BOX NAME J-17-2(93) q SP199535(95) J POWER J-17-2(96) A DISTRIBUTION ' P?-t (54) TOWER#2 J-i6(89) SP81 (OB) FACILITY *GAG P2-it (69) *PWDB P2-37(90) °o J-57(00) P2-6616 BUILDINGD *IDBdIA J-33-1 (99) P2-37(80) A P2d 62 P2-8-1 (66) P2-37(90) J334A(09) BLACK & P2-53-3(94) ( ) J-6-2 87 Pz-so(oo) J-t7-2(96) ( <F P2-1R-1 (72) J-9(67) P2-02-1 (94) P2-47-2 LABELS INDICATE PROJECT NUMBER o , PRIMARY ( 1 P2-23-3(79) cr 1-4-2(67 t"V/$ P2-26-2(82) SPJ-57( 5(98) Q PRIMARY CLARIFIERS Pt-38-0(97) J334A(09) P2-03-1 (96) J-6-2(87) •w0 P283, ) /Pi-25,90) J-iSB-t (87) J-32.(94) J34-t WHITE J-57(00) *IDB-1 J-17-2(96) *PIJB-C P288(14) P,38d(97) J46(89) _%�h� P2-17( ) V. P2d3-1 (96) J-156-2(87) P2-03-T(96) P2-74 J-33-1A(09) �a J & K P2-50(00) *PIJB-B1 FE0534 J33-1 ,99) P2- 7 90 u h J-79-t 1 2 P2d33 96 P2-02-2196) J-17-2(96) P2d7-2R �ry�1��1 O 3 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) p1-38d,97\P2-01 rCM5 8 LABELS INDICATE OCWD STRUCTURE J-79-1 (it) P2d7-2 P2-50,00) O J-87�03 FE02-62 0 y PUMP ROOM P2-66(74) p2-49(96) P2-24-1 82 u J87 (-y�1 R-033-2R • $CRUBER J-,]-2 J3366(14) P2d3-, ,96) 2`� P2-238(83 �! J-77(09) '-i J•r�. NAME PW-149 O P286(,a) II S�L�UDGE/PUMP SPAJB *SEJB J-34-1 °o P2-55 MAIN ` E, PRIMARY COMPLEX J-17-2 P,-38-0,97) VQ J-16(89) OILdjJ/ ROOM spzoo0-61 i; ENTRANCE, a P2-47-1 00 PL38d(97 J g CLARIFIER (NORTH) *PIJB-2 Pz-s0(00)) J4RFRFT P2-56(00) DOCK PRIMARY *EPSA *EPSA GOLD & ud P2-8-7(70) *IDB-2 P2-26185) P2-27(84) PRIMARY J-33-,A(09) ON P281-100) P2=84(69)� PUMP 1 *IDB-3 PW134(86) P,-25(90) *JB-A /*PIJB-A3 t CLARIFIERSA=C LECTRICAL O VGEN SURGE BLACK LABELS INDICATE TUNNEL NAMES PW-025(00) P2-31R 87 P2- 7 90 CLARIFIER) J-79-1 (11) 52000-61 P2-IR-1 (72) STATION *RAS PUMP Pz-3s-s(00) CITYWATER J-16(89)) P2-03-1'(96) Pz-i6(71) P2-88(14) *WSSPS-C J-77a09) BUILDING F CIL'ITY TOWER SP2000-03(00)' P7-25 90 P7-38-0 97 PW-t34 88 P2-5163)/ P2-37 90 PF H \SCRUBBER J-77109) pz z3-z{81) STATION (EAST) SP1998-15 PUMP STATION PRIMAR l -1'(9a) PRIMARY P2--5s(60j) Pz-31R(87) PRIMARY P2-5R-1 71 / i • BAN »P a 4 COMPLEX P138W 97 P-34-1 174) J-,818(8 Jd-1 (74) `) P7-38-0 97 *JB-F Pi-25 ( ) P2-00 00 2 *D$-A M ( 1 PW-oa3(75) / CLARIFIER ( 1 CLARIFIER-O J-7t-i(o0) (so) CLARIFIERH l(1994) Pt-25(90) /JB-Az "`r-0pN \}J B-4 J-34-( OW) P2-23-(980)) PEROXIDE • P2-28-187) P & Q P2-08(00)/ P2-254A 83 \P2-06.2(00) Pi-41-1 (94) P2-12,67) P1=38d(9,7)P2-03-3,96) *PIJB-A1 P-38- ( ) P285 03 ( ) p2-82 08 Pi-38-4 9] P2=8-3,169) PW-023 2 MARY 2-43. ((96 SP20081 PJ-32(94) P246 95 ( ) PW-134 86 ( ) *JB-B ) PW-134(86) n ) P2-43-4(97) 2-46(4) ABBREV DESCRIPTION FACILITY1 ( 7 PUMP ROO • i6Pa3 ( ) J-33-1A09 P2-08(00) P,-3111 J-16(89) /-J-108 CLARIFIER o EP2.5502-0 95 P7-38d(97) SP2000-60 P2-16( 911 P2d7-24R) P2-85 03 ^ (87) P2d2�1794 ( ) *JB-3 Pt-355(00) kA P2-06((96 o ( ) J-i6(89) ( )' \POLYMER P-41. ((9 �.( )/J-i6 W-134 8 P,71-7(02) to P217.2 96) FE02-08(OS) PRIMARY P,-2590 P7-01-1 (94) p27a?;1 (96) P2-66(14) PRIMARY O *JB-2 • pw-134(86) J-71-7(02) '9Q ) J-17-2(96) GWRS GROUND WATER REPLNSHMENT SYSTEM ,.� P2-82 08 ( ) FACILITY Pi-3g-0 97 J-5-1 (00)' CLARIFIERS EAST P2-5R-2 86 FE02-08 05 *MAC DO,( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) qj P22-50(096) Mm • CLARIFIER P Ptd2 19a) P, 25 P,-38-4(97) PRIMARY P2-17(72) p2-08100) PRIMARY D\&,E� *JB-1 (90) P2-82(OS) 9 2-23-2,(81) P4 6(00) *JB JUNCTION BOX 72 KV DISTRIBUTION PW-134(86) P2-08(00) PRIMARY CLARIFIER K k/NJy/SO p2-es loa) CLARIFIERE PUMP ROOM P,d,-, (94) J-67 y P2-23-6(83) CIC,q J .47. (05) �n 1j *DS-C P2-85 03 N SP=73 PRIMARY Pi-36d(97) • P2-t 31 (84) + P2-a7-3108) 1'1 CENTER D P2-31R(87) ( ) P2-16(71) V \ P2-3(63) ✓, C ,.P. O gp-7 CLARIFIERS PRIMARY P2-2988 CLARIFIERD ES P2d8100) PW-,23(84) 9 !/ P2-82(OS) .� J-16(89) R/ Pz-n pz) *DS-B PRIMARY ( ) • *JB-2 OR TF 11*7� P2-35-3(95) .A pi-YS,gg) Cy N & O PW-134(86) GL,4RIFIER$ Pt-25(90) P2-2(60) F p285,03) N P2d3-3.(96) ,9 J-33-,A(09) PB POWER BUILDING P2-60(00) P7-01-1 s4 AROS • PUMP ROOM Pz-a1R 87 CLARIFIER I H'&�I P.1-01-1 (94) PW-,36(86) WEST 2 sP-73 g0 p1=38d(97) TA �� P2-74 N ( ) 1 1 \ /y PRIMARY *PEPS �\ P2-5o 00 SP2000-61 SP81(OB) J s O P7-38-0 97 P,-25 90 P2-14(70) PW-134(96) P2-29(86) co P2-23-2 \a ( ) P2-66 id ( ) ( ) PW-14( 86 PUMP ROOM\ LARIFIER G (g1) �. *t• P2-073(08) pp_� *PEDB PRIMARY EFFLUENT DISTRIBUTION BOX ( ) .` Z P2-08(00) �- P7-38-0(97) ( ) \P,-38-4(97) DIGESTERS P7-25(90) J-16(89) o MAINTENANCE [y; PRIMARY *JB-C P23,R(87) p2.4g P2-5(63) P285'103) P2-08(00) 180)\ C & D\\ P7-01-1 (94) GAS {tr PW-t34 86 P2-238(83) ° BUILDING SPa3 =� CLARIFIER N P7-25(90) • P2-85-, 00 ^ P7-38-0 97 ( ) Q p285(oat ( ) PUMP ROOM ( ) FLARES P2-02-1 s4 AERATION PW-045(76 '� SP2000-60 Q PP3t4M;W7RY *.IB-E P,-25 P7-01-1 (94) M -� P2-85 04 \P2-08 00 P2-SR-2(86) I I 4 PEJB PRIMARY EFFLUENT JUNCTION BOX A ( )'{/ \ ( ) P2-7,65) P,-25 P2-53-3(94) V BASINS FINAL EFFLUENT J-57(o0) G� " CP1291-h1R j8f�ER N PRIMARY *JB-D pP2-a8(6o)) RCOTTF 5P 7I/ NN/S�\� PSp-]34) PW-,2, (84) P,r,-,((94) Pt-38-0(s7) $� A-H SAMPLING STATION P2-35-3(03) P2-85 0a DIGESTER J-21 ,93) Pi-38-0 97 FE07-28 • STORM WATER J-32(94) SP-98 J-16(89) CLARIFIER M ( ) �p2-58 00 ( ) P2-74 P2-23-2(8?) PUMP STATION \sPlaas-10 9s PEPS PRIMARY EFFLUENT PUMP STATION Pt-25 90 6(83) J16 89 �P2-09 SP1996�34R ( 1 P2-1972 FE05-43 P2-3163) \ DIGESTER P2-85-1 ,00) P2-43- ( ) P7-01-1 94 ( 1 I,�/ SCUM P2-48 00 ( ) (96) N ( 1 P2-1R (87) SPd3 PW-OSt (80) �p2_y(gg)I P2-85'04) PW-115(84) J-00-6(OS) ARR/ P7-38d(97) p2-31R(87) P2-24-2(80) P2-24-2(80) FACILITY p2-4 ) pW423(84) P2-2&O6(83) O *RAS RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE ` -- P j00) J-t6 89 P,W-061 R-2,86) PW-061 80 p2-24-1 (821 J-16(89) JI 1�\ P7-25((9) PRIMARY • _� (89) ( () ) P237 88 K/ Ngo SP-73 P2.42-1 94 P285 03 J-06 PW-061R-2 86 ( 1 / ( ) SP-73 PRIMARY P7-01-1 94 ��( "JLY J0 p2d33(96) J-i6 89 N P2-03-1 (98) ( ( g \ I ) � SEJB SECONDARY EFFLUENT JUNCTION BOX P7-384(97 CL ARt-0P(PJER L �Pi38d(97) pt-38-0(97) IGESTE"S P7-38-0,(97) O"\- NATURALGAS CLARIFIERS G P2-08_l00) PW-134(86) DIGESTERI Jd08(OS) g L & M > P231R Cg7) E & H P2.47-3(08) METERING P2-65.(oa) *RAS PUMP PUMP ROOM SP-73 S� P2-14170) DIGESTER'E PUMP ROOM • DIGESTER G STATION TFEB TRICKLING FILTER EFFLUENT BOX J-16(89) P286(14) g., PARKING 2 Pi-zs(so) 3G P7-38-0197) p2-5(63) STATION P2-74� Q' P2-39(00) P2-3(63) C LOTA pt-0t-t (96) 7T P2-30 DIGESTER H DIGESTERS PW-081 R-2 P2-23-6(83) FEOSd3 y P138-5(00) POWER p1:3g-q,g7) ��� (87) PW-06180 �J-,6(69) ,,qti *TFSE TRICKLING FILTER SECONDARY EFLUENT PRIMARY CLARIFIERS PUMP ROOM PROJECT LIST P2346(000) BUILDINGB OPEN SPACE A p2-0e(oo) DIGESTER P2-5(63) / P2-16(89)2) P237(90) SECONDARY �? OG s P2d6100) Pi\�,_'-15 71 J-16 89 P2-35-3(03) P2-85(04) 1, J & K� P2-03-3.(96) P2-2, (74) PUMP RCC1M/J-16(89) P2d8+(85) 2 rA\ ( 1 ( ) DIGESTER) \\y\ ,-U w CLARIFIERS Pz-npzl P2-53-3(94) P2-60(00) SPdi P2'i6 72 PUMP ROOM \o P2-3o(E7) u P243-3(96) P2-0.;?'(96> 9< *WSSPS WASTE SIDESTREAM PUMP STATION P21,4 72)\P2-09(96) J�t6 89 ) C^ U 2-03-3(96) N% • P,-38-0,97) J-t7�2.(98) A-L PRIMARY CLARIFIERS D AND E PUMP ROOM PRIMARY CLARIFIERS F AND G PUMP ROOM PRIMARY CLARIFIERS H AND I PUMP ROOM P2'21 p4) J-17-2(96) ( ) rj \ /�y\P,c38-41@7) Q J-5-1 (00) P,36-0(g7) P2"23"6(83) PW-035. 75 P2-39 00 P138-0(97) P2-39_7 00 ,Z PW-11 84 P2-4(62) P2-5(631 P2-12(67) ( ) ( 1 ar N P2'J9 00 DIGESTER K/ ( _) P2-39-1 (00) P&50(00) ( ) Pw-o3(79) P2-50(00) DEWATERING o ARRI ( ) P2-17(72) 1 E3 J-5-1 (00) PW-061 R-3 SP-81 (08) 7�,6(89) PW-079(81) PW-079(81) PW-079(61) P2-24-1 (82)�P2-47-, (00) BUILDING ti� S J-16(89) / • SP_117 P2d7.3'(OS) P1-38'-4(97) PW-108(84) P2-51l(86) P2-31R(87) Z P2-25-1A(83) 'P2-15(00) P1-15(71) CL q P138d(97) STORM WATER P2-82(08) P2-09(96) P2-z8-z(86)�Pz-6o(00) P2-24-1 (82) TRUCK -� rza9 looj DIGESTER N PUMP STATION J-33-,A'109) P2-02-2196) /SECONDARY P2-29(86) P2-37(88) 1-16169) PW-061R-2(86)'�J-57(00) P2-24-z(82) 2 DIGESTER L P2-SS(00) P2-21 (76) P2-21,(74) P2-74 J-87(63) CLARIFIER EXPANSION P2-43-3(96) J-I6(89) P2-43-3(96) P2-28-1 (87) J-33�,A(09) PW-11 (84) P02-60D OOG SOLID$ u • P2-19(72) J-,6(89) / FERRIC DIGESTER F J-00`8;(OS) P2d2-2(93) N JS-2 87 P280 11 PW-144 87 ( ) STORAGE P7-38-0(93) MO P2-5163) P2-]4 Pt-38-0 97 P2-08(00) P2-43-3(96) P2-0B(00) J-19-2 \P2-28-1 (87) P2-39(97) DIGESTER'M R/ CHLORIDE PW-O6t 80 FACILITY DIGESTERS P2-39j00) SON (-) P2-50(00) P2-0B(00) P2-50(00) N P2-37(88) P2-19(72) ( DIGESTERS STORAGE P2-24-2(82) J-18(89) P2-24-2,82) L&-M� Pi-38-4(93) N'&-O PW-061R-2-(86) P2-85(03) J-5-1(00) P2-85(03) P2-28-2(86) P2d3-1 ,93) PUMP ROOM P2-39(97) DA P2-37(90) J-16 T9) P2-28-, (87) DIGES (74) PUMP ROOM P2-82108) P2-85(03) P2-62(08) P.,-38-0,93) P2=23-6(83) - 1'(96) P2d3-3(96) PW-t44(87) P2-21 89) P138d' 97 P2-53-3(94) DIGESTER S u P287(90) y ( U P2-80(11) P2-82(OB) P2-80(11) P2d3-3 96 GG� J-i6 2 T J-,6,8(9 P2J9-ij(00) ( ) !!V P2-3 (90) (Pl-38-4(97) PJ-26-, (82) O RFM P,3sd197) N DIGESTERT SP-73 P2-80 I11) P2-91 P2-56,(00) Rv Pt-03- (96) J-,37(9) O e�Y P2-39(97) Q DAFT B P2-39(00) 4j� P237,90) PZ Z P2-24-1 (82)` 1.,.�r PW-OiR3 P2-91 J-67 PI-38-4 P2-i5-t 1-, Pt-38 (97) DIGESTERR SLUDG ZENDING J-16(89) P2-23-6(83) PW�08iR-0 P2-6 (00) J P237,90) P2-7(90) • SP-„7 P1-38-0 P1-38-0 P2"60(00) SP19 (003 P2-03-3(96) P2-24-, (82) FACILITY p2.g3-3(93) DISCLAIMER P2-82(08) \ J-,6(891 P251 PRIMARY CLARIFIERS J AND K PUMP ROOM PRIMARY CLARIFIERS LAND M PUMP ROOM PRIMARY CLARIFIERS N AND O PUMP ROOM sP199s-oa DIGESTERS P2-37(90) DIGESTER O ��� DAFT A P2-16(72) P2-19(72) P2-25-1A(83) Q R & S P7-384,97) DIGESTER T P2'23-8(83) Map prepared by Orange County Sanitation District. PR OILER PUMP ROOM P2d3-3(96) P2"26-1 (82) [u� PUMP ROOM P2-37,(90) DAFT A, B DIGESTER This map is intended for graphical representation only. No level PW-079(81) P2-31R(87) 231-0(87) �j� BUILDING J-1 7( ,1< &-CGALLER jGAS STORAGE V P2-17 p2) P237,90) ar of accuracy is claimed for the base mapping shown hereon and P2-31R(87) J-16(89) 1-16(89) WAREHOUSE SO pz-03-3(se) Q DIGESTER P Pz-24-t (82) TANK PW-035(75)�-POWER UT •. P.z-23$(83) P2s4-1 graphics should not be used to obtain coordinate values, bearings J-I6(89) P2-43-3(96) P2d3-3(96) SP,999-65(99) P243-1 (96) BUILDING C ypF p,-38-0(97) P2-24-t (82) P2 t44 87 J 16 8982) or distances. Portions of this derived product containgeographical P285(00) P2-09(96) R J-16(89) ( 1 ( ) 4 p P2-43-3(961 P2-08(00) P2-08(00) i• P2-25-,A(83) Fj P2-37 90 J-16(89) \ram' information copyrighted b Thomas Brothers. All Rights Reserved. 1• P2-03-3(96) $BF E ( ) DAFT D P237(90) y g P2-08,00) P2-50100) P2-50(00) PW-023(00) P2-26(85) RRO P2d3-3(97) / ) Source: o J-53-( ELECTRICAL qQ Pt-38d,97) Pz-02-2 (93) P217-2 (93) P2-50,00) P2-85(03) P2-85(03) >%y P2-07-1 (00) ° p2-53-3,94) BUILDING � / J-17-2(93) OCSD GIS Data, Blue Book (CIP Database), Drawing Access System, P2-85,03) P2-82,08) P2-82(08) NVE o P291(11) p2-50(00) DIGESTERS \�� P138-6(93) P2-82,08) P2-80,11) P2-80(II) RD JE @ pz3o(1,j ( ) Pz 91 POLYMER Thomas Brothers 2010, P P2-65 00 P &Q P2-03-1 (98) NP J-33-1A(09) PUMP ROOM • pz-So(00) P2-80(11) P1-38-0 PI-38-4 BUS P280(11) FACILITY P282(08) J-17-2 P2d2-2(96) 33-tA(09) _I P1-38-0 P2-,46 P28tP PRIMARY CLARIFIERS P AND Q PUMP ROOM P2-91 DAFT D GALLERY P-31 ((87 &*WSSPS Y PW-144(87) �� Z P2-31R(87) PEN N J-16(89) OPEN ( GAS ) P 282(08)) P2-43-3(96) Pzaa,6(8g COMPRESSOR 11(00) PW-112(84) BUILDING SP1999-65(99) P2-24-1 (82) 11(00) P284(00) PW-,bt (85) P2-85(03) PW-164(87) 0 50 100 200 300 400 J-16(89) Feet P2-82(08) J-19-2(90) P2433(96) P2-80(11) P138-6(97) P1-38-4 P2-69(96) J39) P2-47.2-07-2 UPDATED : JANUARY 2017 PS 5-O6 TM4 Appendix 6 75� SPt999-38 • p\C ources Esn, HERE,DeLorme, USGS,Iniermap,increment P Corp.,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,End China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),Mad-- � 9 e >f s16Ele��silis:IlllaEgillil °!!�`3ppEii ligio# �G iIN F9 _ x 9 §B[e fl ® I �o IN `I r � x PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 4 g 158 tV SPNI O�� tNX Geosyntec consultants �i FCt/X iME EnN MEETING MINUTES SUBJECT: PS15-06 Pre TMl Workshop DATE: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 TIME: 10:00 a.m. PST LOCATION: OCSD Plant 1,Admin Building Conference Room C MEETING ATTENDEES: Geosyntec—Chris Conkle, Chris Hunt Corolla—James Doering,Doug Lanning InfraTerra—Ahmed Nisar OCSD — Don Cutler, Mike Lahlou, Jeff Mohr, Eros Yong, Martin Dix, Mike Dorman,Anh Case 1. Safety Moment 2. Meeting Objectives 3. Review of Potential Hazards 4. Data Gap Summary 5. Investigation and Evaluation Approach a. Geotechnical i. P-197, at south side of Plant 1, may have organics where they used to dig and bury organics. ii. Plant 2 was built up historically and at one time was tidal estuary. iii. P2-98 will not be doing liquefaction mitigation for B & C clarifiers. b. Structural Mtg Minutes-aCSD 10-25-17 $W-a4% 1 J4gTtists I innovators 159 PS15-06 Pre-TM1 Meeting October 25,2017 Page 2 i. Plant 1 Aeration Basins 1-10: Missing info on timber baffles, but probably don't need to consider them since they are easy to repair, and they may be getting changed in a future project. ii. Consider whether some of the junction boxes identified as potential additions to the scope can be grouped and evaluated as a single representative structure. iii. Headworks Power Buildings A&B being deleted because buildings don't have a significant long-term use (perhaps storage). iv. There may be condition assessment information on the secondary clarifiers at Plant 2. c. Risk Ranking i. Approach for integration in FMP will need to be revisited once there are hard results to discuss. Seismic,which has some probability of not occurring, could wind up driving the next 5 years of projects if allowed to override all other FMP considerations. ii. Need to add "Opportunity" into the mix of ranking decisions. If we have an opportunity to do a seismic mitigation project because we are doing another project, it may guide the order. 6. Discussion and Action Items a. After seismic event,most important will be to meet the mission of protecting public health and environment. b. Potential scope modifications i. Additional geotechnical investigation ii. Additional structures to include with the study Attachments PowerPoint slides from OCSD Presentation 10-25-17 PsenglneeCSe lalsscientists I innovators 160 PRE TM1 WORKSHOP SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS' 1 & 2 Orange County Sanitation District _ PS 15-06 OCTOBER;,25, 2017 ` e� ` t j ' • � Ulf ' ; ' � t , Agenda • Safety Moment • Meeting Objectives • Review of Potential Hazards • Data Gap Summary • Investigation and Evaluation Approach • Geotechnical • Structural • Risk Ranking • Discussion and Action Items PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 162 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 2 I � I I • I • ...RED FLAG WARNING IN EFFECT UNTIL 6 PM PDT WEDNESDAY... • ....LOW HUMIDITY AND GUSTY SANTA ANA WINDS... • BE PREPARED TO TAKE PRECAUTIONS AGAINST WILDFIRES Safety Moment: Santa Ana Winds • During a Santa Ana Wind Event • Take Shelter • Immediately go inside a sturdy building • If Caught Outside or Driving • Try to find a place that will block blowing or falling debris. • Take shelter in your car ` • Move your car away from trees or powerlines. • Power lines that are laying on the ground may be live. Do not go near them! • Keep a distance from high profile vehicles such as trucks, buses and vehicles towing trailers. • If Dust or Smoke Present • Get indoors. Close all windows and turn off all AC units. • If driving, pull your vehicle off the pavement as far as possible, stop, turn off lights, set the emergency brake. Never stop on the traveled portion of the roadway. PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C Orange County Sanitation District 4 Meeting Objectives • Preview of TM 1 • Answer questions regarding approach • Facilitate review of TM1 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 165 Orange County Sanitation Distnct TM1 Outline TABLE OF CONTENTS TARLE OF CONTENTS(Coelmaed) rm PJAM 1. EXECUTIVE SUh814RY....__......._...-..._.................._....._.------__...___...___1 2. INCRODUCCION....._......_.....___...___.___.___..................................____ 2 5.5.1 Facility Master Plan and Capital lmprrnemect Program 3. REVIEW OF POTENIIALI1AZARDS AND FAILURE MODES._...______3 5.51 Bmisfm Risk Racking ofPrujecb 30 3.1 Geological and Geotechnical Harerds._.._... ..._............._....______3 5.53 Ntegratioc with Facility Master Plan............ ......................._..__31 3.1.1 Seismic SettingandGromsd Motives....................... 5.5.4 Centered!.4pproachto Recommandati®scnPmject 3-1.2 L*efaction.Lateral Sprea(L andFaok Rupture. s Priorifi avon 34 3.2 Potential lmpticaxims far Structures...............................---..--------___! 6. SUMMARY 35 4. DOCUMENT MIER'AND DATA GAP IDENMCATION..__......._...___! 7. 4.1 Geological and GeontrEmd Rniew._____..._______.___..__........_.._f 4.1.1 Medwdology .... __._. __._._—A 4.L2 Fiodmp__.........._....._........_..__.—_._._........___...__..___.___.! 4.1.3 Identified Data Gaps and Remmmeodati....................................7 41 SnucenalRniew........................................................._..... ___._____ll 4.2.1 Medscdology..................................................................................11 41.2 Fmdivp 12 4.2.3 Idmtif ed Data Gaps and Reoceemseveni..................................17 5. INVESTIGATION AND EVALUATION APPROACH......_...... ___..____19 5.1 Otvrtiew of Project AppuorL.............................................._................19 51 Geological and GeotechciW Analysis andMitigatim 19 51.1 PrapasedAmtyses........................................................................19 52.2 Potential Geoteihnical 1,4itigation Measures._..........................._.19 53 Structural Analysis and Mitigative 20 5.3.1 General Approach 20 5.3.2 Seismic Halcatim Criteria. .....23 5.3.3 Collect and Resiew As-buds lnfommtion.._....._.......__.....___._..7A 5.3.4 Conduct SRe 4ists....................................._..._—_..___.—____24 5.3.5 Identify Potential Failure Modes..............__.___.___._____25 5.3.6 Perform Anab.......................................................__.—____25 5.17 Idestify-Vulnesabili ies..................................................__..._26 5.3.9 Potential San canal Mingatim hkas ---------------------------------__28 5A Basis for Mdrphve ts.Replaomeot.......................................................29 5.5 Risk Ra,ln and Pnontvac®.................................................................29 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 166 Orange County Sanitation District 6 CI Seismic Design Criteria : ASCE 41 -13 Plant 1 2.0 - - -BSE-2N (MCER) 1.8 p1 - - -BSE-1 N (2/3 MCER) N1.6 - - - - - - - - - _ —BSE-2E(5% in 50 yrs) O 1.4 —BSE-1 E(20% in 50 yrs) 1.2 ` u � tf / - - - - - - - 41 1.0 , / w O a 0.8 w / K 0.6 d 0.4 N 0.2 5%Damped 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 Period, T(s) PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 167 Orange County Sanitation District 7 Design Criteria vs Faults — Plant 1 1.4 San Joaquin (M7.5) 1.2 — Newport Inglewood (M7.5) A _ — San Andreas(M8.5) � — BSE-2E(5%in 50 yrs) d BSE-1E(20% in 50 yrs) 0 o 0.8 �94lO y y!!4 Q 0.6 i ° �oW P O. 0.4 P fir!°Bio N kOo v 0.2 5%Damped 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Period, T(s) BSE-3E (20% in 50 yr) 225 year RP M5.8 (Median) M5.4 (Median) M8.5 (Median+l(y) PGA=0.30 g BSE-2E (5% in 50 yr) 975 year RP M7.5 (Median+0.26) M6.9 (Median) M8.5 (Median+2(y) PGA=0.47 g PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 168 Orange County Sanitation District 8 Seismic Design Criteria : ASCE 41 -13 Plant 2 2.0 - - -BSE-2N (MCER) 1.8 p1 - - -BSE-1 N (2/3 MCER) N 1.6 �` —BSE-2E(5% in 50 yrs) O 1.4 1 `` —BSE-1 E(20% in 50 yrs) y � 1.2 1 � Q 1.0 1 1 N 1 I ` � 1 1 �♦ C a 0.8 0.6 ` d 0.4 ' N 0.2 5%Damped 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 Period, T(s) PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 169 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 9 Design Criteria vs Faults — Plant 2 1.4 �F. — San Joaquin (107.5) 1.2 — Newport Inglewood (NITS) — San Andreas(M8.5) pj ?t — BSE-2E(5%in 50 yrs) 9>0. N 1 BSE-1E(20% in 50 yrs) $ 9/ 0 0.8 yb `a a e G 0.6o on 0.4 4 a `V N 0.2 — 5%Damped 0 0.0 0.5 1'0 1.5 2.0 Period, T(a) Design Criteria BSE-lE (20% in 50 yr) — 225 year RP M5.1 (Median) M5.5 (Median) M8.5 (Median+16) PGA=0.29 g BSE-2E (5% in 50 yr) — 975 year RP M7.5 (Median) M7.5 (Median+0.26) M8.5 (Median+26) PGA=0.49 g PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 170 Orange County Sanitation District 10 Geotechnical Investigation — Plant 1 eNn, m I a J / • 17 CPTs • Shear wave velocity l - d measurement at 3 CPT locations. le xr. �q 4 mud rotary borings J N..�. . Isrm i u�exG eNr � • .. mnuommsrt �[i,wma STpUONPE FOUNORipN LEGENG WfA1 my S� • ,c6o¢,�ue�ME<usi m..m,[ � o - •mew ry- I] _ � �ma' w»w,ae�nrvnwcnna�ssu III [Fr,E. _ ❑ oc ea¢Isa PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 171 Orange County Sanitation District 11 CI Geotechnical Investigation — Plant 2 m.. 11 CPTs e ' Y 2 tfi211 - ° • Shear wave velocity d measurement at 1 CPT h p, locations. dl 2 mud rotary borings ,A 225 MEND ,P sIIwEa E■0.WUY e��EEfOUNOATrOo nutvENO 6 wrx xsur ox � c—LETw —n (% d� a. ,x. TGM te o,—, Q M PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 172 Orange County Sanitation Eustnct 12 Geotechnical Investigation - Changes in Scope Original ScopeProposed • 26 CPTs, 50ft deep • 24 CPTs, 80ft deep • 4 CPTs with shear wave velocity measurement, 100ft deep • 4 Mud Rotary borings, 50ft deep • 4 Mud Rotary borings, 100ft deep • 2 Mud Rotary borings, 80ft deep Testing Additional Testing for Ground • Moisture Content and Density Improvement Feasibility • Modified Proctor • Corrosion Potential (Plant 1&2) • Sieve Analysis • Organic Content (Plant 1) • Percent Finer than #200 • Atterberg Limits • Triaxial • Consolidation PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 173 Orange County Sanitation District 13 rithoZ, � o •� a • is m � o) oolc T • 44� � f- tt O ✓.. Fault Rupture— Plant 2 J LEGEND IMPPED FADLTTMDES MwtcwwoNi,�aesl — — — HIGH ACTIVITY LEVEL LOW TO MODERATE ACTIVITY LEVEL i \ LOW AGTNRY LEVEL L JUNE 2017 DRAFT � % ' P2.98/1-117 FAULT ZONES \ :.r ,1CcL!' \ � � I 41 ' DAFTs A,B,C,D ) ■ , ' L j -•. BIOFILTERS. . ' PSI So6TM4A e .Source: Ninyo & Moore, 2010175 Orange County S i,n i 15 CI Geotechnical Evaluation Elements • Site cross-sections and individual structure soil profiles • Site models for liquefaction settlement, lateral spread, and fault rupture based on empirical tools • Assess impact of existing infrastructure (e.g. piles/ground improvement) on lateral spread and fault rupture • Develop ASCE 41-13 seismic response spectra • For Tier 3 analyses develop: — Ground motions — Axial and lateral pile capacities — Shallow foundation lateral resistance — Earth pressures on buried structures — Soil Springs • Develop mitigation measures PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 176 Orange County Sanitation District 16 CI Geotechnical Mitigation • Solutions for Existing Structures • Compensation Grouting • Permeation Grouting • Piles • Jet Grouting • Lateral Spread Mitigation • Secant Pile Wall • Soil Mix Buttress r r Other Technologies • Vibro Compaction Jet Grouting alongside Clarifiers at WWTP . Stone Columns Photo: Hayward Baker • New Technological Advancements • MICP (Cementation) PSI5-06 TM4 AppendixC • MIDP (Desaturation) Orange County Sanitation District 17 Geotechnical Mitigation • Solutions for Existing Structures • Compensation Grouting • Permeation Grouting • Piles • Jet Grouting • Lateral Spread Mitigation ,.. _ Secant Pile Wall Soil Mix Buttress -= Other Technologies a Vibro Compaction ' Stone Columns • New Technological Advancements Chemical Grouting Under Roadway Photo: Hayward Baker • MICP (Cementation) PSI5-06 TM4 AppendixO • MIDP (Desaturation) Orange county sanitation District 18 CI Geotechnical Mitigation • Solutions for Existing Structures • Permeation Grouting GROUT INJECTION HOSE \ DIGESTER SLEEVE PORT PIPE LIQUEFIABLE LAYER C' a Y �41G1UfF�tE,CAi'ER,+ INJECTED PERMEATION GROUT PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 179 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 19 Structural Data Gaps — Material Properties • Use ASCE 41-13 default properties (based on YOC) • Assess during Task 3 if testing is viable — Piles / Post-tensioned Anchors • As needed, search OCSD library for shop drawings and test reports • Otherwise, assume least desirable attributes — Equipment weight supported from structure • As needed, search OCSD library • Otherwise, assume weight — Operating information PSI Orange 06 County Appendix D 180 Orange County Sanitation District Structural Data Gaps (cont'd) — Condition Assessments • Assume a condition consistent with similar structures/age — Drawings & Shop Drawings PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 181 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 21 Plant 1 — Structural Data Gaps Job Indou,Ma R r i LEGEND A Flo' .11L BNORE M1) DIN-Y F* qCW1)1 kgl E I 7T. LEVEL 2 DATA GAPS PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 182 Orange County Sanitation District 22 Plant 1 — Structural Data Gaps Structural Data Gaps ID Number Structure Name Plant Level I Level 2 1-1 Waste Sludge Thickeners(DAFT)Pump Room 1 Pile info 1-2 Blower Building(AS1J and PEPS 1 Pile info Condition assessment of PEPS 1-3 Plant Water Pump Station and Power Building 1 Pile Info 1.4 City Water Pump Station 1 1-5 Power Building 2 1 1-6 Power Building 1 1-7 Power Building 5 1 1-8 lControl Center 1 1-9 12 kV Service Center 1 1-10 Central Raw"Generation Building 1 Pile info 1-11 Aeration Basins 1-10 1 Pik info,timber info for baffles 1-22 Secondary Clarifiers 1-26 1 Pile into 1-13 Digester 5 1 Pile Info Condition Assessment 1.14 Digester 5 Pump Room I 1-15 Digester 6 1 Pile Info Condition assessment,steel dome 1-16 Digester 7 1 Pile Info Condition assessment 147 Digester 7 Pump Room 1 1.18 101geste,8 1 Pile Info Condition assessment 1.19 Digester 9.10 1 Pile Info Condition assessment 1.20 Digester 9.10 Pump Room 1 1.21 Digesters 11.16 1 Pile info 1-22 Digesters 11.16 Pump Roan I I Pile info 1-23 Digesters 11-16 Pump Roan 2 1 Pile info 1-24 Gas Holder I 1-25 Effluent Junction Box 1 Pile info 1-26 Chiller Building 1 1-27 Warehouse Building 1 1.28 Shop Building A 1 INI 1-29 Shop Building Band Building 3 1 1-30 Buildings 5 and 6 1 1.31 Auto Shop 1 Lean-to addition on the south side, 1-32 Solids Storage Facility 1 Pile Info Condition assessment Appendix Orange County Sanitation Distinct 23 Review Structure List Plant 2 -221� W FIT' ZZ .,K vzm azzi 'mm =11 --A rUR I"- Ilizz il.. ...... IM PROJECT LMT • . ..... V�T V= ZZZ VL L6 VtL 2 DATA GAPS PSI 5�=T!04 Apoeudi.,C" .184 Orange County Sanitat on Dl strict 24 Plant 2 — Structural Data Gaps Structural Data Gaps ID Number Structure Name Plant Level 1 Level 2 2-1 DAFT A,B,&C Gallery 2 Post-tensioned anchor info 2-2 DAFT O Gallery&WSSPS 2 2-3 RAS PS East 2 Post-tensioned anchor info 2-4 RAS PS West 1 Post-tensioned anchor info 2-5 PEPS&MAC 1 Post-tensioned anchor info Condition asseument of PEPS 2-6 Operations/Control Center BldF. 2 Roof decking Building Expansion in 1993 2-7 12 kV Service Center 2 Roof decking 2-8 Power Building B 2 Roof decking 2-9 Power Building 2 2.10 Power Building D 2 2.11 City Water Pump Station 2 2.12 12 kV Distribution Center 8 2 Post-tensioned anchor info 2.13 11 kV Distribution Center D 2 2-14 Headwc rks Power Bldg A 2 2-15 Headworks Power Bldg 8 2 2-16 Headworks Standby Power Building 2 2-17 Central Power Generation Building 2 2-18 Aeration Basins A-H 2 Pon-tensioned anchor info 2-19 Gas Holder 2 c:ond•Pon assessment 2.20 Seopridary Clarifiers A-L 2 Post-tensioned anchor Info Condition assessment 2.21 DAFTs A-C 2 Aluminum dome shop drewm s 2.22 DAFT 0 2 Prefabricated dome shop drawlne., Structural drawings for steel 2-23 Surge Tower No. 1 2 Pile info extension per J-34-1. Structural drawings for steel extension after 1-34-1/Condition 2-24 Surge Tower No.2 2 assessment 2-25 Effluent Junction Structure 2 Condition assessment 2-26 Maintenance Building 2 2-27 Boiler Building 2 _ 2-28 Truc Loa ing 2 Condition assessment Orange County Sanitation Distnct 25 Structural Seismic Evaluation • Evaluation Criteria • Data Collection • Site Visits • Identify Potential Failure Modes • Perform Analyses • Identify Vulnerabilities • Develop Mitigation Measures PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 186 Orange County Sanitation Distnct Structural Seismic Evaluation — Criteria Buildings Risk Seismic Hazard Performance Class CatV Level Objectives (BPOE) Target Building Performance Level Structural Immediate Occupancy 20%/50 yrs. (BSE- Performance S-1 1E) 1-13 Nonstructural Position Retention (N- (For Tier 1,2 & 3) (Component) B) Class I IV Performance Structural Life Safety (S-3) 5%/50 yrs. (BSE- Performance 2E) 3-D Nonstructural (For Tier 3 only) (Component) Not Considered (N-D) Performance Structural Life Safety (S-3) 20%/50 yrs. (BSE- Performance 1 E) 3-C Nonstructural (For Tier 1,2 & 3) (Component) Life Safety (N-C) Performance Class II II Structural Collapse Prevention 5%/50 yrs. (BSE- Performance (S-5) 2E) 5-D Nonstructural (For Tier 3 only) (Component) Not Considered (N-D) Performance PS[5-06 TM4 Appendix C [87 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 27 Structural Seismic Evaluation — Criteria Water-bearing Structures & Gas Holders Class Risk Seismic Hazard Importance Factor Target Performance Level Category Level Class I IV 1 5%I50 yrs. 1.5 Immediate Occupancy PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 188 Orange County Sanitation District 28 Structural Classifications Building Structures Class I Structures — Waste Sludge Thickeners(DAFT)Pump Room • Essential to the maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Blower Building(at Activated Sludge 1)and PEPS • Loss of use would be a major Plant Water Pump Station and Power Building 6 impact ability to operate. • Significant damage could result in City Water Pump Station Power Building 2 sewage backup and/or Power Building environmental and public health Power Building hazards. Control Center 12 kV Service Center Damage Control of Class I Structures Central Power Generation Building DAFT A,B&C Gallery • No permanent drift is allowed. DAFT D Gallery&WSSPS • Structures substantially retain RAS Pump Station(East)and RAS Pump Station(West) original strength and stiffness. • Continued occupancy and operation PEPS&MAC likely. Operations/Control Center Building 12 kV Service Center Power Buildings B Power Buildings C Power Buildings D City Water Pump Station 12 kV Distribution Center B 12 kV Distribution Center D Headworks Power Buildings A&B Headworks Standby Power Building PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix Central Power Generation Building 189 Orange County Sanitation Distract 29 Structural Classifications Non-Building Structures Aeration Basins 1-10 Class I Structures — Secondary Clarifiers 1-26 • Essential to the maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment. Digester 5 and corresponding Pump Room • Loss of use would be a major Digester impact ability to operate. • Significant damage could result In Digester 7 and Corresponding Pump Room sewage backup and/or Digester environmental and public health hazards. Digesters 9-10 and Corresponding Pump Room Damage Control of Class I Structures Digesters 11-16 and Corresponding Pump Rooms • No permanent drift is allowed. • Structures substantially retain Gas Holder original strength and stiffness. Effluent)°ncti°ns°x • Continued occupancy and operation Solids Storage Facility likely. Aeration Basins A—H Digester Gas Storage Tank Secondary Clarifiers A-L DAFTs A—C DAFT D Surge Tower No. 1 Surge Towers No.2 Effluent Junction Structure PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix Truck Loading 190 Orange County Sanitation District 30 Structural Classifications Class II Structures • Not directly necessary to preserve Building Structures wastewater flow through the system. Chiller Building • Loss of use would not result in Warehouse immediate wastewater backup. Shop Building A • Repair or replacement would be Shop Building B and Building 3 required, but need not be immediate. Buildings 5, e Auto Shop • LOSS of life potential is low. Maintenance Building Damage Control of Class II Structures: ® Boiler Building • Some residual strength and stiffness are allowed. • Gravity load bearing elements function. • Any out-of-plane failure of walls is not allowed. • Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before repair. PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 191 Orange County Sanitation Distract 31 Structural Classifications Class II Structures • Not directly necessary to preserve Building Structures wastewater flow through the system. Chiller Building • Loss of use would not result in Warehouse immediate wastewater backup. Shop Building A • Repair or replacement would be Shop Building B and Building 3 required, but need not be immediate. Buildings 5, e Auto Shop • LOSS of life potential is low. Maintenance Building Damage Control of Class II Structures: ® Boiler Building • Some residual strength and stiffness are allowed. • Gravity load bearing elements function. • Any out-of-plane failure of walls is not allowed. • Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before repair. PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 192 Orange County Sanitation Distract 32 Potential Additions/Deletions • Potential Additions • Plant 1 : PEDB2, SEJB 1-7 • Plant 2 : OOBS, JB1, JBA, JBC, SEJB junction boxes • Potential Deletions • Headworks Power Buildings A& B PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 153 Orange County Sanitation Distnct Structural Seismic Evaluation — Criteria Performance Levels - Buildings Collapse Prevention Life Safety (S-3) Immediate (S-5) Occupancy (S-1) Precast concrete walls Primary elements Some wall connection failures Local crushing and spalling at Minor working and cracking but no wall elements wall connections, but no at connections. dislodged. gross failure of connections. Secondary Same as for primary elements. Some connection failures but Same as for primary elements. elements no elements dislodged. Drift Transient drift sufficient to cause Transient drift sufficient to Transient drift that causes extensive nonstructural cause nonstructural damage. minor or no nonstructural damage. Extensive permanent Noticeable permanent drift. damage. Negligible drift. permanent drift. Foundations General Significant settlement and tilling Localized settlement of Minor settlement and of buildings with shallow buildings with shallow negligible filling. foundations a buildings on foundations. liquefiable soils. PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 194 Orange County Sanitation District 34 Structural Seismic Evaluation — Criteria Performance Levels — Water-bearing Structures Collapse Prevention Life Safety (S-3) Immediate (S-S) Occupancy (S-1) Minor cracking w/ minor leaking. No permanent deformation. Facilities continue to operate w/ minimal shutdown time for repairs. PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 195 Orange County Sanitation District 35 Structural Seismic Evaluation — Criteria re Typ . . . Buildings ASCE 41-13 Water-bearing ACI 350 / ACI 350.3L Gas HoldersAll PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 196 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 36 Structural Seismic Evaluation — Site Visits • Verify structure generally corresponds with reviewed information . • Estimate dead loads of permanent equipment and piping • Assess conditions using checklists PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 197 Orange County Sanitation Distnct Structural Seismic Evaluation — Analyses 3-Tiered Approach — Screening Phase (All Structures) • Tier 1 Checklists for Buildings per ASCE 41-13 • Data Forms for Non-Buildings Building Structures ASCB41-13 Tier 1 —� qmd Contammg�ata Fortes PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 198 Orange County Sanitation Distract 38 Structural Seismic Evaluation — Checklists Buildings — ASCE 41-13 Tier 1 Checklist m ..a murmnan ww�.uawmLz D- .:m=... .,.d.,a. illel , ur ni. ann .. .n Win..,.—.�. . .. .� ..d. I K v, a:, mI'l—.I�y c..a.:.. PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 199 Orange County Sanitation District 39 Structural Seismic Evaluation — Analyses 3-Tiered Approach — Deficiency-based Evaluation Phase • Tier 2 for Buildings per ASCE 41-13 — Tier 1 deficiencies — Potential Failure Modes • Evaluation of potential failure modes per ACI 350/350.3 for non-buildings Building ASCE 41-13 Ground Yes Perform. No ASCE 41-13 Perform. Structures Tier Def. OK? OK? Tier OK? Liquid ACI 350.3 Ground Yes Perform. Containing —� Data Forms I Structures Analysis Def. OK? OK? PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 200 Orange County Sanitation Distract 40 Structural Seismic Evaluation — Analyses 3-Tiered Approach — Systematic Evaluation Phase • Tier 3 for Buildings per ASCE 41-13 • Modeling of entire structure or substantial portion — When? • Where require to evaluate response to ground deformation (in spirit of ASCE 41-13) PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 201 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 41 Structural Seismic Evaluation — Ground Deformation Analyses Estimate Upper Bound Response Start with 1 to 2 Trial Tier 3 to Calibrate I=> I=* Informs if Tier 3 is Response required for similar Estimate Lower Bound structures Response PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 202 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 42 Structural Seismic Evaluation — Analyses What does a Tier 3 analysis involve? — Account for response of the entire system — Usually a 3D mathematical model (finite-element model most often is used) — Modeling of foundation support PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 203 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 43 CI Structural Seismic Evaluation — Plant 1 Analyses Forecast Structural Analysis Facility ID Number Structure Name Plant Class Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 1-1 Waste Sludge Thickeners(DAFT)Pump Room 1 1 x 1-2 Blower Building(ASI)and PEPS 1 I x Plant Water Pump Station and Power Building % 1-3 6 1 1-4 City Water Pump Station I I x 1-5 Power Building 1 I x 1-6 Power Building 1 1 x 1-7 Power Building 1 1 x 1-8 Control Center 1 1 x 1-9 12 kV Service Center 1 I x 1-30 Central Power Generation Building 1 1 x X 1-11 Aeration Basins 1-10 1 1 x x 1-12 Secondary Clarifiers 1-26 1 1 x x x 1-13 Digester 5 1 1 x 1.14 Digester 5 Pump Room 1 1 x 1-15 Digester 1 1 x x 1-16 Digester 7 1 1 x x 1-17 Digester 7 Pump Room 1 1 x 1.18 Digester 1 1 x 1.19 Digester9-30 I I x x 1-20 Digester9-10 Pump Room 1 1 x 1-21 Digesters 11-16 1 1 x x x 1.22 Digesters 11-16 Pump Room 1 1 I x 1.23 Digesters 11-16 Pump Room 2 1 1 x 1-24 Gas Holder 1 1 x x 1-25 Effluent Junction Box 1 I x x 1.26 Chiller Building 1 II x 1-27 Warehouse Building 1 II x 1-28 Shop Building 1 II x 1-29 Shop Building B and Building 3 1 II x 1.30 Buildings 5 and 1.31 Auto Shop 1 II x P 4-4L Solid St rage Facility 1 I % x 204 Orange County Sanitation District 44 Structural Seismic Evaluation — Plant 2 Analyses Forecast Structural Analysis Facility ID Number Structure Name Plant Class Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 2-1 DAFT A,B,&C Gallery 2 1 X 2-2 DAFT D Gallery&WSSPS 2 1 X 2-3 RAS PS East 2 1 X 2-4 RAS PS West 2 1 X 2-5 PEPS&MAC 2 1 X 2-6 Operations/Control Center Bldg 2 1 X 2-7 12 kV Service Center 2 1 X 2-8 Power Building B 2 1 X 2-9 Power Building 2 1 X 2-10 Power Building D 2 1 X 2-11 City Water Pump Station 2 1 X 2-12 12 kV Distribution Center B 2 1 % 2-13 12 kV Distribution Center D 2 1 X 2-14 Headwords Power Bldg A 2 1 % 2-15 Headworks Power Bldg B 2 1 X 2-16 Headwords Standby Paver Building 2 1 X 2-17 Central Power Generation Building 2 1 X X 2-18 Aeration Basins A-H 2 1 X X X 2-19 Gas Holder 2 1 X X 2-20 Secondary Clarifiers A-L 2 1 X X 2-21 Di A-C 2 1 X X 2-22 DAFT D 2 1 X 2-23 Surge Tower No.1 2 1 X X X 2-24 Surge Tower No.2 2 1 X X 2-25 Effluent Junction Structure 2 I % X 2-26 Maintenance Building 2 11 X 2-27 Boiler Building 2 1 II X 2-28 ITrUCK Loading I 2 I I I % I % PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 205 Orange County Sanitation Distract 45 Structural Seismic Evaluation — Develop Mitigation Measures • Revised operation • General strengthening • Component retrofit • Reduction of mass • Coordinated geo/structural measures • Replacement PSI Orange C6 TM4 Appendix D 206 Orange County Sanitation District 46 Risk Approach Basis for Mitigation vs. Replacement • Ability to meet level of service • Remaining life of the facility after seismic mitigation • Life cycle cost for mitigation vs. replacement • Ability to take facility out of service for seismic mitigation PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 207 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 47 Risk Approach Risk-Based Prioritization Approach High Likelihood of Failure (LoF) Low Low Consequence of High Failure (CoF) PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 208 Orange County Sanitation District 48 Risk Approach Basis for Seismic Projects Risk Ranking • RoSF = LoSF x CoF • RoSF — Risk of Seismic Failure • LoSF — Likelihood of Seismic Failure • CoF — Consequence of Failure • LoSF is likelihood that structure cannot meet performance requirements after the design seismic event • Rated from 1 to 5, with 5 being most likely • Performance requirements either Class I or Class II as established at P1 and P2 workshops — to be confirmed following evaluation • CoF evaluated same as Facility Master Plan • Sorted from highest RoSF to lowest PSI Orange C0 TM4 APPe Sanitation D 209 Orange County Sanitandix District 49 Risk Approach CoF and Importance Factors (per Facility Master Plan) • Regulatory, IF = 100% • Stakeholder Commitments, IF = 75% • Financial, IF = 50% • Public Impacts, IF = 33% PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 210 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 50 Risk Approach Example for Seismic Project Risk Ranking • RoSF = LoSF x CoF • RoSF — Risk of Seismic Failure • LoSF — Likelihood of Seismic Failure • CoF — Consequence of Failure • LoSF = 4 (out of 5) that Structure XYZ cannot meet performance requirements after the design seismic event • Maximum CoF = 3 (out of 5) for Financial impacts • Financial IF = 50%, so weighted CoF = 3 x 50% = 1 .5 • RoSF = 4x1 .5 = 6 PSI Orange Co TM4 APPe Sanitation D 211 Orange County Sanitandix District 51 Risk Approach ort by LoF/RUL Facility Master Plan (FMP) Framework Evaluate/modifyprojects sequencing and Cn Failure Modes for LoF 1. Condition 2. Capacity 3. Redundancy ` Perform cash 4. Regulations flow/resource leveling CC 5. Initiative 6. Seismic 7. Health and Safety Sort by riski PSI Orange Co TM4 Appendix D 212 Orange County Sanitation District 52 R Approach Integration Proposed Initiative for CoSE with FMP 213 PSI seismic analysis CoSE RUL loF Da.¢rib¢casE: Lifesafery 0-5yrs 5 >Lne saienv ` - ' Water iNout impacts I 5-10 yrs 4 >wat¢r ipn�aia,pat lmpan¢4 Long-term reg. violations 10-15 yrs 3 >Lpngiami reg.viole,ions9 >LPPg-,¢rm pahim impaPiap � Long-term public impacts 15-20 yrs 2 >mM1eo : Otltef? 20+yrs 1 pevelop xismic project+ a¢tlmetlmaDe¢tetl FMP prioritization c pmjam¢ (Mitigate vs.Peplace) Develop initiative-ba¢eJ "'- LOF/NI1LIarseismic projects basetl on CaSE EstablisM1 staMM1oltler- he¢ed COF for aei¢mic _ pmjecb 1. Omnge County Sanitation Distnct Risk Approach Potential Additional Considerations • Effectiveness of seismic mitigation • Constructability of seismic mitigation • Construction cost for seismic mitigation • Post-event repair cost, duration, and CoSE vs. mitigation modifiedLoF can be . . considerations . PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 214 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 54 Action Items/Summary • Incorporate OCSD input into TM1 • TM1 Draft — 10/31 /17 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 215 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 55 Thank You '. PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 216 Orange County Sanitation Distnct 56 , SPNbq,) W Geosynte& consultants o MEETING MINUTES SUBJECT: PS15-06 Project Progress Update DATE: Wednesday,August 15,2018 TIME: 1:00 p.m. PST LOCATION: OCSD Administration Building,Conference Room A MEETING ATTENDEES: Geosyntec—Chris Conkle, Chris Hunt, Jeff Fijalka Carollo—James Doering, Doug Lanning InfraTerm—Ahmed Nisar OCSD —Don Cutler, Mike Lahlou, Eros Yong, Jacob Dalgof,, Kathy Millen, Dean Fisher, Jeff Mohr, Mike Dorman,Martin Dix Jacobs(via phone)—Elias Mageaes, Kirk Warnock, Jeong Yang 1. Introduction/Safety Moment C. Conkle presented safety moment Topic: Downed Powerlines — always assumed energized, avoid contact, call 911. 2. Review Project Objectives Conkle described the objectives of the meeting as outlined on the attached slides. 3. Progress Update Conkle described project progress to date. • TM (background)and TM2 (geotechnical investigation and report), complete • Task 3 Structural evaluations and mitigations,in progress • Task 4 Planning and risk ranking,upcoming—March 2019 completion Mitt Minutes-OCSD 8-15-18 w Jacobs edits %4AgT%q4A,gkntists I innovators 277 PSI 5-06 Project Progress Update August 15, 2018 Page 2 4. Geotechnical Site Conditions/Risks Conkle provided overview with emphasis on liquefaction and lateral spread. Chris Hunt described the geotechnical investigation and seismic design criteria.Explanation of the development process for an analysis groundwater level. Summarized ground deformations. Showed example structure-specific soil profile and settlement and lateral spread distribution profiles. Explained deformation summary handouts (attached). Explained background regarding liquefaction hazard at Plant 1. Based on existing available information regarding fault rupture hazard deformations due to fault rupture pose a smaller risk to existing structures at Plant 2 than liquefaction and lateral spread hazards and are not being considered explicitly in Task 3. Questions/Discussion items during this section of the meeting included: e Mageaes: How was PGA developed? o Nisar/Hunt: Following ASCE 41-13 and ASCE 7-10 requirements, using USGS tables @ Yong: Was a trend in water level over time observed? o Hunt: Yes at Plant 1 some trends were observed in OCWD well data but analysis water level was selected to envelope these trends. ❖ Dorman: At what depth does liquefaction occur? o Hunt: Liquefaction can occur at depth below the water table where soils are loose enough. ❖ Warnock: Shouldn't the Factor of Safety on Slide 24 be represented as points instead of lines? o Hunt: Each line represents nearly continuous information from a single CPT. Tip resistance can change nearly every cm, and thus Factor of Safety will change. o Cutler: This matter can be addressed later in the month at separate meeting. ❖ Mohr: (Referring to the settlement/lateral spread figure) Is there about 9 inches of settlement? o Hunt: Settlement varies from about 3.5 to 10 inches. The black line is the recommended best estimate of settlement which was used in the structural evaluations. The red line represents a reasonable upper bound estimate. There are some outliers. •o Warnock: What does"best"mean (regarding"best estimate")? o Hunt: Best geotechnical judgement. ❖ Mohr: Do these deformation values assume no influence from structure? o Hunt: Yes,these are free field estimates. 8• Mageaes: Are we confident in the data used to assign the water level at Plant 1? Psengineers Appendix I innovators 2[a PSI 5-06 Project Progress Update August 15, 2018 Page 3 o Hunt/Conkle: Yes. Multiple monitoring wells are present near Plant 1. Also reviewed historical onsite well data and boring data. 5. Structural Evaluations and Mitigations For analysis purposes, structures were grouped according to structural/functional similarities. Per Doering, ground shaking is the primary structural hazard for some structures. Digesters Nisar provided an overview of the Plant 1 digester evaluations. Greater lateral deformation is estimated along row of digesters nearest river. Digesters are founded on piles. Deformation information and ground shaking information provided by the geotechnical team was used as inputs to model how the digesters response. These structures have sufficient reinforcement, however lateral displacement will exceed capacities of piles.Limiting lateral displacement to approximately 24 inches or less will require geotechnical mitigation. Questions/Discussion items during this section of the meeting included: @ Mohr: If the digesters move,will piles move with it? o Nisar: Yes,to an extent the pile will move with the ground. B• Dorman: Lateral displacement is shown as range,which value do you use in analysis?The average? o Nisar: The calculated displacement is approximately the average of the range of values. Model includes all piles and load is applied to each pile. o Doering: The nature of the foundation system helps distribute loads and average the displacement. & Mohr: With 24 inches of movement, there is no collapse of the tank, but the tank may not be useable? o Nisar: Correct,piping would possibly need to be restored. o Conkle: At 24 inches,the structure/foundation remains intact. o Mohr: It is just not functional? o Nisar/Conkle: Correct. •S Cutler pointed out that on slide 42, the expansion joints on the piping in the picture from Kobe appear to have performed well during an earthquake. @ Mageaes: Were you able to determine the longitudinal pre-stressing in the piles from the as-built drawings? o Nisar: Yes,. o Conkle: This topic can be held for the technical meeting. Psengineers Appendix I innovators 279 PSI 5-06 Project Progress Update August 15, 2018 Page 4 Hunt discussed possible options to address lateral spread at each site. One option is to improve a zone of soil between the structures and the river/marsh. A second option would be to construct a deep structural wall in this same zone. Presented slides on each option. Structural wall could be installed in independent segments to address particular vulnerabilities to lateral spreading identified. Questions/Discussion items during this section of the meeting included: @ Yong: Could these options address lateral spread for entire plant? o Hunt: Yes, the walls could be designed to achieve specified performance level to address requirements of various structures. o Nisar: Currently looking structure-by-structure, but there could be a plant-wide fix that lowers lateral spread risk. o Conkle: A wall could be designed to address a specific set of structures. Must still consider settlement independently. o Nisar: In some cases settlements will already be mitigated by piles. Secondary Clarifiers Nisar explained evaluations/challenges related to the secondary clarifiers: large structures, many joints, need to keep scrapers operable. Large lateral displacements estimated along marsh. Presented finite element model results. Significant separation at expansion joints due to lateral spread and settlement (greater than 6 inches). Showed examples of structural deformations from Kobe earthquake. Currently considering if structures could be tied together across expansion joints. Options: tie slab segments together, secant pile wall,ground improvement below structure. Questions/Discussion items during this section of the meeting included: ❖ Hunt: There is limited room to install soil improvement zone around these structures. Must work below structure to address settlement. If possible, this would reduce lateral spread too. •S Mohr: Tying structure together will prevent pull apart and shear, or both? o Nisar: Both. o Mohr: Wouldn't this induce stress under operating loads? o Nisar: Yes, design must consider this. B• Mohr: Are the clarifiers not on piles? o Nisar: No for Plant 2. o Fisher: There are tie-down anchors. o Nisar: Yes, for buoyancy. Psengineers Appendix I innovators 220 PSI 5-06 Project Progress Update August 15, 2018 Page 5 B• Yong: Would a model need to be developed to assess how structural mitigations may impact the structure? o Nisar: Yes this would require analysis. Mohr: From a planning perspective, we need to make sure we aren't spending too much effort on evaluation of clarifiers that have limited remaining useful life. o Conkle: We will develop alternatives with costs to allow for discussion. Some alternatives may be kicked out during Task 4 because cost may outweigh the benefit. o Mohr: We aren't going too far into that analysis? o Nism: Correct, we are not spending significant analytical effort towards design; however, we need to look at structural options so that OCSD has a basis to make appropriate decisions. o NOTE: To elaborate and clarify Conkle and Nism responses, the evaluations performed as part of Tasks 3 and 4 will be performed at a level of detail appropriate to establish likely planning-level costs. Hunt presented the concept that walls could be constructed at Plant 2 along the full length of the river and marsh. These would not need to be continuous. Questions/Discussion items during this section of the meeting included: ❖ Mohr: Could the wall be constructed in certain areas only? o Hunt: Yes. ❖ Yong: This study is not looking at some structures because of their construction dates, however,what do these results mean for those structures? o Conkle: The subject structures were identified as higher risk. There may be potential to extend some of these concepts, but this study does not include evaluations of these newer structures. ❖ Mohr:Not sure if these deformations were a consideration back when other structures were constructed. Lateral spread was not often discussed. o Yong: OCSD can look at P2-90 geotechnical reports. o Millen: That was re-designed in 2005. o Yong: P2-66,was lateral spread considered? o Lanning and Doering: Not to their recollection o Hunt: Structures located 500-700 ft back from the river are typically outside the lateral spread zone. ❖ Mohr: For a new structure along marsh or river, could it be designed with lateral piles? Psengineers Appendix I innovators 221 PSI 5-06 Project Progress Update August 15, 2018 Page 6 o Hunt: You could improve the ground below and around,construct a structural wall in front, or design heavily reinforced piles. o Nisar: Soil mixing for ground improvement could work if completed in advance of the construction of the structure. o Mohr: Possibly P2-90 was designed with lateral spread taken into consideration? o Millea: Does not believe lateral spread was considered. @ Dalgoff: Does lateral displacement only occur towards the river? Doesn't lateral displacement need to be addressed in all directions? o Hunt: If the river was not there,there would be nowhere for lateral spread to occur. A free face or a sloping ground surface is required for lateral spread to occur. Cases have shown that lateral spread can occur below the depth of the free face. In our analysis,we looked for the lowest continuous layer that liquefies and assumed that spread doesn't go below this layer. This is not the case for settlement,it propagates down.Lateral spread has to move toward the river and it can go below river bottom. & Yong: For new construction, could piles be designed deep enough and strong enough to resist these deformations? o Hunt/Nisar: Yes, potentially, depending on the structure, its configuration, and the applied loads. o Hunt: Or you could improve the ground. Surge Towers Ahmed described the findings related to the surge tower.May experience some settlement and tilt. Evaluation did not look at impacts of movement to the connecting pipe below the tower. Questions/Discussion items during this section of the meeting included: 4- Mohr: Since the pipe is parallel to the river, it may move together toward the river. 8• Nisar: Possibly,but movement will be influenced by connections. ❖ Yong: The surge tower is two different materials. Was this evaluated? o Nisar: Yes and for seismic conditions it was not modeled as filled with water. o Conkle: An evaluation water level was selected for each structure. Gas Holders Nisar explained that the gas holder will likely perform well. Anchor straps at the base of similar tanks have failed in the past, however, these tanks hold gas, not water. May consider improving straps. Psengineers Appendix I innovators 222 PSI 5-06 Project Progress Update August 15, 2018 Page 7 Aeration Basins Doering discussed the evaluations for the aeration basins and other structures. There are many issues related to shaking alone. Aeration basins will behave similar to secondary clarifiers. Decks may fall if walls move apart.Could structurally support the deck to allow for greater displacement. Peps/MAC at Plant 2 Peps/MAC at Plant 2, large structure with basement. Contains vertical irregularities. Shear walls that don't fully transfer load to foundation system. Leads to excessive vertical forces,may need to fill in some windows,will reduce stress on end shear walls. Plant 1 City Water Pump Station Key vulnerability: slab on-grade not tied to wall or footing in some cases. Footings may move independent of walls. Steel angle connections are one potential retrofit. Control Center 2-story steel frame with basement on piles. One of a few steel frame(moment resisting)structures at these sites. Designed to dissipate energy through joints in frame. May need to add beams to convert to a braced structure. Constructed from moment frames with wide flange columns, in half of structure beams are rotated 90 degrees (along week axis). May experience significant torsion/drift due to this. Non-structural damage will result. Columns are anchor bolted only to basement floor. Questions/Discussion items during this section of the meeting included: 6• Mohr: When was this designed? o Doering: 1995-96,early after Northridge, design of moment frames was still not great at that time. Structure has some vulnerabilities in"pre-Northridge"joints. 6. Next Steps Conkle: Need for additional meetings with OCSD to discuss and develop alternatives. Produce and deliver TM3. Develop final list of projects and rank them(TM4). 7. Questions/Discussion ❖ Mohr: Have we figured out methodology/criteria to determine which projects are higher priority than others? Psengineers Appendix I innovators 223 PSI 5-06 Project Progress Update August 15, 2018 Page 8 o Cutler: Part of TM4 will use a methodology that has been established. o Lanning: This project will prioritize seismic projects relative to only seismic projects. It will also set up a framework to compare to other non-seismic projects. PSI 5-06 will set up the framework but will not carry it through to the FMP. o Millea: (Planning) will likely review and determine what we want to do, and will have to accept risk. Might not be many stand-alone seismic projects. o Mohr: TM4 will shift from consultant technical work to OCSD using philosophical method to prioritize and rank. o Cutler: That is part of the reason that this is a good starting point to get stakeholders engaged. Will continue with more discussions with stakeholder to work through this. o Mohr: Will receive skepticism from the board and the public about estimated seismic hazards. o Lanning: Is there something we need to do to help explain that? o Mohr:Must be able to explain the priorities such that public will understand it.That is the challenge of this assignment. It will be tough for people to take seriously. 8• Dorman: Control center damage is result of shaking, not ground deformation? o Doering: Yes. ❖ Mohr: What happens to OOBS? o Doering: Still working on it. It needs finite element evaluation because there are structures next to each other.Deformations could lead them into or away from each other. Both are on thick slabs which bring floors lower than they otherwise would be. ❖ Dorman: How about 12 KV service center at P2? o Doering: It has an unusual 7.5" corrugated steel deck. Has little strength in one direction. Still analyzing this. It could be supplemented with steel beams below. Can also fill windows to increase capacity. ❖ Mohr: Could possibly do many seismic retrofits as part of one project. ❖ Millea: Will any geotechnical guidance/recommendations for future new projects be developed as part of this study?Orjust follow current codes? o Cutler: This study is imposing different requirements for existing structure than current"new construction'codes. o Mohr: What is being done for lateral spread at P2-98? o Dalgoff: Soil mixed columns,hundreds of them. o Conkle: While not currently part of this project,may be beneficial to develop best practice as team to recommend moving forward for new construction. o Dorman: Good idea. Psengineers Appendix I innovators 224 PSI 5-06 Project Progress Update August 15, 2018 Page 9 o Mageaes: The Plant 1 and Plant 2 site-specific data for seismicity and seismic design parameters, along with proposed analysis groundwater levels and historical high groundwater levels that were all developed as part of Task 2 of this study, could be used by OCSD on future designs as reference data. These values could be compared to what the future project Geotech and Engineer recommend and use in their design. In case of significant data variance, ajustification or a second look would be required. o Conkle: Groundwater level and lateral spread are based on seismic hazard levels being assessed as part of this study,but these may be different than what is used on other new building projects. o Cutler: We are working to bring seismic design standards to current codes. We should be looking forward, not behind. o Millea: Should make sure projects in the works now are using current guidelines. o Dix: (I)hoped this project would update design guidelines. o Mohr: Is that part of this project?Would be a good idea. o Conkle/Cutler: That is not currently part of this project but we will discuss. o Jacobs: ASCE7-10 will be replaced by ASCE7-15 and will require tsunami design. This may cause concerns/pushback from the community. o Dorman:For design considerations,should make sure others have access to the data gathered from this study. o Doering: Most structures have been the subject of several projects. Should have way to tie that together. o Lahlou: We are building a database of CPTs which will be on OCSD SharePoint. o Hunt:The handouts provided show structures specific to the structures under study. While it may seem useful to show zones, this data is specific to these structures, water levels, etc.Need to make sure that is information is presented in appropriate context and not misused. o Conkle: A guidance document which is developed out of his study could provide guidance to designers and OCSD as building official. Action Items: • Geosyntec to prepare meeting minutes. • Mohr: study conclusions should be presented to the Board. Before budgeting would be ideal. o Conkle: final document is scheduled for submittal in March. Psengineers Appendix I innovators 225 PSI 5-06 Project Progress Update August 15, 2018 Page 10 o Mohr: Probably won't be used to re-define the priorities for next year. More likely it will be used for following year. Maybe shift the priority of one or two projects. Projects typically defined in December for the following year.May inform planned projects (Ex. omit new landscape if ground improvement will later be done) • Conkle: Meetings will be needed to help define TM4 process. Attachments • PowerPoint slides from Presentation 8-15-18 • Handouts from 8-15-18 meeting Psengineers Appendix I innovators 226 PROJECT PROGRESS UPDATE SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES Orange County AT - PLANTS 1 & 2 Sanitation °'s`r'°` r PRESENTED BY: Geosyntecea AUGUST 15, 2018 r � �tk 1 r. Agenda • Introductions/Safety Moment • Review Project Objectives • Progress Update • Geotechnical Site Conditions/Risks • Structural Evaluations and Mitigations • Next Steps • Questions/Discussion Orange County Sanitatlon DisbiIX 2 PS15-06 TM4 Appendix C 228 Safety Moment - Downed Powerlines • Live or Deenergized? 49. AM Orange County Sanitation Disbict 3 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 229 Safety Moment - Downed Powerlines • A live and deenergized line look the same! 1 . . • No sparks or movement. • May restore power to It the line without warning. i • The protective covering on a power line is not insulation • Keep away from any -' object that is in contact - -'- F with a power line (including the ground!) Orange County Sanitabon Disbict PS15-06 TM4 Appendix C 230 Safety Moment - Downed Powerlines • Treat downed power lines and anything in contact with them as energized. Stay far away from any downed line. Stay back at least 33 feet away (That's about the length of a city bus.) • Call 911 (or 211 ) and the power company immediately. A crew with proper training and equipment will arrive as soon as possible. • Wait for the power company representative to confirm that it is safe to approach the scene. ' 77 Orange County Sanitation Disbict 5 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 231 Introductions • The Geosyntec Team: • Chris Conkle • Chris Hunt • Jeff Fijalka • James Doering (Carollo) • Doug Lanning (Carollo) • Ahmed Nisar (InfraTerra) • OCSD Team AM Orange County Sanitation Disbict 6 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 232 Meeting Objectives • "in progress" update on project • Preview of findings regarding structures • Preview of mitigation recommendations • Facilitate review of Upcoming Deliverables orange County Sanitation District 7 PS15-06 TM4 Appendix C 233 Review Project Objectives Orange County Sanitation Disbict 8 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 234 Project Objectives • Identification of critical structural vulnerabilities for project structures • Development of retrofit recommendations • Planning Level for incorporation into facility master plan. • In addition, develop high level understanding of seismic risks throughout both Plants Orange County Sanitatlon DisbiIX 9 PS15-06 TM4 Appendix C 235 Project Objectives - Plant 1 PLANT 1 STRUCTURES LEGEND 1-1 Waste Sludge Thickeners(DAFT)Pump Room �"C J�y ® • 1-2 Blower Building(AS1)and PEPS i 1-3 Plant Water Pump Station and Power Building 6 1-4 City Water Pump Station 1-5 Power Building 1-6 Power Building 4 1-7 Power Building 5 1-8 Control Center % 1-9 12 kV Service Center 1-10 Central Power Generation Building 1-11 Aeration Basins 1-10 1-12 Secondary Clarifiers 1-26 1-13 Digesters 714 Digesters 5-6 Pump Room ' 1-75 Digester 148 Digester? 1-17 Digesters 7-8 Pump Roam 1 1-18 Digester O 7 - 1-19 Digesters 9-10 1-20 Digesters 9-10 Pump Room 1-21 Digesters 11-16 1-22 Digesters 11-14 Pump Room /• 1-23 Digesters iSi6 Pump Room 1-24 Gas Holder 1-25 Effluent Junction Boa • STRUCTURE FOUNDATION LEGEND 1-26 Solids Storage Facility MaiwaEwrom..R.T'. T. 1-27 Chilior Building B/SELEM 1-28 Warehouse Bulling 1-29 Shop Building A TUNNEL -N 1-30 Shop Building B and 3 1_31 Buildings and 1-32 Auto Shop PSIS-CSSRUCTURE-CLSS I BUILDING 1-33 PEDB2 • PS15DSSTRUCTURE-CLSSINONBUR➢IRG IYtL' cuissil AM Orange County Sanitation District 10 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 236 Project Objectives - Plant 2 PLANT 2 STRUCTURES LEGEND Gallery 2-2 DAFT D Gallery&WSSPS 23 RAS PS East i 2d RAS PS West 25 PEPS 8 MAC r 2-6 Operations/Control Center Bldg �• ♦ 2-7 12 kV Service Center 2-8 Power Building B axi0 - 2-9 Power Building C "Ili 2-10 Power Building D 2-i t City Water Pump Station 7 2-12 12 kV Distribution Cen1M B - 2-13 12 kV DiStribution Center D 2-14 Headworks Power Bldg A ° m • u 3i0 ,� „ / 245 Headworks Power Bldg B / r 2-16 Headworks Standby Power Building Central Power Generation Building j 2-18 Aeration Basins A41 2-19 Gas Folder :.. / 2-20 Secor"Clainfreni A-L /'� 2-21 DAFTS A-C :m 2-22 DAFT D 2-23 Surge Tower No. 1 STRUCTURE FOUNDATION LEGEND 2-24 Surge Tower No. 2 2_25 (Structure Omnled from SUM SPREADFOOTwGORMATFOUNDATION Z_26 Truck Loading �. A _ ■ BASEMENT 2-27 Maintenance Building PS15Ue STRUCTURE-CI IBUADING 22-20 Boiler Building TUNNEL 2-29 OOBS ❑ PB1Sa65TRUCTURE-CtA551 NpN8UItDING o� STONE COLUMNS 230 12kV Distribution Center A(Tiff 1 Only) PS15065TRUCTURE-CLASSIIo.. TIE-GOWN ANCHORS 231 SEJB 232 JBC Orange County Sanitation Disbict PILES 11 PS15-0S TM4 Appendix C 237 Progress Update AM Orange County Sanitation Disbict 12 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 238 Progress Update • Completed Tasks — TM1 — Background Development — TM2 — Geotechnical Site Investigation • In Progress — Task 3 — Combined Geotechnical and Structural Evaluations • Upcoming — Task 4 — Completion — March 2019 Orange County Sanitation Disbict 13 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 239 Geotechnical Site Conditions/Risks Orange County Sanitation Disbict 14 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 240 Geotech n ical Overview • Site Investigation • Seismic Hazard Level • Water Level Evaluation • Idealized Soil Profiles • Liquefaction settlement and lateral spread • Consideration of Fault Rupture AM Orange County Sanitation Disbict 15 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 241 Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading t � V Orange County Sanitation Disbict 16 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 242 Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading w e Harder Orange County Sanitation Disbict 17 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 243 Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading I - AM Orange County Sanitation Disbict 18 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 244 Liquef nd I I Lateral Spreading • 11 ao Orange Geotechnical Investigations — Plant 1 _ LEGEND CP7 I r rY --_+—M.. ''' + .• 1 CPT/Boring Pair CPT-01 � " r . BH-01 Y ' _ • t » A Previous CPT AV w'-_.• I « ~ �}'�, CPT-07 Previous Boring CPT-12 $CPT-02''' AEyY CPT02 CPT-06 BH- y 124 i CPT-09 a CPT-11 CPT-03 } BH-03 CPT-13v1 CPT-10 x+ /• J ` /i CPT-1q CPT-04 BH-04 "31 iCPT-15Q 1 CPT-16 - -•� CPT-17 -a srwu=w user Orange County Sanitation District 20 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 246 Geotechnical Investigations — Plant 2 ._�._�. _•� + ,� CPT-03 ._ 4 'A040 a 1 r. . . . . . . _- 2. CPT-a1 _, .•:/'" CPT-11 •• CP7-10 • W.01 IN`- .. y = y. y"CPT-05 CPT-06 I ' ev LEGEND 9 CPT2 2- + A CPT/ CPT-08 "'y GPT BH-0-U72 CPT/Boring Pair CPT-09 i i"/" A Previous CPT i + Previous Boring AM Orange County Sanitation Disbict 21 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 247 Seismic Design Criteria • Two earthquake hazard levels for existing structures • BSE-1E Hazard Level (immediate occupancy) • 20% Probability of exceedance in 50 years / 225 year recurrence interval • BSE-2E Hazard Level (life safety) • 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years / 975 year recurrence interval • Plant 1 • BSEAE: PGA = 0.30g • BSE-2E: PGA = 0.46g San j'aquih Hills • Plant 2 • BSEAE: PGA = 0.29g • BSE-2E: PGA = 0.48g ------------------------------------------- Note New construction typically considers t BSE-2N, 2,475 yr recurrence (PGA = 0.65g) ; i BSE 1N, 2/3rds of BSE-2N (PGA = 0.43g) i San Andreas Fault is48 miles NEofPlan't '-----------------------------------------' W Orange County Sanitation Disbict 22 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 248 Groundwater Level Approach • Historic High Water Level (HHWL) often used for new construction • Using "Analysis Water Level (AWL)" for planning study of existing structures • Based on review of site-specific information (boring logs and limited well data) • In all cases, lower than equivalent HH level • Plant 1: +16 ft (NAVD '88) • Plant 2: +2 ft (NAVD '88) Plant 1 Analysis Water Level Evaluation 30 -ocwnMul 0 —OCW MNf —OCW0.M1N1 20 6 • e-li Level ) - OCWD-MMf _-'_________ -------- __ ------O_______q________ _ - —MW1 f0 a on —MW2 MW-a —MWa —MW5 p Y 1 —NW6 —MW) wMWa 10 MW9 MWf0 3 e o Nlstoec BWCPT 20 o GeosYnlae CPT 30 '61 'aa To Oa W if Ta 'a• W 9T M Its '0a '13 '17 &se(Year) Orange County Sanitation Disnet 23 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 249 Idealized Soil Profile - Digester 16 • • Faeror ofSafefy agairr•f Lxuefa Wo during Building = 1-21A Digesters 13-16(front row) D••lt t Ea101..ke Hazard Level= 5%in 50 yrs(M: USGS 2008; PGA:ASCE 41-13) 0 05 f is 2 Ground Water= Analysis Level •o rsaguefaE= 7.71 PGA.a = 0.46 g 1 Defined Laaerapw.Anairsie Pararietarz GmurM Water= 11.0 R-ags JO Settlemem Limit= ]C.0 a-0gz -- _.__________ _____ - --River LS Limit= mu lbbgz R.,Free Fa¢H= 100 a CPT.Bons.and BuiMina Nap 20 NunGrof squares a Isuare=100xi00a ` cPr to = ESIIOOa / •1-103 • &1*1007 �' t 5 2 •P1-CPm -10 W -- ON-CPM flormn,s p .D.B01001 _ P -CP Fr •E8I111011, JO ' 41 1 / aE-811007 •1,88103 -10 xPf-BN02 Orange County Sanitation District 24 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 250 Idealized Soil Profile - Digester 16 IWIrsMRofik tliWi dSvau PmFYe IPA Urcnr S—,gAm[ky. .fcl, SFer •Fricdn Argk cl SaM flsiSW S�rSbwgA (pc! .S.IP•0 IAy Aaro i$rsJ 0 5000 r00tl 15000 10 90 r,0 ,tl ,50 0 3p0 ,000 i500 M00 M 30 35 tl l5 50 0 0, 01 03 01 05 RUM J0 _ qufebkl M f0 IWu�Fwbkl CIryM An S,ItaM - £ Sand.sutra` F _ 9 SaMSiry S. ((MwfiafiMl M smaaa,ySantl wiA -JO 9hy Ck1'S M1qufsOkl tl SartYSihy SaM(Nw� tiOneWbkl . 4 0 _ tl Pw wtrm9 .2 ap • EBrOP/ ream o PI-9rp1 Sa6i=9 09991 Sdi0=ll'10(r99U) —Be* f,99.>) puleJ=flCf,9mf V Nk=11 Assumm9 Voi1 RetlsMWmn AM mv Orange County Sanitation Distract 25 PS15-0S TM4 Appendix C 251 Liquefaction Displacements — Digester 16 mean:re Peen. a., em a Oepa� e (nMuJe mTonaNS Plrerli�Mu) r LNnl9pzatl Hea arNUXglm 0 ] 6 0 10 12 0 20 40 60 80 @0 River Neal Far F 290 M I® P Ne 9aNn��n�t .olYes Flw. ..2t Bess Uppe. Ntl O !1 O 2H l 65 s8 T fly 10 5R 06 ID • 5 20 I t N 0 0 II Sery SaM IL9uefi.OW 10 y s�Nral Ricer PmBer��Taxartlz Ricer Q 0 0 Fha Berl w Q O Naar iar Nea pe Far 0 M I-) W.) 1n.) W __________ ____________________ 2B M 13.8 50 ID3 4 AI 0.Y 25 00 3 0 0-0 0 0-0 20 anOC MSily my .a __ _____________________ B,,,LL,JIy 4wN W,,,.Lp„•Brpyl -_____________________T Focus is on "best estimate" case, , —L102 with consideration —Ed , X2 of effects of "upper , a fl�tl=PTa=N w1Ed0.M estimate". BrXMCPT�FaMw Clgeb FF , AM MF Orange County Sanitation Disbic[ 26 PS15-0S TM4 Appendix C 252 Liquefaction & Lateral Spread — Plant 1 ___ �...�.«..—•+_•._.•_.__—_.•_•• •y Free LEGEND 1-2er + 1-32 + Face 5(5) i ' / s 10 f[ Geosyntec CPT 4. No LS + ° Geosyntec Boring 1=27 `` /Y 35(5) A Previous CPT 1 4.5 55 ' ) +• 11-18(13-22) No LS ------------- ( •P •+r w Previous Boring 1n3to15.1.24 ' �.a - 3oLS 1-z(1 8(10) NO LS •� " y' � 35 26- 1_7 t—s �3 •i�.: °' �________ 17-35(26-52) 9-10 10 1 _ No LS 3 5 ___-G4?1 r�„ y�r : 8i.218 8(79) 11-1B(17-24) ._I ____*_i_ \ 1-13 om� 1-42 8-10(8-11) 8(10)+ r 13-26(19-38) .� 1-14 J4,5(7) _ q6 to 1.20 8-9(9-10) 2 4.5(7) g(8_9j 8.5(10) 6(7.5) r-•g_ 5-6(1 L75), rt 13-20(18-29) - I _ C 146 10-11 (11-12) �7 7.5(9) 15-19(22-29) 4 1.17 1-33 1=26 .17-25(28-40) 4.517 ) 6.5(9� i6-11 a4 26) No LS 13-18 22 31 14-18 21-28 6-76(10.26) (, - ) ( ) A-• .5 20-40(3(33-64) H.5(8) 1-20 • '0-'+ 13-27(22-46) 21-29(3(32-45) i 8 1.12 6( ) �r• • �1.3 � 6-38(9-56) LI 65(8) -1=9 126-40(34-53) STRUCTURE FOUNDATION LEGEND 85 (11) ON 111➢i1476) SPREAD FOOTING OR MAT FOUNDATI ••_••_ u . BASEMENT Structure ••1___ Free settlement,inches 125 1 TUNNEL lateral spread,inches 65(85) Face / Best(Upper Estimate) scsN resr (50-165) 15 ff „dr� '� PPILESu At Analysis Water Level Orange County Sanitation District 27 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 253 Why Liquefaction at Plant 1 ? • Plant 1 and 2 sit within the historic floodplain of the Santa Ana River • Historic river meanders and deposition from flooding leave behind loose sandy soils NEWPORT MESA- HUNTINGTON MESA SANTA ANA RIVER HISTORIC FLOOD DEPOSITS-- CHANNEL O.C.S.D. PLANT 2 1 —. - -- ---^ -- HOLOCENE ALLUVIUM - - -- \ TALBERT ORAV SITS LATE PLEISTOCENE L'. ALLUVIUM -112,00099.000 YEARS) (125,000♦YEARe) ANCIENT SANTA ANA RIVER CHANNEL XOR�IOxieL 1 �V00 .sln.Al V.,2o GENERALIZED AREAL STRATIGRAPNY AM Orange County Sanitation District 28 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 254 Liquefaction & Lateral Spread — Plant 2 3-03 3A1 11.5(13) 11.5(13) �-"�- 2_7 No LS - NotS_ 11 (11) z zT 1 "� ryry 25(13) 15-16 (17-19) L5 . 11 (12) No LS , r --•_—• — • NO LS •• • O 2-14 to 16.2-3a 2-26 c 13(171 0 •' No LS • r s•• 2-10 16-17(23 25) 6(7,5) /Y NoLS• 18-19(25-27) /i lac l e 2.8 and 2.28 '° +. • • 17;19(z(z5-28) p\F�g 6 No LS ^ 2-17 17-20(25-30) P / 2-19 j '• 3.�•(4) 4 1� 12-21 (16-27) 2-2 Z10 2-z1 19-28(28-421 `�°� �'•• +�L az� 2 2 33-145 6(9.5)� 1. ' ` LEGEND I � I scuE r.rEer 2-22 ' --• 'yL_12• `` �3' h • �2-32 GeosYntec CPT 7 (9). 11— a 8.5(13.,T ,� 17 (17) z en " i6- 3 5 2-y • 43-75(75-130) Geosyntec Boring (3B- • .P(10) To Previous CPT �r��`-I{k 19-21 (38� 'I LJ �- Previous Boring 2-20 I 1i 21Bg .r 2.24 7 (10) _III, �• 8.5(11) STRUCTURE FOUNDATION LEGEND 23) ,/ 46-65(65-95) 2=4 2-19e • .I^ 3(4) 5.5(7.5) SPREAD FOOTING OR MAT FOUNDATION �2"''e'• 1 (1) 9-16(18J7) ■ BASEMENT Strumne 'I • 2=3 TUNNELNNETUNNELSeNIrT¢n(In6heS L" 4(5.5) (5.5) 5.5(7.5) lateral spread(over),inches �✓ 1 (2-3) 13-16(18-31) STONE COLUMNS Beat(Upper e) ■�� '. TIE-DOWN ANCHORS Al Analysis Waaterter L Leevel (101 Orange County Sanitation District 29 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 255 Fault Rupture Hazard — Plant 2 Only • Numerous faults can cause liquefaction and strong shaking at Plant 2 • Only one fault (Newport- ' Inglewood) can cause fault rupture • Risk to existing structures from fault rupture displacements is significantly lower than that from liquefaction-induced displacements and settlement AM Orange County Sanitation Disbict 30 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 256 Structural Evaluations and Mitigations AM Orange County Sanitation Disbict 31 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 257 Structural Groups . I = Digesters Buildings Mat Foundation DAFTs — Buildings - Deep Foundations Gas Holders a Surge Towers Buried Boxes ''� .... Secondary Clarifiers Aeration Basins Buildings — Shallow AM Orange County Sanitation Disbict Foundations 32 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 258 _.� � ._-� .-,fie: - e, •g •jai " - --s� ; �� � j.��i��\`I�'I►` . ALM 7- MESA JIMEME ISO p j I I S Y ? 1 d-A i; • a N ' V PILE SCHEDULE CIRCLE CIgCLE xUMOEq pP1CIN0 •N6LE lw Foundation Plan DIPM9T[R REQUIRED FEETPM P IIP.Yp' )P 4.90 0.0• 2 J • 100.00' ap 6.54 ).•• TOMMM4 'i du C 66.00' p) 5.66 ).•- E 34.00' )c c.)Y 10,0• ` 0 %� F 38.00' P• 0.00 Ip.O• 6 22.00' Ip 3.0E P0.0• iTRUCIME p MAL 164 T. r[ -77 1� , II ✓t ` 4 y' _ � � f C D Ar i �' II 4 r ✓'� d j II Nk FILE at•slv[nv�ms 1�•` cA[[[ mills Ills _ w[xvni.OL�( .p Q w— IIL60' 6.F ORp I 100.00' L Y[smw.V.nOYOI[Xf®IOL1[M6. n.De. PIIEC118T PRL97PESSE31) Orange County Sanitation Disbict m CONCRETE PILE 35 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 261 Plant 1 Digester 16 W� E — C... ..iowaMS,-- ds`......� .. R,va.yn esl 0 M W e H=1p k x �� ita Ana River Ground Shaking Permanent Ground Deformation IRV Orange County Sanitation Disbict 36 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 262 1 ANSYS NODAL SOLUTION R18.1 STEP=1 SUB =6 FREQ=6.11522 USUM (AVG) RSYS=O DMX =.223764 SMX =.223764 Z II u LR -.223764 -.124313 -.024863 .074588 .179038 -.174038 -.074588 .024863 .124313 .223764 DIGESTER. 16 [kips, in] --. [kge Wr- Piles f: - v � 35"'� c ' �. -46» i llll F / Earthquake Damage — 1995 Kobe, Japan cret2_ e C racked' � Differential settlemenf' ,�1 5ppported digester and adjafm cent ground a6Orange County Sanitation Disbict 39 Items for Discussion • Digesters • Piles for front row of digesters closest to the river (7- 12) are vulnerable to significant damage • Piles for back row of digesters will deform but maintain capacity • Reduction of lateral spread displacement through ground improvement will improve seismic performance of digesters Orange County Sanitation District 40 PS15-06 TM4 Appendix C 266 Digesters — Lateral Spread Mitigation • Ground improvement options to limit lateral spread Santa Ana River Ground Improvement Zone im Orange County Sanitabon Disbict 41 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 267 Lateral Spread Mitigation Concepts • Option 1 : Ground improvement to limit lateral spread • Construct ground improvement shear panels • Ground improvement methods: Auger soil mixing, cutter soil mixing, slurry wall method, jet grouting, . . . • Key ground improvement elements: • Large footprint (utility relocation, surface disruptions) • Must achieve high strength and/or large "replacement volume" y • "Key" improvement below lateral spread zone (Digesters-- Elev. -10 feet) Orange County Sanitation DisbiIX 42 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 268 Lateral Spread Mitigation Concepts • Option 2: Subsurface retaining wall to limit lateral spread • Design wall to resist earth pressure from lateral spread without excessive deflection - soil "in front' of wall would still move away • Wall types: secant pile wall, cutter soil mix wall, . . . • Key wall elements • Smaller footprint • Significant depth (-100 ft), founded below liquefaction zone • Heavily reinforced to limit deflections Orange County Sanitation Disbict 43 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 269 Digesters — Lateral Spread Mitigation • Secant Pile Wall Installation Y n �F 11 ir, H � H H �f H Orange County Sanitation Disbict Image Source: Hayward Baker 44 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 270 Ya � � r � � r + = �� i� _ 41 14'� v r ,�. 1 � II � �� ;�.J., , I � - °'��' �i � � �1 �ti! � � � �� // r �� ,,' !l�lI � � �� 1 �. /. f, r� ' �II�� ��%�f�/ �\ , 'Vr� i � // '� f ' i i � . � � i au+. � do . � � � ' Secondary Clarifiers F tib 1 k PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix HA 272 Secon • • ��r m 69 Orange Secondary Clarifiers IJ�AL 50LVfI0N ANSYS ra.1 NMAL SOUJPICN ANSUA STET'--5 STEP-19 AX 16 2018 TI�b16=44 es'iw wnum� SUB -1 18:49:09 UPSsw (AW) PM (AW Puri' . 1 Il =41.0956 OW -9.27463 SMJ =9 37112 MI -5.21016 SMX -4E0956 SK( -9.17983 9.37112 12.8961 16.421 19.9459 23.4709 26.9958 30.5208 34.0457 37.5707 41.0956 5.21016 5.65124 6.09231 6.53338 6.97446 7.415537.8566 8.29768 0.73875 9.17983 SecondAry Clarifiers A-L [kips, in] Clarifier A - Settlen:nts [kips, in] Lateral Spread Settlement AM Orange County Sanitation District 48 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 274 Earthquake Damage — 1995 Kobe, Japan Expansion joint separation along entire bank �4 ajr r • a.. a aYi y a t Orange County Sanitation District • • ! - MW 49 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 275 r F ` / M _ J � sI- Effluent channel offset nearly lm f ral spread Building mov a6Orange County Sanitation District Secondary Clarifiers Structural Upgrade Option �fY1 6Y TpY u /.) .h .n f ewe /__ !� ••�` • -C.-OM t NR a M 116 6MYn C.. _ q, 14 .pie - - •e®iv enn W12x196 Beams Added (transverse direction) W12x196 Beams Added (longitudinal direction) 4.44609 4.86344 5.28078 5.69812 6.11547 6.53281 6.95015 7.3675 7.78484 8.20218 Ak Orange County Sanitation Disbict *05 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 277 Secondary Clarifiers — Geotech Mitigation • Option 1 : Secant pile wall to limit lateral spread towards marsh , but not control settlement • Option 2: Ground improvement below clarifiers to limit both settlement and lateral spread • Either option would stabilize lateral spread towards marsh for structures "behind" clarifiers as well N YY ..R Orange County Sanitation Disbi 52 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 278 Lateral Spread Mitigation - Plant 2 Concept • Secant Pile Wall Installation along River and Marsh 0 - s� i 00 i" Lateral Spread "cutoff" wall • May need to be installed outside property line e- • Can be locally stopped or shifted back where utilities cross • Will not mitigate settlement Orange County Sanitation District 53 PS15-06 TM4 Appendix C 279 Items for Discussion • Secondary Clarifiers • Large lateral spread deformation and settlement results in significant differential movement across expansion joints • Structurally connecting clarifiers across expansion joints is a potential structural retrofit • Ground improvement will reduce lateral spread but impractical to reduce settlements • Ground improvement together with structural retrofit would improve seismic performance Orange County Sanitation District 54 PS15-06 TM4 Appendix C 280 r h„ t Surge Tower 2 A 41 • y R f,Yl�� �, AM _I � 4 Orange County Sanitation District 56 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 282 Surge Tower nnnnm -:: . : m�e � :G:d mom i� x�!K m " nmu■■■nr. ..mnu.� j ® �' mounnf j���.iioii �■ ■■■■nr. �����iii•` eno■ome 1 r� ■�■F ao■oome -�..n� annul■� Vo Orange y, ` 'j � -iy � ', " _ ♦ ��� -': `�� � �� � -. �-y�1 �_ a. . �. ,ie � ` { •w I . ,�,,,� f � . � � - _ =. I �,�. � I \;;�� t�i� �� � i �� � I� �, �� � ��'����i fill _ I i� �r ,, I �.�� _ �'�I � alp �=�_ _ ! .,: ,�_ I _ ��, r � I � �I ���.��� � ��,�k��lll y � �v. r „ 'F�� 4qL' 4 .. ?.. ,v:. ��'dh 't w h µ � ?,w. y. �r�,� ,s ,. [. ' - "� Items for Discussion • Surge Towers • Acceptable performance for ground shaking • Liquefaction-induced lateral spread will result in sliding, which will significantly damage connection with outfall pipeline • Liquefaction-induced settlement causes minor tilting Orange County Sanilabon DisbiIX 60 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendlx C 286 i Gas Hoi at i Gas Holder � Isere Q OOF $AUGEQ_6CI� I _hl•]Lhs3.if xip+0[� J • n," F P M1S"ON STUI 9 Sn4�3R.;4s9i�s23-1 hi Si-63 • t S � ICI vRf�SR;4<9ipii¢-d'i53 J� RI W �:I SR3�91[4,4 w'91 y i3 4-6.y i Ei �-11t Awl 32-0-o VOE 3y �4' a2) s prp p i __EvnT•Ov AM mv Orange County Sanitation Disbic[ 62 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 288 Gas Holder AM s ?4 Orange County Sanitation Disbict 63 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 289 Items for Discussion • Gas Holder • Acceptable performance for ground shaking • Piston mechanism is not significantly impacted by seismic loading • Liquefaction-induced lateral spread at the gas holder is not significant • Liquefaction-induced settlement may damage anchorage, which is currently corroded • Strap type anchorage is vulnerable Orange County Sanitation District 64 PS15-06 TM4 Appendix C 290 1 N it a � P1 Aeration Basins 1 -10 Vulnerability I Potential Mitigation Basins can pull apart at the expansion Ground improvement to arrest lateral joints causing large-scale leakage and roof spread. deck collapse. �0 r8 ANCHORS � ' jrEl(f+/WSION J'E I'4 tYWHOOK(T16 Y . 4.5j7) _ - e Ae i L�9��t WITH TYP.REBAR r$ 4.5517 134 INP A {7-75 (78-40) ANCN05'9:p'O.C.QYPJ eTEFLON RE6NATED 6 (JR) B-5 (9 FR5ER61-ASS CLOTH No LS 6-16 (40-26) , 13-18 (2T-.71) CC SECTION -EXPANSION t5 (8) JOINT 1127 (22-46) AM Orange County Sanitation Disbict 66 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 292 P2 Aeration Basins A-H Vulnerability I Potential Mitigation Basins can pull apart at the expansion Ground improvement to arrest lateral joints causing collapse of the Scott Tunnel spread or deck support extension. roof deck. Lame 41. 2 h - &81 - : -e� ; i94B(1H�4P1 • 1 • . r» 1 Y _ •__� rlrsr( 1514 ``` F ♦ Y' 3:73 11(17) r • ✓ 43.75(75-13 �� 115i50DOR0, � .a •: 4>ti5 (55)3tii 7d at.a W.RDul45 4lDPR[N! ftD ccMw. .o 3(4) 5.5(7.5) I1 (T--3) 13--16(18-31) AM Orange County Sanitation Disbict 67 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 293 . A, 9 i R PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 294 P2 PEPS & MAC Vulnerability Potential Mitigation Shear walls are discontinuous at PEPS Fill in openings on the north wall at (2) basement level. locations to reduce overturning demands on columns below discontinuous shear walls. ( o © Co�crete0fill � 0 - ---- —, Concrete infill Orange County Sanitation Disbict f PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 295 P1 City Water Pump Station Ow : . j7 It /i 1 I Findings - P1 City Water Pump Station Vulnerability Potential Mitigation Building walls are not tied to the floor Add steel angle tie plates between walls slab. and slaF2bs. Expansion a[nt.at slab OI tTvr)— _ II (E)CONCRETE ,a II WALL II` O r '.II STEEL ANGLE SHEAR CONNECTION WITH (k7FWNDATION ADHESIVE ANCHORS Td TVA• r-IW �, p Orange County Sanitation Disbic[ 71 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 297 �_ — a i ...i.. . � _ � _,�._� e _� �. � . i � i - � �'�c �' .� n W° -•.-r---+�— �'�. � , �.: � -- � - —_� � - - �� _ - a �. P1 Control Center Vulnerability Potential Mitigation Moment frame alignment results in large Add steel braced frames and/or torsional response of the building. Drifts concrete shear walls within the plan of are estimated to be relatively high. the building. Moment frame connections are pre- Northridge style and cannot develop the flexural capacity of the joints (shear failure can occur). FULL PENETRATION f2STIFF TIBBR -_ T8 COL8BB ABOVE AT 3'OC SEE BOLT SCHEDULE- Potential fractur� $LV / * to 2L B En SIDE 1/0" BACK UP!TYP AM Orange County Sanitation Disbict 73 PS15-0B TM4 Appendix C 299 P1 Control Center Weak axis bending P 3.1 0 SP4. EO SPG 2E0 6 ss 6 rong axis bendi 3_, —K — is 9x9 M x32e —_ iYP OP Ww I182Xx 40 WISX40 0 WI�ea3.C'O� HOrv" WzcI692 x%xa6IBz:wne;ax w Ole x9a— i I xa 316 90\n39° . W12X40 . 01 WISX40 0o w o 0 0 DO 00 0 W18%40 M w29X68 WIB%0 0 DIwE6 i DEC. wlz 12x90 wizxeo :Wrv_II xc o ; Do 00 �c..o Do ;I w29x68 ; ; w39%68 ;I. _ I W16X00 1 19%90 _I WIB%90 W12X40 I 12 X40 DO N 0 ry O b w Do DO III w IEa¢2 O 1 wle xaa WISX40 w12 w12 x22 I W16IX 0 I I WIG, Xao Ii---� I/ i 312x9x1/0 8 EO SP4 AT 3'-6 Orange County Sanitation Disbic[ 74 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 300 P1 Control Center Vulnerability Potential Mitigation Moment frame alignment results in large Add steel braced frames and/or torsional response of the building. Drifts concrete shear walls within the plan of are estimated to be relatively high. the building. Moment frame connections are pre- Northridge style and cannot develop the flexural capacity of the joints (shear failure can occur). I OV95Ei PL.M. FFLINE SiIFFE.ER RAiE FOR N69 Fn-up ETIFFExEReE M, aRIC0. �mlr RE.E RER..CE i LZ� 11 IEIMET.pEIX• REMORCWOO'/ER CORC �R lywlbbF.bfY.F 55 R Mbbb�IbbbO M' � 0111RT M FW AM Orange County Sanitation Disbic[ 75 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 301 Next Steps Orange County Sanitation Disbict 76 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 302 Next Steps • Present TM3 findings • Continued discussions with OCSD Team • Issue Draft TM3 • Proceed with TM4 • Finalization of Mitigation alternatives • Project prioritization Orange County Sanitation District 77 PS15-06 TM4 Appendix C 303 D iscussion Orange County Sanitation Disbict 78 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 304 Thank You '. Orange County Sanitation Disbict 79 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 305 PLANT 1 STRUCTURES LEGEND 1-1 Waste Sludge Thickeners (DAFT) Pump Room •_•---�......� •------ __________ ___ Free t-28 to t-32 I + + Face. 1-2 Plant Building (AS 1) and PEPS 4.5/5 1 + �+ + 1-3 Plant Water Pump Station and Power Building 6 10 ftr 1-4 City Water Pump Station No LS �-� � + , + + + + + '�+ / 1-5 Power Building 2 + + + •+ * + 1_4 1-6 Power Building 4 ' + + ' + 1-27 in + + y .+ �� 3.5/5 1_7 Power Building _ 4.5/5.5 � ,+i + •�;dil-18113-22 k` 1-8 Control Center 1_8 No LS + , + - 1-9 12 kV Service Center 8110 314.51-13 to 15. 1-24 , 1-21A 1-10 Central Power Generation Building No LS � p� �� A; 7.5110 1-1 t Aeration Basins 1-10 1_6 + " '.-� '.:�;;,fi� �, 17-35/26-52 1-12 Secondary Clarifiers 1-26 t_7 , 3/5 % „° ���:,�!,;az1A;;r--'----- 1-218 } 1-13 Digesters 9-10/ 12-13 I ' �No LS �i�o',' 8/ 10 " ` '` a k�` ,� 1-15 Digesters 5-6 Pump Room 1-13 � , tor \N--- •' 11-16/ 17-24 1-15 Digester6 7-8/7-9 i _ s a - ` '/1P4, 1 : /� 1.22 1-16 Digester 1-09 13-26/ 19-38 1-17 Digesters 78110 -8 Pump Room 1-74 . t , 1-18 Digester 8 8-9/9-10 I t_2 + r 1��,��"(3i�-`,"! t-tstol-2o 1-23 1,9 - J 4.517 - oc`),jr+ 8.5110 6 77.5 1-19 Digesters 9-10 5-6/ 11-15- r `` 1-20 Digesters 9-10 Pump Room r 8-9%8-9 13-20/ 18-29 t-2a 0 A. 7_8 1-16 y„ 1-21 Digesters 11-16 Im +, + + r 15-19/22-2g 1-22 Digesters 11-14 Pump Room 10-11 / 11-12 ' .1+ - 7.5/9 1.17 1-23 Digesters 15-16 Pump Room 1-a3 17-25/28-40 4.5/7 1-11 1=2s 16-17/24-26 1-24 Gas Holder No LS 6/1 _ 6.5/ 11-18 a 1-25 EHluentJunction Box 6-16/10-26 13-18/�2-31 14-18/21-28 1-26 Solids Storage Facility ® / 1-19 1_1 20-40/33-64 - 1-27 Chiller Building 6 5/8 t 20 - 1-28 Warehouse Building + 27/22-46 21-29/32-45 1-29 Shop Building A 1 - 1-30 Shop Building B and 3 i 1-12 . + J 1-31 Buildings 5 and 6 618 Inar r 1_3 1-32 Auto Shop 6-3819-56 U 6.5/8 1-33 PEDB2 1-9 . / 26-40/34-53� STRUCTURE FOUNDATION LEGEND 8.5111 SPREAD FOOTING OR MAT FOUNDATION LEGEND .12114-16 - 1 - 18 ■ BASEMENT Structure A Geosyntec CPT - ---- - - -`_ _ — , - ,_ ___ settlement, inches Free f25 ■ TUNNEL lateral spread, inches {�}Geosyntec Boring 6.5/8.5 Face (Best/Upper Estimate, �I' 16-150/50-165 ' = 15 ft _ _ PILES Analysis Water Level) A Previous CPT ° wa Previous Boring SCALE IN FEET DRAFT Geosyntec"' FIGURE NO.: PS15-06 OCSD PLANT 1 DATE: AUGUST 2018 FOUNTAIN VALLEY LIQUEFACTION INDUCED SETTLEMENT AND LATERAL SPREAD consultants PROJECT NO.: HL1635 CALIFORNIA (ANALYSIS WATER LEVEL) 22-13 22-11 x-] 4--1 PLANT 2 STRUCTURES LEGEND 11.5/13 11.5/ 13 --�--� 2_7 2-1 A A. Gallery 1S i NO - ts 2_b 11 / 11 2-2 DAFT D Gallery 8 WSSPS 2-3 RAS PS East 2-27 2-7 4 � 11.5113 15-16/ 17-19 2-4 RAS PS west •� 11 / 12 - x-0 No LS • 2-5 PEPS 8 MAC No LS 2 26 2-14 to 16, 2-30 2-6 Operations/Control Center Bldg 13/1 Z ' 17.5110 • 2-7 12 kV Service Center No LS I • • • • ° ° • 2-8 Power Building B ••�� • 214 �i 2-9 Power Building C 1 5/6 t q • 2-10 16-17123-25 ° i 2-10 Power Building D I ' 2=9 •• • r • ••: 0 2-15 j � ' 2-11 City Water Pump Station 6/7.4,°, " • /� No LS 18-19/25-27 i eG 1 2-12 12 kV Distribution Center B .• . �.0 •,• 2-16 '� �aG 2-13 12 kV Distribution Center D 2-8 and 2-28 •,c' 17�19/25-28 �� 0 t1y 2-74 Headworks Power Bldg A 1 • ° 516 • •• 2-30 j F 2-15 Heatlworks Power Bldg B 2-1 1 No LS 2-1 7 17-20/25-30 SP` 2-16 Heatlworks Standby Power Builtlin • `•` 2-19 • /� • v .c• 7.5/ 13 p,0 2-17 Central Power Generation Building x. • 3.'`i•/4 . 12-21 / 16-27 �t2 .�[^yam D �_•• 1z-14� •.. /'� 0 2-18 Aeration Basins A-H 7/9 rJ• ``' 1 / 1 "a @-15 s ° x-t] u S �d; t ,' x-1e� • - 2-79 Gas Holder " { 8.�f 13.5 r' 22 2-20 Secondary Clarifiers A-L 7.5114 2=21 . 19/28/28-42• < x-so + xs• 2-21 DAFTs A-C 619.5 A, • •' 21-92/33-145 2-22 DAFT D • SCALE IN FEET _ ® ' _ • • �� 2-23 Surge Tower No. 1 2-24 Surge Tower No. 2 2 22 ' • • 1 ° 2.12 z 3z 2-25 Structure Omitted from 7.5/9 8.5/ 13 �` 11 / 17 2-25 Truck Loading Study) o• � z-1sA j�,- ' 1.6,23/A-5�'; 2_31• �� 43-75/ 75-130 `p . .. �� 2-27 Maintenance Building • I I-I, • .8/ 10 1,01 2-28 Boiler Building 19-21/38- i � x-zo ii 1 -zal z-24 ,rf 2-29 0085 ( { 2-30 12kV Distribution Center A (Tier 1 On yam) 2.20 'I1 2-188 zIz . 224 2-31 SEJB 7, 10 ° �� _:- �,� 8.5/ 11 STRUCTURE FOUNDATION LEGEND 2-32 JBC 6-17/7-23 ;'�1 • x' • + - `f' 45-65/65-95 za z-1 tie 11 � - 3/4 5.5/7.5 SPREAD FOOTING OR MAT FOUNDATION • :-� f _ 1 /1 9-16/ 18-31 ' BASEMENT Structure settlement, inches LEGEND I 2-18A 2a TUNNEL lateral spread(river), inches A Geosyntec CPT 475.5 5.577.5 -= STONE COLUMNS 1 /2-3 13-16/ 18-31 (Best/Upper Estimate, TIE-DOWN ANCHORS Analysis Water Level) Geosyntec Boring ® Previous CPT Previous Boring DRAFT Geos tec FIGURE NO.: PSI 5-06 OCSD PLANT 2 DATE: AUGUST 2018 HUNTINGTON BEACH LIQUEFACTION INDUCED SETTLEMENT AND LATERAL SPREAD consultants PROJECT NO.: HL1635 CALIFORNIA (ANALYSIS WATER LEVEL) Hjy SAXIIA),o Zi �O Geosyntec consultants 9F O MEETING MINUTES SUBJECT: PS15-06 Technical Exchange Meeting#3 DATE: Monday, August 27,2018 TIME: 9:00 a.m. PST LOCATION: OCSD Administration Building, Engineering Conference Room MEETING ATTENDEES: Geosyntec—Chris Conkle, Chris Hunt(via phone), Jackee Almond(via phone) Carollo—James Doering InfraTerra(via phone)—Ahmed Nisar,Nick Doumbalski OCSD—Don Cutler,Mike Lahlou, Eros Yong,Nasrin Nasrollahi Jacobs(via phone)—Elias Mageaes, Kirk Warnock, Jeong Yang 1. Introduction/Safety Moment Conkle presented safety moment. Topic: Hard Hat types and replacement considerations. 2. Discuss Results of Structural Evaluations and Mitigations Aeration Basins Doering: Plant 1 aeration basins: • Two expansion joints, north-south direction • Base of foundation at elevation 10 ft.,below grade a fair amount • Water-bearing structure, similar to a concrete building • Basins have the potential to pull apart at the expansion joints • Issue IA- leakage at basins 3 &7 • No reinforcing steel across the joint • Issue 1B -roof deck siring on top of wall will collapse into basin Question from Lahlou:Are you considering the effects of a couple feet of sloshing? Nog Mina s-OCSD 9-27-I8 o%jAgTVA 4Aq atists I innovators 308 PS 15-06 Technical Exchange Meeting#3 August 27, 2018 Page 2 Doering: We are considering it. In this situation it's not a problem, but those are the kind of things we me looking at. Question from Warnock: Is there no rebar on the joints in the roof? Doering: There is no rebar in the expansion joints. Discussion of Expansion Joint Details Doering: Discussion of Expansion Joint Details. Roof deck sits on top of the wall, bearing on a 3 '/d' wide lip. If this thing stretches out 8 inches, anticipate a collapse or significant damage to the deck. Cutler asked a question about mechanisms for lateral spreading. Hunt:Provided a discussion of the lateral spreading mechanisms at Plant 1 and identified the continuous liquefying the layer below the digesters. Warnock: Are details similar for the bottom slab to the vertical walls? Doering: The joint at the wall is similar to the T-5 detail,but with no expansion joint. Dicusssion of Mitigation Option for PI Aeration Basin • Issue lA Structural-tie plate at deck level,restraining the element to the tie. Lahlou:This is mitigation for an existing structure. If you were designing as a new structure, wouldn't rely on this sort of mitigation, correct? Warnock: The joint was for drying shrinkage. The structure is done with that. What if you tied the slabs? Doering: Once you do get above grade, you will still have thermal expansion. Those expansion joints are really moving. Mageaes: What about in compression,would there be damage to the concrete joints? Doering:No damage in compression. Lahlou: What if there is incidental compression? PSI 5-06 rM4 Appendix C_ 309 engineers I scientists I innovators PS 15-06 Technical Exchange Meeting#3 August 27, 2018 Page 3 Doering. There may be in areas. Warnock: Try to tie the whole structure together. Nisar: We did some calculations for the similar condition on the Secondary Clarifiers. We put in reinforcement, and ran an analysis for it.Need a beefy W-section to hold the structure together, it goes into the plastic range. We are continuing to evaluate it. Yang: How much differential settlement if lateral spreading is removed? Doumbalski: Differential settlement is 40%of total settlement Discussion of Issue I • Structural approach: Allow the roof deck to move with new support • Geotechnical Approach: Arrest lateral spread Peps/MAC at Plant 2 Doering: This is Cast in place concrete. Neither structure has piles. Soil anchors to reduce uplift. • Issue 1 —Discussion of column crushing in the wet wellMitigation - reduce the load on that shear wall significantly. Concrete infill at opening. Cutler: Concrete would be needed?Are tie rods not enough? Doering: No,need concrete infill. Previously there was a tie rod mitigation done. • Issue 2 - Soil anchors. Some reduction in uplift capacity. May not know if there is damage to the anchors. Still have a good amount of capacity. Warnock: This is a discontinuous shear wall, not a soft story. PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C_ 310 engineers I scientists I innovators PS 15-06 Technical Exchange Meeting#3 August 27, 2018 Page 4 Plant 1 City Water Pump Station Doering: Highlights of the structure-reinforced masonry. • Discussion of Issue 1 Doering: Tie the floor slab to the wall. Warnock: Wouldn't the bolts just pull out? Doering.: Want all three of the elements tied together. Warnock: Tie the wall to the slab. Do it with an angle? Doering.: Can do it with an angle. Warnock: Not questioning the need to tie the building together, only about a 2" clearance. Could do that with a concrete curb. Mageaes: Might be limited by the masonry. Fill it every 40 inches. Doering: This is concrete-filled masonry. How much force transfer? Hunt: The difference in lateral spreading between the front and the back of the structure is small; the footprint is small. • Discussion of Issue 2 Doering: There is a heavy wall. With a light frame roof. Roof beams sitting on pilasters taking all that anchorage. Roof deck not taking much. Mitigation: Go with a thru bolt, tie the beams to the walls. Warnock: Did you check out of plane when the roof deck ties in? Doering: Wall anchorage is good, evaluated through Tier 1. Doering: Issue 3 - Based on Tier 3 analysis if the building is subjected to differential settlement, increased bending moments on the wall. This can be mitigated by installing vertical steel. Doering: Issue 4:Pier seeing excessive shear stresses. One solution may be to fiber-wrap the pier. PSI 5-063M4 Appendix C_ 311 engineers I scientists I innovators PS 15-06 Technical Exchange Meeting#3 August 27, 2018 Page 5 Lahlou: There was a previous retrofit. Why didn't anyone address the walls? Doering: This was not picked up in the previous evaluation—wall anchorage only. Control Center Doering:Moment frame structure.Basement level-CIP concrete. Supported on piles.There is a significant torsion issue based on the difference between the CM and CR. Strong vs weak axis. Doering: Mitigation-Add braced frame or shear walls. Yong: What kind of damage may be expected? Doering: Windows blown out,permanent deformation. Potential for collapse. Lahlou: This is immediate occupancy structure. Doering: This is immediate occupancy structure,but it also has the potential for a life safety issue. Lahlou: Is there a liquefaction issue? Doering., We don't see a concern for geo-seismic. Doering: This is a pre-Northridge Steel moment frame building. Can't develop shear to develop the ductile behavior of the beam. Mitigation is to add steel braced frames-better than getting into each connection. Mageaes:As you are going through these analyses; do you now have the magnitude of these forces? Doering: We will run numbers to support the cost estimate. PSI 5-06 rM4 Appendix C_ 312 engineers I scientists I innovators PS 15-06 Technical Exchange Meeting#3 August 27, 2018 Page 6 Digesters Nisar: Provided a summary of the evaluations of the Digesters. Warnock: Discussing the evaluation of piles: prestressing force is added to the compression force as well as a gravity load. What is the force? Doumbalski: 75%of yield, then you lose some of it. Use 100-kip axial force in the piles. Warnock: Are you considering impulsive and convective loads. Nisar: Yes Yang/Nisar: Discussion of performance level for structure. Hunt: Liquefaction evaluation is done at 975 year return period level. Nisar: For the mitigation there is not a structural solution, only a geotechnical solution. Ground improvement reduces deformation to 9-12 inches. Discussion of loading on digesters and related evaluations Yang. The sloshing effect is force controlled. Nisar: Sloshing load is increased due to force control, apply it into the same model, convective. Doumbalski: Sloshing mode is the same. Yang:What is height of sloshing?When the dynamic analysis is run,what is the distribution? Doumbalski: In the finite element model-distribute the mass over 20 nodes. For each node, apply different stiffness springs. Lahlou: Did you look at the impact of sloshing on the dome or the connection of the dome to the wall? Nisar: This calculation still needs to be completed. Don't think that is a controlling mode, but we are doing a calculation for completeness PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C_ 313 engineers I scientists I innovators PS 15-06 Technical Exchange Meeting#3 August 27, 2018 Page 7 Yang: Overturning in the piles will be large; the sloshing height is a lot higher. Warnock: We will take a look at the pile analysis when it is completed. Nisar: We have a model with the piles built into it, two separate analyses. Doumbalski provided a discussion of the three separate models used in the evaluation. Warnock: How about pinning the piles to the slab? Yang:Need to make sure the approaches are appropriate. Nisar: Is there anything else that you need to review? Lahlou: The idea is to present the final results of the calculation and assumptions. Lahlou: The digesters were built in several phases by different contractors; Digester 9 is different than the other structures. Nisar. Digester 9 — the reinforcement ratio in the dome is similar, comparing the hoop stresses in the wall. Doumbalski: We have scaled the reinforcement ratio. Warnock: The Tier 1 on these digesters assumes the reinforcing steel in good condition? Nisar: Correct. We didn't see anything in AECOM's report that showed condition issues. Lahlou: There are issues on the dome, look at 7, 8, 9, and 10. Did some grouting on the side wall Hunt:We have done our evaluation using the best estimate. Recommendations may indicate the need for further investigation if appropriate in our judgement. Conkle: Make appropriately conservative assumptions, carry forward with that assumption. Secondary Clarifiers Nisar reviews slides. Discussion of structural upgrade option. 3. Questions/Discussion Warnock: We are headed down the right path. PSI 5-063M4 Appendix C_ 314 engineers I scientists I innovators PS 15-06 Technical Exchange Meeting#3 August 27, 2018 Page 8 Action Items: • Geosyntec to prepare meeting minutes. Attachments • PowerPoint slides from Presentation 8-27-18. PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C_ 315 engineers I scientists I innovators TECHNICAL EXCHANGE MEETING #3 ♦ . SEISMIC EVALUATION OF-STRUCTURES _. Orange County AT -PLANTS 1 & 2 - Sanitation District PRESENTED BY. 3 + l Geosyntec Yeah R AUGUST 27, 2018 ,�.. IT , .. Agenda • Safety Moment • Discuss Results of Structural Evaluations and Mitigations • Questions/Discussion PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 317 Orange County Sanitation District 2 Safety Moment • Hard Hats AMA x � tin.•*^* • + S. s' PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 318 Orange County Sanitation District 3 Safety Moment • Hard Hat Types class c 4 raf RAI 2,200 20,000 0 volts volts volts PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 319 Orange County Sanitation District 4 Safety Moment • Hard Hat Replacement • Impact or penetration • OSHA does not specify the service life of a hard hat • As a general guideline, manufacturers recommend replacing every 5 years • Replace suspension every 12 months. • Include this in your written risk assessment of PPE on site. PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 320 Orange County Sanitation District Safety Moment Location 01: This example shows a cap that was molded on January 3, 2006. 6mmin(Ycar GaY �o t ^ a s S Location M2: This example shows a cap that was molded on July 7, 2001. �C] MmthN or Day 11 12 1 1 to s -e. 4 6 G r n 5 e E PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 321 Orange County Sanitation District 6 Meeting Objectives • Discussion of vulnerability findings for additional structures • Preview of mitigation recommendations • Facilitate review of Upcoming Deliverables PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 322 Orange County Sanitation District 7 Structural Evaluations and Mitigations 323 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C Orange County Sanitation Dstrict Structural Groups r Digesters Buildings - Mat Foundation DAFTs Buildings - Deep - ! Foundations - 3 • —_ i Gas Holders Surge Towers r Buried Boxes t Secondary Clarifiers Aeration Basins Buildings— Shallow PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 324 Orange County Sanitation District Foundations 9 yy _! r4�r T FG t ¢�s �`Sf>•�N t.� � t5 y� 1 { { ' Q A Y Y S�V I .,da P1 Aeration Basins 1 -10 nnRrr I-Y L'd �'-W' C-C nKd Niz 17 Ii®c• T p—0--- L � "q _ CPI<r•7 A' I TER[.F I[Ole'EF. r.y w mq tr �'e r tii..ei- e$e >m x �. nM'Lw ffi� nwe n nwusurye .ice, r {TM, a.a'ddMrt i4 e'.bns ' ICB2' sNfMeenw n[M' YMm rf /e'-vlu.eo•Ee. PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 326 Orange County Sanitation District 11 P1 Aeration Basins 1 -10 - �VR 1A Basins pull apart at the Lateral spread — Large scale leakage at the expansion joints. Exemplar affected basins (3 & 7). 113 Basins pull apart at the Lateral spread — The roof deck at the expansion joints. Exemplar expansion joint collapses into the basins (3 & 7). 4.5 (7) iy . 5-6 (11-15), �' •� X ` •Z � 17-2^ (28-40) AliLS 65 (9 4.5/ 7 61fi 26) 13-18 (23-31) 6.5 (8) 1�27 r22 46) PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 327 Orange County Sanitation District 12 P1 Aeration Basins 1 -10 o r� f .. — . � « ' IP ____ 6/ Fn• /B " A� . I g Y • L Ali � ` � Ins � I S o a 16„ Rg �Igph �i a 47<11 It ilk 4 4 ,> 4 4 �. PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 328 Orange County Sanitation District 13 P1 Aeration Basins 1 -10 C.RAN$IDN JT. I�0.8 ANCHORS �#-I3 ANCHOR _ . BOLT WN°HOOKR'(% 4-EXPANSION JT. �d WMHOOK(TYM . -5 ,rR ,. a4o12' _ S"TEFLON IMPREGNATED 7VR RESAR sS MAG1AS5 CLOTH Amemm'i WITH - L'S•j"42"WIANCHOR ANCNO0.6�J'O.O•C.QTP) S"TEFLON IMPREGNATED F16ER6U55 CLOTH . , ti (TYP.1 / u \SECTION-EX PANS ION tlkR \SECTI0N-EX PANS ION - I=0' JOINT 1/2=1'0' JOINT CIAAMFTES1NeFOR SOT ETIC SIDES UBBER WALL OR COLUMN CHAMfER1110 � BOTH SIDES L�6° 0RC'.061AK�(X u RE7! OVER CL- ANNEL V GL FACES.'__ Rum3m EXF#NSION I IE' d TER E SUD N kL CAR. ]Ok1T MOTER IAI GREASE SUMNG SURFACE �T C6 It 8.2 SPHiHETIG SFCWE - RUBBER FrkLLER I" EXPANSION MATERIAL I"THICK IF NOT SPECIFIED OH PLANS- TTF if5h EXPANSION JOINT �1SECTION-EXPANSION JT TYP (NON—WATER BEARING WALLS AND SLABS �+ 3/4"-I'-0' ,WITH BOTH SIDES EXPOSED PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 329 Orange County Sanitation District 14 P1 Aeration Basins 1 -10 Potential Failure Mode Structural Geotechnical WMitigation 1A Basins pull apartat the Structural tie Ground expansionjoints causing large- across the joint improvementto scale leakage. arrest lateral spread. WALL OR COLUMN r New tie plate ale I q"STL. MUM- T R CL+B CLR.WE GREASE NG SURFACE C6x8.2' 12" r — ? 1' EXPANSION MATERIAI. Try rH-1SECTION -EXPANSION JT .� 3/4- 1' 0' PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 330 Orange County Sanitation District 15 P1 Aeration Basins 1 -10 Potential Failure Mode Structural Geotechnical wMitigation 1A Basins pull apartat the Structural tie Ground expansionjoints causing large- across the joint improvementto scale leakage. arrest lateral spread. - - ------- Santa Ana River e \ Ground -- Improvement Zone Ground Shaking Permanent Ground Deformation PS15-06 TM4 Appendix C 331 Orange County Sanitation Dis-ri,t 16 P1 Aeration Basins 1 -10 Potential Failure Mode Structural Geotechnical WMitigation 16 Basins pull apart at the Addition of a Ground expansionjoints causing roof supporting shelf improvementto deck collapse. arrest lateral spread. 814%EKPA BOLT U510N XT. ;e OLT ANCHOR W/4"NOOK(1YP) .g \ 7.1 2' IMPREGNATED nuRGLA AOTH 1-3 '5- z� W/ANC DOL.'r5 oa'o'aC. New support (TYP) SECTION- EXPANSION JOINT PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 332 Orange County Sanitation District 17 P1 Aeration Basins 1 -10 - Discussion • Aeration Basins • Large lateral spread deformation and settlement results in significant differential movement across expansion joints. • Structurally connecting basins across expansion joints is a potential structural retrofit. Consideration to slotting ties to allow for thermal expansion/contraction. • Ground improvement will reduce lateral spread. PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 333 j Orange County Sanitation District 18 �h FA k P2 PEPS & MAC PEPS/MAC 12 kV Dist B .r IimM � / � H00f BGO_M L.n...w _ aSu� it � �• I, — — PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 335 Orange County Sanitation District 20 P2 PEPS & MAC Issue # Potential Failure Mode Basis Performance support.1 Axial crushing of columns Tier I Localized column crushing within the wet well. and instability in the building Fr .��� JIM II'i E rirDt7 © 1ppp y v ' Orange P2 PEPS & MAC Structural Mitigation Geotechnical W Mitigation 1 Axial crushing of Fill in openings on the N/A columns within the north wall at (2) locations wet well. to reduce overturning demands on columns below discontinuous shear walls. Concrete inf ill Concrete infill .• . cuss. sa xms z, _ xvo - m norz x r-rT r XIX [>< l X 11 HA I II II II II PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 337 Orange County Sanitation District 22 P2 PEPS & MAC Potential Failure Mode Performance 2 Soil anchors lose uplift Geotechnical 23 inches of lateral capacity Analysis movement. Some reduction in uplift capacity. �•. r .ocQr &JM rr SM - R i�+oo oh+B•a c.w.a i4 41 AOCk. TO [SINK. 0-.01:: 'O C b ` CLEV.aWR@ f�w.e.taoo Y.[ [cT. Is, S 4'7 G.W. 3t -•. PDDL.TO 11..D [Crr.li = I ftdz Uqt Ga T - I"�M.b OD OgJN A•NCA0Q) 0 �• 6T M1i' M � I I I8'MW. c DETAIL PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 338 Orange County Sanitation District — 23 P2 PEPS & MAC � Potential Failure Mode Performance 2 Soil anchors lose uplift Geotechnical 23 inches of lateral capacity Analysis movement. Some reduction in uplift capacity. From P2-23-6 Specifications The tie-down anchors are designed for a proof load of 50 kips and for a permanent load of 40 kips. Geotechnical Analysis High W-No Liq HighW-Li quef Typ W- No Liq Typ W- Liquef 46 34 53 39 PS15-06 TM4 Appendix C 339 Orange County Sanitation District 24 P2 PEPS & MAC - Discussion • Reduction of lateral load on west shear wall will reduce overturning demands on columns in the PEPS wet well. • Lateral spread may damage soil anchors, which can lead to uplift during seismic event or post seismic event. PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 340 i Orange County Sanitation District 25 P1 City Water Pump Station . p Tim y P1 City Water Pump Station B I ' 1 e 444 I Imo,I ITq A AFID 150 1T09 { � I ,tea `..r.Is• o CONe. H SECTION TII ENUOEM ... 4S01 1/4�= -0a — PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 342 Orange County Sanitation District 27 P1 City Water Pump Station �MMMI . . - 1 Buildingwalls pull apart Tier 1 Reduced capacity to resist from each other. lateral spread, in-plane shear, and out-of-plane forces. Can result in instabilityofthe buildingwalls. Expansion olnt.at slab 0 01 (Tyr)_ N � e•%ate 6-06 lot -- b'•0 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 343 Orange County Sanitation District 28 P1 City Water • Station Issue # Potential Failure Mode Structural Mitigation Geotechnical I Buildingwalls pull Tie Mitigation o buildingslab. apart ANCHORS(E)CONCRETE WALL STEEL ANGLE SHEAR CONNECTION WITH QATION — r Orange P1 City Water Pump Station . . . MMFM 2 Roof beam anchorageto Tier 1 Roof beam can collapse if the CMU wall pulls out anchors pull-out or (incompatibilityw/ masonry wall spalls below deck). anchors. 354 N TI4 MSP IC1AIr"02 OO t4 res a irr Ss / r %*G.IFa LMII fItAMR f it PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C , i � 345 Orange County Sanitation District 30 P1 City Water Pump Station Structural Mitigation Geotechnical & Mitigation 2 Roof beam anchorage Enhance connection with N/A to the CMU wall pulls additional anchorsand out (incompatibilityw/ welded steel connections deck). to beam. Extstmg W33X or W 12X Root Beam Add Through-Salts to Connect Angle to WalMaster uflener Retrofit with Steel Angle with stiffener Welded to Existing Steel Seam Existing Concrete Plaster PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 346 Orange County Sanitation District 31 P1 City Water Pump Station - IMMMLIA M. , 3 Horizontal bending Tier 3 — Excessive cracking/spalling moments due to shaking Differential of wall. and ground deformation Settlement exceed the wall capacity. za_oo B�CHUF6SC F�7cG VM, -- STL® I�'4G IN 41WUT�D I I �cpLL ,15 Qd8 1 1& STL IN DOWO DE^M I PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 347 Orange County Sanitation District 32 P1 City Water Pump Station Structural Mitigation Geotechnical Mitigation 3 Horizontal bending Add vertical steel or N/A moments due to concrete pilasterto reduce shaking and ground horizontal spans in wall. deformation exceed the wall capacity. 11 THREADED ROD --DRILLED DOWELS DwLLED DOWEL STEEL aHIN Finish plaster If required. PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 348 Orange County Sanitation District 33 P1 City Water Pump Station - IRMMLIA M. , 4 Excessive shear stress in Tier 3 — Excessive cracking/spalling south wall pier. Differential of wall. Settlement i �l PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 349 Orange County Sanitation District 34 P1 City Water Pump Station Structural Mitigation Geotechnical Mitigation 4 Excessive shear stress Fiber composite wall N/A in south wall pier. overlay. I ' L step I Prepare wall VA ��I . lei surface i I � Step 3 \ ' ' ' _ Ste 2 Applyfabric APPN two part overepoxy. .I . epoxy to prepared Apply second -- wall surface coatepoxy. STEEL ANGLE AND BOLTS PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 350 Orange County Sanitation Dslrict 35 �1 T-C P1 Control Center QQ 1 I I i EL �e3l7 EL 56.13u Q' AO TILE INK. iO TYP. ALL AC TILE D EL.47.73 19 I i0 lgRRIDOrth �' m 127 EL�217 1-HOUR WALL-t1M DDT. A(A-10 TY� FL r 'P 3 AC TILE -- ACCE55 m - 23 FLLbR EL 26.50 L ALL 1 ��L MTL.p NA EL, 22.31 5U5PENDED 5/6" Sy NNELS SYP.15D.CEILING @ 24 O.L, ON 020 17s' MTL.U@4 ( � . .. at.euSeEdoEDE _. ._ EL IS.Oo PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 352 Orange County Sanitation District 37 P1 Control Center Potential Failure Mode Performance 1 BuiI ding responds with Tier Buildingwill likely experience large high drift causing large non-linear deformations structural and non- that will be permanent. structural damage. Windows, finish materials, and interior appurtenances will experience high levels of damage. Some columns maybe near collapse. PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 353 Orange County Sanitation District 38 P1 Control Center Weak axis bending F 6-r p BG6. Ep sP0 2Ep s s-5 rong axis ben BB, —�� TB.x.x]�B M_ TYP OF a 1 _ T I % / — 1 WIB%WO B 24 x68 ^r WIB%/0 n 3 :• a - aryl cmxao` I xzz s o a r s� wI ao WID%WO Wlzx o N ry o 0 s wine ao I ryl wlaxaDl ; ; wlexao� 0 XI Do D0 w12 ao s : a° 0 DO DO WIPn WO O 3 3 3 1 WIBx40 �_�40 H OIW2<%68 HW118 X40 DIREC G OECN _ x x w W12x40 I2%40 wlzxao e I o x • o - c a 00 Do w¢.+o 00 ; wzaxsel ; ; w24x6e ' H t WIBxao L— i 18x40 2 wlexao xl 0 °o wlzxio 62 .40 o Do m N x re.ez«I� I Ie+Pe a 3 � 3 DO DO ^I In 2hPtry a 2aP2 3 ; I _- Lj-- WIB%<0 WIB%00 1.W 121@ I W12%22 WIB%OO WIB %00 P515-06 TM4 Appendix rs¢xa BEp sac AT s-s 354 Orange County Sanitation District 39 P1 Control Center Structural Mitigation Geotechnical 111IL Mitigation 1 Building responds with Add steel braced frames N/A large high drift causing and/orconcrete shear structural and non- wallswithin the plan of structural damage. the building. GY39ET PLM. FIELD WELD STIFFENER PUTS FOR Has Fff N STIFFENER PL,M. CL(E)COL REVIC,E 6FER IZE (E!METK� • -REINFORCING COVER CWC.iLL/i9REQO K.TYP. SYdvrerpM ae repYaro wP�FF.AbFvw.um.FF WF! Q�W STIFFENER FLM. I IRAR,l bMR1F As heR InM1i�b�YbbNs M. I TeTt TRprQ9l OIyEETFL.M. M. M. \ M. PSI 5-06 T1,44 Appendix C 355 Orange County Sanitation District 40 P1 Control Center Potential Failure Mode ��Mmzmlmr 2 Momentframe Tier Potential collapse of beams connections fracture. from theircolumn supports. Potential fracturing FULLPENETBATON J 2 T &B R.8B @ shear tab ABOVE .I - I 73"OCSEEDULE-3/B W/LT5 EA SIDE 1/4" BACK UP R TYP PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 356 Orange County Sanitation District 41 P1 Control Center Structural Mitigation Geotechnical Mitigation 2 Momentframe Add steel braced frames N/A connections fracture. and/orconcreteshear wallswithin the plan of the building. GY39ET PLM. FIELD WELD STIFFENER PUTS FOR Has Fff N STIFFENER FL,M. CL(E)COL REVIC,E 6FER IZE (E!METK� • -REINFORCING COVER CWC.iLL/i9REQO K.TYP. SYdvrerpM ae repYaro wP�FF.AbFvw.um.FF WF! Q�W STIFFENER FLM. I d1.M'Ib MR1Fw*w IRAR,le As be M. I TeTt TRprQ9l OIyEETFL.M. M. M. \ M. PSI 5-06 T1,44 Appendix C 357 Orange County Sanitation District 42 P1 Control Center - IRIMMIA M. , 3 Momentframe uplift Tier 1 Damage to the base from the column base. connection due to uplift can lead to building instability. -WIOxa8 v4 BASE It 4 N t I N I° X I° SHEAR BAF m J 14" EA WAY 00 EA WAY 112 X4 X4 N � / _ O TACK WELD BOLT HEAD TO THE It PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 358 Orange County Sanitation District 43 P1 City Water Pump Station Structural Mitigation Geotechnical Mitigation 3 Momentframe uplift Add steel braced frames N/A from the column base. and/orconcrete shear wallswithin the plan of the building. m C6y10. a19AV£ IEY Na410.. /� Wld lEl Bpy! o-lliGiE4 •/bEyE NOMPS V IfI Bl3 iL W!W Ifl G4 0. IIU165 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 959 Orange County Sanitation District 44 P1 Control Center Vulnerability Potential Mitigation Moment frame aIignmentresuIts in large Add steel braced frames and/or torsional response of the building. Drifts concrete shear walls within the plan of are estimated to be relativelyhigh. the building. Momentframe connectionsare pre- Northridge style and cannotdevelop the flexural capacityof the joints (shear fa i I u re can occur). FULL PENETRATION �25TI R. TBB I BB B COL ABOVE —I L' AT 3"OC SEE .• BOLT SCHEDULE- _ Potential fractur' ' 314&SX ,B wi to 3,4 B EA SiOE I/4'BACK UP R TTP PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 360 Orange County Sanitation District 45 P1 Control Center Vulnerability Potential Mitigation Moment frame aIignmentresuIts in large Add steel braced frames and/or torsional response of the building. Drifts concrete shear walls within the plan of are estimated to be relativelyhigh. the building. Momentframe connectionsare pre- Northridge style and cannotdevelop the flexural capacityof the joints (shear fa i I u re can occur). I WlTRM. f�MHCRf1� MI.IOIIM!•1RY .IIIBM0.T1. Q00. In taw .OIOICiIIUIQ ¢I BBLI0. p�nx®t. WC.ILLNROO 0.bn.U.EMOTw Ip ew.v[ b!•w/YYYb..tlb / /aW bbYblbl� "• "a°lilasui n - / visas n WHss sweat RT1. ur Us I s�4.eb�eblT.E. bdii bY� ,r. xss.sar.tw eearRm. m. tn. M• u ucn P515-06 TM4 Appendix C 361 Orange County Sanitation District 46 _ ��a°'a _ .__. � Lam_ \�•11�►� . I . s 40� a - - WAN "win ARM AR ' �� a� r s PILE SCHEDULE CIRCLE CIRCLE xUNFER eP•CINe •MOLE !w Foundation Plan el•..... .EOUIREO PEFT, w • IIEse• 12 •.so e.o- (z� D a s loo.00• •e 6.54 zs• TOO..4 'i ow C ee.00• RT e.63 T.e- -- 0 70.00' 08 6.11 10.0• E eY.00' Fx ..TE Io.O- P ]e.Oa 24 e.O0 10.0- II /Z- N2 ; a 22.00 Ie s.Fa :o.o• EN X f i.n»a.•1 kur. eii Of II � P .. =.1,10 fVuIr to y <, PILE avwa.e®s i o,ia'�'ins'�uu t� rL r merw ♦ e�ue r ur PsiM°SMp'pJ`n x"c°'I»®IYL.... r PRECASTPnEsrnEs D PP M CONCRETE PILE Orange County Sanitation District 49 Plant Digester 16 W— E a a cumuMtive lnfual pfpYnment 0 N b W br n-tore is Ana rover b I. f" Ground Shaking Permanent Ground Deformation PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 365 Orange County Sanitation District 50 a 17„ 1 / 35„ 80.0 60. 20.0 Back Row 3661 Z f`- t 11„ .0 300.0 .111 S1. 1 1260.0 1500.0 1800.0 TmrTar Guidc " :l Earthquake Damage — 1995 Kobe, Japan L i m . It H� PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 367 Orange County Sanitation District 52 • • • . a • • • • Description Ground shaking)GS)-Failure of dome-wa I Icon nection PFMl Status Analysis Completed,DCR<m,Failure not likely Evaluation Approach Lin ear Finite Element Response Spectrum Analysis. Description PFN12 Status Analysis Completed,DCR,m,Failure not likely Evaluation Approach Linear Finite Element Response Spectrum Analysis. Description 1GS-Hoop stress failure in wall PFM3 Status Analysis Completed,DCR<m,Failure not likely Evaluation Approach ILinear Finite Element Response Spectrum Analysis. DePFIM4 Status Analysis Completed,scription GS-Out-of plane bending/shear in wall Evaluation Description Approach GS-Punchingofmat PFMS Status Analysis Completed,DCR<m,Failure not likely.Punching capacity of mat is higher than the pile capacity. Evaluation Approach Linear Finite Element ResponseSpectrum Analysis. Description PFM6 Status Analysis Completed, r. CR<m,Failure not likely Evaluation Approach Linear Finite Element Response Spectrum Analysis. Description GS-Bench g/shear failure of piles PFM7 Status Analysis Completed,DCR<m,Failure not likely Evaluation Approach I Linear Finite Element Response Spectrum Analysis. DePFIV18 Status Analysis Completed,scription Punching of mat due to liquefaction Evaluation Approach Nonlinear Pushover Finite Element Analysis. Description Vertical failure of piles due to lateral spread PFM9 Status Analysis Completed.Vertical load in some piles exceeds the capacity.Pile load redistribution.No global failure Evaluation Approach Nonlinear Pushover Finite Element Analysis. DescriptionBending/shear failure of piles due to lateral spread.Best estimate PFM10 Status Analysis Completed.Bending moment in piles will exceed the capacity at around 24-inches oflateral spread. Evaluation Approach Nonlinear Pushover Finite Element Analysis. Description IVertical failure of piles due to settlements • PFMll Status Analysis Completed.Vertical load in some piles exceeds the •• r _-- icapacity.Pile load redistribution.No lobal failure Evaluation Approach INonlinear Pushover Finite Element Analysis. Digesters — Plant 1 • Evaluation Approach for Digesters • Tier 3 for Digester 16 • Tier 1 "Modified" for other structures based on the results of Tier 1 IMMINNINININComparlsonto Digester 16 Digester 251 090 25_Il 30.5 tNERNMEN6 400 0.68% 0,32% 1.40% Smaller than D16,further from river - Digester6 251 90 25 22 30.5 Steel 1/4" 500 N/A 0,32% 1.43% Smaller than D16,further from river,steel dome Digester 280 `MMMME 250 1.07% 0.57% 1.52% Smaller than D36,further from rivers Digester 280 90 23 22 30.5 75 5 300 0.93% 0.57% 1.44% Smaller than D16,further from river Digester9 242 '----ft 100 100.43% 0.27% 1.45% Similar to D16,fewer piles Digester 10 242 110 39 27 31.5 108.5 6 100 0.43% 0,27% 1.45'% Similar to D16,fewer piles Digester 11 280 -r 34 27 31.5 108.5 6 250 I10.43% 0.48% 2.02% Identical to D36,further from river - Digester12 280 110 34 27 31.5 108.5 6 250 0.43% 0.48% 2.02% Identical to D36,further from river Digester 13 280 -`I 27 31.5 108.5 6 100 I10.43% 0.48% 2.02% Identical to D16 - Digester14 280 110 34 27 31.5 108.5 6 100 0.43% 0.48% 2.02% Identical to D16 Digester 15 280 .'-1111MMEMEL108.5 6 100�k43% 0.48% 2.02% Identical to D16 - Digester 16 280 110 34 27 31.5 108.5 6 100 0.43% 0.48% 2.02% Exemplar PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 369 Orange County Sanitation District 54 Items for Discussion • Digesters • Piles for front row of digesters closest to the river (7- 12) are vulnerable to significant damage • Piles for back row of digesters will deform but maintain capacity • Reduction of lateral spread displacement through ground improvement will improve seismic performance of digesters PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 370 i Orange County Sanitation District 55 Digesters — Lateral Spread Mitigation • Ground improvement options to limit lateral spread -- - •- - - Santa Ana River ! I Ground Improvement � � Zone I Ground Shaking Permanent Ground Deformation PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 371 Orange County Sanitation District 56 Lateral Spread Mitigation Concepts • Option 1 : Ground improvement to limit lateral spread • Construct ground improvement shear panels • Ground improvement methods: Auger soil mixing, cutter soil mixing, slurry wall method, jet grouting, . . . • Key ground improvement elements: • Large footprint (utility relocation, surface disruptions) • Must achieve high strength and/or large 'replacement volume" • "Key" improvement below lateral spread zone (Digesters— Elev. -10 feet) PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 372 i Orange County Sanitation District 57 Lateral Spread Mitigation Concepts • Option 2: Subsurface retaining wall to limit lateral spread • Design wall to resist earth pressure from lateral spread without excessive deflection — soil "in front' of wall would still move away • Wall types: secant pile wall, cutter soil mix wall, . . . • Key wall elements • Smaller footprint • Significant depth (--100 ft), founded below liquefaction zone • Heavily reinforced to limit deflections j Orange County Sanitation District 58 Digesters — Lateral Spread Mitigation • Secant Pile Wall Installation p , r 11, J - 1 H H PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 374 Orange County Sanitation District Image Source: Hayward Baker 59 Secondary Im w a: i Secondary �., 10 If MV a ♦ A, iAA0♦ww• / 14, O \y� 01, ` I� Secondary Clarifiers FE Model ZM PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 377 Orange County Sanitation District Secondary Clarifiers ANSYS MODAL s0=ICN1 ANSYS NODAL sav w ,nn. 16 zola STEP=S STEP=t9 18�49:09 SUB =1 ;�pe•n�x�.m. TII�:'d'.--9 P1LYP N0. 1 TIl4 44 US[M (AW) RSYS=0 ��) R9Y8=0 i pWi =9.27461 R9X =41.096fi SNS9 _5.21016 SNSJ =9.37112 SUM =9.17983 SM =41.0956 9.37112 16.421 23.4709 30.5208 37.5707 5.21016 6.09231 6.97446 7.8666 8.73875 12.8961 19.9459 26.9958 34.0957 41.0956 Clarifier A - Sett a tints ki 6.53r338 7.41553 8.29768 9.17953 Seto Clarifiers A-L �k1 s, ink Lateral Spread Settlement 378 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C Orange County Sanitation Dstricl 63 Earthquake Damage — 1995 Kobe, Japan 9 7-- A } ., tt7 77-1*71 al Expansion joint separation along entire bank 'I �►r t t 71 � PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix 1!„!!. • •• !! a! ! Orange County Sanitation District - 64 Earthquake Damage — 1995 Kobe, Japan VIA It a y1 BUR MOVA I ding PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 380 Orange County Sanitation District 65 Secondary Clarifiers Structural Upgrade Option 7 _ a._ 'eM •, a •mow —� Isn Na• w a LY "Y dM :Ile aMm J ��` •cen/ eon W12x196 Beams Added (transverse direction) W12x196 Beams Added (longitudinal direction) 4.44609 5.28078 6.11547 6.95015 7.78484 4.86344 S.fi9812 6.53281 7.3fi75 8.20218 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C Orange County Sanitation District 66 Secondary Clarifiers — Geotech Mitigation • Option 1 : Secant pile wall to limit lateral spread towards marsh, but not control settlement • Option 2: Ground improvement below clarifiers to limit both settlement and lateral spread • Either option would stabilize lateral spread towards marsh for structures "behind" clarifiers as well w A.- V PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 382 Orange County Sanitation Dislri 67 Lateral Spread Mitigation — Plant 2 Concept • Secant Pile Wall Installation along River and Marsh -_— _ —q ryr. i1; e0i i ' • Lateral Spread "cutoff" wall • May need to be installed outside 'I property line r In Can be locally stopped or shifted back where utilities cross PSI 6-06 TM'AppendixC • Will not mitigate settlemeril j Orange County Sanitation District 68 Items for Discussion • Secondary Clarifiers • Large lateral spread deformation and settlement results in significant differential movement across expansion joints • Structurally connecting clarifiers across expansion joints is a potential structural retrofit • Ground improvement will reduce lateral spread but impractical to reduce settlements • Ground improvement together with structural retrofit would improve seismic performance PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 384 i Orange County Sanitation District 69 • Y 0 � ' I ' b { 1 �o� _` ���� " I lr � � / • ui pI. �` h1 �� * �' * ar'." 1 i. �� � � h f , _ A L. �'�� �. � a'`�N i � h '„ �, � � V\� ,'h � ' �� �z ,; "� �� �. _ �� i.;. � �� I f.. • � . � it S � l: � I ' pp r �� � i� � r'+ z i • i' r -06 T f � ;� �r � � �' �- '+ a.: _ # .. r �+is . :.� �1 '� � I .. r. � _ v � - -K a _, - - ,.' . '. .m• ��� � i �� _ _. �� I I -.: �k. i . _ �Y ;� � ,� 1 � r -�. � i - _ � a � � .- _ '. i- _ �� � �� e I ^� �:� �� K ` _ � � 1 ' k. 1. tr PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 389 74 . I f luiof r �� dO1S v v v � N j 'O O a � a 1 • o � co ,iq14, ..� • �, mon� ffI � rl. i -- I �■pj �1 q\\\■■1� 1 �Nn� � ii ■��■N� • "47\� 1■jjCD 1 1. 1.1 pp i rD -.001623 I��L ■�...■.L ■ .........1 .� I.orl_�i.■NNNrr _ a�i■o■u■ouur:.■ iiiri=i■■iiiiiiii■�iiiiii■■iiiiiii��ii�ii 1■■■■■■■■■■■N■ ■■� N■■■■ ■ ■ ■■■■ 1■■ ■�7■■■=■■■■■■■■ ■_■■■■ ■■so 1.■I '7■■■ ■■■■■■r" ■ ■■■■■■ .1 Items for Discussion • Surge Towers • Acceptable performance for ground shaking • Liquefaction-induced lateral spread will result in sliding, which will significantly damage connection with outfall pipeline • Liquefaction-induced settlement causes minor tilting PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 393 i Orange County Sanitation District 78 I Gas Hod - m 14 t� Y 27 r Gas Holder � iso ee e oov s<ucE¢-¢cF 1 ¢oor I_x,-ee-j¢c-Rvi sy ee al $ IiS'� 3T41 9 ps4�52sjGna'�x26�4 Ss W ' q ®' x . p � � Z 3s-LL 1 Y 16 542-32'IG xai y x24-a Y I !! � I I _ __ _ ___ _ _- ' '1-___ 4 62-a BEM. O a 396 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C Orange County Sanitation Dstrict 80 Gas Holder b ,J .i} �V7 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 396 Orange County Sanitation District 81 Items for Discussion • Gas Holder • Acceptable performance for ground shaking • Piston mechanism is not significantly impacted by seismic loading • Liquefaction-induced lateral spread at the gas holder is not significant • Liquefaction-induced settlement may damage anchorage, which is currently corroded • Strap type anchorage is vulnerable PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 397 i Orange County Sanitation District 82 D iscussion PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 398 Orange County Sanitation District 83 Thank You ! PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 399 Orange County Sanitation District 84 Np sxxigr � N 4 �9 Geosyntec consultants .9 rN iMF ENJP MEETING MINUTES SUBJECT: PS15-06 Technical Exchange Meeting DATE: Wednesday,April 26,2018 TIME: 9:30a.m. PST LOCATION: Geosyntec Oakland Office 1111 Broadway Street, 6th Floor, Oakland, CA,94607,USA MEETING ATTENDEES: Geosyntec—Chris Conkle, Chris Hunt Carollo—James Doering InfmTera—Ahmed Nisar,Nick Doumbalski OCSD—Don Cutler(Phone), Mike Lahlou Jacobs—Elias Mageaes(Phone), Kirk Warnock, Jeong Yang 1. Introduction/Safety Moment Chris Hunt provided a safety moment regarding building evacuation. Don Cutler provided an introduction. He indicated that the main purpose of the meeting was to get everyone on same page in terns of how we are conducting structural evaluations and how we use standards for non-building structures. (How to integrate the standards into this study). This meeting was also used as a time to update Jacobs as the technical reviewer and to get them familiar with the evaluation approach and solicit their feedback. Mtg Minutes 4-26-18 -a4%§1 jaggntists I innovators 400 PS 15-06 Technical Exchange Meeting April 26, 2018 Page 2 Conkle summarized the meeting objectives as follows: • Provide"in progress"update on Task 3. • Answer questions regarding approach. • Facilitate review of Upcoming Deliverables. 2. Discussion of Overall PS15-06 Objectives and Summary of Geotechnical Hazards Conkle provided a description of the study objectives and the geotechnical evaluations completed to date which are important inputs to the structural approach to be discussed today and ultimately the development of mitigation measures. A summary of liquefaction and lateral spread show potential for both at Plant 1 and Plant 2 was presented(see slides). Cutler: Does free face consider structural resistance of the channel wall? Conkle: It does not.It is not included in the empirical models for lateral spread,and we assume that it was not designed to manage the deformations associated with lateral spread Mageaes:Is the variation in settlement and lateral spread shown in the figures common? Hunt : Not uncommon at all in the depositional environment(river deposits). Cutler: Is the 25 inches of settlement at CPT-05 due to lateral spread or surface settlement? Is it possible that CPT-05 is an anomaly? Conkle: This is level ground settlement that does not account for lateral spread. Hunt: Each of the estimates is based on conditions encountered at that specific location.We will review the investigations surrounding each location when making the final recommendations. 3. Description of Tiered Structural Evaluation Approach Conkle provided a description of the Tiered approach to structural evaluations using ASCE 41-13 as a framework. Evaluations for non-typical structures and those structures exposed to liquefaction will require a Tier 3 evaluation or a modified Tier 1 or modified Tier 2 evaluation.Tier 2 and Tier 3 will be sequential.Even if the deformations are very high PsengineeCSl e alsscienfists innovators 401 PS 15-06 Technical Exchange Meeting April 26, 2018 Page 3 and we anticipate damage, the teams will perform the analysis to inform risk and mitigation for the specific structure and others like it. (See slides.) Cutler: If we have a structure w/deep foundation, do we need a Tier 3? Conkle: We need to use Tier 3 for the exemplar structures where liquefaction is present. Nisar:We are using ASCE 41 as a framework,but not tying ourselves to strict code compliance w/ASCE 41 because we have non-typical conditions, but we want to have a good understanding of structural behavior and apply an approach to it.ASCE 41 tiers are not necessarily sequential. For the Digesters, we may be able to justify de-coupling above-ground from below-ground response. Lahlou: If you we not using ASCE 41 directly for everything, what is the criteria for these other checks? Nisar: We will take most appropriate methodologies from the standards/codes and adjust them as needed to move forward. Warnock: In your Tier 1 evaluations for non-building structures, are you creating something similar to the Tier 1 ASCE 41-13 checklists? Nisar: We are not developing a code,but each structure will have detail about how it was analyzed and worked through. Action:Jacobs requested an example of the"Tier 1"approach for liquid containing structures when it is available for review from the Geosyntec team. Warnock: Why is a Tier 3 being done with liquefaction-induced settlement of 10 inches below a clarifier. This is a lot, and it would seem that the battle is lost to begin with. Conkle: This first pass accounts for liquefaction without site unmitigation. The approach is to not write off a structure before understanding its performance as best as we can. One thing we are trying to avoid is to just call for ground improvement. This approach appears appropriate based on the initial set of structures evaluated. Warnock: Understood. Post-grout to raise structure might be an option to plan for. Cutler: What is the risk of the lateral spread/settlement identified? PsengineeCSl e al"scientists innovators 402 PS 15-06 Technical Exchange Meeting April 26, 2018 Page 4 Conkle: The settlement and lateral spread indicated have a likelihood consistent with the design earthquake identified in TM-1 4. Example Structure at Plant 1 —Digester 16 Nisar and Hunt provided a discussion of the evaluations at Digester 16 with highlights as follows. (See attached slides.) Neither ASCE 41-13 or ACI 350.3 can be strictly applied to the digester, but we are using their guidance as the best available. The soil settlements/deformations are based on review of CPTs in the region of the structure and judgment of the geotechnical engineers. Assumed groundwater levels considered are important to the deformations that are developed Resistance due to connected pipelines are ignored. OCSD recognizes that utility connections are critical,but the focus of the study is on the structures, and the prioritization of structures will likely help to guide when work is done on connections as part of future projects. Lahlou: Did you look at buoyancy for the digester? Doumbalski: Piles we designed for 50 kip of uplift. We assumed that the digester was full. Yang: Is this a linear dynamic response? Nisar: Yes. Response spectra only allows for linear. Structure above the base is basically linear, so don't see a need for non-linear analysis. Mageaes: Soil profile is all liquefiable?No zones? Hunt: We are doing an evaluation using CPT's, and we develop a profile. It is not uniformly liquefiable. Springs consider the profile. (CH) Cutler: Any issues with the proposed approach(to Jacobs)? Yang: You have to define which one is deformation controlled and which one is force controlled. The chart you show is only showing for deformation-controlled member.It is hard to define force-controlled vs deformation-controlled member for liquid containing members. PsengineeCSl e alssc 4°3 scientists I innovators PS 15-06 Technical Exchange Meeting April 26,2018 Page 5 Nisar and Doumbalski: Different m-factors can be used for various elements. It appears we have good detailing.If nothing is available,we can demonstrate through a moment-curvature analysis to estimate ductility and use our judgment. Lahlou (summarizing): The in-factor will depend on the structure. There will be a lot of assumptions. We can discuss and document them in detail when review each structure 5. Example Structure at Plant 2—PEPS/MAC Doering provided a discussion of the evaluations undertaken thus far at PEPS/MAC, including the results of the Tier 1 and initial discussion of the planned Tier 3. (See slides.) PEPs/MAC employed ASCE 41-13 directly for Tier 1 due to strong shaking based on good as-built information. Have identified some non-compliant items, including vertical irregularity of shear walls. The Tier 3 evaluation presented is ongoing. Mageaes: You have assumed free-field conditions. How do other structures influence? What are your thoughts? Hunt: Free-field for lateral spread is conservative. We may consider shielding as part of the mitigation development. 6. Summarize Path Forward for Other Structures Warnock: Jacobs agrees with the approach to do Tier 3 to exemplar structures as described here. Yang: Complexity of ground deformation issues have come about since TMI. We understand that Geosyntec will issue a final TMI in the near future. Mageaes: This was an excellent discussion.All have done great work. Feel free to move forward with any work you have planned in the near future Cutler: I want to make sure that the Geosyntec Team has enough leeway and flexibility to approach evaluations as they see fit. Warnock: The evaluations presented are very transparent. Impressed by the progress made by the Geosymec team. PsengineeCSl e al"scientists innovators 404 PS 15-06 Technical Exchange Meeting April 26, 2018 Page 6 Action Items: • Geosyntec to prepare meeting minutes. • TM-1 will be issued addressing the comments received thus far. Additional detail regarding approach, including items discussed in this meeting, will be documented in TM-3. • Further discussion is needed on how we choose deformation-controlled vs force- controlled for structural checks. This discussion will happen in meetings specific to the evaluation of each structure. Attachments • PowerPoint slides from Presentation 4-26-18 PsengineeCSI• alsscienfists 1nnOV8YOCS 405 TECHNICAL EXCHANGE MEETING (S SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES Orange County AT - PLANTS 1 & 2 , Sanitation District PRESENTED BY: Geosyntecea : . . APRIL 26, 2018 i Agenda • Discussion of Overall PS15-06 Objectives and Summary of Geotechnical Hazards • Description of Evaluation Approach • Example Structure at Plant 1 — Digester 16 • Example Structure at Plant 2 — PEPS/MAC • Summarize Path Forward for other structures • 11 :30 Questions/Discussion • 12:00 Lunch • 12:30 — 2:00 Continue Discussion Orange County Sanitation District 2 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 407 Safety Moment • Building Evacuation Notes 0 0 GT Nexus,an )z I Broadway Garage m Company Company to St v D;v HNTB Corporation o 0� 0 vFTI Consulting l; O fGeosyn m Consultants E) 0 T� D3 0 0 QHarm Reduction Coalition ]l�4 Ak SY 1" MW Orange County Sanitation Disbict 3 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 408 Introductions • The Geosyntec Team: — Chris Conkle — Chris Hunt — James Doering (Carollo) — Structural Lead — Ahmed Nisar (InfraTerra) — Structural Lead • OCSD Team: — Don Cutler — Mike Lahlou — Jacobs Alk MW Orange County Sanitation Disbict 4 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 409 Meeting Objectives • Provide "in progress" update on Task 3 • Answer questions regarding approach • Facilitate review of Upcoming Deliverables Orange County Sanitation District 5 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 410 Project Objectives/Summary of Geotechnical Hazards Orange County Sanitation Disbict 6 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 411 Introduction - Project Objective - Conkle • Planning Level Study • Identification of critical structural vulnerabilities • Not code compliance • Develop retrofit recommendations to be incorporated into facility master plan. • Requires consistent basis amongst building and non building structures AkOrange County Sanitation Distinct MW 7 PS15-06 TM4 Appendix C 412 Geotechnical Evaluation Elements • Site cross-sections and individual structure soil profiles • Liquefaction settlement and lateral spread based on empirical tools • For Tier 3 analyses develop — Axial and lateral pile capacities — Shallow foundation lateral resistance — Earth pressures on buried structures — Soil Springs • Develop mitigation measures AINOrange County Sanitation Distinct MW 8 PS15-06 TM4 Appendix C 413 Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading .t n . t Orange County Sanitation Disbict 9 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 414 Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading w e Harder Orange County Sanitation Disbict 10 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 415 Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading I - Orange County Sanitation Disbict 11 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 416 / Plant 1 + CPT-05 CPT-07'` + / Estimated Liquefaction- _ � + � ' (5.4 in + + •+ (5.8 in) Free Induced Settlement and CPT-01 ` 0.2ft + , + + + 4.2ftJrI/Face Lateral Spread (5.1 in) ' " • + 0.2 ft CPT-02 CPT (9.2 in) in) CPT-0 .o (9.7 in 0.7ft j CPT-08' (5.4 in) CPT-11 CPT-09 +(11. inJ (7.4 in) Y L2ft � 1.8ft CPT-03 CPT-13 (117in) (6.0 in) GPT-10 1.5 ft + F7 0.2 ft (12.4 in) 2.7 ft CPT-XX i / laePo l spread, Inches) lateral spread, Feet L ) ,j ) / STRUCTURE FOUNDATION LEGEND / SPREAD FOOTING M MAT FOUNDATION + JJJ,,, ;/ ■ BASEMENT �eIy.` TUNNEL CPT-15 112 u / CPT-04 PILES (4.9 in) / (7.7in) 0.5ft 4.1It CPT-16 / (12.6 in) e / 1.6ft, CPT-17 ' �, J Free (10+2 in) 43 ff / Face / c15ft Ak � scAL Orange County Sanitation District 12 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 417 CPT-04 CPT-03 (13.31n) (13.1 in) • • � 0.8 it lAft s kk . • 6•• ♦ eF •^f„ y nze •• • CP 12.7 it T-01 \ A CPT-11 rze\1 ,• z (12.5 in) d 25ft 0.5It CPT-10 '9 in) • s. ♦ STRUCTURE FOUNDATION LEGEND (4 2 in) SPREADozft :. ✓ CPT-OS SPREAD FOOTING OR IMT FOUNDATION :CPT-06 I ♦(24.8 In) ■ BLSEMENT (5.9 in) • , I 0.5 ft CPT-02 ! .0 TUNNEL (8.5 in) �I I STONECOLUMNS 2.6fttj -I . 4'_ ♦ . TIE-OOWN MCHORS ♦ ♦ I° I - ;T"` CPT-07 CPT-O8 � .„.7,, (8.8 in) (11.2 in) Pant 2 / 1.7fn yI 4.5ft 87// CPT-09 Estimated Liquefaction- C � (settlement inches) Induced Settlement and laterel spread SA,feet _ Lateral Spread at 2018 CPT e late al spread TM, eet Investigation Locations Orange County Sanitabon DisbiIX 13 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 418 Description of Evaluation Approach (Application of ASCE 41 -13 to Buildings and Non-Building Structures with Liquefaction) Alk MW Orange County Sanitation Disbict 14 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 419 Structural Evaluation Approach — Conkle • Philosophy consistent ASCE 41 -13: — In-depth evaluation of vulnerabilities based on Tier 3 — Project-specific application to similar structures (Tiered approach) — Extending industry experience with structural performance in these areas Orange County Sanitation District 15 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 420 Structural Evaluation Approach - Tier 1 •Tier 1 Screening Procedure -Evaluation only -Quick screening tool -Summary data sheet -Utilize checklists -Outcome — list of potential deficiencies Building Structures —tommi—G rd Contructures Orange County Sanitabon District 16 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 421 Structural Evaluation Approach - Tier 2 Tier 2 Deficiency Based Procedure — Buildings • Evaluation and retrofit • Examine Tier 1 deficiencies only • May mitigate Tier 1 deficiencies by calculations or retrofit • No "direct" route to Tier 2 where liquefaction is present Building y ASCE41-13 Liquefac NNo NNE ASCE 41-13 y Perform. Structures TierI lion? Tier OK? Yes ASCE+41-13 Exemplar Alk Building Orange County Sanitation Disbict MW 17 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 422 Structural Evaluation Approach - Tier 2 Tier 2 Deficiency Based Procedure — Liquid Containing Structures • Non Typical Building Types — No "direct" route to Tier 2 • Liquefaction Present - No "direct" route to Tier 2 Liquid Common Yes No ASCE �Pcrfo Containing —� Data Forms --► Structures Building? Ti O 1 No ASCE 41-l3 Tier 3 1 Excmpla Building Approach Alk Orange County Sanibon Disbict MW 18 PS15-06 TM4 Appendix C 423 Structural Evaluation Approach - Tier 3 -Tier 3 - Systematic procedure — Account for response of the entire soils/structure system — 3D finite-element model — Modeling of foundation support — Use directly to develop retrofit options — Account for the range of geotechnical conditions and uncertainty in the selection of inputs Orange County Sanitation Disbict 19 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 424 Structural Evaluation Approach *Exemplar Structures Approach - Requires Tier 3 • Account for the range of geotechnical conditions and uncertainty in the selection of inputs Estimate Upper Bound Response Exemplar Tier 3 to Calibrate Response I= Informs Tier 1/2 for similar structures Estimate Lower Bound Response Alk Orange County Sanitation Distinct MW 20 PS15-06 TM4 Appendix C 425 Structural Evaluation Approach - Buildings -Exemplar Buildings w/ Liquefaction Br ASCE 41-13 Perform. No Develop Rehofit Building Tier 3 OK? Recommendation Structures H ♦Yes Apply Results to other similar Building Structures Alk MW Orange County Sanitation DistnIX 21 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 426 Structural Evaluation Approach - Buildings -Additional Buildings w/ Liquefaction tmilar �ASCE 41-13 Building ASCe 41-13 Config N� Tier 2 Perform. No Develop Retrofit Structures Tier 1 to Tic, Modified OK? Recommendation 3? i Yes ASCE41-13 Evaluation Tier 1 Complete Modified i Perform. No Develop Retrofit OK? ~ Recommendation _, !Yes Evaluation Complete ,Tier 1 Modified *Compare loading and configuration to similar exemplar Tier 3 *Make assessment of performance based on Tier 3 ,Tier 2 Modified *Confirm sufficiently dissimilar from exemplar Tier 3 *Perform simplified calculations that serve as basis of comparison to exemplar Tier 3 analysis Orange County Sanitation District 22 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 427 Structural Evaluation Approach - Liquid Containing Structures -Exemplar Structures w/ Liquefaction Exemplar _ Liquid y ASCE 4, ffi FEM F OB' No Develop Retrofit Containing Tier 3 OK? Recommendafion Structures Yes Apply Riesults to other similaz Orange County Sanitabon District 23 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 428 Structural Evaluation Approach - Liquid Containing Structures -Additional Structures w/ Liquefaction Simil Liquid ASCE 41-13 Containing D gp� CO°sg N� Tier 2 PerPotm. No Davalop RatroSt [Structures h�i to Tier L Modified OK? Recomm®dation 3? Yes ASCE 41-13 Evaluation Tier l Complete Mod fed i Perform. No Develop Retrofit OK? Recommendation Yes Evaluation *Tier 1 Modified complete ,Compare loading and configuration to similar exemplar Tier 3 *Make assessment of performance based on Tier 3 *Tier 2 Modified *Confirm sufficiently dissimilar from exemplar Tier 3 *Perform simplified calculations that serve as basis of comparison to exemplar Tier 3 analysis Orange County Sanitation District 24 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 429 Example Structure at Plant 1 Digest e Ask" a .. NOW r PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 430 a. 1 �J{t a ry ,a 9 •J I/ . '1 : /, � � r �� �, i- i ��. �. PILE SCHEDULE CIRCLE CIgCLE xUMOEq pP1CIN0 •N6LE lw Foundation Plan DIPM9T[R REQUIRED FEETPM P IIP.Yp' )P 4.90 0.0• 2 J • 100.00' ap 6.54 ).•• TOMMM4 'i du C 66.00' p) 5.63 ).•- ` 0 %� F 38.00' P• 0.00 Ip.O• 6 22.00' Ip 3.0E P0.0• MAL 164 T. r[ -77 1� , II ✓t 4 _ w �I , Y�✓ -0, 1 4 C D Ar i �' II 4 r ✓'� d j II Nk FILE at•slv[nv�ms 1�•` cA[[[ mills Ills _ w[xvni.OL�( .p Q w— IIL60' 6.F ORp I 100.00' L Y[smw.V.nOYOI[Xf®IOL1[M6. PIIED118T PRL97PESSEU Orange County Sanitation Disbict m CONCRETE PILE 28 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 433 Base Slab to O T SCHCOULE n,9 14 eo ?? Orange County Sanitation Disbic[ 29 434 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C Cross-Section \1 pal .e .rlr num®Sro.+ 0 L A•d•' i 1 e 1° s " —�ois•wuiu\ i . + i Digester 7 interior Orange County Sanitation Disbict 30 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 435 Ground Shaking Hazard ASCE 41-13 Horizontal Response Spectra - OCSD Plant 1 - Site Class D 1.50 —BSE-2E (5%/50 yrs) 1.25 —BSE-1E (20%/50 yrs) c 0 Y v 1.00 d U Q 0.75 O a d lr A 0.50 Y U C ) 0.25 0.00 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 AkPeriod, T (seconds) mw Orange County Sanitation Disbict 31 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 436 Plant 1 Digester 16 Settlement Settlement(inches) Idealized Soil Profile O 2 4 6 6 10 12 Plan View with Representative CPTs and Borings 40 w •E9NC06 / aEOa} E9X007 /. Silty Sand(Non-Liquefiable) t aM{ Historic High 2g sand/snry Send(Ligaefianm) ♦ � ,wcrra2 i♦ aro: q � � am-rsroa Typical j 10 / awaes Clay with Min Silt and Sandy Sift / aOdlroM $ Lyers �,ea g 0 ♦ aot/. 8 ♦ .wwm W � _ 1BI143 vMones -10 XM4luw Santl/Silty Santl(Liquelia6le) I .20 I Sand/SIIry Sandwich Silty Clay ,♦ JO Seams(Liquefiable) [::::::7E� 40 SandlSgrySend(Non-bquefiahle) Best Orange County Sanitation District ���tiw'1r Note:Horizontal not to scale 32 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 437 W E Plant 1 Digester 16 1 Lateral Spread Far Distance = 155it Near Distance =41 It 1 Far Lateral Spread(inches) Near Lateral spreatl(inches) Idealized Soil Profile 0 30 40 60 80 ISO 0 20 40 60 80 1aa 40 I I � t I Silly Sand(Non-Liquefiable) I I =0 fifty Send H = 10ft San i - Santa Ana River 10 clay with thin Sill and Sandy Stiff ' $ Layers I 0 W .10 Santl/Silty Santl(Liquelia6le) -30 V1 Sand/Silry Sand with Silty clay J0 Seams(Liquefiahle) IllaaWSiftylland(Non-Liquefiable) Upper -60 Orange County Sanitation District Note:Horizontal not to scale 33 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 438 Approach • ASCE 41 -13 CIA.4 Evaluation Procedures This standard contains three 3.4.3.1 Gede c Site Hazards o ter-ev uauon proce ure procedures for seismic evalualion. a ter screenrrtg an Tier is avai or w tugs su dewed to liquefaction.slope failure, e ciency- procedures arc intended f ,buildings rneeun r surface fault rupture, Inc stricture s a e eva uate or the criteria for the Common Buildin in Table 3-1 and effects of these hazards using the Tier 3 procedures in Chapters ti acd 8. 43A Geologic Site Hazards ere shall be no que action. ope at ure.or sur ace au t rupture hazard present at the build-1 'n site.A tematively,if such a hazard is present, the hazard has • ACI 350.3 The tank floor and floor support system should be designed for the seismic forces transmitted therein. With any one of the tank types covered under this standard,the floor may be a membrane-type slab,a raft foundation,or a structural slab supported on piles, his standard, however, oes not cover he determination of seismic forces on the it ' s themselves. Water bearing structures subjected to liquefaction-induced PGD are non typical and require detailed assessment such as Tier 3 Orange County Sanitation District 34 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 439 Approach • Develop Finite Element Model using ANSYS • Compute impulsive and convective masses as per ACI 350.3 • Analyze the structure for ground shaking (response spectrum) and liquefaction-induced PGD (assume range of boundary conditions) • Fixed base (for baseline reference only) • Flexible base • Explicit modeling of pile foundation Orange County Sanitation District 35 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 440 Approach Gumlanve LaM l Dispku,ment T..nft R.flch�) ------------------ 20 wao ---------- ------------------- N.M Ground Shaking Permanent Ground Deformation Ak MWOrange County Sanitation District - 36 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 441 r • � _ �ri■�i■■■■�__ ,--'•■, •�. Apo DIGFSTFR 16 • ACI 350 .3 Loading Convective mass W tanh�0.668 )1 (1% Damping) ' _ L ] (9-15) WL 0.866(H) t Rigid W` = 0230(HL O)tanht3.68(p,L)] (9-16) Impulsive mass 5% Dam in E1.U.n: T ee.a I �t, e6.n 46.11 4s.67 A117 b 6] 33.67 ll.17 ]6.67 36.1] 13.67 Ak MW Orange County Sanitation District 38 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 443 II IIII !i III. Ilf l III- � III II 'IIII III . � � II IIIi ii .I I IIII I1III 'IE i�'Els �II� E� ����� iiilli'�I ill IiEI IIII! IIII! Eli IIIi III ! I I ell 'i III 'IIIi lice nl a IIII IE, E I IIII I III II it li ,III IIII I II 'I, I it IIII IIII �� IIII ii�il�li II, III, Illli III, i'�I li III II IIIi li 'll I i'EI IIII IE' illEiil lie, �� cull Iiillll� Ili III Illli I IIIi ill IIII III I I I 1 II IIII IIIII IIIII 11 III_ I I II I I 1 I IIII IIIII IIIII I 11 I, I Ili I III II ii Ii ,III IIII I II 'Ii I it JII II.. �� I��il lilil�li II, II I Illli III, il� I III !I I I .III I I 'i iEl 'IIIi lice ell a IIIL' IL ! III' Illy I I Ii II it li ,III ills I II I, I Ifl IIII II.. !� IIIII ii�ill II I , II I Illli III, ill li III !I I i IIII I I 'I ,EI "III a lii: IIIII a IIII IE, E III IIII i III II EI li ,III ills I II „ I it III�E I.., �� �I�II I..l.li II, III, IIIII III, E'll I li III II IIIi 'i IIII i'l' IIII Ih illEiel Ilse �� null I�eIIIEI- III III Illli IIIII ilI III III !I I i III 'I iEl 'Ill i' IiiE Iliil I IIIII 11� 'E' III" IIIII I III II it li ,III IIII I II I, I it IIII IIII �� �I��I Eillll II I , II I Illli III, I'll li III II ljii i �!I I IIII IIII ���� III�� � �l �� II Elllilll �' I�EI' II�III'� I IIIEIE III; IjI III I ' III IE� Iil�� �� EEI Ill ICI� �i I ill I �W o z s a , iilGl 1 . . . ., o .. r r r f I A Ci W � N W � ¢ W � a H H Q 1SOTEP Mode Shapes - Mode 1 ; Sloshing aNR 85 SUB —L FREQ-=. 143954 USUM (AVG) RSYS=O DMX =. 181827 SN]X =. 181827 b ,� • ; < r 'r 1 IZ r y 77,71 111 1 111 1 0 040406 . 080812 . 121218 . 161624 . 020203 . 060609 . 101015 . 141421 . 181827 DIGESTER 16 [kips, in] 41 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 446 1 ANSYS STE Mode Shapes - Mode 2 ; Sloshing SUS -� FREQ=. 143954 USUM (AVG) RSYS=O DMX -. 181827 T„ . SMX =. 181827 Z 0 . 040406 . 080812 . 121218 . 161624 . 020203 . 060609 . 101015 . 141421 . 181827 DIGESTER 16 [kips, in] 42 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 447 1 ANSYS s� Mode Shapes — Mode 3 R18.1 SUB FREQ=1 . 94557 UX (AVG) RSYS=O DMY =. 159895 SMN =-. 016023 IMX =. 140184 i i -.016023 .01869 .053402 .088115 .122828 .001333 .036046 .070759 .105471 .140184 DIGESTER 16 [kips, in] 43 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 448 1 AN5Y5 SOTEP Mode Shapes — Mode 4 Rle'1 SUB -z FREQ=l . 94558 UY (AVG) RSYS=O DMX =. 159895 SMN -- . 140184 SMX =. 016023 Y1 I i Preliminary Work-in-Progres �Y -.140184 -.105471 -.070759 -.036046 -.001333 -.122828 -.088115 -.053402 -.018689 .016023 DIGESTER 16 [kips, in] 44 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 449 1 ANSYS S°E] Mode Shapes — Mode 6 Rle.l SUB -u FREQ-6. 11522 UY (AVG) RSYS=O ME =.223764 SMN =-. 069188 SMX =. 110422 Prel i Work-in LA rii ' il� � ll �I � I -.069188 -.029275 .010639 .050552 .090465 -.049231 -.009318 .030595 .070509 .110422 DIGESTER 16 [kips, in] 45 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 450 ' Mode Shapes - Mode 7 ANR18.1 SUB = FREQ=6. 11528 UX (AVG) RSYS=O MY, =.223771 SM[Q =-. 069189 SMX =. 110423 Y I Preliminary ` Work-in rogress -.069189 -.029275 .010638 .050552 .090466 -.049232 -.009318 .030595 .070509 .110423 DIGESTER 16 [kips, in] 46 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 451 1 AN5Y5 ET.7 a1E.1 SML Bending Moment (kip-in/in) PLOT N0. 1 TOP DMX =4.52554 SMN =—. 055005 SMX =50 .3291 Preliminary Work-in-Progress xO -.055005 11.1415 22.3379 33.5344 44.7309 5.54323 16.7397 27.9362 39.1327 50.3291 DIGESTER 16 [kips, in] 47 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 452 1 AN5Y5 EL7 a18.1 1CML In -Plane Forces (kip/in) PLO N0. 1 TOP DMX =4.52554 SMN =—. 044642 SMX =12.4101 Preliminary Work-in-Progress .044642 2.72308 5.49081 8.25854 11.0263 1.33922 4.10695 6.87467 9.6424 12.4101 DIGESTER 16 [kips, in] 48 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 453 ANSYS SM Bending Moment in Base Cone PLOT NO. R181 TOP DW =4. 13513 SMN =-5. 02243 SMX =55. 8936 z Preliminary xkv Work-in-Progress 5.02243 8.51446 22.0513 35.5882 49.1251 1.74601 15.2829 28.8198 42.3567 55.8936 DIGESTER 16 [kips, in] 49 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 454 1 ANSYS SM Membrane Forces in Base Cone PLOTNO. R181 TOP DW =4. 13513 SMN =.414531 S'MX =10 .372 2 Preliminary ' Work-in-Progress 414531 2. 62729 4 . 84006 7 . 05282 9.26558 1 .52091 3 . 73368 5. 94644 8 . 1592 10 .372 DIGESTER 16 [kips, in] 50 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 455 1 ' In-Plane Forces in Compression Ring ANs as - PLOT NO. 1 TOP DMX =4.52554 SMN =8 .43969 SMX =9.36115 z Preliminary Work-in-Progress i i I I 8 .43969 8 . 64446 8 . 84923 9. 054 9.25877 8 .54208 8 . 74685 8 . 95161 9 . 15638 9.36115 DIGESTER 16 [kips, in] PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 456 AN5Y5 Dome-to-Wall Connection R18.1 TOP PLOT NO. 1 DMX =90 . 848 SMN =1 . 67635 SMX =2. 83729 z Preliminary Work-in-Progress 1 . 67635 1 . 93434 2. 19233 2.45031 2. 7083 1 . 80534 2. 06333 2.32132 2 .57931 2. 83729 DIGESTER 16 [kips, in] PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 457 ANSYS Membrane Forces in the Dome R18.1 TOPPLOT NO. 1 MY, =90 . 848 SMN =-. 044642 IMX =. 107251 z Preliminary x�Y Work-in-Progress -.044642 -.010888 .022866 .05662 .090374 -.027765 .005989 .039743 .073497 .107251 DIGESTER 16 [kips, in] 53 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 458 1 ANSYS Lateral Spread PGD PST No R18.1 SVD =1 THV E=35 UX (AVG) RSYS=O DMX =9. 97926 SMN = . 003949 SMX -9. 96119 . KC `�at� I ill 4 O I +fII llll I Id I Il� �lli i . Ili' I 'il . IiV II � I Il I Iil � iill iii I IJIrtI' I �I 1I z r -.003949 2.21053 4.425 6.63948 8.85396 1.10329 3.31777 5.53224 7 .74672 9.96119 DIGESTER 16 [kips, in] 54 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 459 Bending Moment in Piles ZA Y II Orange County Sanitation District V" 55 PS15-06 TM4 Appendix C 460 Axial Force in Piles seFa,r.,.E me<oi - x Max V = 2 kips Orange County Sanitation Disbict 56 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 461 Demand-to-Capacity Ratios Superstructure N11 N22 M31 M22 ASCE 41-13 BSE-2E DCR Life Safety ACI-350.3 Demand Capacity Demand Capacity Demand Capacity Demand Capacity m-factor R-factor Dome 0.9 1.4 0.1 1.4 0.1 3.9 0.2 3.9 0.67 2.5 2.0-3.25 Dome to Wall Connection 2.9 2.8 0.0 2.8 0.9 10.9 7.0 12.3 1.12 2.5 2.0-3.25 Compression Ring 9.4 15.7 0.0 2.8 2.0 30.4 7.3 31.8 0.67 2.5 2.0-3.25 Wall Upper Third 9.6 27.4 0.0 8.6 1.6 312.7 6.3 77.5 0.35 2.5 2.0-3.25 Wall Middle Third 11.7 45.7 0.1 8.6 6.7 521.2 35.3 77.5 0.47 2.5 2.0-3.25 Wall Bottom Third 10.8 34.3 0.6 22.9 7.8 390.9 42.7 49.2 0.33 2.5 2.0-3.25 Base Cone Slab 9.1 7.9 7.9 30.8 36.8 3 101.5 1.92 1 2.5 2.0-3.25 Max Pile Force: 219 kips 0A'�O Pu Itching Shea r Capacity of Mat: 542 kips N11 N22 1 M22 ASCE 41-13 ACI-350.3 BSE-1E DCR Immediate R-factor Demand Capacity Demand Capacity errand Capacity Demand Capacity Occupancy (I= 1.25) m-factor Dome 0.6 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.1 3.9 0.2 3.9 0.45 2.0 1.6-2.6 Dome to Wall Connection 2.2 2.8 0.0 2.8 0.7 10.9 5.6 12.3 0.84 2.0 1.6-2.6 Compression Ring 7.1 15.7 0.0 2.8 1.5 30.4 5.8 31.8 0.50 2.0 1.6-2.6 Wall Upper Third 7.4 27.4 0.0 8.6 1.1 312.7 4.3 77.5 0.27 2.0 1.6.2.6 Wall Middle Third 9.1 45.7 0.0 8.6 5.0 521.2 26.9 77.5 0.35 2.0 1.6-2.6 Wall Bottom Thir 8.5 34.3 0.0 22.9 5.7 390.9 31.7 249.2 0.26 2.0 1.6-2.6 Base Cone Slab 6.8 7.9 5.8 10.8 MO 47.0 30.7 101.5 1.45 2.0 1.6-2.6 Max Pile Force: 180 kips Punching Shear Capacity of Mat: 542 kips Orange County Sanitation DistnIX 57 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 462 Demand-to-Capacity Ratios - Piles . . . or Load Combination ASCE 41-13 Best Estimate Lateral Spread Displacements 1.34 Upper Bound Lateral Spread Displacements 1.69 a'�� e45 BSE-2E Ground Shaking te`` �� 2.42 BSE-1E Ground Shaking Q �Q 1.54 Qt SRSS of Best Estimate Lateral Spread & B E 2.0 - 2.63 2.5 (LS) SRSS of Best Estimate Lateral Spread & BSE-1E 1.5 - 1.85 2.0 (10) SRSS of Upper Bound Lateral Spread & BSE-2E 2.19 - 2.77 2.5 (LS) SRSS of Upper Bound Lateral Spread & BSE-1E 1.79 - 2.05 2.0 (10) *Function of assumptions regarding directional combination of ground motion input; lower bound values for ASCE 41-13 ** m-factors based on ASCE 41-13 Table 10-9 for reinforced concrete columns; higher m-factors for piles could be justified (ref: California Department of Transportation, 2017, Memo to Designers 20-15, Lateral Spreading Analysis For New and Existing Bridges Orange County Sanitation Disbic[ 58 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 463 Example Structure at Plant 2 Orange County Sanitation Disbict 59 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 464 PEPS/MAC - Background • Originally constructed under P2-23-6 in 1977 • Seismic retrofit work under 132-53-3 in 1994 • Single story w/ basement • 170' x 60' x 50' tall (16' bg/34' ag) • CIP concrete building w/ CIP conc roof (Class C2) • Supported on 2'-0" thick concrete mat slab • Basement ties into 12 kV Distribution Center B and Headman Tunnel • 1" diameter soil anchors w/ 33-ft bonded length AkOrange County Sanitation Distinct MW 60 PS15-06 TM4 Appendix C 465 PEPS/MAC - Background f � I Ot 0% Tt .! v AN Orange County Sanitation Disbict 61 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 466 PEPS/MAC - Background . r I - P Orange County Sanitation Disbict 62 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 467 PEPS/MAC - Background l t " ,11 IFL Orange County Sanitation Disbict PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C i"n PEPS/MAC - Background Orange County Sanitation Disbict e s s r � PEPS/MAC - Background � 17. Ak mw 0 Orange County Sanitation Disbict PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 4�c PEPS/MAC - Record Drawings 15� ex r , n O LS m .Y ue 4 m ♦ ♦\ O a ..is.... ee .n t� v C =T N AT EL.! C.00 14 —2 Ak Orange County Sanitauon uistna mv 66 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 471 j IPVoWA r;po , II �f .■9�1 Yd ���1 �:�1 Y� low v U U U U U V U J II� f � ®9 PEPS/MAC - Record Drawings PEPS/MAC 12 kV Dist B U U c� U lJ V U V V Ak mv am.. r;- I � maai bco_n Orange County Sanitation Disbict 69 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 474 Plant 2 PEPS/MAC Settlement For Lateral Spread(inches) 0 5 10 15 IO 20 10 SandClayey Sand(Nonliq✓errable) Historic High San&Sflty Send(Llquefiable) F o l Typical W Plan View with Representative CPTs and Borings -10 CPT. L •VMO1 -20 SarantilNSand(Liqueliable Lei / aPLCPM2 Pocket.) ;9 x M-BN007 l PPLCPM J0 x E-BH203 x R�000 PI-CP72 •Phf Mu` % aP?CPTIO JO • PLCPTfO M8Nd0f GTO6 / BOtlrIB3 / xA;NWf • G)-COT xEiN20] V Sllry Sandand Stlry0lay \`�.� x"W7 (Liquefiable) 50 V-M01 \\ ."HOUS P2-CPT02 / P2-raTos xNla -TO P2-CPT07 P2-fPTIO SanWSlHy Sand(Non-Liquefiable) —Av ., —Best 80 Orange County Sanitation District Note:Horizontal not to Scale 70 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 475 ei Far Distance =479 ft W ~ E Plant 2 PEPS/MAC Near Distance = 294 It .; Lateral Spread For Lateral Spread(inches) New Lateral Spread(inches) 0 10 20 30 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 ; 50 20 I I 10 SancWhaye,Send(Non-Liquefiable) t t Saudi Send(Last elable) . 1 H = 10 ft F J 9 / b o / 4 , Santa Ana River _1B 20 Sand/SilrySand(Liqueliable pocket.) .30 40 -50 Silty Sandand Silty Llay (Liquefiable) -60 .70 Sanc ihy Sand(Non-Liquelable) _—Beal BO NpPr Orange County Sanitation District Note:Horizontal not to scale 71 PS15-06 TM4 Appendix C 476 Far Distance = 614 ft N ► S Plant 2 PEPS/MAC Near Distance = 294 It Lateral Spread For Lateral Spread(inches) Near Lateral Spread(inches) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 20 I I 10 SandtCiayey Send(Non-Liquefiable) 1 t t sanrusnty Send(L,q ehable) 1 H = 10 ft 9F i Talbert Marsh W % -10 -20 Sand/SHty Sand(Lique/ieble % keh) .30 40 1 -50 1 Sdt,Sand and Silry Clay (Liquefiable) -60 .70 _Be t SenWSilty Sand(Hon-Liquefiable) Upya -BO Orange County Sanitation District Note:Horizontal not to scale 72 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 477 PEPS/MAC - Seismic Evaluation Criteria Non- lacifty Suuclure 'MM Seismic Class s1ructural Hazard level 2-5 1 S-1 1-13 (Position BSE-1E (20% PEPS/MAC (Immediate Retention) / 50 years) Occupancy) Orange County Sanitation Disbict 73 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 478 PEPS/MAC — Tier 1 Findings Description1,r mr, . S1 VERTICAL IRREGULARITY: ASCE 41-13 Check per Tier 3 Several shear walls are Seismic Analysis discontinuous down to the mat foundation. rAOIDI.WA GLf VAT10N.00• • 1 n M/ Q1•I�L.L. �- ADD w R IN NORI ONpL � .JOINT —woo 1 SEA -- Orange County Sanitation Disbict 74 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 479 PEPS/MAC — Tier 1 Findings Description � . S2 SHEAR STRESS CHECK: DCR ASCE 41-13 Check per Tier 3 = 1.12 in the N-S Direction Seismic Analysis Ak MW Orange County Sanitation Disbict 75 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 480 PEPS/MAC — Tier 1 Findings Description . S3 OPENINGS AT SHEAR ASCE 41-13 Check per Tier 3 WALLS: Diaphragm opening Seismic Analysis at roof > 15% of the wall length (60%). 1Il MA �Y" F. I I t iAk Orange County Sanitation Disbict 76 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 481 PEPS/MAC — Tier 3 • 3D FEM w/ flexible base • Evaluations 1. Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA) 2. Ground Deformation Analysis (GDA) 3. Combine RSA + GDA 4. Lateral Stability Check 5. Uplift Check Orange County Sanitation District 77 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 482 PEPS/MAC - FEM Model Orange County Sanitation Disbict 78 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 483 PEPS/MAC - FEM Model Orange County Sanitation Disbict 79 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 484 PEPS/MAC — Soil Springs • 3 Soil Properties to Model • Vertical Bearing • Lateral Bearing (passive) • Base Friction • Bi-linear • Linear elastic, perfectly plastic Q d QY _9-« 1.0 F.B f A Allk (a) mw Orange County Sanitation Disbict e 80 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 485 PEPS/MAC — Soil Springs • Use upper bound stiffness for RSA • Use lower bound stiffness for GDA UPPER BOUND 2Q Q CALCULATED CAPACITY LOWER BOUND Q/2 a' DEFORMATION Orange County Sanitation District 81 PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 486 PEPS/MAC - Response Spectrum Analysis • Model foundation flexibility (non-liquefied) • Loads included: • BSE-1E response spectra • Dead Load • Active soil loads (lateral) • Seismic soil loads • Groundwater pressures Orange County Sanitation District i 82 PS15-06 TM4 Appendix C 487 PEPS/MAC - Ground Deformation Analysis • Model foundation flexibility (liquefied) • Loads/actions included: • Additional active soil pressures due to liquefaction • Dead Load • Differential settlement patterns • Linear • Bi-linear • Other (will depend on building type) AlkOrange County Sanitation Distinct MW 83 PS15-06 TM4 Appendix C 488 PEPS/MAC - Ground Deformation Analysis • Linear pattern Building Length/Width 6' • Bi-linear pattern 6" 3" ---------------------------------------- Orange County Sanitation Disbict 84 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 489 PEPS/MAC - Ground Deformation Analysis • Bi-linear pattern 0" - 1.5" 3" 1.5" 0" Aw I, � • �� I' I � I�� I � I'I I'I I 0" 1.5" 3" 1.5" 0" Alk MW Orange County Sanitation Disbict HS PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 490 PEPS/MAC — Tier 3 RSA + GDA • Combine results using SRSS • Check component strength/ductility against ASCE 41-13 Acceptance Criteria • Calculate Tier 3 DCR's for Tier 1 "NC" items • Roof diaphragm shear • Concrete shear in shear walls • Concrete columns below discontinuous shear walls AkOrange County Sanitation Distinct MW 86 PS15-06 TM4 Appendix C 491 PEPS/MAC - Tier 3 GDA Adaption to Similar Structures • Use results to judge performance of similar structures • Review ground deformation estimates for similar structures • Using same PEPS/MAC model, run analyses as required for: • Increased and/or decreased magnitudes of settlement • Perform independent lateral stability check for unique conditions • Limitations: • Not applicable for verifying Tier 1 structural deficiencies Orange County Sanitation District 87 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 492 PEPS/MAC - Lateral Stability Check • Challenges • How does differential spread occur? • Does the soil fracture? Where? In front, below, or behind? • Can the spread "pull" apart a structure? ET11 I 49 5" LU Orange County Sanitation Disbict 88 PSIS-06 TM4 Appendix C 493 PEPS/MAC - Lateral Stability Check • Limit-state checks • Passive pressure on basement walls • Any weak links in the foundation system • Expansion joints • Reduced slab sections • Reduced foundation width • Adjacent structures Allk MW Orange County Sanitation Disbict 89 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 494 PEPS/MAC .ateral Stability Check • Basement Wall @ Grid Line 10 • Negative bending: DCR = 3 .5 • Positive bending: DCR = X.X • Shear: DCR = 0.75 .arvq ro iiiwn�. Wvv.!M wmw Passive earth n.yy pressure Orange County Sanitation District 90 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 495 PEPS/MAC - Lateral Stability Check • Foundation Wall @ Grid Line 1 h iut I wa v� a.we Passive earth pressure : 11 AL Orange County Sanitation District 91 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 496 PEPS/MAC - Lateral Stability Check • Adjacent tunnel w/ expansion joints I I J• Ell a rte I I r• I a• 1 I I •�N.a . II jj d � I l ,w • I ' II 1 I1 r• I _ PI 1 II - tcwueu n.u< ' Ak mw Orange County Sanitation Disbict 92 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 497 PEPS/MAC — Lateral Stability Check • Adjacent tunnel w� laf�:i.b u alp — s r- n� P IL � 6: p N SECTION Orange County Sanitation Disbict 93 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 498 PEPS/MAC - Uplift Check • Check Buoyant Uplift • Reduced soil anchor capacity due to liquefaction • Increased buoyant uplift forces due to liquefied soil Orange County Sanitation District 94 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 499 Path Forward for PS15-06 Structures Orange County Sanitation Disbict 95 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C Soo D iscussion Orange County Sanitation Disbict 96 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 501 Hjy SAXIIA)io Zi �O Geosyntec consultants 9F O THE n\ MEETING MINUTES SUBJECT: PS15-06 Technical Exchange Meeting(TEM)#2 DATE: Tuesday July 10,2018 TIME: 9:00 a.m. PST LOCATION: OCSD Administration Building, Conference Room A MEETING ATTENDEES: Geosyntec—Chris Conkle, Chris Hunt Carollo—James Doering InfraTerra—Ahmed Nisar,Nick Doumbalski OCSD—Don Cutler, Mike Lablou Jacobs—Elias Mageaes (Phone),Kirk Warnock(Phone), Jeong Yang (Phone) 1. Introduction/Safety Moment 2. Meeting Objectives Conkle described the objectives of the meeting as outlined on the attached slides. 3. Review of Structural Evaluation Process Conkle described outlined the structural evaluation process as described during the previous TEM. 4. Review of Geotechnical Site Conditions Hunt provided a summary of Geotechnical site conditions for the Digesters, Secondary Clarifiers, and City Water Pump Station as described on the attached slides. Discussions items during this section of the discussion included: Mtg Minutes-OCSD 9-10.18 �,%iAqTVA§4Agkntists I innovators 502 PS 15-06 Technical Exchange Meeting#2 July 10,2018 Page 2 o There was discussion of the datum used to assess historic high-water depth. The topographic information being used has been provided by OCSD and uses the plant datum. This is different from the USGS datum per Don Cutler. Geosyntec acknowledges the difference between the USGS datum and plant datum. After discussion it was agreed that historic high likely represented an overly conservative basis for the evaluations relative to the typical water levels which are proposed for evaluations. ❖ Lablou: Have we got any groundwater data from OCWD? ➢ Geosyntec responded that this request is still in progress and the elevations from the information received will be compared to those established based on the site-specific investigations. Geosyntec will prepare a discussion/justification for the groundwater elevations used in the evaluation. ❖ Lahlou: Is there QA/QC that is done on the CPTs to check if they include erroneous data? ➢ Hunt responded: We have used engineering judgment to identify outliers and have excluded them from the development of the settlement estimates. Our calculations have been thoroughly QC'd. Cutler: How is subgrade preparation work/effect of installation of piles below structures accounted for? The CPTs are advanced outside of structure footprints ➢ Hunt: This maybe a minor source of conservatism. We will discuss this consideration in our report. ❖ Mageaes: Is the river lined at that location and normally dry, would that factor into the geotechnical conditions observed? ➢ Hum/Nisar: There is a channel lining. The lining does not have the structural strength to resist moving soil to the free face. ➢ Conkle: While the river is generally dry,the free face for lateral spreading was taken down to the bottom of the channel and lateral spreading may occur at depths below the bottom of the channel. Psengineers I°scientists I innovators SOa PS 15-06 Technical Exchange Meeting#2 July 10,2018 Page 3 S• Lahlou: OCSD was expecting that Secondary Clarifiers at plant 2 would be the worst case as far as liquefaction/lateral spread. It appears that all 3 exemplars structures discussed today have liquefaction/lateral spread issues. ➢ Hunt: Yes, both plants have liquefiable soils. The geologic depositional environment is the same at both. S• Doumbalski provided a discussion of the evaluations for the Digesters at Plant 1.He noted that the pile capacities are about 100 kips. ❖ Hunt described the process for development of the geotechnical capacity of the piles. Assuming about 10%of frictional resistance at piles when liquefied. Installation effect of the pile would densify soils around piles somewhat. When calculating the shaft resistance, an effective diameter was used. In general, pile supported structures perform very well axially in earthquakes. We do not see gross sinking into the ground during earthquakes w/ liquefaction. We are accounting for these observations in the development of capacities. Lateral spread was not reduced to account for the presence of the piles. S• Warnock: Did you consider P-delta effect on concrete piles? ➢ Ahmed: Structural analysis included P-delta effect. Values on the chart are the geotechnical ultimate capacities (slide 26),which include the tip and side resistance. ❖ Mageaes: How do you determine soil consolidation below structures? Structures especially full of liquid may tend to consolidate soils. ➢ Hunt: Consolidation would have more of an effect on clays than the sandy soils we have at the site. We recommend not attempting to include this effect in a planning level study. Cutler: We do not want to be overly conservative in our approach. I believe based on our discussion that we are meeting that mark. •8 Hunt provided a discussion of the differential settlement patterns assumed. There are lots of closely spaced CPTs at Plant 2. Four groups of these CPT were selected to look variability of closely space CPTs. A standard pattern with a reduction with a differential settlement of 40% of the total at 60 foot spacing . Structural engineers can then move that pattern around the structure to evaluate impact of differential settlement. ➢ Cutler: I understand we me just trying to look at how settlement might vary across the site, not trying to capture a cyclical response. Psengineers I°scientists I innovators 5� PS 15-06 Technical Exchange Meeting#2 July 10,2018 Page 4 ➢ Ahmed: It is not cyclical; the idea is that we are trying to capture a variable response. ➢ Lahlou: Is one of the grouping representative of native soils? ➢ Hunt: All were between structures and likely less effected by subgrade preparation at structures. ➢ Warnock: We understand this is a tool. I don't have a problem with what they have done. 5. Plant 1—Digesters—Progress Update o Nisar presented a description of the progress on the evaluation of the digesters. o Nisar: We developed moment-curvature in the piles and looked at incremental displacements. Top of curve occurs at 24 inches, after which the moment capacity reduces, but can go further. Dark red or dark blue are plastic hinges developing (Slide 53). Piles do develop hinges,but does not mean catastrophic failure and can still maintain structure loads. Piles have higher shear capacity than bending capacity, so elements are ductile. Failure is governed by ductile behavior. Modeled moment curvature using Pile v2.0. o Lahlou: What about the base connection to the wall? Doumbalski: We checked the capacity of the wall. Nisar: Walls have relatively low DCR's for ground shaking. The above ground responds to ground shaking and below ground structure responds to ground deformation. We start to see some limits on pile capacity at 24 inches. Even at 24 inches,not all piles have issues,just some of them. • Warnock: Per ASCE 41-13,what would you like to have? Doumbalski: Limiting deformation to 12-inchs would help limit damage to any piles, since hinges start to form at 12 inches. Psengineers I°scientists I innovators SOs PS 15-06 Technical Exchange Meeting#2 July 10,2018 Page 5 • Nisar: Cracking of the base slab could be treated as something we can live with. It is not a catastrophic failure. The main thing we are concerned with is the piles at the digesters. • Doering: We are using these findings to give us insight to behavior at other pile- supported structures. • Doumbalski: The displacement of the soil due to lateral spreading is driving the demand on the piles as opposed to the lateral load from the digester. • Nisar: We we modeling the piles with full non-linear analysis. • Warnock: For the moment-curvature analysis, do you know the reinforcement of the piles? Doumbalski: Yes, we have that. It is on the drawings. Hunt: Ground improvement or a heavily reinforced sub-grade wall between the Digesters and the river can limit lateral spread displacement below 12 inches. ➢ Mageaes: You have 2 rows of digesters? How would that apply to the digesters away from the river? ➢ Hunt: Deformations at 2°d row are smaller about 14 inches. ➢ Doumbalski: It is possible that the 2°d row of digesters could be OK without mitigation. Lahlou: The road between digester and river is congested with utilities. Are you considering structural mitigations in addition to ground improvement? ➢ Ahmed: While we have not explored a perimeter pile mitigation yet. I think it will be challenging to make this work. Conkle: That may create differential settlement issues. ➢ Conkle: At this phase we are looking at the structural performance without mitigation in place. The next phase would be to,in Task 4,consider the mitigations in place to determine which is the best approach. PsengineAppendix cientists I innovators 506 PS 15-06 Technical Exchange Meeting#2 July 10,2018 Page 6 ➢ Ahmed: One approach might be that without mitigation the first row would be sacrificial. If you do subject front row to high deformation, digesters will not topple, • Cutler: That would be a management decision on our end. • Doumbalski: The bottom cone slab will crack given these deformation • Options to mitigate this cracking including post event repairs were discussed. ➢ Conkle: Hinging of piles is a real potential and would have to be addressed with ground improvement. What is the constraint at the front row as far as ground improvement? • Cutler: There is process piping, 12 kV distribution along that access road. Feasibility of ground improvement may be low. ➢ Elias: Do the digester piles have pile caps? • Doumbalski: There is thickening at the mat. ➢ Mageaes: So you have mirrored this in the model? Doumbalski: Yes, these are thickened rings. Rebar from the piles are anchored into the mat, so there is a rigid connection. ➢ Warnock: Were group effects included when the pile capacities were figured? • Hunt: No, these are about 6 feet apart, so no reduction was made. ➢ Warnock: What is your opinion on fault rupture mitigation? ➢ Hunt: There is no fault rapture hazard at Plant 1. This concern is at Plant 2. The available information there shows that at the 975-year return period, the probability of fault displacement is very low. Fault rupture need not be assessed for return period less than 1400 years.Based on this information we do not think it is appropriate to apply fault rupture hazard to the existing structure in this study. We will document this position in our report. ➢ Mageaes: Potential cracking of the cone? • Doumbalski: Yes. ➢ Mageaes: Is that quantifiable? What more can you tell us? Psengineers I°scientists I innovators 507 PS 15-06 Technical Exchange Meeting#2 July 10,2018 Page 7 • Doumbalski: Middle of the cone rises relative to the outer portion given pile performance, so the cone is stretching, creating membrane stresses that will potentially crack the slab. • Nisar: Won't reach a catastrophic failure. ➢ Cutler: It seems unusual that the piles are not toed into the same stratum. I am guessing that when we constructed digesters,we hammered piles down to refusal and cut off to the appropriate elevation. Ahmed: The drawings show the pile length is set. No refusal number or bearing strata is provided. 6. Plant 1 -City Water Pump Station—Progress Update ❖ Doering provided a description of the City Water Pump Station and the results of structural evaluations as described on the attached presentation. A preliminary list of structural mitigation items was presented. ➢ Tie slab to wall/stem wall ➢ Upgrade beam connections to roof diaphragm(4 locations) ➢ Reinforce overstressed wall pier @ south wall ➢ Supplement wall with horizontal girls S• While subject to liquefaction and lateral spreading, performance may be acceptable slab is adequately tied to walls allowing structure to move as a unit. • Lahlou: Was this structure identified as requiring a retrofit in the Dame and Moore Report? ➢ Doering: The structure was built in 1989 and the Dames and Moore report in 1994 didn't identify required retrofit at this structure. • Lahlou: Is there a way to present a combined demand capacity ratio (DCR) for the structure? ➢ Doering: No, the DCRs need to apply to particular structural elements. •8 Warnock: In the past it was common to isolate the slab from the wall for shrinkage reasons. ➢ The group agreed that current design practice and an appropriate retrofit would be to tie the slab to the walls. 7. Plant 2-Secondary Clarifiers A-L—Progress Update Nisar and Doumbalski provided a description of the Secondary Clarifiers at Plant 2 and the results of structural evaluations based on ground shaking the geotechnical conditions Psengineers I°scientists I innovators 508 PS 15-06 Technical Exchange Meeting#2 July 10,2018 Page 8 identified. While the structure performs well relative to ground shaking; lateral spreading and differential settlement produce separations between portions of the structure which would produce a loss of function after the design seismic event.This separation causes loss of support of mechanical equipment which bridge the various structures. ❖ The performance and loss of function indicates that either ground improvement or a post earthquake repair maybe appropriate mitigation options. Cutler: The performance presented sounds catastrophic. Given the age of the structure it may have little remaining useful life. This will need to be considered in the ultimate retrofit/replace decision. ➢ Conkle: Understood. The team will present feasible mitigation alternatives including ground improvement which the District can ultimately weight against a replacement decision during the TM4 phase. 8. Discussion ❖ Warnock: Speaking generally about the day's meeting. "This was a very thorough and very professional presentation". Action Items: • Geosyntec to prepare meeting minutes. • TM-1 will be issued addressing the comments received thus far. Additional detail regarding approach, including items discussed in this meeting, will be documented in TM-3. • Further discussion is needed on how we choose deformation-controlled vs force- controlled for structural checks. This discussion will happen in meetings specific to the evaluation of each structure. Attachments • PowerPoint slides from Presentation 7-10-18 Psengineers I°scientists I innovators 509 TECHNICAL EXCHANGE MEETING #2 SEISMIC EVALUATION OF-STRUCTURES J Orange County AT - PLANTS 1 & 2 - Sanitation District t}44 . ++� PRESENTED BY: + l ' G'eosyntec - eadh R JULY10, 2018 j,. tl' . , Agenda • Introduction/Safety Moment • Meeting Objectives • Review of Structural Evaluation Process • Review of Geotechnical Site Conditions • Plant 1 — Digesters — Progress Update • Plant 1 - City Water Pump Station — Progress Update • Plant 2 - Secondary Clarifiers A-L — Progress Update • Discussion PSI Orange 06 County Appendix D sn Orange County Sanitation District Safety Moment - Dehydration How does our body lose water? 1 ) Respiration : 1 -2 liters of water 2) Perspiration : 1 -2 liters per day. During heavy exertion , we can lose 1 -3 liters of water per hour, which can easily amount to 8-10 liters of fluid over an afternoon of exercise. 3) Urination : 1 -2 liters of water are lost daily to urination . PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 512 Orange County Sanitation District 3 Safety Moment - Dehydration Symptoms of Dehydration 1 ) Mild to Moderate: a. Dry or"gooey" mouth b. Headache, red face, elevated body temperature c. Thirst, possible loss of appetite d. Decreased urine volume and/or dark urine, constipation e. Unexplained tiredness, loss of endurance, rapid fatigue f. Dizziness when standing 2) Severe (the above possibilities, intensified, plus): a. Irritability, fussiness or confusion b. Dry skin and mucous membranes; may not sweat c. Little or no urination, or dark yellow or amber in color d. Sunken eyes e. Loss of skin elasticity; Doesn't bounce back when compressed f. Low blood pressure g. Rapid heartbeat h. Fever i. Tingling in the limbs j. Delirium or unconsciousness • PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix 513 Orange County Sanitation District 4 Safety Moment - Dehydration Tips for Preventing Dehydration 1 ) DRINK LOTS OF WATER. 2) Drink before you are thirsty. 3) Always have fluids within reach , especially during exercise or in warm weather. 4) Watch your urine. Urination every 3-5 hours and light-colored or clear urine are good signs. 6) Dress for the heat and reduce activity; reserve strenuous work for the cool parts of the day 7) Give your body time to condition itself to the heat before big exertion. This may take a while (days and weeks) 8) Get enough sleep PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 514 Orange County Sanitation District 5 Meeting Objectives • Provide "in progress" update on Task 3 • Present initial findings and observations for three exemplar groups • Get feedback from MD on these findings to direct further efforts • Facilitate review of Upcoming Deliverables PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 515 Orange County Sanitation District Review of Structural Evaluation Process -Exemplar Buildings w/ Liquefaction Exemplar Building ASCE 41-13 Perform. No Develop Retrofit ~��~ OK? Structures Tiff 3 Yes Apply Results to other sindlar Building Structures PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 516 Orange County Sanitation District 7 Review of Structural Evaluation Process -Additional Buildings w/ Liquefaction Similar CE41 Building �ASCE 41-13 � Config N�AS CE 41-13 Perfui� No Develop Retrofit Tier 2 Structures Tier I to Tier Modified OK? Recommendation 3? Yes ASCE 41-13 Evaluation Tier I Complete Modified i Perform. � . No Develop Retrofit pKp Recommendation \ I Yes Evaluation Complete *Tier 1 Modified *Compare loading and configuration to similar exemplar Tier 3 *Make assessment of performance based on Tier 3 *Tier 2 Modified *Confirm sufficiently dissimilar from exemplar Tier 3 *Perform simplified calculations that serve as basis of comparison to exemplar Tier 3 analysis Orange Co TM4 APPe Sanitation D 517 Orange County Sanitation District 8 Review of Structural Evaluation Process Structural Groups • Digesters • Secondary Clarifiers • Gas Holders • Surge Towers • Aeration Basins • DAFTs • Buildings - Mat Foundation with Basement • Buildings - Deep Foundations with Basement • Central Power Generation Building/OOBS • Buried Boxes • Buildings - Shallow Foundation PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 518 Orange County Sanitation District 9 Review of Structural Evaluation Process Structural Groups • Digesters — Digester 16 • Secondary Clarifiers — A-L • Gas Holders • Surge Towers • Aeration Basins • DAFTs • Buildings - Mat Foundation with Basement • Buildings - Deep Foundations with Basement • Central Power Generation Building/OOBS • Buried Boxes • Buildings - Shallow Foundation — City Water Pump Station PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 519 Orange County Sanitation District 10 Geotechnical Site Conditions • Investigation Locations and Target Structures • Groundwater Levels • Idealized Soil profiles • Settlement and Lateral Spread Potential • Inputs to Structural Analysis • Deep Foundations • Shallow Foundations PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 520 Orange County Sanitation Oistrict 11 Investigation Locations and Target Structures • Plant 1 r= -- —; �: - U ----------�� • Digester 16 / Front Row w L " wl • City Water Pump Station M MN M or ims ;„ 1 ll o 1 • .p -rt Ni0 1 in, 1III w `� A. i ti PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C V 521 Orange County Sanitation District 12 Investigation Locations and Target Structures • Plant 2 • Secondary Clarifiers is 0 1 1 1 1 - owr P 1 d• �� ms 11 1 • . P TM4 AAppendix0 522 Orange nge Co County Sanitation District 13 Groundwater Level Approach • Consideration of Historic High (HH) water level • Based on maps of depth to groundwater from CA Geological Survey (Seismic Hazard Zone Report) • Often used for new design work • Conservative for assessment of existing performance if recent GW depth is lower • Assessment of "Analysis Water Level (AWL)' • Establish a suitably conservative groundwater elevation for analysis • Based on more recent site-specific information (boring logs and well data) • More appropriate for a planning study on existing structures • In all cases lower than equivalent HH level Historic High [HH) Analysis Water Water Depth Level (AWL) Plant 1 5 ft-bgs +16 ft elev Plant 2 3 ft-bgs +2 ft elev PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 523 Orange County Sanitation District 14 Idealized Soil Profile — Digester 16 • • Fxror or safety against Lpuefacri°n during Building= 1-21A Digesters 13-16(front row) Dea,gn Eanhguaxe Huard Level= 5%in SO ins(M:USGS 2008; PGA:ASCE 41-13) 0 0.5 1 15 2 Ground Water= Analysis Level 40 Magnnude= 771 vii PGA.ay= 0.an 9 DelinM Li°uefxdon MaFrsis Parsrre[ers r Grouts Water= 11,0 R-bgs 00 S,sni limit= 700 NLOs ---_.__________ _____ _ River LS Umn= K0 R-ings R.Free Face M= Do ft CPT.Bongs and S.M..,Map 20 Number ofBRmres= 0 r square= 1OC. 100ft CPT X E-BIIOOC / •P103 tis X E-SHOOT' � ` •E-002 ° - - ygef/' •Pt-CPT09 M _ _. • rc � •P1-CPT02 fp 'r •P1-CPTp6 ' Bonnga 20 / � X0.BHOpf a E-811006 -30 XE-B1f0OT u LBH100 40 ____ x Pt-BH02 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 524 Orange County Sanitation District 15 Idealized Soil Profile — Digester 16 IJe.YrsM RORIe tleYrawl SOs�Pr�ie IYi¢Wag1n IkflMrad SM1e� FsOm lr9k cl Sard Rrc4Wnm"Sr) !PN Wdl songmawr s•V•7 Wsl woo Rre� 0 5000 Im 15000 m e0 IV I" ISO 0 M 1000 1560 AM 2f N X 10 4 W 0 of 01 a) al as n x srn.sa�erw. - L:Quewh4l -- p s„osaysra _ � r 10 r�labial __1__ .r £ Sandy s*Layers� _ ar ti E° --ma y a i -to sundSosanot ----- --- ------ -- -- -- - - -------- rtbPerax� a _adO SrMShy Sartl wiM 94y CNy Sena I'— .� SaN5ihy5milNw� 1pue0abel -1.103 —E000 PI{yf0} P,Cli'm �0 —P1fPl0a k o u 11001 } { { ♦ EBlO00 = .I0 : • 68100! i —O P16f- 10l 1q} Sn00=BI0( 5°00=@R(Altll —Oe0gn LLtlN=XL(10tlt Orle0=xCflxp or 0 M ell Auumvnq Votl RetlsnTuuen PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 525 Orange County Sanitation District 16 Liquefaction Displacements — Digester 16 aeaNaeOP�eme r.,mu4ae sem,m,m c N4p,�m e (NMea) mTonartl¢Riretlin<laal a LNnl6pea0 Nea ar NUXylmr 0 l 1 6 S 10 11 0 as 10 60 SO 1. RM N—IF— }30 M I® YeaYaJ LXlemmt Pmltles EMv. eesl UPOe. T (I I.1 JO )e T &5 B T B5 9ily 5an0(MpmLpwfiab4l 10 fiR Bfi -f0 a 3 TO �t JO B 0 bM/6ihybMlLquefiabkf 10 LraY vim Orn Sol anJ SaMY Sih CC[� Layee I refi4x 0 �m•�71—rd,R- B PU r est Near far Near•Pe Far M (A) fAA !N (m) as M 13.6 % IY3 ,rwSTty S,M lrqueF,Eq 10 M 130 3B 109 / 10 06 0E 3 0 a 00 a 0 h0 SO am5ary 5aneiam sft cby ._.._.._,._ ._.._.. .. .._,._.._.._,. -]0 ms lLlpuNbkl AnE5Ny AnOlNon LpueRabA) r —+ Focus is on "best estimate" case, with consideration —anm ,w of effects of "upper —Anna• � —B � SN, P =� -1 •m� estimate". i — Da LPT-Hm Ode,bfF --------------------- PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 526 Orange County Sanitation District 17 Idealized Soil Profile - City Water PS • • Faolor of Safety again[Liguehcdon durmg Building= 14 City Water Pump Station Design Eardt uake Hazard Level= 5%in 50 yrs(M:USGS 2008; PGA:ASCE 41-17( 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Ground Water=Analysis Level ao t,laeonwe= PGA a•„= 0.40 g a DefinM LiouefacNon Analysis Pararx•ters Ground Water= 11.5 R-bgs 30 S.rti Uri= Boa R-ags River LS Umn= 240 R-bgs R'nel Free Fare H= 100 it CPT_Bcri.s.seat BuaOew Mao 20 Number or squares= e 1 s•uare=1OD x 100 it / CPT 10 •PTCPTOT a __ •R-002 `a 0 % CAH002 eR-001 W • RLpI % R-BH002% R-BH00.J / •L-0OJ .10 -- • L-006 �///�) •L-006 • R-002• PTCPid Bmn9• -20 -- •R 6d11M02 %Pt-BHO2 -Jig / %L-SH002 % Mb2M2 _ / xR-BNOOJ �g x R-BH002 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 527 Orange County Sanitation District 18 Idealized Soil Profile - City Water PS IhaEuaERofik ICvlimtl soasa Prd"ile Ifia1-10h -rgihaay Shear Frsam Arg4o/saro aesilR.l a.5bnya /vary IMl Som9AdWY.S�fPa9 MKI Faml;/:J 0 5000 IODp I500 m 00 If0 Ise 150 0 Sap I000 ISm m a5 00 lS 10 u w 0 of 0..2 as 04 as a x _________ __ siiky5wlnm _________ _ _ _ _____________ _ _____ ___________ _ fiyaa4iabM A Alws vbP<sasap ---- -- __ __i__ ____ _ _ _ ___ ------- to cdy6ftclayw; �5aro Semalpnumy t a e limaaeadel uay nni>Rmro aro _ �o searrslFaraauy i �aadel -- 4 W w ' SYry Saro0ime0ablel : - ••Nt _gyp _ 1 _ __------- _____ _ _ _____ - mYsimSaroaeamaas bpa11P]mally J Lipe6del .� a0 - ay —%fPM —Ram —IMM —Lam +Y 1 —Laos carom a waxen .Ip ,� • LaFm} - RaF000 a F lis- Safi=sa9ftsaq Sdi1�l31o(If9q —Wdgn PMtl=FC 11 Wahl=Fcflss4 u M I I =14 Naaumirg Void fiMiarburion PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 528 Orange County Sanitation District 19 Displacements — City Water Pump Station MealbMPmek w.�kNw seixtmtnl c NiapaPen I Ibl[Msl mTonaNS River linMul M atrral SPreatl NeaeFaa YUMplin a : L Rlrer Nearl Far= 169 w I� �Beet 5 k ,up Panfiler Fhv. eesl Vppea ]0 T).5 ].S 5 s�NY sanelnanJqutXblel ___�_*'I__ y., _..w� nn 3 5 ze 4,5 3 35 211 R 1 .10 1 3 5 Y A 0 0 5 Silly Sane llquefiabk) dV 0 e C4 10 Yn"IN]aM Xaw IYVIZI,bIH Iquefubkj I eealtlee Latrral SPwae Pmfi e IaY lnlerbeeslM]ant Xanu p p Partully LiWefiableJ iovaNS Riws S YeV eesl Upper S Near Fv far lesl In la (ml tr. _________ _____________________ PS IB t0] 22 I]I S Ify XMllpueflaMel 1B IB 10) 12 131 tt5 ) 4 1 IB 1 5 0 05 0 n _____________ _________________— a ceY.Nn sane awpla Y IRrNb /PslisNy LgPefaM1kj -M dp — =^LCP1W R-00] R lgf � LLOS v pe Brl ]oFO CPia�Nevrof Eegeb FF � OasNee CPTs-FasllnFf Kqe b FF PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 529 Orange County Sanitation District 20 Idealized Soil Profile - Secondary Clarifiers • • Factor of Selety against Liquelacfion Building= 2-20 Secondary Clarifiers A-L during Design Earthquake Hazard Level= 506 in 50 yrs(M: USGS 2008; PGA:ASCE 41-13) 0 0.5 1 1.s 2 Ground Water=Analysis Level 20 Magnitude= ]]t I • , dro= 046 g Defined Lig SetllemenDooranent igo = 7]1 Maly Parameters 10 RAgs L;rounq Water= 85 R4sgs f0 ——————"-----'— River LS Lunt= 310 River Free Face H= 100 R Marsh LS tint- 31.0 It digsMayan Free Face H= 1D0 R CPT.Bodma.and Build,..Mao m Ni of Squares= 10 1 square=1tNEc100 R � 0 'w CPTs P2-CPTOa .10 x N-tlIf001�2 � , x N-BH003ZeM-CPT09 aM-CPT09 Y � 7 • P4 •P2-6PT11 -20 ----D-RHOOS 60.005 .30 \6 2-CPTOR r Bavings R D-BH004 0$H005 RH-B11001 2 R MBH002 -60 R N6HOOJ PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 530 Orange County Sanitation District 21 Idealized Soil Profile — Secondary Clarifiers N iupm( Neal¢M s—P.. Um Werylrt hk UiW'a s`1 Fnmv xrgkdSavl pWy$I13Ypyp+ ILsn fap sumgNJ cw.S.4"d read wYWaMj o SON N IM I.kN As SO 'no In Ig a AXW tltl 10 E V 36 N Y w o at a3 aJ u as g to a,).rsresars.re trl�ra+aa�abq ¢: �p r.'I?xrsrev�rpam _ 4rYi�a1'%8rtl O4emtle) -c. k. UfI .r_. IEVIr GrblSatl . i L JOr9Y5ean ..... .r... ............. .. .. ...... ........ r 20 11aPeEaNel I .. �.f r a a Jo ------ ------- --- -------------- ----- -- ----------4 --- 9'Iq SwdaN5ip�6r ..�.. . flarrUPKOG41 m —Vltylq —ROIIf _pp —O!Y � ♦ D9iof • MBOI O µgap] Soltl=EAtl119M1 a -FFFWOW) _� _� lU[MI'IK 119ol 1wue,=KvM) MW Au weumrtrYumn PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 531 Orange County Sanitation District 22 Displacements - Secondary Clarifiers 2-20 SECONDARY CLARIFIERS Point Distance Distance To River ft to Marsh ft �OlYl�r 2 303 77 3 420 295 4 521 66 5 627 286 6 739 57 7 850 278 8 957 48 N Y J PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 532 Orange County Sanitation District 23 Displacements — Secondary Clarifiers MUS.q RaNH CumulsN`e 5eltlmnM cumvbffetxM cwau t c—..—f .va;x .mnf Cuwi�s) TwYh flird(whYf TssJeMs[N(.Mf 0 5 10 15 O 5 10 IS IO ]5 0 9 tl so 1. 10 +o c).wvAnea)Ms«e(H.n. VX y o cbwvsuwsvbsw � — 5F5 s.naay.y a.ia/uw.nsW no � ao.Mowee.wry..n�ie LlpueM1NaM M Wy9xm M - Y ro a.ne.neuM eir ruon. .n.e.i�U —aae-n»at e , Pam4 —Btt4PUM5 .M —Be[L Pdnl6 —BeaFPanIT —4ze.GonfB Soil=IIu�Eil9.bii SaHaNbM<EyRbFF UaM=�u.Mab.bra= DeM1e1�F�elaa EilRbi£ PS1506 TM4 Appendix C 533 Oren ge County Sanitation District 24 Soil Structure Interaction - Pile Foundations • Pile Capacity (unliquefied and liquefied) • P-Y Lateral Springs (unliquefied and liquefied) • T-Z Axial Shaft Springs (unliquefied) • Q-Z Axial Tip Springs (unliquefied) PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 534 Orange County Sanitation District 25 I Digester 16 o- me^"= ' Pile Capacity I I / • 7 pile rings (A-G) + center piles (H) -_==- Ii • 12"x12" concrete piles • All 52 ft long, varying elevations ;; J. i 6 ' , „� �'; %, 1 b • Deeper piles = higher capacity I n t 4 a E I� F '• . 9 f t r • II p Reduced capacity in liquefiable ° II s1171- c soils, but assumed some pile it A' x ,' ` improvement effect I I � Ultimate Capacities(kips) - Unfactored PILE Pile HHWL- NoLiq HHWL- Liquef I 7AWI 1770( A7Vr- quef A 239 137 I 270 167 B 246 139 I 275 167 C 259 145 293 172 D 273 150 307 174 I E 287 156 I 321 176 F 301 162 I 335 181 G 315 167 349 187 H 399 308 41� ____335____ PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 535 Orange County Sanitation District 26 Digester 16 — P-Y Springs • Unliquefied 16,000 Depth=0.00 ft 14,000 �Depth=4.00 ft 12,000 �Depth=8.00 ft —Depth=12.00 ft 10,000 ?—Depth=16A0 ft —Depth=20.00 It c s 8,000 tDepth=24.00ft —Depth=28.00 It 6,000 —Depth=32.00 it Depth=36.00 It 4,000 �Depth=40.00 ft �Depth=44.00 ft 2,000 — Depth=48.00 It Depth=52.00 ft 0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 v(in) "A" Ring Piles PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 536 Orange County Sanitation District 27 Digester 16 — P-Y Springs • Liquefied • P-multiplier of 0.1 in liquefied soil 16,000 Depth=0.00 ft 14,000 Depth=4.00 ft —�Depth=8.00 it 11,000 fit—Depth=12.00 k Depth=16.00 k 10,000 Depth=20.00 It Depth=24.00 It a 8,000 — —Depth=28.00 k n 6,000 —Depth=32.00 ft Depth=36.00 It 4,000 Depth=40.00 It —�Depth=44.00 It 2,000 ter—Depth=48.00 k �'—Depth=52.00 It 0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 v linl "A" Ring Piles PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 537 Orange County Sanitation District 28 Digester 16 — P-Y Springs • Unliquefied 40,000 35,000 Depth=0.00 It Depth=4.00 It 30,000 —�Depth=8.00 It �E—Depth=12.00 k 25,000 Depth=16.00 k Depth=20.00 t[ y 20,000 t Depth=24.00 It n 15,000 —Depth=28.00 k —Depth=32.00 k 10,000 Depth=36.00 k �Depth=40.00 It 5,000 — Depth=44.00 it — Depth=48.00k 0 � Depth=52.00k 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 Y(in) "H" Center Piles PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 538 Orange County Sanitation District 29 Digester 16 — P-Y Springs • Liquefied • P-multiplier of 0.1 in liquefied soil F30,000 : Depth=0.00 ft -F Depth=4.00 ft - Depth=8.00 ft- Depth=12.00ft- Depth=16.00 ft - Depth=20.00 ft a 20,000 - Depth=24.00ft —Depth=28.00 ft 15,000 —Depth=32.00 ft �Depth=36.00 ft 10,000 �Depth=40.00 ft -�Depth=44.00 ft 5,000 �-DepM=48.00 ft t Depth=52.00 ft 0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 Y)in) "H" Center Piles PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 539 Orange County Sanitation District 30 Digester 16 — T-Z and Q-Z Springs • Only unliquefied springs developed • Liquefied springs seldom analyzed as lateral effects tend to control for deep foundations in liquefied ground 25,000 �Depth=0.00 it �Depth=4.00 it 20,000 Y —Depth=8.00It a � �(—Depth=12.00 It y 15,000 E—Depth=16.00 It �Depth=20.00 It ` t Depth=24.00It V 10,000 —Depth=28.00 It - —Depth=32.00 It a 2 S.ODO 140 O 120 0 - 100 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 ¢ Local Pile Displacement,z)in) — 80 40 — i "A" Ring Piles = 0 0 � 0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 PS15-06 TM4 AppendixC Axial Pile Tip Displacement,z)in.) 540 Orange County Sanitation District 31 Soil Structure Interaction — Shallow Fnds • Anchor Capacity (liquefied and unliquefied) • Calculation similar to pile capacity (shaft resistance only) • Reduced capacity in liquefied soil • Lateral Earth Pressures • Not generally controlling for embedded structures • Not included for current 3 structures • Geotechnical Inputs to Soil Springs (unliquefied) • Liquefied condition seldom analyzed for bearing springs • Differential Settlement • Analysis of closely-spaced CPTs to evaluate potential variability PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 541 Orange County Sanitation District 32 Geotech Inputs to Soil Springs • Following ASCE 41-13, Section 8.4.2.2 • Poisson's Ratio • 0.5 for saturated clay • 0.25 for other soils • Initial Shear Modulus (ASCE 41-13, Eqn. 8-4) • Based on range of shear wave velocities measured during site investigation z • Go = Yv'o (ASCE 41-13, Eqn. 8-4) S Lower Upper Lower Upper Foundation Total Unit Shear Wave Shear Wave Stiffness, Stiffness, Poissons Depth Weight,y Velocity,Vs Velocity,Vs GO GO Ratio,v ID No. Non-Piled Structure Name Foundation Type ft- Ws Ws 1-4 City Water Pump Station Shallow Spread 3.25 120 500 800 900,000 2,400,000 0.25 1-29 Sho Buildi A Shallow Spread 0 120 Soo 800 900,000 2,400,0" 0.25 2-5 PEPS&MAC Basement+2'Met w/0e-tlown anchors 19 125 550 750 1,200,000 2,200,000 0.25 2-17 CeMral Power Generation Bolding Basement+9'Ma[ 25 125 650 750 1,200,000 2,200,000 0.25 2-18 Aeration Basins A-H 1'4"Mat w/tie-down anchors 14.33 125 550 750 1,200,000 2,200,000 0.25 2-19 Gas Holder Ring Wall Footing 17.5 125 550 750 1,200,000 2,200,000 0.25 2-20 Secondary Clarifiers A-L 1'-3"Mat w/tie-down anchors _ 12.75 125 550 750 1,200,000 2,200,000 0.25 2-22 DAFT D 1'-0'Mat 9.25 125 550 750 1,200,000 2,200,000 0.25 2-24 Surge Tower No. 2 2'-0"Mat 16 125 550 750 1,200,000 2,200,000 0.25 2-29 GOBS Basement+9'Mat for main bldg 25 to 12(?) 125 550 750 1,200,0002,200,000 0.25 Thinner mat towards outfall at river PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 542 Orange County Sanitation District 33 Differential Settlement • Four groupings of closely-spaced CPTs at Plant 2 selected • Not intended for specific structures, but for assessment of variability across plant(s) ry _ '^� •I '$ NORTHWESaw �+ p� SOUTHWEST V9, � j' •� s � � • � NORTHEAST : f SOUTHEAST � / I Orange Co TM4 AppendixSanitation D 543 Orange County Sanitation District 34 Differential Settlement • Settlements calculated at each CPT • Total calculated settlement normalized by maximum group settlement • Resulted in 4 "patterns" of differential settlement from CPT variability 100% `- 90% a ao% 0 j a g � � t 40% u `cW � 30% a Southwest h 20% !Northeast m __ No 10% - --- --------- --------------- —:Southeast 0% 0 50 100 150 200 Distance Along CPT Cross-Section (it) PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 544 Orange County Sanitation District 35 Differential Settlement • Fit sine wave through data to develop average "pattern" • Peak to Trough is 40% of max settlement at 60 feet distance • Other potential patterns (30% in 75 feet and 50% in 50 feet) to be considered qualitatively based on findings from average case 100% e 00% ; y 80% h 70% •' v 60% — •v E ti 50% U g 40% —Southwest c y E30% _________________- —Northeasf u H20% - __ —Northwest —Southeast ti 10% -Sine Wave#3-40%in 60 feet 0% 0 50 100 150 200 Distance Along CPT Cross-Section (ft) PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 545 Orange County Sanitation District 36 Plant 1 - Digesters Update 0 f 01] 4 � 0 PSI6-06 TM4 Appendix C \ I o .N6 tA_ Yr ij� F • Y All \ • �� ' / . 11 Digester 16 - Structural Summary Sanitation District are:.I.a...P STRUCTURES...�.•r I.. pG6lER51}161FRONT ROWI N PUNT [IASS nakgtegory STWIRnPE TYPE }311, 1 IV TANK class based performance objectives rssmmmmai.re.an<.m„en..az<.no..:.eem,.,c ubsbn6Nlv�eminonglrvl:neryMme NNna:zM mnomreo m.Wanryaneapvamn a�elMery. structural components iowGE-IrCEgm.saiwcpleen-"MUSERS:t 6E' Ic103Y «auurm u abed II"50,53'long) �I(�' NI 'u1�/aelSUYes ! a o�klNimm.u<mm gamin 0 fneml'. alh e.'ICael�IDa oa.ilo,. ov<P D., oam.FUTURE p o EEFFEia owoi»e o m 0. •nrthx 0 gaT.Pca -- 0T, v"" ' 0. Wnvw geohazards and seismicity - upMa da:uas.DrvbiiPwsa+eumr:cx..r ksW iws9amn wawerommn1lNdVMa/weY xryn I azua uywe Partmixi Ixpynwe/b'N:x/n sPre.a l^e+. sal.asRUM!1 li.ere.r �. w.a mi...iml..l MttralspeallhrhomrM,6xlesl Ytb30 Io 19 Oe ZiP 2. Wme M PWIW pLiMYta er fitle Sr l.'qum NiR L5 65 3 n ZF9G Yn MEreas 1. 0.1a IB .1 .150, M a C. iW hld 4R4 9awmakGmSeWm 84-1E UA6uIDx I.i] In 6 C. OAU. O.Sa U. 84iE 5% 50M C.].)] 614 1.03 .". ems°" ItR N3RNk sieenx rq�p'tz�i�wvemwm:b m����s 1WLL tlRNR�s ..—MS, PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix 548 Orange County Sanitation District 39 PILE SCHEDULE CIRCLE CIRCLE NUMBER 9PRCIN6 •MOLE IY Foundation Plan DIAMETER REOUMEO FEETta A 11E.25' 22 1.90 0.0• 2 3 < • 100.00' .• 6.31 T.a• TYNN•L 1. dal C 10.00' aT 3.63 7.0- o- -- -i =-- 0 20.00- 31 9.11 lo.a• E 51.00' 31 1.72 10.0- I F 30.00' 24 5.00 15.0- Mo0' la 3.13 20.0- f. D DSO • _$$_ I V/ non kX., / o .rme �, .. Y q 5 \q Diem f� y r Y I �•` \q �V ���` P tQy / N Ji y y FILE [u[CNRYIJm.H( CN[L[ Giaii �f1_d m • iiLee _ oY• m / iao.•o _i PS1M p'pJixavmPANG Orange County Sanitation District 40 4© �e II 0 Historic construction photo from OC%dia - Cross-Section •e IN nor .•s.• w�Sro.i— m,,�,.� t .. .+wee. ,t.., ; a ....•.. �� l . A.vow•u•..ve® 'T�.."-`. a e • .wn..v:. wiw 1 5 i as �o�s.v.•uiu> r ` e i a SE TIOX Digester o PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 551 Orange County Sanitation District 42 Digesters - Plant 1 • Evaluation Approach for Digesters • Tier 3 for Digester 16 • Tier 1 "Modified" for other structures based on the results of Tier 1 IMMINNINININComparison to Digester . Digester 251 90 250 19 30.5 75 5 400 0.68% 0.32% 1.40% Smaller than D16,further from rive Digester 251 90 25 22 30.5 Steel 1/4" 500 N/A 0.32% 1.43% Smaller than D36,fu rther from river,steel dome Digester 280 9GM_jjFW' 75 5 250 1.07% 0.57% 1.52% Smaller than D16,further from river - Digester 8 280 90 23 22 30.5 75 5 300 0.93% 0.57% 1.44% Smaller than D16,fu rther from river Digester 242 -_-&.5 108.5 6 100 100.43% 0.27% 1.45% Similar to D36,fewer piles Digester 10 242 110 39 27 31.5 108.5 6 100 0.43% 0.27% 1.45% Similar to D36,fewer piles Digester 11 280 11 _-51.5 108.5 6 250 I10.43% 0.48% 2.02% Identical to D16,further from river - Digester12 280 110 34 27 31.5 108.5 6 250 0.43% 0.48% 2.02% Identical to D16,further from river Digester 13 280 "POW�Nkir�=P 100 110.43% 0.48% 2.02% Identical to D16 - Digester 14 280 110 34 27 31.5 108.5 6 100 0.43% 0.48% 2.02% Identical to D16 Digester 15 280 113J 34 27 31.5 108.5 6 100 0.43% 0.48% 2.02% Identical to D16 - Digester 16 290 110 34 27 31.5 108.5 6 100 0.43% 0.48% 2.02% Exemplar PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 552 Orange County Sanitation District 43 Digester 16 - Potential Failure Modes Description PFM1 Ground shaking (GS) - Failure of dome-wall connection PFM2 GS - Failure of dome PFM3 GS - Hoop stress failure in wall PFM4 GS - Out-of-plane bending/shear in wall PFM5 GS - Punching of mat PFM6 GS - Vertical failure of piles PFM7 GS - Bending/shear failure of piles PFM8 Liquefaction Setttlement - Punching of Mat by Piles PFM9 Liquefaction Settlement - Vertical loss of capacity of piles PFM10 Lateral Spreading - Bending/shear failure of piles PFM11 Liquefaction Settlement - Local Deformation of Foundation Cone PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 553 Orange County Sanitation District 44 Approach Cont trve Latm/Drtplacement do d - o T..riRripr �a { __ _____ _________ _ D M b !0 a1 I t� A r _ Mi Im Mi Ground Shaking Permanent Ground Deformation PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 554 Orange County Sir it on District ANSYS Finite Element R18.1 Model a��i 't • �I/f��it�r�� iOOS+ DIGESTER 16 [kips, in] ACI 350 .3 Loading Convective mass tanh (1% Damping) W, 10.86lii w L 0.866(D) (9-15) ww MMAi HL Rigid D)tnht3.68(" (9-16) !!L)I WL HL D Impulsive mass 5%Damping E Elianalan PSI 5-06T' 556 orange County Sanitation District 47 I I a Ilnl nr �� m IIII I I I 1 II Ili III III �111111 ill! �'� Ili 11111i lil III li' " !'III !I 'I Ili I lliEl IIEI �E! IIIIII Ilili �� I"i I!I�L EI�I IIII iii! ! lily I III II III Elli I I� IIII I IIEI IEII III �I��II��i I��II �� .III IIIIlI' J�� IIEI fill ! Illi ! ill! II III !i ' I�! IIII I IIEI III 41 !;III�� �II. I�!I I• Elll Ili! II I ! I�I� I ill! II . III i�lll II II! l�lll I IIIIEI hII �� El��I�iI I �IV �� Ii E�I�III ��ll IIEI IEI! ! I°Ili I illi II III !III � ICI IVI ! !IIEI IIII III plIIII;I IIIII �� !� I'lllll IIEI IIEI IEI! ! Ili II ills II III illy I II IIII I IIEI IIII '�� II;III� ;l �� .III I�IIlI� Ilii, E II Illi I I I! III !Ill I III ihl I (IIEI IIII ill !!!IIIIII IIIII �� Im 1111lI� Ili! IIEI IEI! ! hll ! !III II II !Il% llii ! !IIEI IIII Ili E'iil19 " i! 11111 �l Ij ! III! IIII II EI !I E ih lII II III Fm !II �IlI Ili! II I 'll I IIEI II 'll I��IJ'a s'h�ll II I !I! Ul � ! IWI ! Illi ill! II II IIlI I III IIII — _ — _ — — — IIII! . I IIII II Ln - } � T Z Q N ,4 . AlIt- N U W p N U � � H .a o N C � M C H � C] Digester 16 - Structural Evaluations/Findings Typical GW Best Estimate Displacements Nll N22 Mil M22 Typical GW Best Est. Demand Capacity Demand Capacity Demand Capacity Demand Capacity DCR m-factor(1O) m-factor(LS) R-factor ACl Dislacement ASCE 41-13 ASCE 41-13 350 Dome_M ID 0.00 1.40 0.00 1.40 0.25 3.91 1.00 3.91 0.26 2. 2.50 Dometo Wall 0.00 2.79 0.00 2.79 0.80 10.88 3.28 12.28 0.27 2.00 2.50 2.50 Compr Ring 0.00 15.73 0.00 2.79 0.68 30.41 1.88 31.81 0.06 2.00 2.50 2.00 WalITOP 2.66 27.43 0.00 8.63 1.41 312.72 7.46 77.50 0.10 2.00 2.50 2.00 Wall MID 6.27 45.72 0.00 8.63 2.38 521.21 30.49 77.50 0.14 2.00 2.50 2.00 Wall BOT 8.00 34.29 0.00 22.86 6.02 390.91 36.85 249.17 0.25 2.00 2.50 2.00 *CONE 12.13 7.92 11.57 10.80 98.51 46.00 138.80 99.00 2.14 2.00 2.% 2.00 Max Pile Shear Force: 107 kips Punching Shear Capacity of Mat: 62 kips Typical GW N31 N22 M31 M22 Piles Best Est. Dislacement Demand Capacity Demand Capacity Demand Capacity Demand Capacity DCR m-factor(1O) m-factor(LS) R-factor ACl +EO ASCE 41-13 ASCE 41-13 350 Dome-MID 0.00 1.40 0.00 1.40 0.35 3.91 1.27 3.91 0.33 2.00 2.50 2.50 Dome to Wall 0.00 2.79 0.00 2.79 1.10 10.88 4.42 12.28 0.36 2.00 2.50 2.50 Compr Ring 0.00 15.73 0.00 2.79 0.73 30.41 2.39 31.81 0.08 2.00 2.50 2.00 WalITOP 3.70 27.43 0.00 8.63 1.89 312.72 10.47 77.50 0.14 2.00 2.50 2.00 Wall MID 7.85 45.72 O.00 8.63 3.55 521.21 18.62 77.50 0.24 2.00 2.50 2.00 II B 4 29 1.38 22.86 9.44 390.91 54.42 249.17 0.37 2.00 2.10 2.00 r 13.93 10.80 107.77 46.DO 150.49 99.00 2.34 2.D0 2.50 2.00 Moment Curvature (Roof-Dome) Moment-Curvature 4.8 " _ - — — 4.0 y 3.2 n Y E 2.4 N E 0 1.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 2000.0 4000.0 6000.0 8000.0 10000.0 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix Curvature (rad/106 in) 560 Orange County Sanitation District 51 Moment Curvature (Wall to Dome Connection 20.0 16.0 >10 n Y S 12.0 c E 0 8.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 2000.0 4000.0 6000.0 8000.0 10000.0 Curvature (rad/106 in) PSI 6-06 TM4 Appendix C 561 Orange County Sanitation District 52 ELFSFfIf SDIAIfIUV a �A.N tlel Moment Curvature (Piles) 'TM24 94I52 P E!M 2fi PB I 9dJ 90, 9.1I 1 qpY )7I 1 1pV ry SM( B93 09B III I II II'IIi I I III I I�II�I(IIII 11 I Moment-Curvai I!"hIItlIIIItlQ IlYllll'III�' I '� 19'tlIIIIIIIB1IIIllllil� ll^IIIII I I ( 'IIII I' I �� III III �IIII�� '�� ' II I� IIII �II I I IIII Ill l l �, u 7 � I lii p,� l II IIl 60.0 -fm,1WDIGFScFR I5 xluf�eln NN[�e[,'IS'w[aRlm W10 N d Y 40 0 eI.@e14[ sownaa AN all 51TP=25 p](R'IU. 1 ' SIID=3 94Is529 6M1IX 93 9861 I �P{J ~ 1� Z> `o. a m °' �II� � Ill�l��lll�lllil��l��lll �illl'III li� l I'�If I '�I 20.0 rn COW L L U O I, VI I'll ICI IIII C C C C 0.0 a N 0.0 300.0 600.0 900.0 DICFS'IPR lfi k1 in SmllW[e[, Lt fac[Scn (M.1 ����� v.x Curvature (rad/106 in PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 562 Orange County Sanitation District 53 Moment Curvature (Piles) Geometric Properties Gross Com. Trans(r 7.08) Area(in2l 144.0 149.6 InmSa(inx) 1728.0 1764.8 r,tin) 6.0 6.0 6 As= 0.153 in Yb(In) 6.0 6.0 N Av= 0.011 in per leg S,(in� 288.0 294.1 pg 2.00 in Se(0) 288.0 294.1 Crack Spacing 2 x dish 0.1 do/P 1 12.0 Loading (N.M.V+dN.dM.dV) .100.0,.0.0,0.0 + 0.0,1.0,0.0 concrete Reber rt, 2 All dimensions in inches Clear cover to transverse reinforcement= 2.00 in Pilet2.0 PS15-0 =,ao.oms InfraTerra 563201817/5 Orange( V 54 Moment Curvature (Piles) Response-2000 v 1.0.5 Cross Section Lon itudinal Strain Shrinkage &Thermal Strain Pile v2.0 Sop top InfraTena 2018/5-10:59am _ Control : M-ex_ 79.4 3.11 7.72 I I I I bot bot I I Crack Diagram Lon .Reinforcement Stress Long. Reinf Stress at Crack I w mp .2 2.4 Control :M-Ph, 0.015 -28. 161.9 180.5 I I 0.040 I I 0.064 I bot bot 0.089 I Longitudinal Concrete Stress Internal Forces N+M I top C:175.9 kips 1935.4 M: 79.4 ft-kips £x0= 230 ms a.56 in =902.89 rad/106 In -5975.4 288 Y (avg)= 0.00 rns 2 in N:-100.0 kips T: 75.9 kips Axial Load= -100.0 kips Moment: 79.4 ft-kips m i 06 TM$flt�P1x c0.0 kips bot Oran 9e Digesters— Mitigation Concepts - PFM10 • Option 1 : Ground improvement to limit lateral spread • Construct ground improvement shear panels in roadway area east of Digesters • Design spacing and strength to limit failure surface behind the improved zone • Ground improvement methods: Auger soil mixing, cutter soil mixing, slurry wall method, jet grouting, . . . • Key ground improvement elements: • Large footprint • Must achieve high strength and/or large 'replacement volume" • "Key" improvement below lateral ' spread zone (- Elev. -10 feet) • Some localized settlement reduction impacts PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C Orange County Sanitation District 56 Digester 16 — Mitigation Concepts - PFM10 • Option 1 : Ground improvement to limit lateral spread as .,, ,.�a.a" „ R�� aw fell •.n ua �n ti a9. • ron . ay san uonrraemw 115 a 35 1 voM1_ry.+aaei File:Plzrx,1 C.Secdsn G-G-Pseudo SW,.Residual Gl.g. . cuyvx W maxi urine nwa) lls No Analysis:3.Entry Exit Center-Lower ."I' , Slip Surface:Entry Exit Grn:iid- :RpaPAMami tID 1 a+ g Method! Spencercar o ❑ goal HpiZaMN Seamic CoelficimF:D.19 ❑ Baron aeamcllwVenaaae) Near Structure ❑ �ti_ry I'aUgl-m ky _ �np 115 + ow — 019 ■ u-1a]a UVYW�01-0) loll 1 IpW Displacement = 12 inches GI Strength = 1,800 psf 0.99 • Digester Santa Ana River Ground Improvement Zone PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C Orange County Sanitation District Digesters — Mitigation Concepts - PFM10 • Option 2: Subsurface retaining wall to limit lateral spread • Construct wall in roadway area east of digesters • Design wall to resist earth pressure from lateral spread without excessive deflection • Wall types: secant pile wall, cutter soil mix wall, . . . • Key wall elements • Significant depth (--100 ft), founded below liquefaction zone • Heavily reinforced to limit deflections PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C Orange County Sanitation District 58 Digesters — Hydraulic Flow Diagram �A +.nr�5^off olmmi A ' 0-- IAManx aooa J . rcu xL. I J .L aar[� va mci `y uyg u`PW OIAIX[M iqH era-a 1.. IIAn I• ._.MAUI-MAU ..�._ PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 568 Orange County Sanitation District 59 Plant 1 City Water PS - Background • Originally constructed under P1-34-1 in 1989 • Single story @ grade • 62' x 40' x 17' tall • Reinforced masonry building w/ conc-topped steel deck diaphragm (Class RM1A) • Founded on shallow continuous spread footings • Adjacent to the Santa Ana River PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 569 Orange County Sanitation District IU16 r � f x o!� - i S - Ur T City Water PS - Structural Summary Sanitation District se�sere z...n�n.�:sn.x•:..10 .v.:ST 0ARLY .z CRY WATER PUMP SEATIOM . VIANT [LULLS nlsk G,,O, STNUILTIMPE 1-0 1 1 IV 6UIIDING class based performance objectives sass r.Ess�mm..amre.areemwassewam.nnv a.awo�erc. ewu —IF waryET,re.wam�mp.emmo.�elwl.ry e�rm�.ee�aw oAtiwm.arew:.n.,, aw+.ne�� . structural c mPonents wuwamrv.e/amerslon.analmw:preaa muMaoon a.x.ane """"='nnmuwoaw MOrgl AN Cnrsuv.tvr w POSE Gal: PROPOSE :P lry- t 3n v ailadePlmmam O PR,.PP a sEENTUROCCE 0 // ,,ISO.-,UPS, o ureMCU O OWxe. o E.hp"ZMU Ipl ®mr e�oae RIM 0MEN geahazards and seismicity sF" SPI olw/o iSUAxmnl:n+::OIwSEXIyGmoe .quna.bnvesemsllMP/MNmLER);RX zon aoprv�e vWemnl Ixldyrnee/m.l:rv/a RUL s 1=seme"::p,=l ssal 6Ws syeae P...ay...IreIFI a.mn �. ss,eae lG.OPm n.n,Fnml z6m.z Pi - wIW oM.F.Y u P�ielenle Sanloaryin Nllb ]s QS 3 arlele ma xeress as o.v zn =EANA` xmaMusl M ECAW Sbl hW AMI BeFlE 30RFSON ))1 0AS 0.W OH 1 0Us s.a aMCmeSe.xon %In 0 AARNEA� �ww.®u.etzwnwm.l cnma..s..•n.n.. ePmew.m. EFrF. UPS,ae amen gpwganm.w teY�n.e.wvpn 6e oO;� S.S aRUNS, LLSIId6 •�]6k. PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix "ORSnPns'mre ^ 571 Orange County Sanitation District 62 i l �5 1 f - Y TJ� A a_ 1 ��.. . -�. City Water PS - Background IE PSI range C6 TM4 Appendix D 574 Orange County Sanitation District 65 City Water PS - Background PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 575 Orange County Sanitation District 66 City Water PS — Record Drawings Y.Y VA V�Y Yd Ye• Y�tl J i Y ti3 I} 1. .� P f� I idn, .. I v wram�.,.w kn — N... imp tTIkA AI.P 51LItNUIY MIFA AAP SINCN PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix - /� — -�-Y 576 Orange County Sanitation District 67 City Water PS — Record Drawings T IL 4444 I —rl I 4 I � r t 169 IT09 I 31. o'v CdJC. .� � SEC n TII ENfA�EM N PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 577 Orange County Sanitation District 68 City Water PS — Seismic Evaluation Criteria Facility Structure Non- Seismic Class structural Hazard Level Performance M Level 1-4 City I S-1 1-13 (Position BSE-1E (20% Water PS (Immediate Retention) / 50 years) Occupancy) PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 578 Orange County Sanitation District 69 City Water PS — Seismic Evaluation Criteria ASCE 41-13 Horizontal Response Spectra - OCSD Plant 1 - Site Class D 1.8 - - -&SE-2N(MCER) - --eSE-IN(2/3 MCER) m 1.6 r - - - - - - - - - -` —&SE-2E(5%/50yrs) N r —RSE-1E(2M/50 yrs) 1.4 0 1 � e 1 ` 1.2 a" 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - � ` & l.0 1 5 a � 1 `. O.B � e 1 n ,n 0,6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 11 LA 1 6 1.8 _ Period,T(seconds) PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C "a.. Orange County Sanitation District City Water Pump Sta.— PFMs Description A PFM1 Ground shaking (GS) - In-plane shear failure in walls PFM2 GS - Out-of-plane bending/shear failure in walls PFM3 GS - Shear failure in roof diaphragm PFM3 GS - Wall anchorage failure at roof PFM4 Ground deformation (GD) - Liquefaction w/ differential settlement (PFMIto PFM3 failures) PFM5 Ground deformation (GD) - Lateral spread of foundation (footing moves and causes building instability) PFM6 GS - Stability of Foundation PFM7 Ground shaking (GS) - In-plane shear failure in walls PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 580 Orange County Sanitation District 71 City Water PS - Tier 1 Findings KI mm S1 TIES BETWEEN ASCE 41-13 Reduced capacity to FOUNDATION ELEMENTS: resist lateral spread. Several shear walls are discontinuous down to the mat foundation. �n r 2 'w9�ETP�OIFIT— T 1 (TYP)41 N m -6- T" l ' 6-06 TOO OVO. Too -1= B'-0 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C Sal Orange County Sanitation District 72 City Water PS — Tier 1 Findings � Description � . S2 WALL ANCHORAGE: ASCE 41-13 Check per Tier 2 Anchorage force at the roof connection of the roof beam to the CMU wall does not meet the performance requirements. 354 T14 HEM60WC mCt7F>.IG 102 1 3 AVID 94 TIES i TM 5' JJ —I6*Snlb CMU Y1tAM11L ' PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 582 Orange County Sanitation District 73 City Water PS — Tier 1 Findings IDescriptionrm-l", . S3 REINFORCING STEEL: The ASCE 41-13 Check horizontal spacing of the horizontal bending moments in bars in the CMU walls is 48 the wall per Tier 3 inches. Insufficient analysis horizontal reinforcement. ZD.DO • $TL9 W04. IN GKOUTIM CUL,*59W HORIZ 5A I I IN BOND SEAM i PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 583 Orange County Sanitation District 74 City Water PS — Tier 3 Exemplar • 3D FEM w/ flexible base • Evaluations 1. Ground Motion Response (GMR) 2. Ground Deformation Response (GDR) 3 . Combine GMR + GDR 4. Lateral Stability Check 5. Exemplar Analyses 1. Increased ground deformation 2. Decreased ground deformation PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 584 Orange County Sanitation District City Water PS — FEM Model y , PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 585 Orange County Sanitation District 76 City Water PS - FEM Model .,q oe� 4s, •nx 1117 I . PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 586 Orange County Sanitation District 77 City Water PS — Soil Springs • Soil Properties to Modeled • Vertical Bearing (z-direction) • Base Friction (x & y directions) • Bi-linear • Linear elastic, perfectly plastic Q d Qy 1.0 F.B C f A (a) o PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 587 Orange County Sanitation District 78 City Water PS — Soil Springs Lower Upper Lower Upper Foundaton Total Unit Shear Wave Shear Wave Stiffness, Silliness, Passions Depth Weight,T Veloci V,Via Velocity,V. GO GO Ratio,v ID No. Non-Piled Structure Name Foundation TWe PROgU docti Mtl (V-) (Mg 0-0 sent to structural 14 City W amr P um p Station Shalbw Spread 325 120 500 800 NOW 2,400,000 0.25 12 Shop Buildina A Shal low So mad 0 120 500 800 NOW 2400000 0.25 M PE PS&MAC B seem ant,2 M at W t e-daxn anchors 19 125 5SO 750 1,200,0002,200,000 0.26 (2.2)0//1912018 2-17 Centel P awer Generation B lidding Basement,914 at 25 125 550 750 1,200,0002,200,000 0.25 2-19 Aeratbn Basins A-H 1'4-M at W tedow anchors 14.33 125 550 750 1,M,000 2,200,000 0.25 2-19 Gas Holder Rng Well Footing ITS 125 5% 750 1,200,0002,200,000 0.25 240 Secondary Climbs.A-L 1'3 M at W tedovn anchors 1295 125 SSO 750 1,200,0002,200,000 0.26 11.3to 2.2)OW111M18 2.22 DAFTD 1'-0-Mat 9.25 125 550 750 1,200,0002,200,000 0.26 224 Surge Taxer No.2 T-0-Mat 16 125 SSO 750 1,2W,000 2,200,000 0.25 22 OOBS Basement-9 Vat tr main Clog 25 to 12(i) 125 550 750 1,200,000 2,200,000 0.25 Thinner mat tmwrda putlell at men 2 Q UPPER BOUND Q ! CALCULATED CAPACITY LOWER BOUND Qn PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix By DEFORMATION 588 Orange County Sanitation District 79 City Water PS — Ground Motion Response • Model foundation flexibility ( non-liquefied ) • Loads included : • BSE-1E response spectra • Dead Load • Estimate demands on structural members • Focus on PFMs and deficiencies from Tier 1 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 589 Orange County Sanitation District City Water PS — Ground Motion Analysis • In-plane Shear I � PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 590 Orange County Sanitation District 81 City Water PS — Ground Motion Analysis • Out-of-plane Shear o� PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 591 Orange County Sanitation District —" 82 City Water PS — Ground Motion Analysis • Out-of-plane Bending 'row - 1 r r PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C SE2 Orange County Sanitation District 83 City Water PS — Ground Motion Analysis • Tension in Wall 01*w PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 593 Orange County Sanitation District ""' 84 City Water PS — GMR Preliminary Findings In-plane shear @ 288 psi 99 psi 2.0 1.45 south pier In-plane shear @ 130 psi 99 psi 2.0 0.66 south wall In-plane shear @ 70 psi 99 psi 2.0 0.35 west wall Out-of-plane shear 24.2 psi 95 psi N/A 0.26 Out-of-plane 2.5 k-ft / 1.4 k-ft / N/A / bending, Mx/My 1.0 k-ft 5.1 k-ft 0.20 Tension in wall 150 psi 128 psi 2.0 0.65 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 594 Orange County Sanitation District 85 City Water PS — Ground Deformation Response • Model foundation flexibility ( liquefied ) • Loads/actions included : • Dead Load • Differential settlement • Based on the analysis groundwater elevation • 40% in 60 feet • Estimate demands on structural members • Focus on PFMs and deficiencies from Tier 1 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 555 Orange County Sanitation District •.noflrlrl•I•IrIr11111111111 �������.�■■ 11�I�I�I�iii:i:i:i:i:i:::i:i... 111111■1111111111�1�l�Iun�lilnClC.n:.�.. :::inuniiiiiiiiplll■■1 .....nnniiiiiiiip111 Ileiiiiiiiiiii:i:i:::_:::::7..:7:::�..................__ 111111111111■Ilnoiiiiiiii:i:::::P;':::::-::�..._._..._.____ _- _____________ •.u•nnnmr11111 --_ ___ ._._. . mnnnnnlrll nnnrnlrlr11R111■■■ nmm�111n11!!1 om•IrIr1111r11111ppp umrr11r1:T1f111111 111■nunnnnnnun:.......................... .. . 1111111111111111nnnnnnn:o.::.............____ 1llliiiiiiiiiiiii:i:::::::::�::::"!!!!!!!!nn!!11IIIr11111111111111111r111riiiiiiiiiiiii:::::::::�!!!:!!!!!!!!!9!!�iiiil !IIIIII�I�IiI:I:lii:isoi:m:l:1:!!1:!!!!frlrfq�lillg1111111111111111111lI�Iilil�i:isis::i::::::'..9!!!!!!!!!!!lnnnnnl It■niiiiiiiGiii:i:::::::�:!:::!:'nnnnnridR11�1111■111111111111■Iliiiiiiiiiiiii:::::::::�!:::"'•'•mm�nGiil .•.nlniliin�ip�1111■I •••••.Inmiiinli�li111 I�1�1�lJllrllnlalln�l�un.........-._._._._______.__ __ IIII■111�111�111IIrlllnu.!nil.............._._._._______ I�I�diii7iii7iiiiiu...is171 :!7!:!nnnnnnnnn�ail�mllllll■11■■I�i7iii7iiiiiiiG.....a71'.�:1:::!_lgnnnnn�l I�I�I:I:I:I:I�iiiii:isisisisisI:iS!:!■��filiigaaaalll!:■III1111:1:1:1:I✓tla:iiiiiii:i:iol%!_:_:7!•'!!!!!iiii[q�rtl PtltliiilGriiiiiii7iiiii:i:laailili!■■ �iGiii�iiV�laa•I11•I•IRafl:lallaadiiiiiiiiii:iii:iii2:::i::�la:!_'�!!!�!:!a�1 I•I•!a■lal�l\LLiana:i:i:iiir�!rIilillAl�111�ai1�1•I•Il•I•■I�I�I�1■�lil�l�l�li:r.r..n•.• '•'�I�IrI�■■I ■■Illil�mi— --- -....:.l��'�' ' iGiillil�III11Cla1111•I■ •■■I�■I ma.ra aa. n.un.r.r.r.r�l�l�l�l ■IGuliiFulm. mi.wl r7 ��'j� IGi.I�r�lu11�71C•I•ai1 •I�✓•I �'-rGriii iu•'•'�rairir.i�i�l I:iaaaa■i■■IGIAI■I�IIIIIai - 3 C „�'�i�i'i':I.I.LLIAI�■ ■ICIIIi'jtl�l;i �iinui�i�'iiCl.r�� mail■ ■� air.IGiii:iiiaaCiCCiC iGIIG■iiiMe Yl l■ ,r� 'n•��l•i.�iaiil�i ■rlu'I�I•l�liGi�r■.r��� ■ l� I1Ir a.a�>•I��___ ■I N N '.iCIC ZZ!inCCC.�l.Elm Elm -- i■ii.GGo...2�G ■��pg.'riuiI ■ ■ :_EG■il■i■ ..■i■Gi'GA' ■■ 0 I:2igiu.i..i+■■ aiiiii:G:■7:is2■■2::_!±!!!!!!!t■■■■■■aliiiiGiGG7■:C2■O2OG_!±!!!!� . . ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 1 m■■n■iiiinniinirn1r11111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIInuniiunuar—r—i+■—i■—.■—■C..—..:����•��I•���■■■■ I il�i iiil iril ir■�111111111■■11•I�I11111111If1111111111111111IIII+III+III liiiiiiiiiii::::::::'■.'!!!!!!!!nn■g1111111I11 i iiii iiiiiiiiiiilil�l111■Ifal�1111111111111111111111111111111III1111111111u■uiiiii:i::::::::::i!!!!!!!!!!!!Inin■IIIRi ntrl�l■Innn■I■■■■■■•111■■0III•IIIII IIII IIII IIII IIIIII+IIIIId�ltiililiiiiiiiiii::::'..'!!!!!!!!!!P4!rr1111�1I11i i■i■■ ■■■n■■■■■■1f111111111111111111111g111.1111111+1111111111uliliiiiiiiiiii:ii�"'!!!!'!!!r4!rndi1i1111II iel�r■um■riI■r■i■■■il■111111111111111111mill mini ME 1111111111111111iiiiGiiii::isisi:i::::!!!!!!!!'•!!!!unu111IIIIR IAI■I■■11r■I■■I■■■■M1I■11.1�111111111■11•gl1l■1111#I�I�1■�liiaiiiiiiiiiiii::ii::u a!!�!!!!!!!!�!9!!�111111l1i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiil■■■■■■1�111■II■1111I.111.11I.111r■111111■11111aila:iiiiiiiiiil::71a# �■il XEFj!gfi!i111R1111Jill 9iiiiiiiililraiii#■■■■•1■■lila�l•11#111rI■I■LI■1111111.1•I:Iraa�lililiiiiii:isi�i:i..il ■iiiiiiiiir�11111IIII lili�lil�l�l�l�lf■■■■■y■If11�1■I■■lilrl•IrI•I■I•IrI.1111111a1�1a1■il�lil�iilGiliii�:■i nii:1■■■:IiliIR111111a111111 Alil■■I■■■■■■�ii■i■ali•111■I•I•ICI■I■I■I■Irl■I■11■111�I:I�II1\11ii1 ii■lii.i.l.l.i:i■■#ii1fifgl mini 11111flgl ■i■I■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■iiirl■■■Irl■Irl■i11r1■lalrul•lal�l�l■ur■uiii■2011 mm-:III■l■#1iiiirl11■mg111 I■i■I■■i■■i■■■■■ ■■■r■■■I�IrI•I■I#■Irl■■■#Irlrrlri�l■I■I■■uuuii�_r.�.r71� # ri,riiil11n11g1 ■■i■wirer■igli■ii�■■■lii■■i�i■■I■I■lal■h'\I■I■I■I■Ir■I•Ir�I■111■I■I■rliiiii■i�.ia o i■iiii■i■■'■ ■ ■■i■i■'il■7I■'rlrl■I■I■1111■I■I■Irl■I■■I�fJI■■I■iii■iiia7�_i■��I�-���_�I■�I:I11111111•I ■■ir nii■tl►i■■�■■ ■I■rl■■I■■I■■71�1■I■II'11■I■I■I■I■Irlri■il■I■I■i■■■i7iii■i��i:71�i1�!n��lAl■'■il■11�1 ■■ra�►�ia@■i'i'1i■ ■�■'■■■■'■■■I■'■I■'111■'■I■■I■■I■I■Ili■lii�■i■I■Iriii�i�r���'lriiilon�l■r■i111a111■I ■■r1■■■■■■■A■ ■at■■Bi■�■'■■■11'■■'■■'■■'rI■'■r■I■�I■Ir■;Gi.r:�ia����Ip��i��Ala■■■I ■■��������■ai■�■■■A■�■■■■■■■■#■■■■Ir■I■ilr�r i��iil�iiiiiiiiii��fa�l�!�'9!'�i�■■■I■I■I■I .#■■■■■r■■■�#■■■■■■■■■■■##■#■#■'■■'■■■r::iiiG�iii:a7��I�I_I�!!�'•i■i�l■I■Ir' ---------------------- ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�■■■■■■■■i■■■■■aura i�ititii..i:i:�r��i.n fit•■■'■I■'■I■ -------------------- •••■•■••■•■•■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■#■#■■r■■�iia�aiii�i�iGii#`iaiNunn ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■#■i■■■■■■■■✓•■■■■■#■■#■#■■ ■■■■■■#■■#■#■■#■#■##■■ City Water PS — Ground Deformation Analysis • In-plane Shear — Pattern 2 .a, .m; •n, •g= .m i L ,, PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 598 Orange County Sanitation District 89 City Water PS — Ground Deformation Analysis • Out-of-plane Shear — Pattern 2 IL -...Oda y Ii PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 599 Orange County Sanitation District 90 City Water PS — Ground Deformation Analysis • Out-of-plane Bending — Pattern 2 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 600 Orange County Sanitation District 91 City Water PS — Ground Deformation Analysis • Tension in Wall — Pattern 2 r w PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 601 Orange County Sanitation District "' 92 City Water PS — GDR Preliminary Findings In-plane shear @ 20 psi 99 psi 2.0 0.10 south pier In-plane shear @ 40 psi 99 psi 2.0 0.20 south wall In-plane shear @ 64 psi 99 psi 2.0 0.32 west wall Out-of-plane shear 7 psi 95 psi N/A 0.07 Out-of-plane 2.4 k-ft / 1.4 k-ft / N/A / bending, Mx/My 0.40 k-ft 5.1 k-ft 0.08 Tension in wall 83 psi 128 psi 2.0 0.32 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 602 Orange County Sanitation District 93 City Water PS — Preliminary Findings In-plane shear @ 1.45 0.10 1.45 south pier In-plane shear @ 0.66 0.20 0.69 south wall In-plane shear @ 0.35 0.32 0.47 west wall Out-of-plane shear 0.26 0.07 0.27 Out-of-plane 1.79 / 0.20 1.71 / 2.48 / 0.22 bending, Mx/My 0.08 Tension in wall 0.65 0.32 0.72 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 603 Orange County Sanitation District 94 City Water PS — Preliminary Mitigation List • Tie slab to wall/stem wall • Upgrade beam connections to roof diaphragm (4 locations) • Reinforce overstressed wall pier @ south wall • Supplement wall with horizontal girts PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 604 Orange County Sanitation District 95 City Water PS — Additional Actions • Use results to judge performance of similar structures • Review ground deformation estimates for similar structures • Using same FEM model, run analyses as required for: • Increased and/or decreased magnitudes of settlement • Perform independent lateral stability check for unique conditions • BSE-2E analysis PSI Orange Co TM4 Appendix D 605 Orange County Sanitation District i a Y � � a: i Plant 2- Secondary Clarifiers A-L Update • 736 feet long • 250 feet wide • Wall thickness varies • Multiple expansion gaps within the clarifiers • Expansion gap separation with the Aeration Basins (less than 4%) • Secondary Clarifiers could not be classified as any building type a �} � � �6 6 l A�� 6 l0 IDi ieI ` I' 6l i� Np II� III IKj IE I II I I I ll i II i t I idd II I � -x, R ll I li � ' III i I ii iI i iI S I' ii li 44 I � ; I TII¶IIII�j�f V�1�II �I IIRITTIjIRRRI1'I¶'� j¶j {�ji� ¶IIII�jIf¶I¶II�I f1I� ���I I��II��I¶I��'I¶¶¶II'TTTII {j¶jjTII J.� IIYY�IILIlJW�4L.6�LlIJTli�444,�WLLWW�� III JLII �. ' 'i`�'�" LLLLWW LLll LLN�'I' I�rLL1L� iL�:'. � I ' -IILJIL��� �( 1 b 6 b i b 6 b b b51 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 607 Orange County Sanitation District Plant 2- Secondary Clarifiers A-L Update i! a {s' 1. • 4 t AV s SECT I ON S _ ---------------- �:NI -- ------ I - - - IF sa+» •®�sia^rr�®®Mn SFE TI eoN � '^' N FmommArN�,cf�n JO— AAaRr nsmar oRNiecR rt naa�n¢ y oiNrNi: zsi. " _ IOnnge Counl) CL1RIpFR4—S[CTIONS PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 608 Orange County Sanitation District SC A-L - Structural Summary Sanitation District .".X'r.vuuOMug up;ascmvo;:unroYrzo.!' SECONDARY CLARIFIERS A-L PI CePSS RisM Category 111UITIVI TllE I2M 3 1 IV TAryx class buad pW.rmanca objactiYes a,<a.:mkuo wmx.a rv,.a. llMrv. structural components um Me/gmnVmul'.l'Mn ekrlufs• 5iwi�'° e•'° N I. nMrvlllkf'04555'InNw kryln.b � .+n 1 nana 1 ir:l q arvmm {F` rmk r ea I rn,gxnVI osmn V-1. ouo.MPoe c C.—Z OMV( —aI oIa geehasuds and seismicity .•ol•/o 14i.l:Ilo.Lcrrl•nn N�w.ua.l 4pu.nnlen IeMmN MyNMwar?M yn r.ongww..rm.m.IMIPAIwpe.Fn/A u,..ry 1' .ny,..e1M1� 1 .ny,..e P•a n..l wAYI'olin pmY 11 ,S,Mmw,Ye�Mnwn rvl oxln IfJW L1.1 Yltl FYI ♦..,M.e..nem PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix wants msa 609 Orange County Sanitation District 100 Digester 16 - Potential Failure Modes • . Description mvJ11161- PFM1 Ground shaking (GS) - Bending failure of walls (various load cases w/ adjacent clarifiers out of operation) PFM2 GS - Shear failure of walls (various load cases w/ adjacent clarifiers out of operation) PFM3 GS - Failure of beams and columns supporting sludge collector PFM4 GS - Failure of supports for walkways and precast concrete troughs PFM5 GS - Ground deformation due to liquefaction/lateral spread 5A - Horizontal spread across expansion joints allows catastrophic leakage 5B - Differential settlement across expansion joints allows catastrophic leakage or impairs flow. PFM6 Liquefaction - Loss of anchor capacity 6A - Buoyant uplift on structure 6B - Localized failure of mat PF IM-06 TM4 Appendixc Liquefied soils adjacent to wall - failure in walls due to increased soil pressures (hydrostatic + dynamic) 101 Digester 16 - Potential Failure Modes Description PFMB Lateral spread 8A - Horziontal/vertical offset of expansion joint 8B - Lateral spread in transverse direction (towards Marsh) can damage the beams, which span across east-west running expansion joints. 8C - Lateral spread in transverse direction can collapse the north clarifier slab over the tunnel (it is sitting on an expansion joint shelf on the Aeration Basins). PFM9 Liquefaction - Differential settlement 9A - north slab of secondary clarifier drops down relative to support at Aeration Basin south wall causing bending/shear failure. 9B - north slab of secondary clarifier drops at the Aeration Basin side causing bending/shear failure. PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 611 Orange County Sanitation District 102 Secondary Clarifiers Model 9�,� •v7,.e �.Y,a� �, .tea':. rr Secondary Clarifiers — Ground Shaking ANSYS ELEH= SOLUTION R18.1 SMIS5 BENDING MOMENT(DCR<<1.0) PLOT NO. 1 TOP DMX =1.22114 SDMT —2.27342 S[Vf =120.450 Z —2.27342 25.0005 52.2744 79.5482 106.822 11.3635 38.6374 65.9113 93.1852 120.459 Secondary Clarifiers A-L [kips, in] PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 613 Orange County Sanitation District 104 Secondary Clarifiers - Ground Deformation NODAL SOLUTION ANS 8S STEP=5 PLOT NO. 1 SUB =1 Ti USUM (AVG) RSYS=O DW =41.0956 SNN =9.37112 SMX =41.0956 Xk 9.37112 12.8961 16.421 19.9459 23.4709 26.995830.5208 34.0457 37.5707 41.0956 _ Secondary Clarifiers A—L [kips, in] PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 614 Orange County Sanitation District 105 Secondary Clarifiers - Ground Deformation ANSYS R18.1 7. 2 1 Marsh 2 1-Marsh 6.4 3-2-Marsh 4 3-1larsh 5 5 4-Marsh A C River D-T-lover 4. (�-I-River J-L-I2iver 4 C O 3. b (aa 2.4 N 1. -.8 0 10 20 30 40 50 5 15 25 35 45 Ground Displacements, Marsh [in] Secondary Clarifiers A-L PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 615 Orange County Sanitation District 106 SC A-L - Mitigation Concepts - PFM8 • Option 1 : Ground improvement to limit lateral spread • Construct ground improvement shear panels in front of (including pathway) and below portion of secondary clarifiers. • Design spacing and strength to limit failure surface behind the improved zone • Target displacement reduction to limit potential separation of clarifier joints • Ground improvement methods: Auger soil mixing, cutter soil mixing, slurry wall method, jet grouting, . . . �{�. • Key ground improvement elements • Large footprint �► %��. ✓ • Must achieve high strength and/ors' large "replacement volume" • "Key" improvement below lateral spread zone (— Elev. -25 feet) • Localized settlement reduction may '� e'►�� . . exacerbate differential settlement �� to structure PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C � Orange County Sanitation District 107 SC A-L - Mitigation Concepts - PFM8 • Option 1 : Ground improvement to limit lateral spread CpG "n* •40Y unit OgWbd M RIiOnNOk n iR Mini COlpbll File. Plant 2 Cross Section C-C-Pseudo Static Residual GI Oil "Q n "" "'°' p�an Ann Surxx C'11y d9ry IiMtf O 115 0 32 Analysis:2. Center-Lower-CH Min eeuvM eeaw pnpmermet Slip Surface: Entry and Exit uWers.Mvrysae srpraanoen) ns 1 ow 0 Method: Spencer (IIw w i,w c Horizontal Seismic Coefficient.:0.18 c±uule u+mna iA ) 1as 1 1 ❑ -i MALM 'a14 5-�) 1m 1 a.ae 0 aouw ngro.«roM.zrso wa-rvr�a) 1ao 1 arsu PROPERTYLINE (varies from 0 to 26 ft) fYft PEDESTRIAN PATH 2.20 SECONDARY CLARIFIERS A-L (17-Mat with Tie-Down Anchors) 0.99 •HALBERT MARSH IL Ground Improvement Zone PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 617 Orange County Sani[aeon District 108 SC A-L - Mitigation Concepts - PFM8 • Option 2: Subsurface retaining wall to limit lateral spread • Construct wall within available room between structures and marsh • Design wall to resist earth pressure from lateral spread without excessive deflection • Wall types: secant pile wall, cutter soil mix wall, . . . • Key wall elements • Significant depth (--100 ft), founded below liquefaction zone • Heavily reinforced to limit deflections • No mitigation for settlement below structure PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 618 Orange County Sanitation District 109 SC A-L — Mitigation Concepts — PFM9 • Ground improvement below structure to reduce impacts of differential settlement • Ground improvement would be required below full structure footprint • Given large dimensions of structure and depth of liquefiable zone, may not be viable to construct without working within structure footprint • Ground improvement methods: chemical grouting, jet grouting, . . . • Key ground improvement elements: • Large footprint • Must achieve significant grout penetration and distribution • Depth of improvement (e.g. 40 ft below clarifier) will depend on acceptable settlements — may not need complete improvement if differential settlement is reduced sufficiently. • Improvement for settlement will also limit lateral spread PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 619 Orange County Sanitation District 110 D iscussion PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 620 Orange County Sanitation District 111 SA Geosyntec consultants 1W MEETING MINUTES SUBJECT: PS15-06 Technical Memorandum#3 Review Meeting DATE: Monday,November 5,2018 TIME: 10:00 a.m. PST LOCATION: OCSD Administration Building, Conference Room A MEETING ATTENDEES: Geosyntec—Chris Conkle, Chris Hunt Camillo—James Doering, Doug Lanning, Steve Hough InfraTerra—Ahmed Nisar,Nick Doumbalski (via phone) OCSD—Don Cutler,Mike Lahlou,Eros Yong,Dean Fisher,Jeff Mohr,Mike Dorman,Martin Dix,Nasrin Nasrollahi Jacobs(via phone)—Kirk Warnock,Jeong Yang 1. Introduction/Safety Moment C. Conkle presented safety moment. Topic: Drowsy Driving. 2. Review Project Objectives C. Conkle described the objectives of the meeting as outlined on the attached slides. 3. Role of TM3 in Overall Scope o Performance standards based on ASCE 41-13 o Liquefaction induced settlements • Plant 1: 2"to 10"at ground surface -free field settlement calculation • Plant 2: 2"to>10"at ground surface-free field settlement calculation • Structures that are not color-coded in the figure are not included in the study o Liquefaction induced lateral spreading Mix Minutes-OCSD TM3 Review Mtg 11-5-18 -a4%'5AJagecr`tists I innovators 621 PS 15-06 Technical Memorandum#3 Review November 5,2018 Page 2 • Plant 1: up to about 3 feet near river frontage to a cutoff within the plant where lateral spreading is not expected to show up • Plant 2: up to about 6 feet near river frontage and up to about 5 feet at Talbert Mush • Reduction in lateral spread magnitude with distance from free face 4. Overview of Identified Vulnerabilities o Developed a series of Potential Failure Modes(PFMs) evaluated relative to performance criteria for each structure o Overview of Plant vulnerability figures -Color coding corresponds to having at least 1 failure mode that didn't meet a performance criterion o Question(S. Hough): Steve asked whether the selection of structures was made based on age and anticipated improved seismic performance. He noted some of the key sources of vulnerability(e.g. lateral spread)may not have been considered for some of the structures that are outside of scope. Answer: The team described the process for selection of the structures in the study and agreed that other more recently built structures may also be exposed to the lateral spreading hazard. o Question(M. Dix): Is Hospital design similar to the requirements of Class I. . Answer(Nisar): Hospitals are designed to a different standard. 5. Standard Mitigations o Mitigation tables address PFMs that have a vulnerability o Developed a toolbox of standard mitigations for structural and geotechnical vulnerabilities 6. Geotechnical Mitigation Needs o Figures show geotechnical mitigation needs, and opportunities for lateral spread mitigation o Question(E. Yong): If you are doing new construction, are the options for mitigation different? Answer(Conkle): Yes,with access to the building footprint,there are more options on the table from an economic perspective. o Geotechnical mitigation below secondary clarifiers for settlement would meet the needs for lateral spread as well. If not performed, extending LS mitigation wall may be recommended. o Localized lateral spread mitigation could have an impact in increasing differential lateral spread effects PsengineeCSl e al"scientists innovators 622 PS 15-06 Technical Memorandum#3 Review November 5,2018 Page 3 o Question(J. Mohr): Will this project include a recommendation for lateral spread mitigation along the plant, or is it out of scope? Answer: Currently we plan to make a recommendation based solely on the findings for specific structures in this study. Ultimately there may be a benefit to viewing this mitigation form a plant wide perspective and incorporating effects on other structures. o Question(E. Yong): Will lateral spread mitigation address both hazard levels? Answer: Yes, the demands (settlements/lateral spread)are similar at both hazard levels. The performance levels are different for the structures however. 7. Characteristic Vulnerabilities/Structures o Roof Diaphragm Strengthening(B 1)- a few structures between both plants o Concrete infill strengthening- 1 at Plant 1; 4 at Plant 2 o P 1 Control center has issues with drift and torsional response-Mitigation is adding bracing to make it a braced frame building o P 1 Central Power Generation Building- lack of shear wall bracing; discontinuous shear wall—Mitigation is to provide concrete infill and shear wall addition to basement o P2 Maintenance Building -high drift and high flexural stress in columns and beams; concrete cladding prevents moment frames from doing their job - Mitigation is adding bracing o P2 PEPS &MAC Exemplar-Ground Deformation-Differential settlement results in tension; rigid structures often don't respond well to differential settlement o Other liquefaction hazards • Lateral spread • Uplift/Active Earth Pressure • Discussed GOBS example where different uplift on differently loaded parts may result in damage o Digesters • Lateral spread is the largest vulnerability-resulting in damage to piles • Piles can take some amount of movement,but after 12"or so, they start to have damage o Secondary Clarifiers • Large footprint of structures and expansion joints are concern • Clarifiers at Plant 2 - expansion joints in walls,but not in floor slab. Less susceptible to lateral spread,but differential settlement results in opening and rotation of wall joints • Plant 1 clarifiers are on piles,but have expansion joints that cut through the slab, so susceptible to lateral spread which pulls apart the sections at the joints o Suurgge Towers PsengineeCSe lal"scientists innovators 623 PS 15-06 Technical Memorandum#3 Review November 5,2018 Page 4 • Very large lateral spread deformations,which could impact the dresser couplings • Surge towers may be subjected to some tilt, and could still function,but not likely to collapse, if the connection is not disengaged o Gas Holders • Relatively light structures • Largest vulnerability is differential settlement- similar anchor systems at other sites have experienced damage during past earthquakes 8. Next Steps (Discussions of TM4/Relationship with TM3) o TM4 Process • Risk-based prioritization of seismic projects relative to each other • Recommended mitigation measures for seismic vulnerabilities • Planning-level cost estimates for mitigation measures • Evaluation of mitigation vs. replacement • Additional considerations • Effectiveness, constructability, cost,post-event repair cost, duration, and consequences vs. mitigation • Recommended process for incorporating seismic projects into FMP o Topics for Discussion • Lateral Spreading • Likelihood of Seismic Failure (scoring) • Consequence of Seismic Failure and Importance Factors(IF) • Risk= Likelihood x Consequence • The following criteria will be considered considered in the development of recommended projects • Effectiveness of seismic mitigation • Constructability of seismic mitigation • Construction cost of seismic mitigation • Post-event repair cost, duration, and CoSE vs. mitigation 9. Q&A o Question(J. Mohr): How do you rank life safety relative to water in/water out? Does life safety trump all and move something to the top of the list automatically?Many of the structures which have life safety implications we not currently on the radar for FMP purposes. • Discussion: The group discussed how this will be handled in the consequence evaluation. Additional discussion is needed. o Question(E. Yong): How do you handle probability of failure of multiple elements of a single process at the same time? PsengineeCSI• al"scientists innovators 624 PS 15-06 Technical Memorandum#3 Review November 5,2018 Page 5 Answer(Lanning): This will be addressed in the development of recommended projects. May be able to live with damage to duplicate process elements. o Comment(J. Mohr): It's important to not take this study too far into the design realm. Complete it soon at a planning level to aid in decision making. o Comments (J. Mohr and others): OCSD noted that condition and remaining useful life are important considerations in the decision making process. These factors will be accounted for in the decision making process. Attachments • PowerPoint slides from Presentation 11-5-18 PsengineeCSl e al"scientists innovators 625 TM3 MEETING SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES Orange County AT -PLANTS 1 & 2 r� Sanitation District PRESENTED BY. '}� • G'eosyntec Yearn R NOVEMBER 5, 2018 t _ f . , Agenda • Introductions/Safety Moment • Role of TM3 in Overall Scope • Overview of Identified Vulnerabilities (Plant 1 and 2) • Standard Mitigations (Structural/Geotechnical) • Geotechnical Mitigation Needs (Plant 1 and 2) • Characteristic Vulnerabilities/Structures • Next Steps • Questions/Discussion PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 627 i Orange County Sanitation District 2 Safety Moment — Drowsy Driving The Warning Signs of Drowsy Driving — Yawning or blinking frequently. — Difficulty remembering the pastfew, miles driven. — Missing your exit. — Drifting from your lane. — Hitting a rumble strip I� � _ 1 — If you experience any of the warning signs of drowsy driving pull overto a safe place and take a 15-20 minute nap or change drivers. — Simply turning up the radio or opening the window are not effective ways to keep you alert! PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 626 Orange County Sanitation District 3 Safety Moment — Drowsy Driving Drowsy Driving Is Similar to Drunk Driving • Being awake for at least 18 hours is the same as someone having a blood content (BAC)of 0.05%. • Being awake for at least 24 hours is equal to having a blood alcohol content of 0.10%.This is higher than the legal limit (0.08% BAC) in all states. Prevention • Get enough sleep! Most adults need at least 7 hours of sleep a day • Develop good sleeping habits such as sticking to a sleep schedule. • If you have a sleep disorder or have symptoms of a sleep disorder such as snoring or feeling sleepy during the day,talk to your physician about treatment options. • Avoid drinking alcohol or taking medications that make you sleepy. Be sureto check the label on any medications or talk to your pharmacist. 1 r 1s r•L PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C _ 629 Orange County Sanitation District 4 Meeting Objectives • Provide Overview of Identified Vulnerabilities • Provide Overview of Recommended Mitigations • Discuss the relationship between TM3 and upcomingTM4 • Prepare team for review of TM3 draft document PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 630 Orange County Sanitation District 5 Role of TM3 in Overall Scope • Presentation of Results of Task 2 and Task 3 • Identification of Structural Vulnerabilities • Identification of Recommended Mitigations (Geotechnical and Structural) • Set the stage for costing and development of alternatives (including operational and replacement) PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 631 i Orange County Sanitation District 6 Performance Standards (ASCE 41 -Based) Structure SeismicHazard Structural Non-Structural T e Level Performance Performance YP M Level Level BSE-1E (20% in Immediate Position 50 yrs) Occupancy Retention Building I (S-1) (N-B) BSE-2E (5% in 50 Life Safety Not Considered yrs) (S-3) (N-D) BSE-1E (20% in Life Safety Life Safety 50 yrs) (S-3) (N-C) Building II se Colla BSE-2E (5% in 50 p Not Considered yrs) Prevention (N-D) (S-5) Non- BSE-1E (20% in Immediate Position Building 50 yrs) Occupancy Retention (Liquid- I (S-1) (N-B) Containing BSE-2E (5% in 50 Life Safety Not Considered Structures) S-3 N-D)j PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix yrs) ( ) ( 632 Orange County Sanitation District 7 Liquefaction Induced Settlement (Plant 1 ) II •� � �1-18 TO 1-32 18C � �♦r, livil ' i r �• • LEGEND b>.1-IDYll TO 15.AND topJ •••-yy4: .yi/ PU1NT 1 BOUNii TTOC r--- , ,6T�,2� 12 ■ rroB• 1-33 % ■ FTOC 136 ■ CTO1P 1-11� /♦ 1-3 1-1 1-12 r �♦ 19 /♦ PSI 606 TM4 Appendix C 125 633 O 1 ¢ .,,Wn r 1 Dls'rict Liquefaction Induced Lateral Spreading (Plant 1 ) 7 FREE FACE �1-28 TO 1-32 i r r� i 15.ANo 1-2a �1-21 To 1-23 1-16 TO 1-28 I 1 26 APPROXIMATE OF IATE WY� i SPREADEAD(SEE NOTE I) y FREE FACE-I" PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 634 y Orange County Sanitation District 9 MM , c x 5 ^1 3r i / r Liquefaction Induced Settlement (Plant 2) 2 7�;j �2-11 `2-2] 1 2L - /. 249 9� / �-z-to - /- 2-22� `2A 2-14 2"17 229 -219 2-, 2-0 2-18 r 2-5 232 LEGEND I • 231 / 2.24 PL T26OUNOARY 2-W 1 `1-12 2-TO 4' t23. / PTO 6. 2-23- /-, ■ 6'TO 8' I �,- ■ 8'TO 10' PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 636 Orange County Sanitation District 11 Liquefaction Induced Lateral Spreading (Plant 2) -_—--� ^2-7IC TALMFT MARSH(TM) --�" / FREE FACE-,0' -- I •• `227 V2-13 ifi / APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF / SANTA ANA(SA) LATERALSP / FREE FACE-IV�11 12-��;•• (SE READ E NOTE 1) / 1 a 2-25 .Y 2-21 I / 2-15 / �29 2-Z1 .2-12 / 2-31 / 2-20 I / 3-/ / � 221- /"2-2d PS,5-06 TM4 Appendix C 637 Orange County Sanitation District 12 Liquefaction Settlement (Plant 2) 8.5 inches of Layer H Settlement H,,, % Change vertical settlement O1 22 ft 3 in 21.75 ft 1 1.1% at ground surface O 20 It 1 in 19.92 It 1 0.4% C O 7 It 1 in 6.92 ft 04 13 It 3.5 in 12.71 ft 1 2.2% W 20 SECONDARY CLARIFIERS O 3 -00 \ liquefiable sod settlement non-Irquebablesoil cut-off PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 638 j Orange County Sanitation District 13 PFM Example -Table 1 -10 . CenGen Description 2.0(10- 2.0 (LS- The shear walls along the west side of Insufficient lateral bracing Reinforced Reinforced 10 (BSE 1E): N* the building are minimal and lack along the west side of the T2 3.2 Concrete In- >2.0 Concrete In- adequate capacity to resist the seismic building Plane Shear Plane Shear LS(BSE 2E): N loads of the building.The balance of the Wall) Wall) walls are compliant. I The north and south walls use pilasters to brace the walls for out-of-plane loads, but these same pilasters are not Wall anchorage at the high Tl >20 >1.0 (S) IO (BSE 1E): N* anchored to the roof framing.The DCR roof north and south walls LS(BSE 2E): N reported is an estimate of what little ■�� capacity the deck provides to resisting these loads.This is a significant deficiency at all performance levels. ©High roof diaphragm shear T2 0.8 1.0(force- 12 1.0(force- 10(BSE 1E):Y Anchor bolt shear is limiting strength controlled) controlled) LS(ESE 2E): N and is force-controlled. Low roof diaphragm shear T2 1� Irp 1.0(force- 10(BSE IE):Y Anchor bolt shear is limiting strength ontrolled) controlled) LS(BSE 2E): N and is force-controlled. 4.5" (estimate at the pile head) lateral Bending/shear failure of spread toward Santa Ana River at the 2.0(10 for 3.0(LS for 10(BSE 1E):Y foundation level. Exemplar is Digester (surface PGD=8-inches) piles due to lateral spread Tl/2 1.3 columns) 13 columns) LS(BSE 2E):Y 16. DCR is the near pile top displacement over pile top displacement at yield (3.5"). Notes: (1)T1,T2,T3-ASCE41-13 Tier1,Tier2,Tier3 (2)DCR-Demand-to{apacity Ratio(reportedto onedecimal place) (3)Performance Objectives as perTM1 (4)See Section 6.0 for m itigation options P5ge Co TM4 AppetionDndix C (5)Tier 1 evaluations do not include m-factors per ASCE 41-13 639 Orange County Sanitation District *Aso does not meet life safety for BSE 1E 14 Overview of Identified Vulnerabilities (Plant 1 ) r • .� � + � ,¢e TD 1d3 ,-P n- • •r <`t • S �# ,-1.1-m,-nm s.AND 1-24 •- yY. .�%• ,�; .• ------� - - !,� -,_16TD1M ^-- 1-2 1'-33 1 5 1-16 LEGEND 1-11 — j � aANrleouNaur %• ■ xo oFFlawcr oFNnFiFo j 1 OEf1pENLY AT&�-1F OIlY /• ■ CEFlpENCY AT B3E-1E NID B3E-8 j 4 1-3 r �• PS15-05 TM4 Appendix C 640 *01 15 Overview of Identified Vulnerabilities (Plant 2) r•-- _ �2-27 21 2-22 ��L 3A 2-14 2-17 21 2-3 �2-5 ." �2-32 '\ �2 31 / zza . �1 I `2-3. /. z-23 ��,• NO DEFICIENCY IOENTF® I �, OE )CIENCY AT BSE4E ONLY �� i �,• ■ DEFICIENCYATBSE-tEANDBSE-2E �_�,, ■ NO EVAWATION OF POTENNAL OEFlOENCFS PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 641 Orange County Sanitation District 16 Example Mitigation Table 1 -10 . CenGen Notes on Application of Mitigation Insufficient lateral Applies over 24lineal bracing along the west Standard Structural Mitigation E feet x 9-ft tall side of the building windows. Wall anchorage at the Similar with new steel high roof north and Standard Structural Mitigation A2 (High) roof framing south walls (SIM) members. Provide at (6) locations. Supplement existing High roof diaphragm anchors at 20" DC shear Standard Structural Mitigation B2 (total of 90 epoxy anchors). Supplement existing Low roof diaphragm anchors at 20" OC shear Standard Structural Mitigation 62 (total of 60 epoxy anchors). PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 642 Orange County Sanitation District 17 Standard Structural Mitigations Wall anchorage,Type 1 Provision of steel angles or WT struts with steel hardware and epoxied anchors into the existing wall or perimeter roof beam at8 feet on center. Struts to extend into the diaphragm as required to develop the wall anchorage force.Struts are to be field welded to the roof deck. Wall anchorage,Type 2 Provision of new steel welded or bolted connections to existing beams that are epoxied into the existing wall,pilaster,or perimeter concrete beam. Mitigation includes additional roof deck welding as required for full wall anchorage force development into the diaphragm. Magnitude of work is expressed as High, Medium, and Low. Roof diaphragm strengthening, Replace existing roof deck to the extent the deck is deficientand provide Type 1 supplemental steel roof framing as required. Roof diaphragm strengthening, Provide additional epoxy anchors attire existing ledgerangle. Drill anchors Type 2 through the existing ledger angle. Foundation Tie,Type 1 Provision of steel angletie plate that is anchored into the wall and slab atthe interior of the building using epoxy anchors. Angles are assumed to be required at a spacing of 4 feet on center. Foundation Tie,Type 2 Provide an exterior cast-in-place concrete tie beam that is cast atthe exterior of the building below grade and epoxy doweled into the existing wall and footings (continuous or isolated pad footings). OOP Wall Bracing Provision of vertical steel tube or steel channel members to reduce the horizontal span of the wall,especially where pilasters occur. The vertical member is to be anchored to the masonry or concrete wall with epoxy anchors regularly spaced. The vertical member is required to be braced to the foundation and to the roof framing with additional hardware and framing members as required. Cast-in-place Concrete I nfill Infill existing window with cast-in-place concrete. Install reinforcing steel 6 TM4 Appendix C epoxy dowels into existing wall, beam, and columns at the perimeter tf he existing window. - 18 Standard Geotechnical Mitigations 0 .. Ground Improvement Constructa cemented mass of in-situ soil (by deep soil mixing, jet grouting, Buttress or similar method) between the structure and the Santa Ana River and/or Talbert Marsh, as applicable. Secant Pile Wall Construct a secant pile wall comprised of overlapping soil-mixed columns with embedded steel reinforcementto resist liquefaction-induced lateral spreading towards the Santa Ana River and/or Talbert Marsh. Ground Improvement Use one of several available ground improvement techniques to reduce the Under Slab Foundation liquefaction potential of specified soil strata beneath the footprint of the entire structure. Ground Improvement Use one of several available ground improvement techniques to reduce the Under Perimeter liquefaction potential of a specified strata of soil directly beneath the Footings structure footings. Ground Improvement Treat the soils immediately outside basement walls, using one of several Around Perimeter of available ground improvement techniques,to limit liquefaction in soil Submerged Walls backfill and reducethe potential for increased lateral earth pressure on submerged walls. 6-06 TM4 Appendix C 644 Orange County Sanitation District 19 Standard Geotechnical Mitigations Geotechnical Mitigation Al Lateral Spread ground improvement buttress w 60 1-11A Digester 16 ground improvement i 40 . % 20 no or low shear resistance 0. rrr<< [) R high shear resistance -20 liquefiablescil __. _._._._.___. ___ .___ .___ .___ ._ ._ .— noo-liquefiable soil lateral spread settlement � cut-off -60 ff cut-o PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 645 Orange County Sanitation District 20 Standard Geotechnical Mitigations Geotechnical Mitigation I Lateral Spread secantpile wall 2 no lateral resistance w (gap, no pile-soil contact) 60 1-21A Digester 96 lateral 40 spread I 20 f 0 low lateral resistance ~ (pile-soil contact) -20 liquefiable sal dn non-Ii4uefiaWe soil lateral spread — cut-ofr _ high lateral resistance settlement (plle-soil contact) '� I secant wall PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C after liquefaction 646 Orange County Sanitation District 21 Standard Geotechnical Mitigations Plan View perimeter strip slab looting footing/f ♦\ / Cross-Section View \ ground ground Improvement Improvement 1-7 Power <0 W 7-S Power Building S Building 2 20 liqueftablesoll Ilquefiawe Will p non-IiqueriaWe soil noo-hque0abls soil liquefiadesoil .20 hque6eblesoil -. _-_-_---_-----_---_-_-- ._ - _ . ----------v - - --------------- - - limited liquefiadesoil non-liquefiabesoil 40 116. non-liqua/ialde soil Geotechnical Mitigation B1 settlement Geotechnical Mitigation B2 -eo Differential Settlement cut-off Differential Settlement ground improvementunder slab foundation ground improvement under petimeterfootings AWL PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 647 Orange County Sanitation District Standard Geotechnical Mitigations Plan View Geotechnical Mitigation C Liquefaction Lateral Earth Pressure ground improvement surrounding submerged structural walls ground slab �I footing improvement I 9 Q 40 Cross-Section View 1-331 20 liquefiablesoil PED82 0 non-liquefiable soil settlement -20 Cut-off liquefiable soil - _ . _ ._ . _. — ' -- - - - ' - - - - --- - ---. _ . _._ . _ . _. _ - --- - -'— '— ' non-liquefl soli -� PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 64 Orange County Sanitation District 23 Geotech_ Mitigation Needs (Plant 1 ) rr 1-3 TC.1.L' :%. r ` - U hTO^` >v01 ram` 4y� ' 13T0 '.-1 -=` LEGEND _ _ auNr I BOlMO4tV MMGA OF REG01MEIm®UTERAL �PRFA➢ MmUTILH (NII(aAlgN A1N2) c 0. / ■ No Wly EAFTN`rONPRAMI.RM 4mCJ�nCN OR SERLEAffNrMmAAnoNSURE U9 n REWIRLeARTRarse.:c: NniGrnrn ,_ •siJ. � �F REaursm iwmuncN cl SERL wwmmGA"rONRC-0UiREo ♦� ` , . NFIGAMNBI,Wi �� `�/�_..rl•i. ❑ .ATQUL SPREAD NTIGATICN RED N 649 Orange County Sanitation Dstrict 24 Geotech Mitigation Needs (Plant 2) 2_11 �• I� �/ �• LEGEND ��� - - __ -.• _.._ ftlNr 2 BOIdOIBY ' - E 711(BBE UTWOrM 2uTEBK b • NnIC>tTpN lnmG�nw Az) � 2_24/-• ■ Ip L\l9V/iLENnHRESAME NfII(�1gN OR F semae�rNmwnoN rEwnBn 2-M •/L - i' ^ lAn3VL FM111flE.S5UPE MrtICz1TNY1fEWq® 11' Mini I -L2-3 �•, sEmaaa MnCAnON fEg1PED 2-2 unBNi ENi1H R7E6UBEIlU SETRENEM � . NBICAIgNAEQIIBEO tCO.BINPTIIX16YliIG„10„B - . 1 ■ NDBBACBROLEV&ui PfPPo 13 PS15-06 AAppendixc ❑ un3NL5rtEMr�Tcnnwr�a n�m Orange County Sanitation District 25 Characteristic Vulnerabilities/ Structures Roof Diaphragm Strengthening B1 Replace roof decking Supplement w/ steel truss bracing -S 4 � � FLL IXI MEfALLEIX IrTz Yam, 3 ti oosnxo nvrw 1 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 651 Orange County Sanitation District 26 Characteristic Vulnerabilities/ Structures Roof Diaphragm Strengthening — Plant 1 r— TSS Is V,- p a ruwrnoow moaattusr PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 652 Orange County Sanitation District 27 Characteristic Vulnerabilities/ Structures Roof Diaphragm Strengthening — Plant 2 t . 12 kV Service Center ` �/ ter- . O C — M C WORK A A A a r. 1 PORARVI ..__ 4 - M e ;r -� � .[(,tea/. � • . h� PS 15-06 TM4 Appendix C 653 Orange County Sanitation District 28 Characteristic Vulnerabilities/ Structures Concrete In-fill (E) Moment Concrete Frame " LJY-J�' war P� 1l P2 12kV Service Center = -- VUa and low beam restrains frames No lateral bracing for -y - _ -- the high roof J ill, l r 'IIII 111 M� P1 Central Power Generation _, A .LSI ve ELEVATION PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 654 Orange County Sanitation District Characteristic Vulnerabilities/ Structures Concrete In-fill _ 3 )Moment Concrete Fame .infill- i �. 411 d � I9 — � i P2 12kV Service Center QW....� Concrete Infill (typ) --- -- -- - �w- J , il ` r ',lill r I P1 Central Power GeneraLit on_: ^A LS ve ELEVATION reiRIP PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 655 Orange County Sanitation District 30 Characteristic Vulnerabilities/ Structures Concrete In-fill VD PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 656 Orange County Sanitation District 31 Characteristic Vulnerabilities/ Structures Concrete In-fill 1� ml C WORK A MPORARY) ZE� ..E PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 657 Orange County Sanitation District 32 Characteristic Vulnerabilities/ Structures P1 Control Center • High drift • High torsional response • Column anchorage cannot develop column capacity • Pre-Northridge moment frame connections (non-ductile) • Low panel zone shear strength • Frame beams lack adequate bottom flange bracing PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 658 Orange County Sanitation District 33 Characteristic Vulnerabilities/ Structures P1 Control Center _ Braced Frames —r.;lil� ✓ l� (typ of 8) I F cart I ee.,l I 4I � ) wOMfk' M I • I ` h� f _.Uln IZ'I[M! Llyl I f2 � ll J♦,*�R�I NIl � 1CF— nvAl, i'FM,r2 Win,iun•rr osnx rxe = � c Wrrs I I r�l �' - f iJMFx .JOM way , IMxc w s Y` I C -xs �lA 1. 7 1- - •. Ic PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 659 Orange County Sanitation District 34 Characteristic Vulnerabilities/ Structures P1 Central Power Generation Building Lack of Shear Wall Bracing along the West Wall Discontinuous Shear Wall LAC] L:I PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 660 Orange County Sanitation District — 35 Characteristic Vulnerabilities/ Structures P1 Central Power Generation Building Concrete Infill (typ) Concrete Shear Wall Addition to Basement ■ PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 5e1 Orange County Sanitation District Characteristic Vulnerabilities/ Structures P2 Maintenance Building • High drift • High flexural stress in columns and beams • Cladding restrains frames • Pre-Northridge moment frame - connections (non-ductile) • Low panel zone shear strength • Weak columns relative to beams • Columns are non-compact PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 662 Orange County Sanitation District 37 Characteristic Vulnerabilities/ Structures P2 Maintenance Building Steel Braced Frame Additions (typ) 4 V U �- a-s + • _— [�.+N II "1?de msv ' '. s�or. % ozmmvcrosuivozicfiVs-oiePo� vm z�se.sz f w+l.z6 +z.ze ozr z/s]u— w ne FYF+Ix w+z.z cu wu.ze w+z.ze u o,4 i0' w zwea x zxw. i a v.x PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 663 Orange County Sanitation District 38 Vulnerabilities/Characteristic Ground Deformation Groun d deformation pattern tensionME PSI 1. 664 Characteristic Vulnerabilities/ Structures Other Liquefaction Hazards P2 Power Building C • Lateral Spread ' ' • , ,xr • Pile shear / bending failure • Foundations and walls not tied together - i • Expansion joints pull apart or shear ; I —x • Differential spread with collision • Varying foundation depths • Passive pressure application • Uplift / Active Earth Pressure GOBS Failure of soil anchors • Uplift pressures on base slabs . • Increased active lateral earth pressures on basement walls - 1 , .. PS15-06 TM4 Appendix _ _ .-_665 Orange County Sanitation District 40 Characteristic Vulnerabilities Digesters � Iff ff I I I�I� Z00glie\Earth Ab PS j Orange County Sanitation District 41 Characteristic Vulnerabilities/ Structures Clarifiers — Plant 2 ;. s : .65.5 SJd im ynr_aj m 1 T V GVI 91. 1�)9B • . Nwl 9IX -Vd:diSl t rsv ^' :asn u ' .amp �� .VUN MP9 .xWlst sem:mi�ry C1anLlem e-L Ikfpe,m• •. uarlm 1�1 �_ y _ �_ i i5 I �8 r -- r PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 667 Orange County Sanitation District 42 Characteristic Vulnerabilities/ Structures Clarifiers — Plant 1 41n i RNER �. 1 J 5 ] 9 11 IJ 15 17 1B 21 23�M:g ansionJointI 2 1 fi 8 10 12 19 4 16 18 20 22 N 2{I } 0 Existing Conditions " �20i,vJ4ea �,.4 M11tlea II lI 111 1 ILI — RNER �B N 2l/ 1 _ . .1 J 5 ] 9 11 13 15 14 21 2J _ 2 4 6 B 10 12 14I R 21 16 18 20 22 N fib > ,] 1,,.. ---- -- -- After Geotechnical Mitigation _--_ PS -06 TM4 Appe _ GA _= sw if . _ g ��� �,, � _ Dre.���coupling.�milldisen�r, �• fferential move �g�r7:= � Me 'Air 4 i Characteristic Vulnerabilities/ Structures Gas Holders I 4 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix blu Orange County Sanitation District 45 Looking Ahead to TM 4 • Risk-based prioritization of seismic projects relative to each other • Recommended mitigation measures for seismic vulnerabilities • Planning level cost estimates for mitigation measures • Evaluation of mitigation vs. replacement • Additional considerations • Effectiveness of seismic mitigation • Constructability of seismic mitigation • Construction cost for seismic mitigation • Post-event repair cost, duration, and CoSE vs. mitigation • Recommended process for incorporating seismic projects into FMP -� PSI5-O6 TM4 Appendix 671 y Orange County Sanitation District 46 TM4 Discussion Topics Lateral spreading • Evaluate mitigation, cost, and priority on a structure-by- structure basis? • Evaluate on a broader basis? PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 672 j Orange County Sanitation District 47 TM4 Discussion Topics Confirm : • LoSF is likelihood that structure cannot meet performance objectives for BSE-1 E and BSE-2E seismic hazard levels • Identify controlling failure mode PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 673 i Orange County Sanitation District 48 TM4 Discussion Topics Confirm CoSF and importance Factors: • Life safety, IF = 100% • Water in/out impacts, IF = 75% • Regulatory, IF = 50% • Stakeholder Commitments, IF = 37.5% • Financial , IF = 25% • Public Impacts, IF = 16.5% Note: Blue consequences are from FMP with IF reduced by 50% PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 674 i Orange County Sanitation District 49 TM4 Discussion Topics Confirm the following will not be used in prioritization scoring, but may be used in final project scheduling on a case-by-case basis using the team's best judgment: • Effectiveness of seismic mitigation • In general, "mitigation" provides compliance with performance objectives for BSE-1 E and BSE-2E seismic hazard levels -- but this may not always be feasible/practical • Constructability of seismic mitigation • Construction cost for seismic mitigation • Post-event repair cost, duration, and CoSE vs. mitigation j PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix 675 j Orange County Sanitation District 50 Discussion • • Confirm • initiative Example Initiative for CoSE to seismic anal sis y CoSE I RUL LoF integrate seiona�sE: Life safety 0-5 yrs 5 >L°e Mary+ : - Water in/out impacts 540 yrs 4 projects >warerid«erer anImped.a Long-term rag. violations 10-15 yrs 3 i LOiv-'Bn"`°9-"p10"0"6' Lorx3-term public impacts 75-20 yrs 2 . >t^ng-rem,panic imp.crev >anerx Offer? 2W yrs 1 Orange�unty Sanitation District 51 Develop ulamic pry.d. °^°;;°m�q�;, FMP prioritization Develop inuiame-be.ee .... L"FR1UL Ior.eiemic prcleds b..ee on COSE 6leblisM1 s1eFeM1deery beeetl CaF for. .ml[ W` pro title 81 CC Next Steps • Review of Draft TM3 • Proceed with TM4 • Finalization of Mitigation Alternatives • Project prioritization PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix C 677 i Orange County Sanitation District 52 D iscussion PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 678 Orange County Sanitation District 53 Thank You ! PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 679 Orange County Sanitation District 54 O„tV SPMbq!/O Geosyntec° consultants41, MEETING MINUTES SUBJECT: PS15-06 TM4 Project List Review Meeting DATE: Wednesday,January 9,2019 TIME: 8:00 a.m.PST LOCATION: OCSD Eng. & Const. Conference Room 1 MEETING ATTENDEES: Geosyntec—Chris Conkle, Chris Hunt(via phone) Carollo—James Doering, Steve Hough, Doug Lanning InfraTerra—Ahmed Nisar OCSD—Don Cutler,Mike Lablou,Eros Yong,Dean Fisher,Jeff Mohr,Mike Dorman,Martin Dix, Kathy Miller, Brian Terrell,Adnan Rahman, Andrew Brown Jacobs (via phone)—Kirk Warnock 1. Introduction/Safety Moment • Chris presented a safety moment on earthquake alerts. Parties introduced themselves. Chris presented the objectives of the meeting. 2. TM4 Overview • Chris provided an overview of how TM4 fits into the project and the current activities. 3. Cost Estimating Process • Doug: Cost estimation basis,project level allowance 30%, same as FMP. • No comments on cost estimation process. 4. Review of: • Risk Rankings: o Doug: Noted that there were no governing Stakeholder or Public Impact rankings. o James: Clarified what confidence ratings(L/M/H)represent.Confidence L,M,H,but conservative. Low means with more assessment risk could be lower; however, unlikely that it would be higher. HL1635-(u1Wtg Minutes-OCSD TM4 Project List Mtg 1-9-19 drS"J&s"T99ftSmists I innovators 680 PSI 5-06 TM4 Project List Review Meeting January 9, 2019 Page 2 o Don: provided a brief description of lateral spread phenomenon. is Mitigation Costs: Facility value means replacement value in kind. This cost will not include demolition, ground improvement,or interim measures needed to sequence work or provide for temporary function. • Project Recommendations: o Jeff More: Some clarity on the structural cost is needed. Lateral spread for the entire plant. This project is District wide to flag facilities and not to get bogged down on a structure/structure basis. o Jeff More: We need to understand confidence in geotechnical costs. What is the confidence that the costs will not quadruple? After all, we are going under big structures, cutting through slabs etc. 5. Q&A • Kathy:I thought Plant 2 was more risky because of fault rupture issue,but the risk scores for both plants are similar. —AN, CH, CC — risk is driven by liquefaction, which can occur in many events and fault rupture is only but one event. The shaking at both plants is similar. Discussion of ground deformation probabilities. Jeff More also commented on fault rupture risk and agreed/understood the reasoning provided by the team. • Kathy: Why is the risk zero for truck loading area? • Mike: Would the risk ranking change if we do not build the wall? Chris and Doug: risk ranking is irrespective of mitigation. • Aros: Lateral spread mitigation for entire P2, we may choose not to do the entire plant. For example,we may only protect critical assets, such as headworks,etc. • Chris: We are updating project development criteria, which may lead to spreading the cost of the wall over new structures. • Jeff: One recommendation from the study will be to build the wall and then another study to study the wall in detail. • There was a question on what other utilities are doing, or is it that OCSD is doing unprecedented work? Jeff: wastewater plants we close to waterfront, do others have lateral spread problems?AN—SFPUC is spending billions of dollars on their wastewater system,but that includes collection system and piping, etc. For our Portland study,there is a very significant lateral spread risk along the Willamette and Columbia Rivers, but H1.1635-MNItg Minutes-OCSDTM4P jw List Mtg 1-9-19 %4AgT%p4A,gkntists I innovators 681 PSI 5-06 TM4 Project List Review Meeting January 9, 2019 Page 3 they have pipelines in this zone, and there are projects to directionally drill pipelines under the spread zone. Jeff: we have major pipelines along the river. • Jeff: Any consideration given to the reduction in lateral spread because of shielding of structures. AN there may be some effect, but Christchurch, etc. showed widespread issues because lateral spread is an area-wide issue. • Jacobs: Was the cost of structural mitigation based on a per square foot basis?James and Doug:No,we did planning level material takeoffs. • Question—why are there a lot of cases that have lateral spread,but controlling failure is GS? • Don: OOBS vulnerable from LS because? Chris: Cannot do LS mitigation at COBS because it extends into the river. James: unbalanced uplift at OOBS. OOBS should be changed to grey. There was some confusion why some structures in LS zone not shown with LS check mark. • Kathy: where do we go from here? • Doug: prioritized list is there. If there is some adjustment that needs to be done, we should do it. • Comment: We can group projects in different ways. • Comment: present wall in different way, do nothing, accept risk. • Jeff: Is implementation plan part of this work? Aros: No. Implementation plan is for management to do. Kathy: OCSD needs to come up with an implementation plan. • Jeff: Study will be completed this year. Plan will be developed later this year. Occupied buildings take steps sooner: Maintenance building and control center Tier 1. Control building, maintenance building certainly need to do something about. Ops building, we don't take on because we have another plan for that.Model ops center,if not a big effort. 12kv, if simple. • Jeff: Focus on wrapping up the study. Important thing with big master plan-type studies is to wrap it up and not go on and on. OCSD to do implementation plan. n1.1635-WWg Minutes-OCSD TM4 Proi W List Mtg 1-9-19 %4AgT%A4Agkntists I innovators 682 PSI 5-06 TM4 Project List Review Meeting January 9, 2019 Page 4 Attachments: Plant 1 Structures Risk Ranking 1-9-19. pdf Plant 2 Structures Risk Ranking 1-9-19.pdf PowerPoint Slides from Presentation: TM4 Project Recommendations—Seismic Evaluation of Structures at Plants 1 &2 HL1635-WWg Minutes-OCSD TM4 Proi W List Mtg 1-9-19 H 4AgT%§ ,A,gkptists I innovators 683 Plant 1-Risk Ranking Cost Information Recommendations(Draft) Control.Failure Controlling Consequence Address with Mitigate with a m n c Geotechnical Total Structure E m s° '� E Overall Structural Mitigation Mitigation No Project, Previously New Project Replace Number Structure Name GS DS LS ,n E .2 w _ g gation Facility Value a+ u m c " RoSF '� Mitigation Cost z LoSF=0 Planned Identified in Facility a F - a o Cost Cost a' u Project TM3 8 Control Center x x 25 L/M $7,260,000 50 $7,260,000 $16,200,000 X ? 9 12 kV Service Center x x 25 H $230,000 $0 $230,000 $42,100,000 X 31 Buildings and 6 x x 25 L/H $1,070,000 $0 $1,070,000 $4,893,000 X 2 Blower Building(AS1)and PEPS x x x 20 H $2,140,000 $0 $2,140,000 $109,668,000 X-048 10 Central Power Generation Building x x 20 H $1,530,000 1,740,000 3,270,000 $154,800,000 P1-127 12 Secondary Clarifiers 1-26 x x x 20 H $0 $0 $0 $219,336,000 X 30 Shop Building B and Building 3 x x 20 M $440,000 $0 $440,000 $4,230,000 X 32 Auto Shop x x 20 M/H $410,000 $0 $410,000 $1,853,000 X 21 Digesters 11-16 x x 36 H $0 $0 $0 $66,000,000 X 1 Waste Sludge Thickeners(DAFT) Pump Room x x x 15 M/H $840,000 $0 $840,000 $4,000,000 X-043 26 Solids Storage Facility x x 15 M $20,000 $0 $20,000 $29,540,000 X 28 Warehouse Building x x x 15 L/M $690,000 $0 $690,000 $2,739,000 X 19 Digester 9-10 x x 12 M $0 $0 $0 $22,000,000 X 29 Shop Building x x 12 M $280,000 $0 $280,000 $1,956,000 X 3 Plant Water Pump Station&Power Building 6 x x x 10 M/H $420,000 $0 $420,000 $6,760,000 X-039 4 City Water Pump Station x x x 30 H $600,000 $860,000 $1,460,000 $5,030,000 X-038 7 Power Building x x 10 H $250,000 $500,000 $750,000 $10,941,000 X 22 Digesters 11-14 Pump Room x x x 10 M $1,080,000 $0 $1,080,000 $14,650,000 X 23 Digesters 15-16 Pump Room x x 10 M $420,000 $0 $420,000 $7,322,000 X 25 Effluent Junction Box x x 10 L $0 $0 $0 $2,012,000 X 33 PEDB2 x x 10 M $0 $680,000 $680,000 $4,585,000 X 6 Power Building x x 8 M 220,000 0 220,000 $5,382,000 X 16 Digester x x 7.2 M $0 $0 $0 $10,150,000 X 18 Digester x x 7.2 M $0 $0 $0 $10,150,000 X 5 Power Building x x x x 6 M $390,000 $2,000,000 $2,390,000 $6,236,000 X ? 14 Digester 5&6 Pump Room x x x 6 L M $200,000 $920,000 $1,120,000 $6,764,000 X 17 Digester 7&8 Pump Room x x x 6 M $250,000 $0 $250,000 $6,764,000 X 20 Digester 9-10 Pump Room x x x 6 L/M $340,000 $0 $340,000 $7,322,000 X 24 Gas Holder x x 2.4 M/H $140,000 $0 $140,000 $454,000 J-124 ? 11 Aeration Basins 1-10 x x x 0 NA $0 $0 $0 $219,336,000 X 13 Digester x x 0 M $0 $0 $0 $10,150,000 X is Digester x x 0 L $0 $0 $0 $10,150,000 X 27 Chiller Building x x x 0 NA $0 $0 $0 $682,000 X Notes: Subtotal $19,200,DD0 $4,800,000 $24,000,D00 $1,021,000,000 1. Requires lateral spread mitigation.Total LS mitigation cost for Plant 1 is$33M. Global LS mitigation NA $33,000,000 $33,000,000 NA 2.Structure-specific geotechnical mitigation costs exclude regional lateral spread mitigation. Total $19,200,0D0 $37,800,DD0 $57,000,0D0 $1,021,000,000 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 694 Plant 2-Risk Ranking Cost Information Recommendations(Draft( Control.Failure Controlling Consequence Z a 01 Geotechnical Address with Mitigate with Structure Structure Name GS DS LS ,�° E E c E Overall v Structural Mitigation Total Facility Value No Project, Previously New Project Replace Number i m c L RoSF .o Mitigation Cost Cos[' Mitigation Cast Lo5F=0 Planned Identified in Facility r o, ;� i u Project TM3 23 Surge Tower No. I x x 25 H $0 $0 $0 $18,300,000 x 29 Ocean Outfall Booster Pump Station x x 25 M/H $1,660,000 $1,560,000 $3,220,000 $109,650,000 X' 27 1 Maintenance Building x x 25 M/H $3,430,000 $8,070,0001 $11,500,000 $9,489,000 x 5 IPEPS&MAC x x 20 M $0 $4,190,000 $4,190,000 $55,609,000 X-052' 6 Operations/Control Center x x 20 H $2,000,000 $3,660,000 $5,660,000 $21,312,000 X-008 7 12 kV Service Center x x 20 H $780,000 $1,630,000 $2,410,000 $42,100,000 X-047 17 Central Power Generation Building x x 20 H $4,240,000 $0 $4,240,000 $330,240,000 P2-119 18 Aeration Basins A-H x x x 20 M $0 $20,120,000 $20,120,000 $222,436,000 X-050 21 DAFTs A-C x x 35 M $0 $2,490,000 $2,490,000 $16,332,531 X 22 DAFT D x x x 35 M $40,000 $970,000 $1,010,000 $3,629,451 X 24 Surge Tower No.2 x x 15 M $0 $0 $0 $18,300,000 X' 20 Secondary Clarifiers A-L x x x 12 H $0 $18,810,000 $18,810,000 $222,436,000 X-051 9 lPower Building x x 10 M/H $280,000 $1,740,000 $2,020,000 $4,360,500 X-???' 10 Power Building D x x 30 H $670,000 $o $670,000 $3,947,400 X 14 Headworks Power Bldg A x x 10 M $60,000 $1,410,000 $1,470,000 $5,062,500 X 30 12 kV Distribution Center A x x 10 H $670,000 $2,660,000 $3,330,000 $8,717,000 X-???' 3 RAS PS East x x x 9.6 L/M $180,000 $1,310,000 $1,490,000 $27,804,000 X-052 4 RAS PS West x x x 9.6 L/M $180,000 $1,580,000 $1,760,000 $27,804,000 X-052 1 DAFT A-C Gallery x x 9 M $0 $3,190,000 $3,190,000 $5,444,177 X? 11 City Water Pump Station x x 8 M $740,0001 $2,680,000 $3,420,0001 $8,629,000 X-036 13 12 kV Distribution Center D x x 8 M $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,520,450 X ? 15 Headworks Power Bldg B x x 8 M $130,000 $1,620,000 $1,750,000 $5,062,500 X ? 16 Headworks Standby Power Building x x 8 M $130,000 $1,970,000 $2,100,000 $5,971,050 X 2 DAFT D Gallery and WSSPS x x 6 M $0 $o $0 $3,629,451 X' 12 12 kV Distribution Center B x x 6 M $0 $2,710,000 $2,710,000 $9,685,900 X' 19 Gas Holder x x 2.4 H $50,000 $0 $50,000 $600,000 J-124 8 Power Building B x x 0 NA $0 50 $0 $5,062,500 X 26 Truck Loading i x I I I x 0 NA $0 $0 $0 $27,300,000 X 28 Boiler Building x x x 0 NA $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 X Notes: Subtotal $15,200,000 $74,500,000 $89,800,000 $1,222,000,000 1. Requires lateral spread mitigation.Total LS mitigation cost for Plant 2 is$80M. Global LS mitigation NA $80,000,000 $80,000,000 NA Total LS mitigation cost for only Plant 2 structures included in study is$17M. Total $15,200,000 $154,500,000 $169,800,000 $1,222,000,000 2.5tructure-specific geotechnical mitigation costs exclude regional lateral spread mitigation. PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C efl5 TM4 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES Orange County AT - PLANTS 1 & 2 , Sanitation District PRESENTED BY: i gran G,eosyntec tea JANUARY 9, 2019 = % a ,Y 4 ' r. Agenda • Introductions/Safety Moment • TM4 Overview • Cost estimating process • Review of: • Risk rankings • Mitigation costs • Project recommendations Orange County Sanitation District PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 687 Safety Moment - EQ Early Warning • Shake Alert LA — now available ...•. � � mwwim.arwr.a.r,u- ter. o lm Apr w w s — a e m 3 a s it uT o Orange County Sanitation Disbict 3 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 688 Safety Moment - EQ Early Warning • How does it work? • Potential to provide a few seconds of warning of damaging shaking Darty� • Sensors posowned about 6-12 mikes apart EpKente • (damaging Alert - 186,000 Orange County Sanitation District 4 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 689 ty EQ ly • • • Warning benefits?What are the • Alerts to Take cover • Shut down equipment • Start backup systems RIM Sensor Field Telemetry Processing Alert Delivery User Actions Networks Alert Creation PRIM f � ®9 Orange 0 Meeting Objectives • Gather OCSD input on PS 15-06 Project Recommendations Ak MWOrange County Sanitation Disbict PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 691 Role of TM4 in Overall Scope • Seismic Risk Rankings (Likelihood and Consequence) • Cost Estimates for Mitigations • Seismic Project Recommendations • Presentation of Project Report Alk MWOrange County Sanitation Disbict PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 692 Discussion of Costing Approach • Review Spreadsheets • Discussion Ak MW Orange County Sanitation Disbict 8 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 693 Seismic Vulnerabilities Risk Ranking • RoSF = LoSF x CoSF • RoSF — Risk of Seismic Failure • LoSF — Likelihood of Seismic Failure • CoSF — Consequence of Seismic Failure • Projects sorted from highest RoSF to lowest Orange County Sanitation Doti I PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 694 Discussion of Project Recommendations • Risk rankings • Mitigation costs • Project recommendations Ak MW Orange County Sanitation Disbict 10 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 695 Plant 1 -Geotech Mitigation Recommendations d (S ,80ecant Pile Wall — Lateral pread Mitigation _ I TO Z3 20 LF �..ost " $33 million sex p:. i LEGEND - � l / `%IBIf O11ECCMIEM®UT61K SR6ID urtlGilON (M11G1NYl A14V) r. L ■ MO UlE1Vl FARM ME:SUIEYMJ�T1011 p1 �� ///�( YTTIlEMY1NdTpN flEQ119E0 ��. . w^ /, 1` UT@IK EMfMR1ES"iUNE N11GTp11 CI Lr'. / REQMIm�YRIGTKN n Fri //F ■ 5'ET1lE�EMYIM'.�TgH REGrREO `•J �� M�Ml10NlI.M) „ //�/ El A mA�sanernnw�a� 14 186 11 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 696 Plant 2-Geotech Mitigation Recommendations Secant Pile Wall — Lateral Nt zli Spread Mitigation —6,700 LF Cost $80 million z 2-1 A ' _ x, Lllrrr _ � LEGEND SEWN RIHf IB01MNv tl F%1p1f OF IEW-BIEDIAIBtK SGIEM � VfK#1K�I PRKMTIW/11 e �Ydl , xOUIBUL FNtMPfE55lf8wfK+LT�OM CQ uiew FirC) NfICMTNHxEDufID � /.• ■ s=rnae�rurc.�nax rso� M�D'�na�etaT I P uEwnHNossmae�r /,' ■ Mlltl.Mn1EG��ICOBINMH6MM.�nWO AMC I � /,• � O Iq 51F11LT11NL EVKWlNN P0S4'OED /•' ure+K�noKnrrnw rxow� 12 PS15 06 TM4 Appendix c 697 D iscussion Orange County Sanitation Disbict 13 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 698 Thank You '. Orange County Sanitation Disbict 14 PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix C 699