HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8_Seismic Evaluation - Volume 2 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
Pi cpnred bv:
Geosyntec
consultants
engineers I scientists Iinnovators
2100 Main Street, Suite 150
Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Telephone: (714)969-0800
Fax(714)969-0820
w .geosyntec.conn
In Association with.
c'I
Engineers...Working Wonders With Water®
Infra• erra
Project Number:HL1635
July 19,2019
Volume 2
Geosyntec°
COMUI rs
APPENDIX D
Seismic Evaluation Criteria
HL1635TS15-06 Qeosy tec F oject Repo -FINAL 9119/2019
Prepared for:
Orange County Sanitation District
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, CA 92708-7018
(714) 593-7803
Excerpt From Technical Memorandum 1
PSI 5-06 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
In Association with:
C Ca0.,M104%
Engineers...Working Wonders With Wafers
Infra• erra
Project Number: HL1635
Revised August 14,2018 (Originally Issued October 31,2017)
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix D 1
Geosynte&
consultants
4.3.2 Seismic Evaluation Criteria
Defining the seismic evaluation criteria is the first step in the evaluation process. It sets
the stage for the execution of the evaluation work. This step involves the selection of a
performance objective, definition of building performance levels, and the definition of
the seismic hazard levels. The proposed evaluation criteria are summarized in Table 4.1.
The purpose of the PS15-06 project is to establish an understanding of seismic risk and
develop mitigation options that reduce the overall risk. The mitigation options, together
with the associated retrofits, will help the District make risk-informed decisions for the
implementation of the mitigation projects, and incorporation of these projects within the
Facilities Master Plan (FMP). Therefore, the general approach for the PS 15-06 project is
to use a performance-based assessment methodology(and not a code compliance check)
that uses rational engineering concepts, which may or may not strictly meet specific
design code and evaluation standard requirements.
The ASCE 41-13 evaluation standard is selected as the overall methodology for this
project. The ASCE 41-13 specifically addresses building structures and will be applied
directly for the assessment of building structures. Although the assessment methodology
for liquid-containing structures is not explicitly included in ASCE41-13, the conceptual
methodology from the standard can be applied to such structures.This performance-based
assessment methodology, supplemented by ACI 350.3 (for reinforced concrete liquid-
containing structures) and API 650(for the steel gas holders),will be applied.
4.3.2.1 Performance Objective
The structures to be evaluated are categorized as being either Class I or Class II,according
to their operational criticality. The following is a description of the facility classes used
in this evaluation:
• Class I: Structures that are essential to the maintenance of wastewater flow and
treatment. Loss of service would create a major impact on OCSD's ability to
operate the treatment plant.Damage to these structures can also result in a health
hazard to the public with sewage back-up or spillage. Structural repairs should
be minor and not inhibit the occupancy or use of the structure.
• Class II: Structures that are not directly necessary for maintaining wastewater
flow through the system. Loss of service would not result in immediate
wastewater back-up or spillage. Repairs can be deferred.
111,I635PS15-06 Geox nm TMl Secfioe L3.2 5/13/2019
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix D 2
Geosynte&
consultants
The building code uses risk categorization to distinguish criticality. While the building
code is not being applied for this evaluation, for the sake of comparison, the Class I
structures would be considered to be Risk Category W, and Class II structures would be
considered to be Risk Category II, according to the definitions set forth in the 2016
California Building Code (current building code). A summary of each structure's Class
and Risk Category is provided in Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 for Plant 1 and Plant 2,
respectively.
ASCE41-13 has a two-fold performance objective that establishes building performance
levels for different seismic hazards. For example, a typical two-fold performance
objective for a critical building might be meeting the immediate occupancy performance
level for the 225-year return period earthquake ground motions and meeting the life safety
performance level for the 975-year return period earthquake ground motions. Similarly,
the two-fold performance objective for liquid-containing structures is prevention of
leakage for the 225-year return period ground motions, and collapse prevention or
repairable damage performance level for the 975-year return period ground motions.
Selection of a performance objective establishes the building performance levels and the
seismic hazard levels that will be applied in the evaluation for each structure, as shown
in Table 4-1.
Section 9.4 of ACI 350.3 includes an importance factor(I)for liquid-containing structures
to incorporate conservatism depending on use. For example, I= 1.5 is required for tanks
containing hazardous materials, I = 1.25 for tanks for post-earthquake emergency, and
I= 1.0 for all other tanks. For liquid-containing structures included in this study,
consideration to the importance of the structure will be included in the incorporation of
projects in the FMP. Therefore, I = 1.0 will be used for the seismic assessment of such
structures.Consideration to performance objectives such as crack control will be included
in the over-strength and inelastic energy absorption factors (m-factors in ASCE 41-13).
4.3.2.2 Building Performance Levels
Building performance levels include both structural and non-structural perfomlance
levels. The structural performance levels defined in ASCE 41-13 are as follows:
• S-1: Immediate Occupancy;
• S-2: Damage Control;
• S-3: Life Safety;
• S4: Limited Safety; and
• S-5: Collapse Prevention.
1U,I635PS15-06 Geox nm TMl Secfioe L32 5/13/2019
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix D 3
Geosynte&
consultants
A qualitative description of the post-earthquake damage patterns for the various structural
performance levels for a selection of a few of the seismic-force resisting systems pertinent
to the study are provided in Table 4.4.
Non-structural performance levels defined in ASCE 41-13 are as follows:
• N-A: Operational;
• N-B: Position Retention;
• N-C: Life Safety; and
• N-D:Not considered.
The scope of the seismic evaluation includes a determination of whether the subject
structures meet their prescribed structural performance levels for the defined hazard level
and whether the nonstructural performance level for a limited set of nonstructural
components is met. Those nonstructural components are limited to the following
appurtenances:
• Parapets;
• Ornaments;
• Facades; and
• Cantilevered overhangs or canopies.
While other nonstructural components, such as ceilings, pipe supports, and equipment
supports are not being evaluated as part of this study in themselves, their contribution to
the seismic load and effect on the seismic performance of the structures is being
accounted for.For example,the dead load of equipment will contribute to the lateral load
demand applied to the structure or a relatively flexible piece of equipment that is
sufficiently rigid and heavy may impart impact loads to a building wall. Such effects will
be considered in the evaluation of the structures.
4.3.2.3 Seismic Hazard Level
Earthquake ground motion levels BSE-lE and BSE-2E,which represent 20%probability
of exceedance in 50 years (equivalent return period of 225 years) and 5%probability of
exceedance in 50 years(equivalent return period of 975 years),respectively,will be used
for the assessment of all structures included in this study. The use of a consistent hazard
level for the assessment of all plant structures included in this study will provide a
consistent assessment for risk reduction. For a more detailed discussion regarding the
seismic hazard levels considered for this evaluation,refer to Section 2.1.2 of this report.
H1,I635PS15-06 Geox nm TMl Secfioe L32 5/13/2019
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix D 4
GeosyntecO
consultants
4.3.2.4 Liquid Containing Structures Performance Levels
The selected performance levels for liquid containing structures are also presented in
Table 4-1. As performance levels for liquid containing structures are not identified in
ASCE 41-13, descriptions of these performance levels were developed and are presented
below.
• Seismic Hazard Level BSE-1 E—20%in 50 Years
Structural Performance Level—Immediate Occupancy: This performance level is
similar to Immediate Occupancy Structural Performance Level (S-1) of ASCE
41-13. This performance level means that post-earthquake damage is minor. The
structure maintains most of its pre-earthquake strength and stiffness and its
primary function of water retention. Although some post-earthquake repair might
be needed, these repairs would not be such as to prevent the primary function of
the structure.
Non-Structural Performance Level—Position Retention: This performance level
is similar to the Position Retention performance level as described in ASCE
41-13. This performance level means that in the post-earthquake damage state
damage to piping and mechanical systems is such that they cannot immediately
function. However, damage is such that primary objective of water retention is
maintained (for example, flexible piping connection or valves). The overall
impact of damage to piping and mechanical systems is not being addressed as part
of this study.
• Seismic Hazard Level BSE-2E—5% in 50 Years
Structural Performance Level—Life Safety: This performance level is generally
similar to the Enhanced Safety Structural Performance Range of ASCE 41-13 and
refers to a damage state between Immediate Occupancy Structural Performance
Level and Life Safety Structural Performance Level (closer to Life Safety
Performance Level). This performance level means that in the post-earthquake
state there is significant damage to the structure,which could result in significant
leakage,but the damage is not such that it results in complete loss of containment.
Post-earthquake damage may need immediate attention (reduction in water level
and crack repair) to minimize environmental impact from significant release of
wastewater.However,damage is not such that the structure is at a risk of imminent
collapse.
1U,I635PS15-06 Geox nm ThIl Secfioe L32 5/13/2019
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix D 5
Geosyntec°
consultants
Non-Structural Performance Level — Not Considered: At the BSE-2E seismic
level there could be substantial damage to piping and wastewater conveyance
systems. The overall impact of damage to piping and mechanical systems is not
being addressed as pan of this study.
HLI635PS15-06 Geox nmT 1Secfioe L32 5/13/2019
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix D 6
Geosyntec°
consuls m
TABLES
HL163SPS15-06 G�syetec TMI Sxtiou 1.3.2 5/13/2019
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix D 7
Table 4.1. Seismic Evaluation Criteria
OCSD PS15-06
Huntington Beach, California
Non-structural Performance
Structure Type Class Seismic Hazard Level Structural Performance Level Level
BSE-IE(20%in 50 yrs) Immediate Occupancy(S-1) Position Retention(N-B)
Building I BSE-2E(5%in 50 yrs) Life Safety(S3) Not considered(N-D)
BSE-IE(20%in 50 yrs) Life Safety(S-3) Life Safety(N-C)
Building II n
BSE-2E(5%in 50 yrs) Collapse Prevention(S-5) Not considered(N-D)
Non-building(liquid- I BSE-lE(20%in 50 yrs) Immediate Occupancy(S-1) Position Retention(N-B)
containing structures) BSE-2E(5%in 50 yrs) Life Safety(S-3) Not considered(N-D)
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix D 8
Table 4.2.Structure Classes for Plant Iu)
OCSD PS1"6
Fountain Valley,California
ID Number Structure Name Plant Structure Groupl8 Class Risk Category
1-1 Waste Sludge Thickeners(DAFT)Pump Room 1 B I IV
1-2 Blower Building(AS 1)and PEPS 1 B I IV
1-3 Plant Water Pump Station and Power Building 6 1 B I IV
1-4 City Water Pump Station 1 B I N
1-5 Power Building 1 B I N
1-6 Power Building 1 B I IV
1-7 Power Building 1 B I IV
1-8 lControl Center 1 I B i I IV
1-9 12 kV Service Center 1 B I N
1-10 Central Power Generation Building 1 B I IV
1-11 Aeration Basins 1-10 1 LCS I IV
1-12 Secondary Clarifiers 1-26 1 LCS I IV
1-13 Digester 5 1 LCS I N
1-14 Digester 5 Pump Room 1 B I IV
1-15 Digester 1 LCS I IV
1-16 Digester 1 LCS I IV
1-17 Digester 7 Pump Room 1 B I IV
1-18 IDigeater8 1 1 LCS I I IV
1-19 Digester9-10 1 LCS I IV
1-20 Digester 9-10 Pump Room 1 B I IV
1-21 Digesters 11-16 1 LCS I N
1-22 Digesters 11-16 Pump Room l 1 B I IV
1-23 Digesters 11-16 Pmnp Room 2 1 B I IV
1-24 Gas Holder 1 GST I IV
1-25 Effluent]unction Box 1 LCS I N
1-26 Solids Storage Facility 1 B B H
1-27 Chiller Building 1 B H H
1-28 lWarchouse Building 1 I B I Il I H
1-29 Shop Building A 1 B B H
1-30 Shop Building B and Building 3 1 B B H
1-31 Buildings 5 and 6 1 B H H
1-32 Auto Shop 1 B H H
1-33 PEDB2 t LCS I N
1.34 Central Laboratory 1 B I N
NOTES: ID Table was updated after the issuance of Technical Memorandum 1.
I21 Structure Groups are as follows:
B—Building
LCS=Liquid-Containing Structure
GST=Gas Storage Tank
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix D 9
Table 4.3.Structure Classes for Plant 2io
OCSD PS15-06
Huntington Beach,California
ID Number Structure Name Plant Structure Groupto Class Risk Category
2-1 DAFT A,B,&C Gallery 2 B I IV
2-2 DAFT Gallery&WSSPS 2 LCS I IV
2-3 RASPS East 2 B I IV
2-4 RASPSWest 2 B I IV
2-5 PEPS&MAC 2 B I IV
2-6 Operations/Connol Center Bldg 2 B I IV
2-7 12 kV Service Center 2 B I IV
2-8 1 Power Building B 2 1 B I 1V
2-9 Power Building 2 B I IV
2-10 Power Building 2 B I IV
2-11 City Water Pump Station 2 B I IV
2-12 12 kV Distribution Center B 2 B I IV
2-13 12 kV Distribution Center D 2 B I IV
2-14 Headworks Power Bldg A 2 B I IV
2-15 Headworks Power Bldg B 2 B I IV
2-16 Headworks Standby Power Building 2 B I IV
2-17 Central Power Generation Building 2 B I IV
2-18 Aeration Basins A-H 2 LCS I IV
2-19 Gas Holder 2 GST I IV
2-20 Secondary Clarifiers A-L 2 LCS I 1V
2-21 DAFTs A-C 2 LCS I IV
2-22 DAFT 2 LCS I IV
2-23 Surge Tower No. 1 2 LCS I IV
2-24 Surge Tower No.2 2 LCS I IV
2-25 NOT USED 2
2-26 Track Loading 2 B/LCS II II
2-27 Maintenance Building 2 B II II
2-28 Boiler Building 2 B D II
2-29 OOBS 2 B I IV
2-30 12kVDisuibution CenterA 2 B I IV
2.31 SESB-Geotechnical Only 2 LCS I IV
2-32 .1BC-Geotechnical Only 2 LCS I IV
NOTES: o>Table was updated after the issuance of Technical Memorandum 1.
1�1 Structure Groups are as follows:
B=Building
LCS=Liquid-Containing Structure
GST=Gas Storage Tank
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix D 10
Geosyntec P
Table 4.4.Structural Performance Levels and Illustrative Damage CO14i1�"u
OCSD PS15-06
Huntington Beach,California
Seismie Force Resisting Structural Performance Levels
System Type Collapse Prevention(S-5) Life Safety(S-3) Immediate Occupancy(S-1)
Major flexural or shear cracks and voids. Some boundary element cracking and
Sliding at joints.Extensive crushing and spalling and limited buckling of
Concrete Walls Primary elements buckling of reinforcement.Severe reinforcement.Some sliding atjoints. Minor diagonal cracking of walls.
boundary element damage. Damage around openings.Some
crushing and flexural cracking.
Transient drift sufficient m cause Transient drift sufficient to cause Transient drift that causes minor or no
Drift extensive nonstructural damage. nonstructural damage.Noticeable nonstructural damage.Negilgilbe
Extensive permanent drift. permanent drift, permanent drift.
Crushing;extensive cracking.Damage Major cracking distributed throughout
Reinforced Masonry Walls Primary elements around openings and at comers.Some wall Some isolated crushing. Minor cracking.No out-of-plane offsets.
fallen units.
Transient drift sufficient to cause Transient drift sufficient to cause Transient drift that causes minor or no
Drift extensive nonstructural damage. nonstructural damage.Noticeable nonstructural damage.Negilgilbe
Extensive permanent drift. permanent drift. pemaament drift.
L crashing and spalling at wall
Precast Concrete Walls Primary elements Some wall connection failures,but no ocal connections,but no gross failure of Minor working and cracking at
wall elements dislodged. connections.
convactiove.
Transient drift sufficient m cause Transient drift sufficient to cause Transient drift that causes minor or no
Drift extensive nonstructural damage. nonstructural damage.Noticeable nonstructural damage.Negilgilbe
Extensive permanent drift, permanent drift, permanent drift.
Significant settlement and tilting of Localized settlement of buildings with
Foundations General buildings with shallow foundations or shallow foundations. Minor settlement and neglibilble tilting.
buildings on liquefiable soils.
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix D 11
Geosyntec°
COMUI rs
APPENDIX E
Structure Summary Sheets
HL1635TS15-06 Qeosy tec F oject Repo -FINAL 9119/2019
AdMIL ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
111111WSEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
WASTE SLUDGE THICKENERS (DAFT) PUMP ROOM
PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTU RE TYPE
i 1 1 1 IV BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type:Basement at 11.33'elev.(17.67'embedment);driven—PPC piles
(12"50,50'total)
Structure Dimensions:150 ft x 64 IT1-26
g of Stories:l above grade,l below grade tit
Date of Original Construction:1973
Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 1994
Projects:PI-16,PI-36-2
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report i.
®Specifications ❑Other
aeohazards and seismicity ]12
I—i 3 I
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) LJ
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High j
HHWLs AWLa.z Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 7 to 8 7 to 8
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 31 to 56 27 to 46
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 15 to 27 13 to 22
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(9)s Dist(ImI ___
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 : -sand/sutysand __
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 c a
a eiaywimn1';
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) #
BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 s sand/s I ysa�
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 ' ^e:
Notes:1.Historic With Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,4.Approximate ' sand/silty sand
distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelemtionsfar Site Class D,6.Selected -
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Schematic Cross Section
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and eSE-2E seismic ground motions.
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5ft-bgs +24ft-MSL
AWL 13ft-bgs +16ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):Digester 16
PFM and Descriptions Tire Assessment Results
PFM 2:Wall anchorage to the roof at east Check of the eave beam to span horizontally across the width of the building.The
and west walls of the north building TI actual roof connections will have DCR's>1.0. It is recommended that wall
anchorage be added to the east and west walls.
PRIM 3:Roof diaphragm shear at the north Excessive shear demands at the north building,which has a 4.5-inch deep steel
building T2 deck(low shear capacity).
PRIM 4:Discontinuous shear walls at the
Interior of the south building in the north- The transverse CMU walls at grid lines 4 and 5 of the north building and walls at
south direction(@ grid lines 3 and 5) TI grid lines 3 and 5 of the south building are discontinuous.Provide ties to adjacent
concrete walls that occur between grids C and D.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15.06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 1
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 a 2
PFM 7:Bending/shear failure of piles due 23.3"(estimate of spread at pile head)lateral spread toward the Santa Ana River.
to lateral spread(surface PGD=27-inches) Tl/2 DCR is the near pile top displacement over pile top displacement at yield(3.5").
Noted I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)thotmeet both the ELSE IF and ESE-2Eperformonce objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteq 2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.TI=Tlerl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier2
(equivalent to ASCE41-130 rienry-eased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),17I/172=Application ofTier3 exemplar
results to o subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosynteq 2019)for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigations CosP Comments
PFM 7:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
70%(surface PGD=8-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 2:Standard Structural Mitigation Al $150,000 N/A
PFM 3:Standard Structural Mitigation Bl $560,000 Existing roof deck is 4.5-inch deep diaphragm with
no concrete topping.Replace entire roof
diaphragm.
PFM 4:Provide steel beam or channel tics for the full width of the $130,000 N/A
building(40-ft)that are epoxied into the bottom side of the first
floor to drag loads into the existing shear walls between grid lines C
and D.
otal Geolachnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $840,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3)
Notes:1.Refer to TAU(Geosynteq 2019)for descriptions ofStandard Geotechnical and Stmctuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Gass
S'Order of estimates,intended forplonning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to Trivial
(Geosynteq 2019)for additional detail.
risk ranking Riskof Seismic Failure
s
Controlling Failure Tvoe(sh •Other Plant 1 Structures Intluded m
PS 15-065tudy
®Ground Shaking ` • *1-1 Waste Sludge Thickeners(DAFF)
❑ Differential Settlement t
® Lateral Spread Pump Room
r 3 • • • Abbreviadons:
Controlling[onsepuencelsl: .E LaSF=Likelihood ufSeismic Failure
® life Safety ❑Primary Treatment 'n CoSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure
El Regulatory El Stakeholder 2 pbµ Ri Rlskof Seismic Fallure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact 8 4Likelihood P PSe parma-manct,designated either),.,b tween'I"
1 `PJ • perfarmahood) ed '5'orbetween"od
Risk Ranking: � (low likelihood)and `5"(high likelihood)
LOSF Rating: 5
COSF,Weighted Score: 3 nseoaesrankedbetween Ina
0 identified
con (hi
entified consequence(and"5"(high
Overall RoSF=LoSFZCoSF= 15 0 1 2 3 A s consequence)
consequence of Seismic Failure(CoSFI
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date:X-043(07/01/2029)
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15,06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 2
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 A 2
BLOWER BUILDING (ASS) AND PEPS I "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTU RE TYPE
1-2 1 1 IV BUILDING ^frl
class based performance objectives — 4
Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type:Basement at14.1T elev.(13.33'embedment);driven—PPC piles
(12"50,50'total)
Structure Dimensions:201 IT x 66 IT -,1 1-17
Date of Original
al ove Contradtion:1ow grade O . Ior:
Date of Original Construction:1973 (�—�
Retrofit(H any):Remodeled in 1993,1995,and 1998;1998:Strengthening of roof-to-
wall anchorage at the north and south walls of the PEPS roof,lateral bracing of a
raised concrete platform at PEPS,and connection of the precast wall panels. 1-33
Projects:PI-16/PI-36-1/PI-36-2/PI-44-4 0 , `
1
Available Information: ®Coastal Drawings ®Geotechnical Report `26
®Specifications El Other
1-11 I
Aeohazards and seismicity )
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Plan View
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High
HHWL2 AWL2.7
Surface Settlement(inches) 6 to 10 5 to 7
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 10 to 25 6 to 15
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 8to 19 5to 11 y .pa„a[socv saga
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)3 Dist(lane its
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 , clay wild sw seam
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 MI
ay S-d y5a pies
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) St(9) i I ■
BSE-1E 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 Sand/silty Sand
BSE-2E7 5%1n 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 ss
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,;4.Approximate Schematic Gross Section
distance to center of plant S.probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Gass D;6.Selected
us largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
de)ormation inputs to structural analysis based on A Wit and eSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL 5R-bgs +22.5 R-MSL
AWL 11.5ft-bgs +16tl
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):Digester 16
PFM and Desclptiont Thra Assessment Results
PFM 2:Wall l anchorage to the roof at Check of the W33x connections at pilasters(10 locations).Transfer of wall anchorage
the north and south walls of the T1 force relies on a I"weld(not clear what kind of weld)every 12 inches. For
Blower Building mitigation,it is assumed the load path in the diaphragm is deficient as well.
PFM 3:Wall anchorage W the roof at The north and south walls of PEPS were retrofit as part of the PS-44-4 project(22
the north and south walls of the PEPS TI locations).
Building
PFM 4:Wall anchorage to the roof at
the east and west walls of the PEPS Check of the W27x connections at pilasters(4 locations).Transfer of loads into the
Building T1 diaphragm appear to be minimal.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS I5-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 3
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 At 2
PFM 5:Roof diaphragm shear T2 Excessive shear demands at the 7.5-inch deep steel deck(low shear capacity).
Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the ESE IF and ESE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM ;Geasymec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=Tier 1(equivalent to ASCE 01-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-130efirmacy-Rased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM=Application an Teri exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geoltechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation[ Costa Comments
PFM 2:Standard Structural MRigation A2(High) $650,000 W33x connections at pilasters(10 locations).
PFM3:stmdard Structural MRigation Al(AM) $400,000 Similar to Al without the supplemental roof
framing(22 locations).
PFM 4:Standard Structural MRigation A2(High) x connections at pilasters(41ocatinns).
PFM 5:Standard Structural MRigation Bl $80Q000 Existing roof deck is 7.5-inch deep steel deck
without any concrete topping.Applies over the
Blower Room only.
Mal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $2,100,000
Notes:1,gefer to TAM(Geasynteq 2019)for descriptions of5tandard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations,2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5"Order-of-Magnitude"estimates,intendedforplonning purposes only.
risk ranking Rik of Seismic Failure
5
Controlling Failure Tvpe(sl' ax •Other Plant 1 structures Included in
PS 15-M Study
®Ground Shaking - • *1-2 Blower Building(ASI)and PEPS
El Differential Settlement
❑ Lateral Spread P
S 3 • • AbbnWatiore:
Controlling Conseauencelsl: .E LaSF=Likelihood of5eismic Failure
❑ Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment CoSF=Consequence of Selsmlc Failure
®Regulatory El Stakeholder 62 py'F RoSF=Riskaf Seismic Failure
® Financial ❑Public Impact el le
Likelihood designated elther"0"(meats
' performance objective),or between"I"
Risk Ranking: 1 �e (lowlikellhood)and '5"(high likelihood)
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF,Weighted Some: 4 0 Conseauencea ranked between'1"(no
Overall RoSF=LoSF x Co5F= 20 ident...—,u,seouence)and"5"(high
0 1 2 3 4 5 consequence)
consequence of Seismic Failure(CeSF)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date:X-048(09/01/2023)
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15.06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 4
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
1111WSEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
PLANT WATER PUMP STATION AND POWER BLDG 6 : N
PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTU RE TYPE P�N
i 3 1 1 IV BUILDING ;�I
class based performance objectives r ��`
Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures '}• ��.
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and ■ 1Cm
operation are likely. `•i i ��i
!ZZ_
. 44
structural components � � I Z�
Foundation Type:Basement at 9'elev.(18.50'embedment);driven—PPC piles(12' -1 �i
50,52'total) -
Structure Dimensions:110 IT x 64IT
g of Stories:1 story
Date of Original Construction:1963 - 17
Retrofit(if any):N/A
Projects:PI-34-2 ,
Available Information: N Constitution Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report 1--12 1r-1-�-1-3
N Specifications ❑Other 1 Lj
aeohazards and seismicity I
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) • A7I,
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High
HHWLt AWLAz Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 6to7 4to5
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 44 to 72 18 to 22
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 26 to 42 11 to 13
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)s Dist(km)4 _-
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 ay saga/ 'tysa a
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
as w sul e
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) e
BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 1-1/siby saw
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 is ' ' r;iE,
Notes:1.Histadc High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate sand/I saI ,
distance to renter ofplant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for site class D;6.Selected ++
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Schematic Gross Section
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5ft-bgs +22.5 R-MSL
AWL 11.5ft-bgs +16R-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):Digester 16
PFM and Desciptions Tlerz Assessment Results
PFM 2:Wall anchorage to the roof at Roof beam anchorage at the east and west walls is subject to pullout of the anchors
east and west walls T1 at the tops of the pi lasters,wh ich ca n destabi lize the W24x94 roof beams l8
locations).
PFM 3:Drag connection at the re-
entrant corner
The W12x35 roof beam connection at the re-entrant corner is not detailed to resist
T1 the diaphragm reaction at the shear wall in the north-south direction.This is not
Life Safety check and the beam has bearing within the wall,so collapse of the beam is
not anticipated.
REVISED.6AWOL9 PS IS-06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 5
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 at 2
PFM 6:Bending/shear failure of piles 32"(estimate at pile head)lateral spread toward Santa Ana River.DCR is the near pile
due to lateral spread(surface PGD= T1/2 top displacement over pile top displacement at yield(3.5").
40-inches)
Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the RSE-IE and RSE-2Eperformonce objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1-Tlerl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),72-Tier2
(equivalent to ASCf 41-13 Defloenq-8ased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/r2-Application ofFer3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
mitieation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation[ Costt Comments
PFM 6:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
80%(surface PGD=8-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 2:Standard Structural Mitigation A2(Medium) $300,000 Wal I anchorage mitigation at W24x94 roof beams
IF locations).
PFM 3:Provision of a steel channel or similar shape that is epoxied $120,000 Assumes that existing steel beam connections to
into the 10 feet of the existing wall along grid line 2 and tied to the the north are adequate(6)%-inch diameter bolts
existing steel W12x35 with welded or bolted connections. intension.
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $420,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,see Note 3)
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnicaland Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates providedare AACEI Class
5'Order of estimates,intended forplanning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this stmctare relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to TM4
(Geosyntec,2019)far additional detail.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
s
Controlling Failure Tvoeisl: 0 Other Plant 1 Structures Included in
PS 15-06 Study
N Ground Shaking 4
❑ Differential Settlement *1-3 Plant Water Pump Station and
N Lateral Spread Power Bldg 6
LL 3 • Abbreviations:
[ontrollin¢Conseauencelsl: .E Lo9P=Likelihood of5etsmic Failure
N ❑fe Safety ❑Primary Treatment T [oSF=Consequence of 5eism(c Failure
❑Regulatory ❑ Stakeholder Is pVw Rai=Riskof Stismic Failure
El Financial El Public Impact n likelihood designated Oil horms
performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Ranking: 1 (lowlikelihood)and "5`(high likelihood)
LoSF Rating: 5 Conseouences ranked between"1"(no
CoSF,Weighted Score: 2 p
Overall RoSF=Lai x CoSF= 10 O 6 mnse annonfiedconsequenceland"5"(high
Consequence of Seismic Failure quenaal
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date:X-039(12/30/2033)
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15,06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 6
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
CITY WATER PUMP STATION "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
1-4 1 1 IV BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type:Shallow spread foundation at-grade
Structure Dimensions:62 fit x 40It
g of Stories:1 story
Date of Original Construction:1989
Retrofit(if any):N/A A r I —
Prolects:Pl-34-1
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report A
®Specifications ❑Other >. '�' 1-4
geohazards and seismicity �-I,v
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) --T-23 Imes
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High LL �.
HHW AWLa.z tms a
Surface Settlement(inches) 6to7 4to5 Plan View
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 44 to 72 18 to 22
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 26 to 42 11 to 13
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(III Dist(kmp „
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 spmaa mmmes
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 3wy sand — - -
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) a` clay/sore clay wbn
BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 Clay with moemedded sad seam:
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 silty sand
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Levels 3.Median PGA;4.Approximate
distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerotionsfor Site Class D;6.Seleded Clay with sand seams
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. Schematic Gross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Dental
HHWL 5ft-bgs +22.5 ft-MSL
AWL 11.5ft-lugs +16ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):N/A
PFM and Desviptionz Tierz Assessment Results
PFM 1:Footings move independent of Walls have no structural tie between the wall and the floor slab.Building wall can
the wall T1 move laterally toward the Santa Ana River relative to the rest of the building(204 ft).
PFM 3:Wall anchorage at east and TI Anchorage at W24x131 to pilasters(6 locations).
west walls
PFM 4:In plane shearat south pier T3 Primarily a ground shaking hazard.
between louvers
PFM 5:Out-of-plane horizontal Tier l found horizontal wall reinforcing was less than the minimum.Tier 3 findings
bending at east and west walls due to T3 confirmed that horizontal bending is a vulnerability at pilasters and wall comers IS
ground shaking locations).
PFM 6:Out-of-plane horizontal
bending in east and west walls due to T3 1.4"of differential settlement over 60 feet IF locations).
ground deformation
REVISED.6/28/2019 P515.06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 7
ORANGE COUNTY
OF Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
PFM 7:Tension failure in the CMU i3 1.4"of differential settlement over 60 feet.Failures occur at the top of the wall.
walls due to ground deformation Governing Pattern is transverse pattern with high point centered on building.
PFM B:Tension failure in the concrete i3 1.4"of differential settlement over 60 feet Failures occur at the top of the wall.
stem wall due to ground deformation Governing Pattern is transverse pattern with high point centered on building.
PFM 9:Lateral spread toward the 18"(near side)/11"(far side)lateral spread can pull apart the building east
Santa Ana River(surface FED=18- T1/2 wall/footing relative to the roof and the west wall because the floor slab is not tied to
inches) the wall/footing(204 ft).The slab has tensile strength to develop shear friction force
across the width of the building.
Note a 1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)thatmeet boM Me BSE-IE and BSE-2Eperformonce objectives have been omitted from the list.see Technical
Memamndum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,1019)for additional PFMs considered;2.TI=Tier 1(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),U=mY2
(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Pmcedure),T1/F1=Application ofrer3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structme.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 7&8:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $1,200,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by
at least 50%(3/4"in 60feet).Ground improvement for
settlement mitigation is required from 3 to 27 ft-bgs.
PFM 9:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 or per PFM 1 See Note 3 Mitigation required to reduce lateral spread by at least
50%(surface PGD=9-inches)or mitigate per PFM 1.
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost= Comments
PFM 1:Standard Structural Mitigation CS $95,000 Walls have no structural tie between the wall and floor
slab.Mitigation required for 204lineal feet.
PFM 3:Standard Structural Mitigation A2(Low) $160,000 Anchorage at W24x131 to pilasters(6 locations).
PFM 4:Strengthen the existing wall by addition of a concrete $130,000 N/A
overlay that is doweled into the interior face of the wall and
extended above the wall pier as required.Wall overlay may be
limited to 6 inches in thickness to accommodate one layer of
reinforcing.Shotcrate or form and pour in place are both viable
techniques.
__________--------------------------
PFM S&6:Standard Structural Mitigation D $205,000 To be applied at a spacing that reduces the horizontal
wall span by 50%.
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $1,790,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,see Note 3)
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of5tandard Geotechnical and5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided ore AACEI Class
5"Order-of-Magnitude'estimates,intendedforplanning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation ormitigateper
PFM 1.Refer to TM4(Geosynteq 2039)for additional detail.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
s
Controlling Failure Tvi lsl: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in
IS Ground Shaking PS 15S016 Study
IS Differential Settlement 4
*li City Water Pump Station
❑ Lateral Spread !
a • • • Abbre ball
[ontrolline Conseauencefsl: E loSF=likelihood of5eismic Failure
® Life Safety El Primary Treatment COSF=consequence of Selsandfallum
'f o
❑Regulatory ❑Stakeholder 8 1 1-Risk f SaIvmld allude
pw
El Financial El Public Impact 8 Pgp4 tikdimerldesignatedeither"01(meets
Yi1 `PJ performance adec0veLorbatwean"1"
Risk Ranking: (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
LOST Rating: 5
COSF,Weighted Store: 2 0 idenuouencesrankedbetween
Overt,ll ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 10 identiriedconsequenceland"5"(high
high
O Consequence of Seismic failure(Os i 6 mnsequencel
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date:X-038(12/30/2028)
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15.06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 8
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 A 2
POWER BUILDING 2 N
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
1-5 1 1 IV BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type:Tunnel at 22.33'elev.(5.57'embed);dropped spread footings y,�
Structure Dimensions:50.3 IT x 42 fit --
B of Stories:1 story v 1D13j
4 oei
Date of Original Construction:1963
Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 1973,1985,and 1996;Chord splices and steel braced 1-1$ 1-17� ioa.l
frames for the high roof. lozl
Projects:PI-9/PI-16/PI-22/PI-44-1 loll
20
Available Information: ®Constmction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report
®Specifications ❑Other
1�-226
aeohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) „
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High i
HHWLL AWLz.z Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 9 to 10 8 to 9
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 42 to 45 25 to 40
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 29 to 31 17 to 28
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)a Dist(km)" a sP,ead rnmmgs----
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 s Saud/sne;an4...........................
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 s
: ela
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(g) So(g) Ss IBI ss IBI * sand/snot'Sono
BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 >: sand/snry sand wah silty Day seams
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate +s sand/snry sand
distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected -ss
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hmood; 7. Ground Schematic Cross Section
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5ft-bgs +22.9 R-MSL
AWL 11.9ft-bgs +16ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):1-4 City Water Pump Station
PFM and Dewiptions Tlerz Assessment Results
PFM I:Walls/footing are not tied The walls can move independent of each other,which can result in structural
together T1 instability(408 feet).
PFM 2:Wal l anchorage at the north The original W12x27 beams are supported by steel columns in the masonry wa 11,
and south walls of the low roof T1 which are not tied into any reinforcing steel,so there is no load path for wall
anchorage(4 locations).
PFM 7:Tension failure in the CMU
walls due to ground deformation
T1/2 3"over 60 feet(214%of exemplar).Building is similar in size and has larger wall
openings,which exacerbates tension failure 1n the walls.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 9
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 At 2
25"of lateral spread toward the Santa Ana River.Dropped wall footings are subject to
PFM B:Lateral spread toward the high cantilevered bending.Stem wall has DCR>2.0.This action is considered force-
Santa Ana River due to liquefaction TI/2 controlled,so mitigation is required at any performance level.Also,walls have no ties
to the slab and separation can occur during spreading.
Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet bath the USE1E and BSE-2Epelformance objectives have been omftredfrom the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteq 2019)jar additional PFMs considered;2.T3=Rer1(eauivolent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),U=Tfer2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Defio,m,Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application ofTler3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosynteq 2019)for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost2 Comments
PFM 7:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $2,790,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by at least 75%(3/4"in 60 feet).
Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 6 to 47 ft-bgs.
PFM 8:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
70%(surface PGD=8-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigations COW Comments
PFM 1:Standard Structural Mitigation C1 $145,000 Mitigation required over length of 408 feet.
PFM 1:stmdard Structural MRigation Al(SIM) $245,000 New wall anchorage required at 4 locations where
the original W 12x27 beams are supported at the
CMU walls.Similar,with no additional roof
framing members required.
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $3,180,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,see Note 3)
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosynteq 2019)for descriptions of5tandard Geotechnical and5tructural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided ore AACEI Cross
5"Order-of-Magnftude"estimates,intendedforplonaing mantles only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on loteml spread mitigation.Refer to TM4
(Geosynteq 2019)for additional detail.
risk ranking Msk of Seismic Failure
s
Controlling Failure Tvoe(sl: •Other Plant I Structures Included in
®Ground Shaking '• PS I5-O6 Study
N Differential Settlement — *1-5 Power Building
N lateral Spread 8
'. 8 * • • Abbreviations:
Controlling Conseauencefsl• 'E LoSF=Likelihood!of Seismic Failure
N ❑f,Safety ❑Primary Treatment COSF=Consequence of Selsmlc Failure
El Regulatory El Stakeholder LZ pVv' RoSF=Risk pf Selsmlc Failure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact B �yd' Ukellhood designated elther"0"(meats
Tli1 `ed performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Ranking: (low likelihood)and m5"(high likelihood)
LOSF Rating: 3 Consequences ranked between"1"(no
Overall Weighted Score: 2 0
Overall RoSF=LoSFZCoSF= 6 consequence)
consequencelantl"5"(high
0 1 1 3 4 5 consequence)
Conspwnu of Saismlc Failure ICOSF)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15416
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 10
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
POWER BUILDING 4 N
,,r
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE p
1-6 1 1 IV BUILDING
class
s-
class based performance objectives �7
Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures - /
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely. t
3
structural components s sa` -
Foundation Type:Basement(partial)with tunnel at 15.50'elev.(13.00'embedment); ,sue,
dropped spread footings
Structure Dimensions:44 ft x 31.3 ft — i 34
g of Stories:1 story 1-27
Date of Original Construction:1985
Retrofit(if any):N/A
Projects:PI-22 1'8
Available Information: ®Constmctlon Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report � Li'
®Specifications ❑Other 1-
1-10 L
1-15
aeohazards and seismicity �1-24 ,L
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) 1-14
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High
HHl AVVL2,7 Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 5 to 6 3 to 5
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread
LateralSpread(far from river,inches) —No Lateral Spreadis
—
Determinlstic Fault Name M PGA(g)a Dist(lon)4 ep
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 is
ea:ement+Spread Footing:
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 is Irty5and
Ia III Sir an,sruy a ay
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) Sand
BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 silty silty s Say
BSE-2E7 5%1n 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes:1.Historic Nigh Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,4.Approximate wee Graded sand
distance to center of plant,S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D,'6.Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (yri to the hazard; 7. Ground Schematic Cross Section
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
Ground water Level Depth Elevation
ll 5 R-bgs +23.5 R-MSL
AWL 12.5 R-bgs ♦16 it
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):2-5 PEPS&MAC
PFM and Description' Tier' Assessment Results
PFM 3:Incomplete load path at the The north side of the high roof has no lateral load resisting elements to transfer shear
north side of the high roof diaphragm T1 forces down to the foundation.Steel bracing is required.Retrofit similar to Power
Building C at Plant 2 is recommended.
Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the BSE-IF and BSE-2Epetformance objectives have been omittedfrom the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4(7M4;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs consideal T1=TIer1(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),U=Tier2
(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Deficiency Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Per3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosynteg 20191 fin more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 11
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Costa Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costa Comments
PFM 3:Provide concentric X-braced frames at the existing louver $270,000 Mitigation required over length of 31 feet.
openings.Provide steel framed blocking at the roof level and weld Frames occur at 4 locations having bay sizes of
the roof deck to it Provide a new steel member sill and anchor to ft long x 5-ft tall.
the top of the existing masonry wall with epoxy anchors.
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $270,000
Notes:1.Refer to TALI d3easyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and5tructural Mitigations;2.Cast estimates romidedare"at Gass
5'Order of Magnitude"estimates,intended farplonning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
s
Controlling Failure Tvoelsl: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included'm
PS 15-06 Study
®Ground Shakinga4
❑ Differential Settlement Ili Power Building 4
❑ Lateral Spread
LL 3 • • Abbreviations:
[ontrollin¢Conseauencefsl: .E LuSF=Likelihood of5eismic Failure
® Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment COSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure
❑Regulatory ❑Stakeholder a pw RgsF=Riskof seismic Failure
El Financial El Public Impact i /.P Likelihood designated either"0"(meecs
c pedormance objertim),ru between'I'
Risk Ranking: is 1 (lowlikelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
LOSF Rating: 4
COSF,Weighted Score: 2 O 1 1 1
Consequences ranked between"1"(no
Overall RgSF=LoSFZCoSF= 8 identified cgnsequence)and"5"(high
O Consequence of Seismic failure(COSFI S mnsequenal
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 12
dill ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
POWER BUILDING 5 "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
1-7 1 1 IV BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and Stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type:Basement with mat foundation at 12.33'elev.(15.17'embedment)
Structure Dimensions:63.3 It x 40 ft _ - -
g of Stories:l storyL/
Date of Original Construction:1989
Retrofit(if any):N/A ,�.._/ 1 23
Projects:Pl-34-1 ioaal
16
Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report
N Specifications ❑Other foul
15
1-7 in
geohazards and seismicity 1-24
l2
b mlaJ
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) 1-14 loll
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High 1-17 (DID) 1
HHW1 8to 10 _ m21� I
Surface Settlement(Inches) 10 to ll 8to 10 Plan View
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 13 to 17 SO to 13
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 12 to 16 9 to 12
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)a Dist(larl is
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 11
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 s said/sury sand c with nos---
8,
Probabilistice Hazard Level Me PGA(9) Si Se(9) Sr(9) s Glaywah mm sit and sandy souayea
BSE-lE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 Clay
'a BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 Santl/5'Jly Sand
a Swill with Silty flay Seams
Notes. .o Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Seismic
Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate
distance to center of plant.S.Probabilistic SeismicAmelemtions for Site Class D,6.Selected s Santl/slug sane
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazmd; 7. Ground w
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. Schematic Gross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5ft-lugs +22.5 ft-MSL
AWL 11.5 it lugs ♦16 ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):2-5 PEPS&MAC
PFM and Description' Tier' Assessment Results
PFM 2:Wall anchorage at the east and Roof beam anchorage at east and west walls is subject to pullout of the anchors
west walls to the roof diaphragm TI at the tops of the pilasters,which can destabilize the W24x94 roof beams(8
locations).
PFM 5:Structure response to 2.7"of differential settlement over 60 feet.Differential settlement is nearly the same
differential settlement due to T1/2 as the exemplar.Walls have minimal amount of reinforcing steel and will likely
liquefaction experience high overstress due to tension stress.Also,Columns supporting the first
floor are subject to punching failure at the first floor.
Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes geli that meet both the ESE-IF and BSE-2Eperformance objectives have been amittedfrom the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteq 20191 additional PFMS considea l.T1=T(i(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=17 1
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Per3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS I506
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 13
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM S:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation 131 $1,170,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by 60%(1"in 60 feet).Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 12 to 46 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 2:Standard Structural Mitigation A2(Low) $220,000 Wall anchorage mitigation at W24x94 roof beams
(8 locations).
oral Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $1,390,000
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasynteo,2019)for descriptions o)Standard Geotechnical and Stmctuml Mitigations;2.Cost c'Notatesprovidedere AACEI Class
5"Order-Of Magnitude-estimates,intended forplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk ofSelsmic Failure
s
Controlling Failure Tvoe(sl: •Other Plant I Structures Included in
P515-W Study
19 Ground Shaking o4 •
❑ Differential Settlement *1-7 Power guiding 5
❑ Lateral Spread
u 3 • • 1 AabnWatlons:
Controlling Conseguence(s): E LoSF=Likelihood of5elsmlc Failure
® Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment ':, COSF=Consequence of Selsmlc Fsllure
El Regulatory El Stakeholder 92 pSt' ROSF=Risk of Seismic Failure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact °o �sd Likelihood designated either"0"(meets
e 1 `d • performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Ranking: (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
LaSF Rating: 5
COSF,Weighted Score: 2 0 Consequences ranked between'1"(no
Overall RoSF=LoSFZCoSF= 10 Identified consequence)and"5"(high
0 1 2 3 4 5 consequence)
Conseewn.of Seismic Failure(COSF)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 mil
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 14
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
CONTROL CENTER "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
1-8 1 1 IV BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type:Basement with mat foundation at 13.0(Y elev.(15.50'embedment)
Structure Dimensions:110 IT x 70 It -
g of stories;2 above grade,l below grade 1.29
Date of Original Construction:1997 Q) -
Retrofit(if any):N/A 1-4-1
Prolects:J-23-1 37 b,
Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report
N Specifications ❑Other1-6
r j j
8 M
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) W
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High 1 15
Hill AWLzz -
SurfaceSettlement(Inches) 5to6 3to5 Plan View
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread
LateralSpread(far from river,inches) —No Lateral Spread
DeterministicFault Name M PGA(gp Dist.(kmp 35
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 :: ----
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 ,: --- nasmrnt with Mac,__
slgsand
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) Sil Ss(9) Ss(9) =, saga�suoana suov.clav
BSE-1E 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 w
sshysand
y
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
" �siry slay
Notes:1.Histadc High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate
distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class 16.Selected n, Vila l graded sand
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>S%) to the hazard; 7. Ground ss
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and eSE-2E seismic ground motions. Schematic Gross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5ft-bgs +23.5 ft-MSL
AWL 12.5 R-bgs ♦16 it
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):2-5 PEPS&MAC
PFM and Desviptions Tlerz Assessment Results
PFM 2:Moment frame column The moment frame base plate connections have insufficient capacity to resist tension
anchorage is not adequate to resist T2 seismic forces.The weld of the column to the base plate and the base plate thickness
seismic tension demands were also found to be insufficient.
PFM 4:2-Floor diaphragm shear T1 The 2na floor diaphragm weld connections lack the capacity to develop the shear
transfer ca pacity of the dia ph ragm.
PFM 5:Moment frame connection Fra me con ions nect a re pre-N orth ridge.2m floor frame connections at 48 locations do
strength T2 not meet the performance requirements(only BSE IE was checked).BSE 2E will Ilkely
result in more frame locations that are deficient.
PFM 6:Moment frame panel zone Panel zone within me ment fra me joints l ack the shear capacity at R locations at the
shear strength T2 2na floor.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15.06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 15
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 a 2
Seven(7)beams(2 at the roof and 5 at the 2nd floor)have insufficient Flexural
PFM 10:Moment frame beam flexure T2 capacity to meet the 10 performance level because the beams are unbraced over
their span.
Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both Me BSE-IE and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=Tier 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-130eficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM=Application ofFer3 exemplar
results to o subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
mitieation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigations Costr Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 2,4-6,and 10:Provide steel concentric braced frames from $6,610,000 Braced frames required at 8 total bays over 2-
the roof level down to the first floor Braced frames should be either stories(16 frames).Will require interior demo and
chevron or X braces and may be comprised of tube steel or buckling restoration of interior finishes.
restrained braced frame members.Columns will require
strengthening at the basement level as required.Add supplemental
connections along collector lines with epoxy anchors installed
upward into the bottom of the 2nd floor.At roof level add puddle
welds along collector lines as required.
obi Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $6,610,000
Notes:1.Refer to TALI(Geasyntea 2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimatesprovidedere AACEI Class
5"Order-Of-Magnitude"estimates,intended forplonning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of So smic Failure
5
Controlling Failure Tyge(s): •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in
PS 15�06 Study
`6l Ground Shaking v@1
❑ Differential Settlement 3 4 Ill Control Center
❑ Lateral Spread r
S 3 All • 0 11 Abbreviatigna:
Controlling Conseguencelsl: 'E LOSF=Likelihood ofSai,rmc Failure
N Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment on COSF=Consequence of Selsmic Failure
El Regulatory El Stakeholder y2 pVy' RoSF=Risk pf Seismic Failure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact i Ayv 0kellhood designated elther"0"(masts
— s}1 performance objective),or between
Risk Ranking: 1 (lowlikellhood)and 'S"(high likelihood)
Lo.SF Rating: 5
COSF,Weighted Some: 5 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no
Ide...... consequence and"5"(high
Overall ROSF=LOSFZCOSF= 25
0 1 2 3 4 6 consequence)
consequence d Seismic Failure(Cegr)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15416
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 16
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
12kV SERVICE CENTER "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
1-9 1 1 IV BUILDING -
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and 11i s - - life
operation are likely. —'
structural components
Foundation Type:Basement with mat foundation at 10.25'elev.(17.25'embedment) ¢%� LA
Structure Dimensions:70 fit x 40 ft _
g of Stories:1 above grade,1 below grade
Date of Original Construction:1989
it
Retrofit(if any):N/A
Projects:Pl-34-2 •Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report
N Specifications ❑Other
f�
geohazards and seismicity
1-9
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High
Hill AVVi 1-25 i
Surface Settlement(inches) 10 to 12 9to 11 Plan View
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 15 to 19 12 to 16
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 13 to 17 11 to 14
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(gP Dist(lall „
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 basement with Mac
- Sand/silty sand
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) Sil Ss(9) Ss(9) a Clay with sand seam
BSE-lE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 11
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 Saaa/sucy saga
Notes:1.Histodc High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate ,. sand
lay
distance towriter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelero[ions Jor Site Class 0;6.Selected sand
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (yS%) to the hazard; 7. Ground ..
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5it-bgs a22.5 it-MSL
AWL 11.5 it lag, ♦16 it
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):2-5 PEPS&MAC
PFM and Description' Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 2:Wall anchorage to roof at east The steel roof deck is flexible and the span is parallel with the east and west walls,
and west walls TI which does not provide a rigid connection to the walls.The W24x84 connections will
be subject to the full wall anchorage force IS locations).
Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the BSE-IF and BSE-2Eperformance objectives have been omittedfrom the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4 r ral Geosymeq 201 additional Pi conside bi T1=rerl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),n=Tfer2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Tier3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 17
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 2:Standard Structural Mitigation A2(Low) $220000 Wall anchorage mitigation at W24x84 roof beams
(8 locations).
otal Geotechnical and structural Mitigation Cost $R0,000
Notes:1.Refer to TALI(Geasynteq 2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and5tructurol Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Gass
5'Order of estimates,intended forplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
5
Controllint Failure Tvoe(sl: •Other Plant I Structures Included in
PS 25-O6 Study
IT Ground Shaking
ElDifferential Settlement =4 *1-9 22 kV Service Center
-1 Lateral Spread 5
r 3 • • 41 Aab.A.Vom:
Controlling Conseauence(s): .9 LoSF=Likelihood of Seismic Failure
El Life Safety ®Primary Treatment COSF=Consequence of Seismic Fallure
El Regulatory El Stakeholder y2 pvyl' ROSF=Risk of Selsmlc Failure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact B �yd Ukellhood designated either"0"(meats
75 pd performance objective),or between"I"
Risk Ranking: 1 0 (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
LOSF Rating: 5
CaSF,Weighted Some: 5 0 Consequences ranked between NI"(no
itlen[Ifietl cansequencel
Overall RoSF=LoSFZCoSF= 25 antl"5"(high
0 1 2 3 4 5 consequence)
Cons egwnw of Seismic Failure(COSF)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 1546
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 18
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
CENTRAL POWER GENERATION BUILDING N
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTU RE TYPE
1-10 1 1 IV BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type:Basement with mat foundation at 9.00'elev.(19.00'embedment);
driven-PPC piles(46'long)
Structure Dimensions:140 IT x 123 ft
4 of Stories; stories '
Date of Original Construction:1990 23
Retrofit(if any):N/A - A 1-6 -
Prolects:J-19-1 /r j
21
Available Information: Construction Drawings N Geotechnlcal Report
®Specifications N Other Shoo Drawings:Piles N y-1$� �r� ' h Imn
c -2/ 1-7 lot t"2
4
b ptal
aeohazards and seismicity 1-14 mn
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) 1-iS 1-17
VY
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High IDti f
HHVVi AWLa.r Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 10 to 11 8 to 10
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 12 to 15 8 to 9
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 10 to 12 7
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA Ill Dist(knpNear FieldSan Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Sud/sotysana __
Basement wILM1 Mat
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 E s
clay wlro rom sucava savoy sae iawrs
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) Still Ss(9) Sa(9)
a a/su ysan crags
BSE-lE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 n
BSE-2E7 5%in50yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 a lava/s� ysa r,x snty ays m
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate sand/snty sand
distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected -ss
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>S%) to the hazmd; 7. Ground Schematic Cross Section
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and e5E-2F seismic ground motions.
Ground Water Level Depth elevation
HHWL 5it-lugs t23 ft-MSL
AWL 12 it lugs ♦16 ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):Digester 16
PFM and Descriptions Tiers Assessment Results
PFM 1:lack of lateral bracing along the east side The east side of the high roof(flexible diaphragm)lacks seismic bracing
of the high roof diaphragm T1 (none provided).
PFM 2:lack of lateral bracing along the west side The shear walls along the west side of the low roof and the second floor is
of the low roof and 2^d floor at the basement level T1 not continuous down to the foundation.The fi rst-floor deck does not appear
to have been designed for this condition.
PFM 3:Insufficient lateral bracing along the west The rhea r walls along the west side of the bu ilding are mini ma l a nd l ack
side of the building T2 adeq uate capacity to resist he sei s mic l oa ds of the building.The bola nce of
the walls are compliant.
The north and south walls use pilasters to brace the walls for out-of-plane
PFM 4:Wal l anchorage at the high roof north and loads,but these same pilasters are not anchored to the roof framing.The
south walls T1 DCR reported is an estimate of what little capacity the deck provides to
resisting these loads.This is a significant deficiency at all performance levels.
PFM SA:High roof diaphragm shear in roof deck T2 Excessive shear demands on the roof deck were estimated.
REVISED.6/18/2019 PS 15-06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 19
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
PFM SB:High roof diaphragm shear in ledger T2 Anchor bolt shear is excessive at ledger angle anchorage to walls.
anchor bolts
PFM 6A:Low roof diaphragm shear in roof deck T2 Excessive shear demands on the roof deck were estimated.
PFM 68:Low roof diaphragm shear in ledger T2 Anchor bolt shear is excessive at ledger angle anchorage to walls.
anchor bolts
PFM 9:Out-of-plane bending on the buried walls T2 Performance is expected to experience some non-linear behavior and
due to liquefied soil conditions exceeds performance threshold for 10.
PFM 10:Out-of-plane shear on the buried walls T2 Walls may experience shear stresses that are higher than their capacity.
due to liquefied soil conditions
Notts:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)thatmeet both the USE IF and ESE-2Eperformance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geasyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;).T1=rerl(equimlent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-eased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),771/112=Application ofFer3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
mitiaz ion measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigations Costa Comments
PFM 9&10:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation C $2,130,000 Mitigation required to reduce soil fluid density by 50%or preclude
liquefaction development in backfill altogether.Ground improvement
for lateral earth pressure reduction is required from 12 to 19 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation Costa Comments
PFM 1:Standard Structural Mitigation E $200,000 Applies over 50 lineal fee A5-ft tall window.
PFM2:Provide 501inea1feetof12-inchthick cast- $590,000 Conduit and piping is suspended from the first floor deck along god
in-place concrete shear wall at the basement level line E.These would need to be removed and replaced or relocated.
and upgrade first floor beams with steel channel tie
along the entire building length(140 feet)to serve
as a collector.
PFM 3:Standard Structural Mitigation E $85,000 Applies over 24 lineal feet x 9-R tall windows.
PFM 4:Standard Structural Mitigation A2(High) $610,000 Similar with new steel roof framing members.Provide at(6)locations.
(SIM)______________________________________
PFM 5:Standard Structural Mitigation B1 and B2 $495,000 Replace the roof deck over 39%of the high roof(3,000 so.
Supplement existing anchors at 20"OC(total of 90 epoxy anchors).
-------$300,000 Replace the roof deck over 20%of the low roof between grid lines 2
to 6(1,000 so.Supplement existing anchors at 20"OC(total of 60
epoxy anchors).
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $4,410,000
Notts:I.Refer to TM4(Geasyntec,20I9)for descriptions of5tandard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates providedare AACEI Class
5"order-of-Magnitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Rik of Seismic Failure
s
Controlling Failure Tvoelsl' •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in
P515-O6 Study
19 Ground Shaking 4
El Differential Settlement Ill Central Power Generation
❑ lateral Spread Z Building
r 3 • a I Abbrevogiana:
Controlling Conseauenceisl: E LosF=Likelihood ofSeumic Failure
❑ life Safety ❑Primary Treatment COSF=Consequence of Seismic allure
El Regulatory ElStakeholder 53 p# RoSF=Risk of Seismic Failure
® Financial El Public Impact e�q likelihood designated elrher"0`(corers
performance objective),m between"1`
Risk Ranking: 1 Qowlikelthoad)and "5"(high likelihood)
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF,Weighted Scope: 4 p Consequences ranked beaveen`1"(no
Overall RoSF=LoSFZCoSF= 20 identified egnsequenceland"5"(high
0 consequence&Seismic Failure(Co3F) 5 mnsequenm)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date:P1-127(09/01/2027)
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15416
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 20
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 8 2
AERATION BASINS 1-10 "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
1-11 1 1 IV TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type:Driven—PPC piles at 10.00'elev.(17.50'embedment,12"SO,50'
long)
Structure Dimensions:463.8 ft x 277.5IT
B of Stories:1 story
Date of Original Construction:1973 1-33
Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 1985 ❑'•
Projects:PI-16/P1-36-2 1-26
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report
®Specifications ❑Other 1-11
aeohazards and seismicity I
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) .� •1-1
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High )
HHWLs AWLa.r Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 7 to 10 6 to 8
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 22 to 44 16 to 26
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 8 to 17 6 to 30
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA Ill Dist(km)4 25
„
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 „ saga/socv s��a
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 `:
clay wne sm -ea
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(g) So(g) Ss IBI Ss IBI s
BSE-lE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5%in5Oyr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 vr
Notes:1.Histadc High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate ' Sand/sury sans
distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected +r
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazed; 7. Ground Schematic Gross section
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5ft-bgs +22.5 R-MSL
AWL 11.5 it lugs ♦16 ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):Digester 16
PFM and Descriptions Tle a Assessment Results
N/A
Note.I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)thmmeet both the aSE-IE and 6SE-1Eperformance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geasyntec,1019)for additional PFMs considereQ2.T1=Tierl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier1
(equivalent to ASCE 4I-13 Defoancv bused Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Tier exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geasyntec,2019)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 21
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 a 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
otal Geotechnical and structural Mitigation Cost $0
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasynteo,2019JJor descriptions of Standard Geotechnicof and Structurof Mitigations,2.Cost estimates provided ore Mai Gass
S"Order-of-Magnitude-estimates,intended forplonning purposes only.
risk ranking (Usk of Seismic Failure
g
Controlling Failure Tvoe(sl: 0 Other Plant 1 Structures Included in
PS I5-06 Study
®Ground Shaking "
❑ Differential Settlement =4 *1-11 Aeration Basins 1.10
❑ Lateral Spread L
S 8 • • 1 AbbraNations:
Controlling Conseuuence(s): .9 LoSF=Likelihood of Seismic Failure
❑ Life safety El Primary Treatment 12COSF=Consequence of Seismic Fnllure
'F ROSF=Risk of Seismic Fallure
®Regulatory El Stakeholder 'S 2 pp
® Financial ❑Public Impact Likelihood designated either"0"(meats
- performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Rankine: 1 (Iota likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
LaSF Rating: 0
COSF,Weighted Some: 4 0 Consequences ranked between NI"(no
Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 0 Identified consequence)and"5"(high
O Consequence of Failure 8 consequence)ns
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15,06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 22
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
SECONDARY CLARIFIERS 1-26
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
1-12 1 1 IV TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type:Driven—PPC piles at 13.50'elev.(13.50'embedment,12"SO,50'
long) ..
Structure Dimensions:555 IT x 345 ft
g of Stories:1 story
Date of Original Construction:1973(1-14),1996(15-24)&2005(25-26)
Retrofit(if any):N/A
Projects:P316/PI-36-2/PI-82
Available Information: N Construction Drawings N Geotechnical Report I t2 LJ 13
N Specifications El Other F' Q —
� - -
J
aeohazards and seismicity Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction)Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High c i
HHWLa AWLa.t Plainview
Surface Settlement(inches) 7 to 8 6 to 8
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 40 to 57 38 to 56
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 7 to 10 6 to 9
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)a Dist(Wall
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 „ S-a[sucysam
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 5 clay
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9)
BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 s Sand/s'ucy saga
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 v'j`
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate ' sand/sihy sand
distance to renter of giant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerationsfor Site Class 0;6.Selected ss
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazmd; 7. Ground Schematic Cross Section
deformation inputs tostructurol analysis based on AWL and BSE-2Eseisank ground motions.
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5it-bids ♦22 it
AWL 11R-bgs +16 R-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):2-20 Secondary Clarifiers A-L;1-21A Digesters 13-16
PFM and Descriptions Tlert Assessment Results
PFM 6:Separation across expansion The structure is divided into 9 blocks via 2 longitudinal and 2 transverse expansion
joints due to lateral spread towards T1/2 joints.Different lateral spread displacement at different locations(range from 6 to 40
the Santa Ana River inches)will likely cause large separation of as much as 6-inches at the expansion
joints.
PFM 8:Failure of conveyor supporting The conveyor supporting structures span over the longitudinal expansion gaps and
structu re d ue to latero l spread T1/2
towards the Santa An.River will be subject to large deformations.
PFM 12:Bendi ng/shear failure of piles Bending moment in piles exceed ultimate capacity at around 24-Inches of lateral
due to lateral spread T3/2 spread<best estimate PG D of u p to 40 inches.
Notes,I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the BSE-IE and BSE-2E petformance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical
Memorandum 4(71144;Gaosyntee 2019)for additional Pi considered;2.TI=Per 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-130e&iency-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM=Application ofTler3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
REVISED,6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 23
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 6&12:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
at least 60%(surface PGD=15-inches).
PFM 8:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
at least 60%(surface PGD=15-inches).However,
damage to Clarifiers 25 is still likely.To reduced
likelihood of damage to Clarifier 25 lateral spread
displacement should be limited to half of this
value(no more than 6 to T inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costs Comments
N/A $0 N/A
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3)
Notes:1.Refer to TMC(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates providedare AACEI Class
5"Order-of-Magnitude"estimates,intendedforplonning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to TML
(Geosyateq 2019)for additional detail.
risk ranking s Rik of of Seismic Failure
Controlling Failure Tvoe(s): •Other Plant l Structures Included in
PS 15-05 Study
El Ground Shaking
El Differential Settlement — *1-12 Secondary Chdfa:rs 1-26
® Lateral Spread 2
LL 3 a Abbravianena:
Controlling Conse0uence151: .E -SF-Likelihood of5eismic Failure
El Life Safety El Primary Treatment COSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure
®Regulatory ❑ Stakeholder '6 2 pV'I' ROSF=Rlskaf Seismic Failure
® Financial ❑Public Impact Hkelihaod designated elther"O"(meets
performance objective),or between
Risk Rankine: 1 O (low likellhood)and "5"(high likelihood)
Lc,SF Rating: 5
COSF,Weighted Score: 4 p0
Consequences ranked betwmen"1"(no
Overall RoSF=WSFz[oSF= 20 p 1 2 3 4 6 itlentified consequenceland"5"(high
Consequence of seismic Failure(CoSF) consequence)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15406
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 24
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
DIGESTER 5 N
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE ••` % }
1-13 1 1 IV TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type:Driven-PPC piles at 24.92'elev.(3.08'embedment,14'SO,6(y
long) --
Structure Dimensions:90 ft diameter,31 ft height,19 inch wall thickness lark 6 i <
N of Stories:1 story - -
Date of Original Construction:1958 d / lot2)
Retrofit(if any):N/A - 1 15 joi
Projects:PI-2 _ .n a.,rq 1-7 lottj l-2
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report `.'/yr'/\• b fatal
®Specifications ❑Other 14 Icet
1-17 (010)
ID1) ;
aeohazards and seismicity (Nal
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) A e 1- �
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High ) 1-5
T M
HHWL' AWL2.1 Plan View
Surface settlement(inches) 10 to 11 8 to 10
Lateral spread(near river,inches) 16 to 19 SO to 11 I,
Lateral spread(far from river,inches) 14 to 16 9
DMerministic Fault Name M PGA(g)a Dist(km)-
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 a sapaLswvsava
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 s' clay wan raw s1111, savaynit aaye�:
Probabillstics Hazard Level Me PGA(g) Still) Ss(9) Si(9) s cia -
BSE-1E 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 a lava/yysaa
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 a sand/5u ysa w nay lays m P'
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,;4.Approximate " sand/sing sand
distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelemtionsfor Site Class D;6.Selected -ss
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Schematic Goss Section
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2F seismic ground matrons.
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5ft-bgs ♦23 ft-MSL
AWL 12 ft-bgs +16ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):Digester 11
PFM and Description' Tier' Assessment Results
N/A
Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the SSEaF and BSE-217performance objectives have been amittedhom the list See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geasynteq 2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=Tlerl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),T1/T2=Application of Vera exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosymec,2019)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 25
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
otal Geotechnical and structural Mitigation Cost $0
Notes:1.Refer to TMd g3easyntet,2019)for descriptions o)Standard Geotechnical and5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates providedare AACEI Goss
5"Order-Of Magnitude-estimates,intended forplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
s
Controlling Failure Twefsl: •Other Plant 15tructures Included in
PS 15-05 Study
X Ground Shaking a4 •
❑ Differential Settlement *1-13 Digester 5
❑ Lateral Spread
LL 3 • • Abbrevianom:
[ontrollln¢Conseauencelsl: .E LOSF=Likelihaad of9eismic Failure
❑ Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment : coSF=consequence of Seismic Failure
❑Regulatory OStakeholder a p�sw ROSF=Riskof seismic Fallum
® Financial ❑Public Impact „S Likelihood designated either"0")meads
c performance objectivel,or between"1"
Risk Ranking: 1 (7owlikellhood)and `5"(high likelihood)
LOSF Rating: 0
Jno
COSF,Weighted Score: 4 0 Cnnseouencesrankedbetween (high
Overa ll ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 0 idenequenensequence)and"5"thigh
O Conuquence of Seismic failure lCOSFI S mnsequenml
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15.06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 26
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 A 2
DIGESTER 5 PUMP ROOM "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE I It
1-14 1 1 IV TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely. O'
structural components
Foundation Type:Dropped spread footings at 23.50'elev.(5.00'embedment)
Structure Dimensions:30 fit x 29.5 fit --
g of stories:1 story, ( 1-23
Date of Original Construction:1956
Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 1961 and 2009 — r]-21B
Projects:P3-2/P1-5 1 ( j0tti
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ElGeotechnical Report —� afd 555��� 1-7 1-2 to
®Specifications ❑Other - J 1-24 b imp
mal a
(\�\,1-14 loll
,gam/ 1-13 1.17� loll
geohaeards and seismicity D I
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) iDsi
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High HHW 1 ,LL AWL2.t a Ll�j. 1-5 )
Surface Settlement(inches) 10 to 11 8to 10 Plan View
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 14 to 17 9 to 30
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 13 to 16 8 to 9
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)a Dist(mail
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 sy,ea�Eoo,,h
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 : -sand/s'Inysana
Probabilistlas Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) S.(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) ' flay wad ohm sin and sway sb lava,:
BSE-lE 20%in 50 yr 771 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 ca
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 ' saad/Sbysan.
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate sand/silty sand with Spry aayseams
distance to center of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelemtionsfor Site class D,'6.Selected sane/Altysand
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground -sa
deformation inputs to stmctumlanelysis based on AWL and BSE-2Eselsmic ground motions. Schematic Gross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5ft-bgs +23.511
AWL 12.5 it ass ♦16 ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-4 City Water Pump Station
PFM and Description' Ter' Assessment Results
PFM I:Footings move independent of Walls have no structural tie between the wall and the floor slab.Building wall can
the wall T3 move differentially from other walls(120 ftj.
PFM 2:Insufficient separation from TI The roof deck of the digester pump room is separated from the walls of Digester 5 by
adjacent digesters 1-inch.Pounding of the roof deck into Digester 5 can occur.
PFM 3:Torsional response of roof
diaphragm The roof diaphragm has shear walls on(3)sides,which will create a torsional
TI response and exacerbate pounding into Digester 5 wall.
REVISED.6AM2019 PS IS-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 27
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 at 2
PFM S:Tension failure in the concrete 3.2"over 60 feet of differential settlement.Building is smaller than exemplar but has
walls due to ground deformation T1/2 shorter walls and a larger differential settlement.Response is estimated to be similar
to the exemplar.
Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet beach Me ESE IF and ESE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=Tier 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Proredure),T2=Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 WrienMRased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/T2=Application oflTer3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnlwl Mitigations Costa Comments
PFM 5:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $1,420,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by at least 50%(1-1/2"in 60 feet).
Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 5 to 42 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Dealt Comments
PFM 1:Standard Structural Mitigation Cl $55,000 Provide, ra length of 120 lineal feet.
PFM 2 a 3:Add cast-in-place concrete shear walls to brace the $145,000 Add aboml2feetofshearwallx13.5feettall.
building on the south side adjacent to Digester 5.Alternatively,
consider using the existing masonry wall inside the building and tie it
to the existing roof deck to transfer in-plane shear.
otal Geotechnical and structural Mitigation Cost $1,620,000
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and5tructurol Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5-Order of estimates,intended forplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
5
Controlline Failure Tvi lsl: •Other Plant 1 structures Included in
Ps 15-06 study
®Ground Shaking o4
® Differential Settlement *1-14 Digester 5 Pump Room
❑ Lateral Spread
u 3 * • • AbbreNadn oa:
Controlling Conseauencelsl• .E Lo.SF=Likelihood ufSeismlc Failure
® Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment ':, COSF=Consequence of Seismic Fallure
❑Regulatory ❑Stakeholder 51 pww RoSF=Risk gf Seismic Failure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact 8 ASP Likelihood designated either"0"(meets
e 1 ��cr • performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Ranking: (low likelihood)and '5"(high likelihood)
LOSF Rating: 3
COSF,Weighted Score: 2 p Consequences ranked between Ni"(no
Overall RoSF=LosFz CoSF= 6 identified consequence)and"5"(high
0 Consequence ofseismic Failure(COSF) S co^sec,°enttl
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15416
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 28
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
DIGESTER 6 t "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE �, ,
1-15 1 1 IV TANK
class based performance objectives
Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and �.
operation are likely. y'
y
structural components
Foundation Type:Driven-PC piles at 24.07'elev.(3.08'embedment,14"SO,
unknown length) _
Structure Dimensions:90 ft diameter,31 ft height,22 inch wall thickness / j 12
N of stories:1 story
Date of Original Construction:1961
Retrofit(if any):P1-100 project 2009 ; 216
Projects:P1-5 1 10 Q01'-.2'
Availablelnformation: MConstruction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report L I-15 17®Specifications ®Other Shoo Drawings:Steel dome 1-24 b4 Joel1-11 1-17 �
geohazards and seismicity Ip,l
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) loci
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High .�_
HHWLs AWL2.7 Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 10 to 11 8 to 10
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 13 to 16 9 IWIT
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 11 to 14 8
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(ii Dist(km)-
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 11 a s=na�a/i'�,v ssd_= _ __ __ __ --
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 -� clay wnntave�:
Probabilistics Hazard Level Me PGA(g) Still) Ss(9) Si(9) e: soya/snq say v,5(Unknown tee ml
BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 is
' said/sby saidvnn sny day seam:
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate no 5and/SI11 sand
distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelemtionsfor Site Class D;6.Selected as
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Schematic Cross Section
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5it-bgs ♦23 ft-MSL
AWL 12R-bgs +16ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):Digester 11
PFM and Descriptions Tlers Assessment Results
N/A
Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the BSE-IE and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical
Memorandum 4(711,14;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.TI-Per 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2-Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Woenty-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/T2-Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See 7744(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS I5-06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 29
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $O
Notes:1.Refer to TM4 p3easynteo,2019JJor descriptions o)Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates pmvidedare AACEI Class
5'Order Of MagniNde"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
5
Controlling Failure Tvoe(sh •Other Plant i Structures Included in
PS iS06 Study
®Ground Shaking Be
❑ Differential Settlement *1-15 Digester 6
❑ Lateral Spread
3 • • Afibrevia ions:
Controlling Conseauencelsl: E IOSF=likelihood o1'5eismic Failure
El Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment CoSF=Consequence of Seism(c Failure
❑Regulatory O Stakeholder 'g 2 OSvµ RoSF=Risk of Seismic Failure
M Financial -1 Public Impact �yaq Dkelihood designated either"01(meets
performance objecdve),or between"1"
Risk Rankine: 1 Y (low likelihood)and `5"(high likelihood)
LOSF Rating: 0
COSF,Weighted Score: 4 O Consequences ranked baMxen"1"(no
Overall ROSF=LoSFZCoSF= 0 identified cansequeam,end"5"(high
O Conuquence MSeismicFailure(Co3 S mnsequenal
n
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 30
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
DIGESTER 7 "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE -1
1-16 1 1 IV TANK ( -
class based performance objectives
Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely. -
structural components
Foundation Type:Driven-STP plies at 23.32'elev.(4.68'embedment,15.5"to 9.5"
din,45'long)Structure Dimensions:90 ft diameter,31 ft height,22 inch wall thickness 15 y10 • N
g of Stories:l story v1-21A
Date of Original Construction:1963 �� 1 18 Retrofit(if any):N/A 1-24
Projects:PI-9/PI-35-1 14 loaf
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report Imo
1-13
®Specifications El Other 1-17 ID7t
1.16' 1-20
Joel 1-19
aeohazards and seismicity nnnnnn Q-s
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High i
HHWL' AWLt.t Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 10 to 12 9 to 10
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 25 to 33 19 to 29
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 19 to 25 15 to 22
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)a Dist(Iml
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 s "saaa7s�uv_a a
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 e, Cla nm�� su�am sonny sta tave�s
E' clay +
BSEAEProba ilistics Hazard20%in Level Ms PGA(g) Said Ss54 s.(g) -• saea/syy saga v+s
BSE-lE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5%in50yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 _a sand/sixty sand With city Clay seams
Notes:1.Histanc High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate -u sand/Sllryszod
distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.selected -six
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Schematic Goss Section
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground mabons.
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5it-his ♦23 it-MSL
AWL 12 it his ♦16 it-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):1-21B Digester 11
PFM and Description' Tier' Assessment Results
PFM 10:Bending/shear failure of piles Bending moment in piles exceed 10(BSE IE)limit at 10-inches and Ls(BSE 2E)limit at
due to lateral spread(surface PGD=19 T1/2
IS-inches.
inches)
Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the ESE-IF and BSE-2Eperformonce objectives have been omittedhom the list See Technical
Memorandum 4(71,14;Geosyntec,2019)for additional Pi considered;2.T1-Perl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2-Tier2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency Rased Evaluation Procedure,T3-Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/T2-Application of Tier exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosymec,2019)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSIS-06 TM4 Appendix E 31
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 10:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation Al or A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
at least 20%(surface FED=15-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
otel Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3)
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasynteo,2019J fm descriptions of5tandard Geotechnical and 5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimotespan idedare AACEI Class
S'Older of estimates,intended forplanning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Referto TM4
(Geosyatec,2019)for additional detail.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
s
Controlling Failure Tvoelsk •Other Plant 1 structures Included in
PS 15-06 Study
❑Ground Shaking 4
❑ Differential Settlement *1-16 Digester
® Lateral Spread
LL 3 • * Abbreaanona:
[ontrollin¢Conse0uence(sl: .E LOSF=Likelihood ofStismic Failure
❑ Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment CoSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure
®Regulatory El Stakeholder 'S 2 pVw Ri-Risk of Seismic Failure
El Financial 7Public Impact m
0S ❑kellhood designated eltherb")meets
Performance objective),m between"I"
Risk Ranking: z 1 (Inalikellhood)and `S'(high likelihood)
LOST Rating: 3
COSF,Weighted Score: 4 O Consequences ranked between-V(no
Overall RoSF=LaSFZCoSF= 12 identified wnsequence)and-5"Thigh
O Cgnraquence ofSeiamia Failure(COSFI S consequence)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date:N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 MIS-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 32
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
DIGESTER 7 PUMP ROOM E
If PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE °.
1-17 1 1 IV TANK
class based performance objectives
Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
r
structural components
Foundation Type:Tunnel with dropped spread footings at 19.50 elev.(B.OT
embedment) 15 �A / _ -
Structure Dimensions:32 ft x 28.2 ft loal `.c
g of Stories:l story , ruin 1-21A
Date of Original Construction:1963 . �) 1-18 Imll 1-2
Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 1969 and 2009 a 1�A/4
v Imo) x
Protects:PI-9/PI-14 1 -: Iosl
Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report 1-1 3 1_17 }oml
N Specifications El Other mrI
I last 1-20
9
aeohazards and seismicity _ -s
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High
Hill AWLa,t — - Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 10 to 12 9 to 10
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 22 to 29 17 to 26
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 20 to 27 16 to 24
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA Ids Dist Iml spread Formes
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 i5 saga/i�uvsana
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 6' cis
y with thin sw and sandy zw Layer:
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(d So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) 3--s as
BSE-lE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 s sana/satysa�a
BSE-2E7 5%1n 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 : sand/spry sand with silty clay seams
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level,-2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate 's sane/61Iry sans
oistinre to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelemtionsfor Site Class D;6.Selected es
as largest magnitude among significant contributors `yLl to the hazard; 7. Ground Schematic Cross Section
deformation inputs tostructurol analysis based on AWL and BSE-2Eselsmic ground motions.
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHVL 5ft-bgs +22.6 R-MSL
AWL 11.6 itR-bgs ♦16 it
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-4 City Water Pump Station
PFM and Descriptions Tlert Assessment Results
PFM 1:Footings move independent of Walls have me structural he between the wall and the floor slab.Building wall can
the wall T1 move differentially from other walls(120 it).
PFM 2:Insufficient separation from The roof deck of the digester pump room is separated from the walls of Digesters
adjacent digesters TI and 8 by 1-inch.Pounding of the Loof deck into the digesters can occur.Consider
adding independent braced frames or shear walls.
PFM 6:Differential lateral spread Digesters 7 and 8lateral spread is estimated to be 19"/14.5e and Ir/13.7a,
between Digesters 7 and 8 due to T1/2 respectively. This can result in the Digesters moving into the joint and damaging the
liquefaction building.
Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)thwareet both the BSE-IF and BSE-2Eperformunce objectives have been omitted fmm the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4(77,14;Geodersec,1019)for additional PFMs considered;).T1=TIerl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening procedure),72=TA,2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiout,Based Evaluation Procedure,73=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/T2=Application of Tier exemplar
results to o subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
REVISEC,6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 33
ORANGE COUNTY
MT Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 6:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation Al or A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
at least 50%(surface PGD=9-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costa Comments
PFM 1:Standard Structural Mitigation Cl $50,000 Provide over length of 120lineal feet.
PFM 2:Atlticast-in-placeconcreteshearwallstobracethebuRding -$200,000 Add about 24 feet of shear wall x 13.5 feet tall.
on the north and south sides.
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $250,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,see Note 3)
Notes:1.Refer to TMa(Geosynteq 2019f for de triptlans of5tandard Geotechnical and5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5"Order-of-Magnitude'estimates,intendedforplanning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to TM4
(Geosyn[eq 2019)far additional detail.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
5
O Other Plant I Structures Included in
Controlling Failure Twelsl:
®Ground Shaking @�@ P518-Ofi Study
El Differential Settlement 34 O *1-17 Digester]Pump Room
N Lateral Spread =
w 3 * • • Abbreviations:
Controlling Consequence(* 50
'E Lc SF=Likelihood of5eismic Failure
N Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment 2
e CoSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure
El Regulatory El Stakeholder 52 axyr ROSF=Riskof Selsmlc Failure
El Financial El Public Impact I ukellhood designated elfler"0'(meets
Performance objective),or between%1
Risk Ranking: M 1 5 (lowlikellhood)and 'S"(high likelihood)
LoSF Rating: 3
CoSF,Weighted Score: 2 0 Conseauenim ranked between"1"(no
Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 6 idmu11--nsequeu-,.ud"5"(high
0 1 2 3 4 5 consequence)
Consequenoaef Se,anw Feilure(CeSF)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15,06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 34
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
DIGESTER 8 "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
1-18 1 1 IV TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type:Driven—SPP plies at 23.32'elev.(4.25'embedment,12.75"dia.,45'
long)
Structure Dimensions:90 ft diameter,31 ft height,22 inch wall thickness 15 � ' (012)
g of Stories:1 story `�?may- ' m+nl 1-21A
Date of Original Construction:1969 1 1? Jon)
Retrofit(if any):N/A 1 24 b
m+31
1 13 1 17
Protects:P114/P1-35-1 14 met
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report Im.l
®specifications ❑Other • .. ID7I
1-16 1-20
Di 1-19
aeohazards and seismicity �* Qi-B
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) (-
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High �I i
HHWLs AWLt.t Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 10 to 12 9 to 10
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 24 to 31 18 to 28 -
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 18 to 24 14 to 21
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(gp Dist(km)-
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 saga/sTysa In
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78Probab ' oav wn6,6'�r s'�h sra sarav s'�u tave�:
Nay.
BSE-1Eilistics Hazard20%in Level Ms PGA(g) s.(e) Ss54 s.21 + sand/Sir,Sara
BSE-lE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5%in50yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 Sandi sand with silty clay seams
Notes:1.Histadc High Water Level;2.Arm is Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate s Sara/S lft sans
distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected se
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hamrd; 7. Ground Schematic Gross Section
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5ft-bgs +22.6 R-MSL
AWL 11.6 R-bgs ♦16 ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-21B Digester 11
PFM and Descriptlonr Tiers Assessment Results
PFM 10:Bending/shear failure of piles Bending moment in piles exceed 10(BSE IE)limit at to-inches and LS(BSE 2E)limit at
due to lateral l spread(surface Pi is 18 T1/2 15-inches.
inches)
Notes,1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the BSE-IE and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omittedfrom the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,1019)for additional Pi considered,-2.TS=Ter 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T1=Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficienry-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),T1/T2=Application of Tier exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 35
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 10:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation At or A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
at least 15%(surface FED=15-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3)
Notes:1.Refer to TALI(Geasyntet,2019)for descriptions of5tandard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5"Order-of-Magnitude-estimates,intended fai-&nning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to TM4
fGeosyntec,1019)for additional detail.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
s
Controlling Failure Tvi lel: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in
PS 15-05 Study
❑Ground Shakinga4 •
❑ Differential Settlement Ill Digester 8
N Lateral Spread
LL 3 • * Abbreviation.:
Controlling Conseauencelsl: 'E loSF=Likelihood of9eismic Failure
❑ Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment : coSF=Consequence of Selsmic Fallure
N Regulatory ❑Stakeholder 'n2 per ROSF=Rhkofseismic Fallum
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact „S Likelihood designated exher"O"(meets
.e Performance objective.or between"1"
Risk Ranking: 1 (lowlikellhood)and `5"(high likelihood(
LOSF Rating: 3
COSF,Weighted Score: 4 O Consequences ranked between"1"(no
Overall ROSF=LgSFx[gSF= 12 identified consequenceland"5"(high
O Co equence of Seismic failure(COSF) S mnsequenml
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15,06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 36
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 A 2
DIGESTER 9-10 "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
1-19 1 1 IV BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type:Driven—PPC piles at 23.15'elev.(4.51'embedment,12"SO,5(Y
long)
Structure Dimensions:110ft diameter,32 ITheight,27 inch wall thickness 15 '� tolzl
g of Stories:I Story lolal 1-21A
Date of Original Construction:1973 1-18 lon)1-2
Retrofit(if any):N/A 1-24 b
on)
Projects:PI-16/PI-35-2 14 loaf
Available Information: Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report m:m
1-13 s1-17 Iorl
®Specifications ®Other Shoo Drawings:Piles
1 i6
® loyl 1-20
1-19
aeohazards and seismicity nnnnnn Q-s I
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High j
HHWL' AWL2,7 — Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 10 to 12 9 to 10
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 55 to 72 40 to 64
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 281037 20 to 33
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(9P Dist(km)-
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 11sas naLsat�ssaWla,—
ProbabillsticsFar Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 780...Ith min Sutan Hazard Level Ms PGA(g) Sv(g) Ss(9) S1(9)BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 sane/ai ySanBSE-2E- 5%in Styr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 s sane/snty sane and
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate ' sane/snty santl
distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected ss
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Schematic Goss Section
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
Ground Water Level Depth ElevaOon
HHWL 5It-lugs +22]ft-MSL
AWL IIJft-bgs +16ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):1-21B Digester 11
PFM and Desorption' Tier- Assessment Results
PFM 10:Bending/shear failure of piles Bending moment in piles exceed 10(BSE IE)limit at 10-inches and LS(BSE 2E)limit at
due to lateral spread(surface PGD=40 T1/2 15-inches.
inches)
Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet bath the ESE-IF and RSE-2Fpeifermance objectives have been amftledfrom the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4(71,14;Geusyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=Tlerl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),72=Tier2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-eased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM=Application ofTler3 exemplar
results to o subsidiary structure.See Mat(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 37
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 10:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation Al or A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
at least 60%(surface FED=15-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3)
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasynteo,2019J fm descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and 5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are Mai Gass
S'Older of estimate;intended forplanning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on loteml spread mitigation.Refer to TM4
(Geo,adec,2019)for additional detail.
risk ranking Rik of Seismic Failure
s
Controlling Failure Tyoelsk •Other Plant 1 structures Included in
P515-06Study
❑Ground Shaking 4 •
❑ Differential Settlement *1-19 Digester 9-10
® Lateral Spread
LL 3 • Abbrewatione:
Controlling Conse0uence(51: .E Lo.SF=Likelihqud oPSeismic Failure
❑ Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment [oSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure
®Regulatory El Stakeholder 'S2 pVw Fri-Riskgf Seim,Failure
El Financial 7Public Impact S pkelimmul designated eltherb"(meets
Performance ubjective),or between"I"
Risk Ranking: z 1 s (lowlikellhood)and `5"(high likelihood(
LOST Rating: 5
COSF,Weighted Score: 4 O Consequences ranked between-V(no
Overall RgSF=LgSFZCoSF= 20 identified wnsequence)and-5"(high
O Consequence ofSeiamia Failure(COSFI S consequence)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 38
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
DIGESTER 9-10 PUMP ROOMIMP
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE r
1-20 1 I IV TANK -�
class based performance objectives f
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components "
Foundation Type:Tunnel with dropped spread footings at 161(10.96'
embedment) -
Structure Dimensions:55 ft x 40 ft loin
g of Stories:)story Q local 1-21A
Date of Original Construction:1963 1-7 LDnl1-2
Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 2009 1-24
Projects:PI-16 1-14; b ID191
oel
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnlcal Report 1-11 1-17 cmol
®Specifications ❑Other ID11
IDB)
20 I geohazards and seismicity �-5
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High nnnnnn
HHWLL AWLa.t Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 10 to 12 9to 10
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 38 to 50 29 to 45
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 27 to 36 21 to 32
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)a Dist(111 2 _
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 , saaatsucysaa saaar-rani
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 -
_ 5 davwim thin Silt and sandy sit Layers
Probablifir cs Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) • eay
BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 • sand/sitysand
BSE-2E7 5%in5Oyr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 sand/silty sand with Silty aayseama
Notes:1.Historic Nigh Water Level;2.Anorysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,4.Approximate sand/snty sand
distance to center of plant,S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations far Site Class D,'6.Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Schematic Cross Section
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and e5E-2P seismic ground motions.
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5ft-bgs +22.6 R-MSL
AWL 11.6ft-bgs +16ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-4 City Water Pump Station
PFM and Dewiptions Thai Assessment Results
PFM 1:Footings move independent of Walls have me structural tie between the wall and the floor slab.Building walls can
the wall T1 move differentially from other walls(140 ft).
PFM 2:Insufficient separation from The roof deck of the digester pump room is separated from the walls of Digesters
adjacent digesters TI and 10 by 1-inch.Pounding of the roof deck into the digesters can occur.Consider
adding independent braced frames or shear walls.
PRO 3:Torsional response of roof TI The roof diaphragm has an irregular configuration of shear walls,which will create
diaphragm torsional response and exacerbate pounding into the digester walls.
PFM 4:Diaphragm connections at re- TI The building has(1)re-entrant corner and the roof diaphragm has no detailing to
entrant corner provide chord continuity or drag connections.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 1546
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 39
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
PFM 7:Lateral spread toward the 291(near/far)lateral spread varies by 8.2 inches across the structure.Lateral
Santa Ana River due to liquefaction T1/2 spread can pull apart the building walls because the floor slab is not tied to the
wallflooting(140 ft).
PFM 8:Differential lateral spread Digesters 9 and 10 lateral spread is estimated to be 40"/20.4". This can result in the
between Digesters 9 and 10 due to T1/2 Digesters moving into the joint and damaging the building.
liquefaction
Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet bath the ELSE IF and ESE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=Tier 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Proredund,T2=Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 DeRrienMRased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/T2=Application ofTler3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
mitieation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigations Cil Comments
PFM 7&8:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation At or A2 See Note Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
70%(surface PGD=9-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM I:Standard Structural Mitigation CS $60,000 Provide over a length of 140 lineal feet.
PFM 28,3:Add cast-in-place concrete shear walls to brace the $180,000 Add about 16 feet of shear wall x 16 feet tall.
building on the north side adjacent to Digester 10.
PFM 4:Provide stainless steel channel that is anchored to the $100,000 Provide 54 lineal feet.
bottom side of the roof deck with epoxy anchors.The channel
should be provided over the full length of the building in the east-
west direction.
ots l Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $340,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3)
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasynteq 2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates pmvidedare AACEI Class
5"Order-of Magnitude"estimates,intended forplonaing purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to TM4
(Geosyntec,2019)far additional detail.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
5
Controlling Failure Tvoelsk •Other Plant S Structures Included o
M Ground Shaking PS 15-06 Study
❑ Differential Settlement 4 *1-20 Digester 9-10 Pump Room
® tateral Spread t
Controlling Conseauencelsl: E lnSF=Likelihood of5eismic Failure
® life Safety ❑Primary Treatment COSF=Consequence of seismic Failure
El Regulatory ❑Stakeholder $ 2 pVq R.5F=Risk of Seismic Failure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact 8ss Ukelihooddes1gnatede1ther"01(meets
g performance objecHve),m between"1"
Risk Ranking: M 1 (low likelihood)and `5"(high likelihood)
LOSF Rating: 3
COSF,Weighted Score: 2 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no
Identified consequence)and"5"(high
Overa 11 ROSF=LaSF x Call 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 consequence)
Consequence of Seismic Failum(CasFl
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15416
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 40
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
DIGESTERS 13-16 (FRONT ROW) "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
1-21A 1 I IV TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and Stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Driven—PPC piles at 22.6T elev.(4.33'embedment, e' leand yps ,bo syy , �,
12"SO,52'long) —
Structure Dimensions:110ftdiameter,32 IT height,27 inch wall thickness -27 ,A .0
g of Stories:1 Story as
Date of Original Construction:1989 `
Retrofit(if any):PI-100 project 2009 1-23 ,/7 a�e�)
Projects:PI-34-3 (Y/`/�(()�/
N I
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report J]-21B .'. (Dill
®Specifications ®Other Shoo Drawings:Piles (D")
a 4 Nnl1-2 Dial 1-21A
17
aeohazards and seismicity b 1°1Ix
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) 17 .im(us"
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High
HHWLs AWLa.t Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 9 to 11 8 to 30
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 42 to 58 35 to 52
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 21 to 29 17 to 26
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(gp Dist(km)- m _S
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 as sn�y sand . __
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 g s
�Probabilistics Hazard Level Ma PGA(g) Self) Ss(9) Ss(9) e elavwiro Dim sucansonny sot lawn BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 load/mq load
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 as sand/silty sand with silty aayseama
Notes:1.Histodc High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate a, sand/silty sand
distance to renter ofplonq S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected 31
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Schematic Goss section
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2F seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5ft-bgs +22 ft-MSL
AWL 11 it-bgs +16 it-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):N/A
PFM and Descriptions Tier' Assessment Results
PFM 10:Bending/shear failure of piles Bending moment in piles exceed 10(BEE IE)limit at 10-inches and LS(ESE 2E)limit at
due to lateral spread(surface Pi> T3
3 15-inches.
5-inches)
Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the ESE-IF and BSE-2F performance objectives have been omittedfrom the list See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteq 2019)jar additional PFMs considered,-2.T1=rerl(equivalent to A5CE43-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier1
(equivalent to UCE 41-13 Deficiency Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),T1,72-Application of Tier3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4 Gleesomec,2019)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 1506
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 41
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 10:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation Al or A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
at least 60%(surface FED=15-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3)
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasynteo,2019J fm descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and 5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are Mai Gass
S'Older of estimate;intended forplanning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to TM4
LGeo,adec,2019)for additional detail.
risk ranking Rik of Seismic Failure
s
Controlling Failure Tyoelsk •Other Plant 1 structures Included in
P515-06Study
❑Ground Shaking 4 •
❑ Differential Settlement *1-21 Digesters 11-16
® Lateral Spread
LL 3 • • Abbreviations:
Controlling Conse0uence(51: .E LOSF=Likelihqud oPSeismic Failure
7 Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment [oSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure
-1Regulatory El Stakeholder 'S2 pVw Ri-Riskgf Seim,Failure
Financial 7 Public Impact m
0S pkelimmul designated eltherb"(meets
performance ubjective),m between"1"
Risk Ranking: z 1 Qowlikellhood)and `5"(high likelihood(
LOST Rating: 5
COSF,Weighted Score: 4 O Consequences ranked between"1"(no
Overall RgSF=LgSFZCoSF= 20 identified comm,enceland"5"(high
O Consequence of Seismic Failum(COSFI S consequence)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 42
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
DIGESTERS 11-12 (BACK ROW) %t+dL "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE ..
1-21B 1 I IV TANK F*
class based performance objectives
Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components J
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Driven-PPC piles at 22.6T elev.(4.33'embedment, .®
12"SO,52'long)
Structure Dimensions:110 IT diameter,32 IT height,27 inch wall thickness t- 1-23 Imes
g of Stories:1 story I �l
Date of Original Construction:1989 - to+sl
Retrofit(if any):P1 21B
-100 project 2009 1
Projects:PI-34-3 1-10
minib21A
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report 1-7 1-22
®Specifications ®Other Shoo Drawings:Piles 1 24 b 01
4
oel
-11 1-17 m:ol
aeohazards and seismicity mn
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) (Cal
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High 1-20
HHWV AWL2.7 Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 9 to 11 8 to 10
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 20 to 27 16 to 24
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 14 to 19 11 to 17 is
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)a Dist(Ill s 4Synd/&11n:
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78ana,s'�u tave,sProbabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(g) Sa(e) Ss(9) Si(9) s
BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 vll ' s
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 .s s.moSlltysana vnth sap.Clay seams
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level,2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate s sane/snry sand
distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.selected "
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazmd; 7. Ground Schematic Gross Section
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and e5E-2E seismic ground motions.
Ground Water Level Depth Devil
HHWL 5ft-bgs +22 R-MSL
AWL 11 it-bgs 116 it-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):N/A
PFM and Descriptions Tiers Assessment Results
PFM 10:Bending/shear failure of piles Bending moment in piles exceed 10(BSE IE)limit at 10-inches and LS(BSE 2E)limit at
due to lateral spread(surface PGD=16 T3
IS-inches.
inches)
Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)themmeet both the BSE IF and BSE-2Eperformance objectives have been omittedfmm the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4 r7M4;Geasyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=TIerl(equivalent to ASCE41-135creening Procedure),U=Tier2
(equivalent to ASCE 4I-13 Deficienry-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Tier exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 43
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 10:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation Al or A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread to
at least 5%(surface PGD=15-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3)
Notes:1.Refer to TALI(Geasyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and 5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are Mai Gass
5'Order of estimates,intended farplanning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Referto TM4
LGeosyntec,2019)for additional detail.
risk ranking Rik of Seismic Failure
s
Controlling Failure Tvoelsk •Other Plant 1 structures Included in
PS 15-06 Study
❑Ground Shaking 4 •
❑ Differential Settlement III Digesters 11-16
® Lateral Spread
LL 3 • • Ab ureviaOona:
Controlline tonse0uencelsl: 'E LoSF=Likelihaad fSeismic Failure
7 Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment 2 [oSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure
-1 Regulatory El Stakeholder 'S 2 pVw RoSF=Riskof5eismic Failure
Financial 7 Public Impacts Likelihood designated either"O"(meets
performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Rankine: z 1 (lowlikelihood)and `5"(high likelihood(
LOSF Rating: 5
COSF,Weighted Score: 4 O Consequences ranked between"1"(no
Overall RoSF=LgSFZCoSF= 20 identified consequenceland"5"(high
O Consequence ofSeiamic Failure(COSFI S mnsequenml
ns
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date:N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 44
Jil ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 St 2
DIGESTERS 11-16 PUMP ROOM 1 "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTU RE TYPE
1-22 1 1 IV TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Driven—PPC piles at 10.5tY elev.(16.50'embedment,
12"SO,52'long) -- _
Structure Dimensions:178 IT x 116 ft
g of Stories:I story 1-23 to at
Date of Original Construction:1990
Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 2009(non-structural components only) 1-21B ` ' put
Projects:PI-34-3 i 10 •Q lout
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report ....�////���� Ip+4) '1-21A
®Specifications El Other a-/1�24
1 7 i011t is
4 b out
pat Iaeohazards and seismicity 11 1-n plot
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) (07I
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High loot
HHWLL AWLa.t Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 9 to 11 8 to 30 -..
Lateral Spread(near IMtl,inches) 32 to 43 26 to 38
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 16 to 21 13 to 19
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(9)3 Dist(larl
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 s• clay wnn IN sin sa Sir taveIr
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) . aav:
BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 saga/suq saga
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 „ saga/s' sa wrc suq uv m we:
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,;4.Approximate " sand/Sllrysaod
distance to renter ofplanq S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected ++
as largest magnitude among significant contributors f�1%) to the hazard, 7. Ground Schematic Goss Section
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and e5E-2E seismic ground motions.
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5it-lugs ♦22 it
AWL 11 ft-bgs +16ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):1-21A Digester 16
PFM and Descriptions Tiers Assessment Results
PFM 1:Insufficient separation from The roof deck of the digester pump room is separated from the walls of Digesters 11-
14 by a 2-inch expansion joint.Pounding of the roof deck into the digester walls can
adjacent digesters causes structure T3 occur. Drift at the roof is estimated to be 3".Given the findings for the concrete
pounding moment frames,addition of braced frames or shear walls is recommended.
PFM 2:In-plane wall shear at shear Walls In both orthogonal directions were found to be deficient for the 10(BSE IE)
walls TI performance level,but only in the E-W direction for both 10(BSE IE)and LS(BSE 2E)
performance levels.
PFM 3:Column shear at moment Columns that are part of the concrete moment frames have excessive shear force.
frames TI The evaluation was made assuming that the shear walls were not providing lateral
load resistance.Mitigation with addition of shear walls will address this potential
failure mode.
REVISED.SAM2019 PS 1506
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 45
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 At 2
PFM S:Bending/shear failure of piles 10.3"(estimate at pile head)lateral spread toward the Santa Ana River.DCR is the
due to lateral spread(surface P6D=26 T3/2 Inches) near pile top displacement over pile top displacement at yield(3.5").
PFM 6:Differential lateral spread between Digesters 11-14 due to T1/2 Digesters 11 and 12 lateral spread is estimated to varyfrom 31.3"to 16".This can
liquefaction
result in the Digesters moving into the joint and damaging the building.
Notes,1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)thatmeet both the ESE Hard ESE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list see Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs caradered;2.T1=Pert(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-130eficienry-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),T1/T2=Application afrer3 exemplar
results too subsidiary structure.See 71,44(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigations Cosh Comments
PFM 5&6:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation Al or A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
50%(surface PGD=13-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 1-3:Provide cast-in-place concrete shear walls in both $1,080,000 Provide approximately 420 lineal feet x 15 feet
orthogonal directions from the roof down to the basement to tall.
reduce building drift.
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $1,080,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3)
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cast estimates provided are AACEI Class
5"Order-of Magnitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only,3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to TM4
(Geosynteq 2019)for additional detail.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
5
Controlling Failure Tvoe(sl: ae •Other Plant I Structures Included in
Ps 15-M study
®Ground Shaking $ 4
❑ Differential Settlement *1-22 Digesters 11-16 Pump Room 1
® Lateral Spread
r 3 • • 4 AbmeA.Lons:
Controlling Conseguencelsl: 'E LaSF=Likelihood of5eismic Failure
® life Safety ❑Primary Treatment 'n COSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure
El Regulatory El Stakeholder 'S 2 p�yq ROSF=Risk of Seismic Failure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact 8 Py" Likelihood designated either"0"(meats
1 `p0 performance objective),or between"I"
Risk Ranking: (low likelihood)and `5"(high likelihood)
LOSF Rating: 5
CaSF,Weighted Score: 2 0 1 1 ALCanseauences ranked between"1"(no
Overall RoSF=LoSFz Co.SF= 10 identified consequenceland"5"(high
0 1 2 3 4 5 consequence)
Consequence of Seismic Failure(Co$F)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15416
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 46
Jil ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 A 2
DIGESTERS 11-16 PUMP ROOM 2 e
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTU RE TYPE
1-23 1 1 IV TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Driven—PPC piles at 10.5LY Elea.(16.50'embedment, A'
12"SO,52'long) _
Structure Dimensions:116 IT x 80IT -
B of Stories:1 story 1-4
Date of Original Construction:1990 -27
Retrofit(X any):Remodeled in 2009(non-structural components only)
Projects:PI-34-3
Available Information: Sl Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report 1-23 local
®Specifications ❑Other ; _
'015,
mzJ
geohazards and seismicity I°'°I 1 z1A I
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) .4 17 l°"It2
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High b^ lo'al I
HHWLs AWLAt Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 8 to 9 6 to 8
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 28 to 38 20 to 29
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 18 to 24 13 to 18
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA III Dist(Wall
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 a sand/surysane
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 a, 6lav v+hAli Suoantl'sanaysal i avers
eIa
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ma PGA(g) So(g) Ss IBI Ss IBI '• sana/ 'oy sac
BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5%in50yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 , sane/ ty Sad a P.e.
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,;4.Approximate a 5ane/5nty Sand
distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.sticoc- ss
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>S%) to the hazard, 7. Ground Schematic Gross Section
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and e5E-2E seismic ground motions.
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5ft-bgs +22 ft-MSL
AWL ilk-this 116 ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-21A Digester 16
PFM and Descriptions Tiere Assessment Results
The roof deck of the digester pump room is separated from the walls of Digesters 15-
PFM1:Insufficient separation from TI 16 by 2-i nch expansion joint Pounding of the roof deck 1 mo the digester wal is can
adjacent digesters occur.Drift at the roof is estimated to be 5.7".Given the findings for the concrete
moment frames,addition of braced frames or shear walls is recommended.
PFM 2:Discontinuous shear wall at the T1 Shear wall at the south side of the building is discontinuous below the first floor.
east and south elevations
PFM 3:In-plane wall shear at shear T1 Only the walls in the east-west direction were found to be deficient.
walls
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 1506
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 47
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 a 2
Columns that are part of the concrete moment frames have excessive shear force.
PFM 4:Coln mn shear at moment The eval nation was made assuming that the shear walls were not providing lateral
frames Tl load resistance.Mitigation with addition of shear walls will address this potential
failure mode.
PFM 6:Bending/shear failure of piles 9,7"(estimate at pile head level)lateral spread toward the Santa Ana River.OCR is he
due to lateral spread(surface FED=20 T1/2 t near pile top displacement over pile top displacement at yield(3.5").
inches)
Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs]that meet both Me BSE-IE and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list.see Technical
Memorandum C(71144;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=Per 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Proredurej,T2=Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-130eficamcy-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),T1/r2=Application afFer3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mltigatlonr Costa Comments
PFM 6:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation Al or A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
50%(surface PGD=10-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 14:Provide cast-in-place concrete shear walls in both $420,000 Provide approximately 120 lineal feet x 15 feet
orthogonal directions from the roof down to the basement to tall.
reduce building drift.
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $420,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3)
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cast estimates provided are AACEI Class
S"Order-of Magnitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only,3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on loteml spread mitigation.Refer to TM4
(Geosymeq 20191 additional detail.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
5
Controlling Failure Tvoe(sh ae •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in
PS 15-06 study
M Ground Shaking $ 4
❑ Differential Settlement *1-23 Digesters 11-16 Pump Room 2
❑ Lateral Spread
S 3 • • AbbreW4cam:
Controlling[onseguencelsl: .E Lo.SF=Likelihood uf5eismlc Failure
® life Safety ❑Primary Treatment 'n COSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure
El Regulatory El Stakeholder 'S 2 p�yq ROSF=Risk of Seismic Failure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact 8 Py" Likelihood designated either"0"(meets
1 `ed performance objectiveLor between"I"
Risk Ranking: (law likelihood)and `5"(high likelihood)
LOSF Rating: 5
COSF,Weighted Score: 2 0 1 1
Canseauences ranked between"1"(no
Overall RoSF=LoSFz Co.SF= 10 identified wnsequenceland"5"(high
0 1 2 3 4 5 consequencel
consequence of Seismic Failure(COSF)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15.06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 48
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 A 2
GAS HOLDER "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
1-24 1 1 IV TANK
class based performance objectives
Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures _
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Ring wall footing at 25.75'elev.(1.50'embedment,2'
wide) r La,o
Structure Dimensions:42 ft diameter,32 ft height 1-6 i _
g of Stories:I story - 21B w y (this
Date of Original Construction:1990 ni
Retrofit(if any):N/A i U., 1
Projects:PI 34 1 1 7 Intl 1-2
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report 1124
b lost) c
®Specifications ®Other Shoo Drawings:Gas holder 1-14 Joel
1-13 1 17 X
D21
geohazards and seismicity 1pa1
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) 1.20
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High T1-5 I
HHI AVVi Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 10 to 11 8 to 10
Lateral spread(near river,inches) 16 to 20 11 to 12
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 15 to 18 10 to 11
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)s Dist(III Ring wall Foot ng_
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 , sand/shKsand
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 `
js Glaywltd cam serf and sandy Silt Layers
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ma PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) , clay - --
BSE-1E 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 s sanall sans
>
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 : small sand wan shy racy seams
Notes:1.Histadc High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,;4.Approximate 'a' sand/silty sand
distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class 16.Selected -11
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazards 7. Ground Schematic Gross Section
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground mabans.
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5R-bgs +22.3 R-MSL
AWL 11.3 ft-bgs ♦16 it
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):2-19 Gas Holder
PFM and Descriptions There Assessment Results
Does not meet 10(BSE IE)performance objectives.Stress in thank shell at the anchor
PFM 6:Tan k shell overstress due to chair location may exceed yield,may rest It 1 n gas leakage.
liquefaction-induced settlements T1/2 Does meet IS(Ell 2)performance objectives. DCR>1.0,overstress at anchor locations
may cause permanent deformation and/or gas leakage,low likelihood of collapse.
PFM 7:Anchor failure overstress Does not meet 10(BSE IE)performance objectives.Stress in the anchor bolt may exceed
due to liquefaction-induced T1/2 yield,local tear in tank shell at anchor chair location possible.
settlements Does meet IS(BSE 2)performance objectives.DCR>1.0,overstress in anchor locations
may cause permanent deformation or fracture,low likelihood of collapse.
Nall I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMt)that meet both the BSE-IE and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical
Memaronce.4(TM4;Geosynteq 1019)for additional Pi considered;2.TI=Tier I(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficand,Based Evaluation procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TAN(Geosynteq 201 more detail.
REVISED,6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 49
ORANGE COUNTY
MT Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 6&7:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $1,800,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by 80%)1.5"in 60 feet).Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 2 to 51 ft-bgs
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costa Comments
N/A $0 N/A
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $1,800,000
Notes:1,Rtfer to TM4(Geosynteq 201 descriptions ofStandar l Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations,2.Cost estimates Providedare AACEI Class
5"Order-of-Magnitude"estimates,intended)orplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Hisk of Seismic Failure
s
Controlling Failure TVoelsl: •Other Plant 1 structures Included in
PS 1506 Study
❑Ground Shaking 4
N Differential Settlement *1-24 Gas Holder
❑ Lateral Spread
LL 3 • Abbreriatioma
Controlling Conseauencelsl: .E LoSF=Likelihood mScismic Failure
❑ Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment : mSF=consequence of Seismic Failure
N Regulatory O Stakeholder .� 2 so/* Rai-giskofSeismic Failure
El Financial El Public Impact C4yC Likelihood designated either"0')meets
1 `Pd performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Ranking: (lowlikellhoad)and "5"(high likelihood)
LoSF Rating: 1
CoSF,Weighted Score: 2.4 O Consequences ranked between"1"(no
Overall ROSF=LgSFZCaSF= 2.4 identified cgnsequenceland"5"Thigh
O Comequmas of Seismic failure S mnsequenml
e
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date:J-124(in Progress)
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 1506
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 50
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
EFFLUENT JUNCTION BOX "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
1-25 1 I IV BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and -
operationarelikely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimension:Driven—PPC piles at 0.00'elev.(25.40'embedment, imagiroaaraffial
W SO,unknown length)
Structure Dimensions:48 ft x 63 ft
B of Stories:l below grade .-t2 �1-3
Date of Original Construction:1989
Retrofit(if any):N/A
Projects:PI-33 e
Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report
N Specifications ❑Other
1-9
aeohazards and seismicity I
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High
HHWLL AWL°.r Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 7 to 10 7 to 9
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 160 to 225 150 to 165
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 49 to 69 46 to 50
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(B)s Dist(km)4
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 _' saga/stay saga
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
s, la
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA So(g) Ss 111
IBI Ss IBI i
IBI sera/swy sam
BSE-1E 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2P 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 Pe:I kw Leo ml
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate s sana/spry saga W '�'
distanretorenter ofplanq S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelero[ions Jor Site Class 0;6.Selected s+
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazmd; 7. Ground Schematic Gross Section
deformation inputs tostructurol analysis based on AWL and BSE-217seismic ground motions.
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5ft-bgs +20.4 R-MSL
AWL 9.4 ft-bgs 116 ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-21A Digester 16
PFM and Descriptions Tlere Assessment Results
PFM 4:Shea r fail a re of piles d ue to No lateral spread is esti mated at th a base of the structu re.The structure is fou bred
lateral spread towards the Santa Ana T2 on piles.Structu re is su bject to overtu ruing and shearing due to appl ication of passive
River and active earth pressures from spreading soils above the base of the structure.Shear
failure of piles is possible.
Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMSJ that meet both the RSE-IF and RSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical
Memorandum 4(7M4;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.TS=Tier)(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),M=Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency Rased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS I5-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 51
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 4:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation requires reduction of lateral spread so
that passive force application on the structure is
reduced by at least 50%.
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3)
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates providedare AACEI Class
5'Older of estimates,intended farplonning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to TM4
(Gemyntec,2019)far additional detail.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
s
Controlling Failure Tvi lel: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in
PS 15-06 Study
❑Ground Shakinga4 •
❑ Differential Settlement *1-25 Effluent Junction Box
® Lateral Spread
LL 3 • • Abbresdanons:
[ontrollln¢Conseauencelsl: .E LoSF=Likelihood ofsek vine Failure
❑ Life Safety ®Primary Treatment COSF=consequence of Sei,mic Failure
❑Regulatory ❑Stakeholder .� 2 eV'F ROSF=Rskof5elsmic Failure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact Likelihood designated elNer"0"(meets
c performance adective),or between"1"
Risk Ranking: 1 (lowlikellhood)and "S'(high likelihood)
LOSF Rating: 2
COSF,Weighted Score: 5 O 1 1 1
Consequences ranked between"1"(no
Overall RoSF=LoSFx[osF= 10 identified consequenceland"5"(high
O Consequence of Seismic failure(COSF) S mnsequenm)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15,06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 52
ORANGE COUNTY
OF Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 8 2
SOLIDS STORAGE FACILITY "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
1-26 1 II II BUILDING
class based performance objectives L
Class II:Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system;loss of
life potential Is low.Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before
repair.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Driven—PPC piles at 6.75'elev.(20.25'embedment,
12"SO,52'long)
IYY gel
Structure Dimensions:71 fit x 41 fit / Y
Date ofriesina lC es * 1-13 1-17 `/
Date of Original Construction:1989 toil
Retrofit(if any):N/A / IDaI
Projects:P1-34-2 /—i -5 1-20
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report s 7-2 - JLrj a
®Specifications ❑Other (dS}
1-26
aeohazards and seismicity 1a1 I
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High )
fill AWLa.t Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 8 to 10 7 to 9
Lateral spread(near river,inches) 24 to 35 18 to 31
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 17 to 25 13 to 22
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)s Dist(km)4 35
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 smdpsusysane
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 2 Clay
Probabilistics Hazard Level Me PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) • Sand/susyeand
BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 . sand/sI,sand wn srt icy a
w e:
Noted 1.o creme High Water Level;2.Analysis Seismic
Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate ' sand/snry Sand
III
distanretorenter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelero[ions far Site Class 0;6.Selected -�+
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Schematic Gross Section
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and e5E-2E seismic ground motions.
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5ft-bgs +22 R-MSL
AWL 11 it-bgs 116 it-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-21A Digester 16
PFM and Descriptions Tierz Assessment Results
The north and south structures are separated by a 2-inch expansion joint,which is
PFM I:Building pounding due to TI much less than 4%of the building height.Tying the structures together may result in
response to ground shaking significant damage as the north and south structures may have a large differential
lateral spread.
PFM 5:Bending/shear failure of piles 15X(estimate at pile head)lateral spread toward the Santa Ana River.OCR is the
at the south structure due to lateral T1/2 near pile top displacement over pile top displacement at yield(3.5").
spread(Surface PGD=18 inches)
Notes:1,Potential Poilure Modes(PFMs)that meet both Me USE-lE and SSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical
Memorandum 4 r7M4;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFM,considered;2.T1=rerl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),R=Tier2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficienry-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Per3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See 7144(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 53
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 a 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM S:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
60%(surface PGD=7-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM I:Tie the structures together using steel shapes with slotted $60,000 The recommended mitigation will also require
connections and epoxy anchors.Steel shapes will need to be sized that the lateral spread potential be mitigated.
and located to promote uniform response of the building to ground
shaking. Lateral spread can impose differential demands across the
expansion joint.
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $60,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Norte 3)
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of5tandard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations 2.Cost estimates providedare AACEI Class
S'Order of estimates,intended forplanning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this stmctum relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to TM4
(Geosyntec,2019)for additional detail.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
s
Controlling Failure Tvoe(sl: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in
PS 15-05 Study
❑Ground Shakinga4 •
ElDifferential Settlement *1-26 Solids Storage Facility
® Lateral Spread
r 3 • • Abbreviations:
[ontrollin¢Conse0uencef5l: .E -aSF=Likelihood of5eismic Failure
® fife Safety 7 Primary Treatment 2 COSF=Consequence of Saismic Failure
❑Regulatory ElStakeholder 2 pyhw ROSE=Risk of Seismic Failure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact vS Likelihood designated either"O"(meets
c performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Rankine: 1 c (low likelihood)and `5"(high likelihood)
LOSF Rating: 5
CoSF,Weighted Score: 3 p Consequences ranked between`S"(no
Overall RosF=LoSFZCoSF= 15 identified cgnsequenceland"5"(high
O Consequence of SeismicFailure(COSF) S mnsequenal
se
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15416
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 54
ORANGE COUNTY
OF Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 as 2
CHILLER BUILDING "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
1-27 1 II II BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class II:Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system;loss of
Ilfe potential Is low.Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before
repair.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Shallow spread footings at-grade
Structure Dimensions:30 fit x 19.3 fit
g of Stories:1 story -
Date of Original Construction;1989 r
Retrofit(if any):1996:Strengthening of roof-to-wall anchorage connections • -
Projects:J7-4/P1-44-3
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report a1-27 Y •.
®Specifications ❑Other
1-23
geohazards and seismicity •a. 1-6 cI
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) )-21 B
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High IDtxl
HHWLL Ali 1-is 1-7 12 1
Surface Settlement(inches) 7to8 5to6 Plan View
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread
LateralSpread(far from river,inches) --No Lateral Spread
DeterministicFault Name M PGl Dlst.(kmp snrea4 mores:.
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 __----_-----
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 , Indl
43dt,_gna _______
e555555• w1h ram Ill sandy Silt Layers
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Sr(9)BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 „
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 sand/silty sand with Silly Clay Seam:
Notes:1.Historic High Water Levi 2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate sans/silty sans
distance to renter of plant S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected an
as largest magnitude among significant contributors fall to the hazard; 7. Ground -x
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A Wit and BSE-2F seismic ground motions. Schematic Cross Section
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 fit-bgs ♦23 ft-MSL
AWL 12 ft-bgs +16ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):1-4 City Water Pump Station
PFM and Desviptionr Tlert Assessment Results
N/A
Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet Will the BSE-IF and BSE-2F performance objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4 trivial Gaosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.TI=Tear 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM=Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSIS-06 Till Appendix E 55
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
otal Geotechnical and structural Mitigation Cost $0
Notes:1.Refer to TALI(Geasynteo,2019JJor descriptions o)Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates providedare AACEI Class
5"Order-of-Magnitude-estimates,intended forplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
S
Controlling Failure Twe(Sl: •Other Plant 1 Structures included la
PS 25-06 Study
®Ground Shaking sq • *1-27 Chiller Buildin
❑ Differential Settlement r
❑ Lateral Spread L
+ S • • 1 Abbse Lathan.:
Controlling Conseguence(s): .9 LoSF=Likelihood of Seismic Failure
® Life Safety ®Primary Treatment ': COSF=Consequence of Selsmlc Failure
El Regulatory El Stakeholder 'S2 pV'I' ROSF=Risk of Seismic Failure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact B Likelihood designated either"O"(meets
c performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Ranking: 1 • (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
LaSF Rating: 0
CaSF,Weighted Some: I 0 Conseauences ranked between"1"(no
Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 0 Identifietl consequencelantl"5"(high
O Consequence of Wanda Failure S consequence)
n
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15,06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 56
ORANGE COUNTY
OF Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
WAREHOUSE BUILDING "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
1-28 1 II II BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class II:Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system;loss of
life potential Is low.Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before
repair.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Shallow spread footings at-grade
Structure Dimensions:100 IT x 150 ft
g of stories:1 story
Date of Original Construction:1972
Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 1978 and 1996;1996: Provision of wall anchorage
connections at the .of and mezzanine diaphragms,addition of roof and mezzanine 1 28 -1
diaphragm cross ties,and addition of shear wall bracing for the mezzanine. 4.30 _ •
Projecte J-13/J-13-2R/PI-44-3 - 1-32
Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report 1�• R 1-29 ��
N Specifications El Other ,u u
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Y$
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High Plan View
HHWL' AWL2.7
Surface settlement(inches) 6to7 5
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread--
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) No Lateral Spread-- Spread vommza
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)2 Dist.(kmp s 'gVswand.aay
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 =a sane ana Sol
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 + Gray and Liquefiable Sand
Probahilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) S,(9) S2(9) s sivane C1
BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 . well Graded sane
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,;4.Approximate as
distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected Schematic Cross Section
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL andeSE-2E seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5 fit-bgs ♦23 ft-MSL
AWL 12 ft-bgs +16n-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):1-29 Shop Building A
PFM and Destription2 Thera Assessment Results
PFM 1:Wall panels are not tied to the Walls have no structural tie between the wall and the footing.The behavior of the
footings TI building is unpredictable and relative movement of the footing below the walls is
possible(20 pad footings x 8 ft).
PFM 6:Wall panels are not tied
together to resist overturning
Except the south wall,panels are not tied together to resist overturning and can
TI experience spalling at the roof ledger.The south wall joints are stitched together
continuously with a pour strip(I5 x 20 ft).
REVISED:6/2SMS PS 15-06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 57
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 a 2
2.2"over 60 feet differential settlement.Tilt-up panels provided with(2)g5 bars at
PFM 8:Tension failure in the walls due the top of the panel and a continuous ledger angle,which will both work to resist
to differential settlement T3/2 tension in the wall due to ground deformation.The limiting strength occurs at the
ledger angle splice(1.2x24/4).
Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both Me USE IF and USE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;clearance,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=Ter 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-130e ovary-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM=Application ofFer 3 exemplar
results to o subsidiary structure.See TM4(Gem,mte,2019)for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigations Cosh Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM I:Standard Structural Mitigation C2 $315,000 Applies over 160 lineal feet(20 pad footings z 8-ft
each).
PFM 6:Tie tilt-up wall panels together along their vertical joints $125,000 Applies to 15 joints that are 20-ft tall each.
using steel plates and epoxy anchors spaced at 4.0-ft on center.
PFM 8:Provide continuous supplemental steel chord member along $250,000 Applies over the middle 50%of each wal l fora
the east and west walls anchored to the existing tilt-up wall panels total of 250 lineal feet.
with epoxy anchors.
otel Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $6901000
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntec,201gfor descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5"order-of-Magnitude-estimates,intended forplonning purposes only.
risk ranking Wait of Seismic Failure
3
Controlling Failure Tygi o Other Plant I Structures Included In
P515-M Study
19 Ground Shaking
N Differential Settlement =4 O *1-28 Warehouse B,ling
❑ lateral Spread g
d 3 O O 0 Abbievisiflui
Controlling Conseguencelsl: 'E LaSF=Likelihood of Seismic Failure
N life Safety ❑Primary Treatment CoSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure
El Regulatory El Stakeholder Is pVy' RoSF=Rlskof Seismic Fallure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact Dkellhood designated elther"0'(meats
performance objective).or between"1'
Risk Ranking: 1 O (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
LaSF Rating: 3
COSF,Weighted Some: 5 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no
Overall RoSF=LoSFZCoSF= 15 itlentifled wnsequenceland'S"(high
O Consequence of Seismic Failure(Cost) 3 consequence)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15,06
PSIS-06 TM4 Appendix E 58
ORANGE COUNTY
OF Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
SHOP BUILDING A "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
1-29 1 II II BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class II:Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system;loss of -
life potential Is low.Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before
repair.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Shallow spread footings at-grade
Structure Dimensions:140 IT x 60 It
N of Stories:1 story
Date of Original Construction:1972
Retrofit(if any):1996: Provision of wall anchorage connections at the roof and
mezzanine diaphragms,addition of roof and mezzanine diaphragm cross ties,addition - 1 28 -.
of shear wall bracing for the mezzanine,and strengthening of the mot diaphragm for 1-30
shear resistance. 1-32
Projects:J-13/P1-44-3 . R. 1-29 -
Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report ILJI
N Specifications ❑Other 9�4
IF
Aeohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Plan View i
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High
HHWL' AVii
Surface Settlement(inches) 6to7 5
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) —No Lateral Spread— ' swead ro,,,,
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) No Lateral Spread-- p/s�iLa�a ciav
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(gp Dlst.(kmp = sand and sor
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 + aay with owenawe sand Packer:
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
➢rand aay
Probabilistics Hazard Level Me PGA(9) So(8) Ss(9) Ss(9)
BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 Well Graded saaa
BSE-2P 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 -::
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,;4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section
distance to center of plant;S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerotions for Site Gass D;6.Selected
us largest magnitude among significant contributors (i to the hazard; 7.. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and Ill seismic ground motions. HHWL 5ft-bgs +22 ft-MSL
AWL ilk-bgs 116 ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):N/A
PFM and Description' Tier' Assessment Results
PFM 1:Wall panels are not tied to the Walls have no structural tie between the wall and the footing.The behavior of the
footings TI building is unpredictable and relative movement of the footing below the walls is
possible(20 footings x 8 It).
Notes:1.Potential Folure Modes(PPMs)that meet both the aSE J E and RSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyn ter,1019)for additional PVMs ronsidered;1.T1=Fier I(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),72=Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Devi Bused Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Fear exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geasyntec,2019)far more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 59
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM I:Standard Structural Mitigation C2 $280,000 Applies, r 160 lineal feet(20 pad footings z e-ft
each).
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $2801000
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasynteq 2019)for descriptions of5tandard Geotechnical and5t mmool Mitigations;2.Cost estimates providedore AACEI Class
5'Order of estimates,intended forplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
s
Controlling Failure Tvoe(sl: •Other Plant I Structures Included in
PS 25-06 Study
®Ground Shaking
El Differential Settlement =4 • Till Shop Building
❑ Lateral Spread L
r 3 • * AbbreNaUons:
Controlling Consequenceis): .9 LoSF=Likelihood of Seismic Failure
® Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment COSF=Consequence of Selsmlc Fallure
El Regulatory El Stakeholder y2 pvyS' ROSF=Risk of Selsmlc Failure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact B �yd Likelihood designated elther"0"(meats
75 Performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Ranking: 1 S� 0 (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
Lc SF Rating: 3
Cc SF,Weighted Some: 4 0 Consequences ranked between NI"(no
itlentlfietl consequence)antl"5"(high
Overall RoSF=LoSFZCoSF= 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 consequence)
Cons rgwnw of Srismlc Failure(COSF)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15,06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 60
ORANGE COUNTY
OF Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 Is, 2
SHOP BUILDING B AND BUILDING 3
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTU RE TYPE
1-30 1 II II BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class II:Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system;loss of
life potential Is low.Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before
repair.
structural components -
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Shallow spread footings at-grade
Structure Dimensions:260 x 85 ft
If of Stories:1 Story
Date of Original Construction:1972
Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 1988,1996,and 2003;1996: Provision of wall
anchorage connections at the roof diaphragm,addition of roof diaphragm cross ties, 1-28
strengthening of the roof diaphragm for shear resistance,and shear strengthening of x1-30 _
the concrete shear walls. T LI,LJI • 1-32
Projects:J-13,J-20/J-89/P 1-44-3 R 1.29 -J
Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report . ILJI
N Specifications ElOther 774
1-31 I
Aeohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Plan View
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High
HHWL' AWL2.7
Surface Settlement(inches)
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) '
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) sW.gh Ana aw
Deterministic Fault Name M PGi Dist(limP = saaa.,�a suc
6s
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 + clay-a fi.,me s.,ca vorkec:
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78
Sln ana Clay
Probahilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(g) So(g) Ss Igl Ss Igl
BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 u well araaea saga
BSE-2P 5%in5Oyr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 —
Notes.1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section
distance to center of plant;S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected
us largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7.. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and gSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL 5 fit-bgs t22 ft-MSL
AWL Ilk-bgs .161
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):1-29 Shop Building A
PFM and Description' T er2 Assessment Results
PFM I:Wall panels are not tied to the Walls have no stmctu ral tie between the wall and the footing.The behavior of the
footings TI building is unpredictable and relative movement of the pad footings below the walls
is possible(32 x 8-1
PFM 5:Wall anchorage of the roof at TI Occurs at(3)locations.The nail transfer to the diaphragm is insufficient.
the south wall of Building 3
Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMsl that meet both the ESE-IF and gSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4(71144;Geasyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1-Tier 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2-Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 De dency-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/T2-Application of Ter 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS I5.06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 61
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM I:Standard Structural Mitigation C2 $430,000 Applies, r 256 lineal feet(32 pad footings z 8-ft
each).
PFM S:Provide additional nailing to develop the wall anchorage $10,000 Occurs at locations.
force into the diaphragm.Installation of clips angles that are
screwed into the strut member and the bottom side of the plywood
diaphragm on both sides of the strut member is recommended.
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $440,000
Notes:1.Refer to TM4 g3easynter,2019)Jor descriptions of Standard Geotechnical ond5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimotespmvidedare AACEI Class
5"Order-of-Magnitude-estimates,intended forplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Rik of Seismic Failure
s
Controlling Failure Twelsk •Other Plant I Structures Included M
0Ground Shaking PS ISO6 Study
❑ Differential Settlement
04 *1-30 Shop Building B and 6ullding3
❑ Lateral Spread
S 9 • • I Abbrevlunlam:
Controlling Conseguencelsi' .9 IOSF=Likelihood of Seismic Failure
® Life Safety El Primary Treatment ': COSF=Consequence of Seismic Fallure
El Regulatory El Stakeholder
'S2 pVw RoSF=Risk gf 5elsmic Failure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact B PyF Likelihood designated elther"C"(meats
1 `pC performance objective),or between"I"
Risk Ranking: (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
LOSF Rating: 5
CoSF,Weighted Some: 4 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no
Overall RoSF=LOSFZCoSF= 20 Identifietl cgnsequenceland"5"(high
O Com* umaof Seismic F.IIu.jCsSF) s consequence)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15416
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 62
ORANGE COUNTY
OF Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
BUILDINGS 5 AND 6 "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
1-31 1 II II BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class II:Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system;loss of
Ilfe potential Is low.Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before
repair.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Shallow spread footings at-grade �'r
Structure Dimensions:270 IT x 61 It
g of Stories:2 stories
Date of Original Construction:1988
Retrofit(if any):1996: Provision of wall anchorage connections at the roof and end
floor levels,addition of cross ties,and provision of connections between concrete tih- t 28 - 1
up wall panels. = f.3 .
Projects:J-20/P1-44-3 VI III - 1
-32
Available Information: N Construction Drawings N Geotechnical Report ly ., h'1-29
N Specifications ❑Other Jul u
t 34
geohazards and seismicity
i
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) f-8
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High Plan View
HHWL2 AWL2.7
Surface Settlement(inches) 6to7 5
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread--
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) No Lateral Spread-- IS
25
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA 18P Dist.lkmp IS 1t,it aneaay
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 5, sandani
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 pst nay and Liquefiable Sam Pocket:
Probahilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA 181 Still Ss lgl Ss lgl a sneand oay
BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 +s vul oradedsand
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,;4.Approximate d5
distanre to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerationsfor Site Class D;6.Selected Schematic Goss Section
s largest magnitude among significant contributors (»%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL andeSE-2E seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
Hli 5ft-bgs @Oft-MSL
AWL 9ft-bgs 116 ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-29 Shop Building A
PFM and Description' Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM I:Wall panels are not tied to the Walls have no structural tie between the wall and the footing.The behavior of the
footings T1 buildi ng is unpred ictable a end relative movement of th a footing below the walls is
possible(662 ft.
PFM 4:Wall anchorage of the 2P4 floor T3 Building was seismically retrofit in 1996 as part of Pl-44-3.The single concrete anchor
is subject to failure by concrete break-out(13 locations).
PFM 613:Bending failure of beams over
chevron braced frames The Vyi and Vyi beams at the end floor over the chevron braced frames do not
T1 have sufficient bending capacity to handle unbalanced brace loads due to buckling in
the compression brace IS locations).
REVISED:6/28f2019 PS 1506
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 63
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 It 2
PFM 610:2-Floor diaphragm Floor diaphragm collector connections,including the welded stud connection of the
collectors T2 beams to the floor diaphragm,the beam end connections,and the beam itself are not
adequate along grid line B from 3 to 4.
Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet bath Me USE IF and USE-2Eperformonce objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteq 2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.TI=Perl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier2
(equivalent to ASCl Wrier,-eased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),T1/2=Application afFer3 exemplar
results to o subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosynteq 2019)for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigations Costa Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 1:Standard Structural Mitigation C2 $705,000 Applies, r 6621ineal feet.
PFM 4:Supplement the existing wall anchorage with additional $185,000 Applies at 13 locations.Access will require
hardware and epoxy anchor into the existing wall panel. removal and replacement of building finishes
(ceiling panels,etc.).
PFM 613:Add steel cover plates to the top and bottom flanges ofthe $190,000 Applies at 5 locations x 20-ft each(100 lineal
steel beam member located directly above the braced frame. feet).
PFM 60:En hance the capacity of the W21x50 d rag along grid li ne B, $180,000 Applies to the existing W21x50 beam at the 2nd
the beam end connections,and the nailer connection for transfer of floor along grid line B between grid line 3 and 4
collector forces. (20-ft Zang).
otal Geotechnical and Structual Mitigation Cost $1,260,000
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosynteq 2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical ond5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5"order-of-Magnitude"estimates,intended forgunning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of Se'smic Failure
5 se
Controlling Failure Type(.): O Other Plant l Structures Included In
Ps 15-06 study
®Ground Shaking s4 *1-31 Buildings 5and6
❑ 0ifferen[ial Settlement �
❑ lateral Spread 5
S 3 • • Abbrevilau:
Controlling Conseguencefsl: 'E LOSF=U lhood ofSelsmlc Failure
® Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment COST=Consequence of Selsmlc Failure
El Regulatory ElStakeholder y2 pxJ RGSF=Risk of Seismic Failure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact i � Likelihood designated either"0"(meant
- t}7 performance ob)ective).or between"1"
Risk Ranking: 1 /ow likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
LOSF Rating: 5
COSF,Weighted Some: 5 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no
idmtifled consequence)and"5"(high
Overall ROSF=LOSFZCoSF= 25 0 1 2 3 4 5 consequence)
Consequence et Seismic Failure(COSF)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PSI5416
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 64
ORANGE COUNTY
OF Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
AUTOSHOP "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
1-32 1 II II BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class II:Not direcdy necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system;loss of
Ilfe potential Is low.Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before
repair.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensiom:Shallow spread footings at-grade
Structure Dimensions:121.3 ft x 121.3It -
g of Stories:1 story
Date of Original Construction:1971
Retrofit(if any):1996: Provision of wall anchorage at the roof diaphragm and IrrI
addition of cross ties at the roof diaphragm. 1_28
Projects:J-12/Pl-44-3 =
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report A - b32
®Specifications El Other 1.29
3-34
31 I geohazards and seismicity 1
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) _
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High
HHl All Marl
Surface Settlement(inches) 6 to 7 5 _
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread--
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) —No Lateral Spread
DeterministicFault Name M PGA(g)a Dist(kn)4u"`"
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 titAatandclay
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 soma and sm
�* Clay and Liquefiable sand
Probabilistics Hazard Level Me PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9)
BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 silt and Clay
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Well Grated sand
distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerationsfor Site Class D;6.Selected ^`
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the haearo; 7. Ground Schematic Cross Section
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
Ground water Level Depth Elevation
Fl 5 ft-bgs +23 ft-MSL
AWL 12 ft-bgs 116 ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-29 Shop Building A
PFM and Description' Tel Assessment Results
PFM I:Wall panels are not tied to the Walls have no structural tie between the wall and the footing.The behavior of the
footings TI building is unpredictable and relative movement of the footing below the walls is
possible(25 footings x 7 It).
PFM 4:Wall anchorage of the low roof Building was seismically retrofit in 1996 as part of P1-44-3. Capacity of hardware is
at the north and south side TI limiting(16 locations).
Names:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the ESE-IF amid BSE-2Eperformance objectives have been omittedhom the list See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,201 additional PFMs considerei TI=Ferl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Tier exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosymeg 2019)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 P515-06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 65
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 a 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM I:Standard Structural MRigation C2 $305,000 Applies to 25 footings x 7-ft each(175 lineal fee).
PFM 4:Standard Structural MRigation At(SIM) $130,0G0 Similar without the need for additional roof
framing members.Occurs at 16 locations.
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $435,000
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasynteo,2019JJor descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are Mai Gass
5"Order-Of MagniNde"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Rik of Seismic Fallure
5
Controlling Failure Tvoe(sl: •Other Plant I Structures Included in
0 Ground Shaking PS 15-065tudy
ElDifferential Settlement o4 *1-32 Auto Shop
❑ lateral Spread
u 3 • • AbbreviaUona:
Controlling Conseauencelsl• .E LOSF=Unalihaod ofSelsmlc Fallure
0 life Safety ❑Primary Treatment ':, COSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure
El Regulatory El Stakeholder 92 4pA ROSF=Risk of Selsonk Failure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact c r�� Ukellhood designated either"C"(meats
`
performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Ranking: 1 � (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
LOSF Rating: 5
COSF,Weighted Score: 4 0 Conseauences ranked between NI"(no
Identified consequence)ancl(high
OVera II ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 20 0 1 2 3 4 8 consequence)
ConsequAnw of Seismic Failure(COSF)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 P515{I6
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 66
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
PEDB2 "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
1-33 1 1 IV BURIED BOX ita
class based performance objectives Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structuressubstantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy andoperation are likely.
structural componentsFoundation Type/Dimensions:Basement with 3'mat foundation at-4.00'elev. 1
(29A0'embedment) t- — \ /
Structure Dimensions:39.3 IT 29 ft
g of stories:N/A 7 1
Date of Original Construction:1989
Retrofit(if any):N/A 1-33
Projects:P133 Ai
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnlcal Report }
❑Specifications ❑Other 111
aeohazards and seismicity I�'--
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High I i
HHWLL AWLe,7 Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 6 to 9 5 to 7 _
Lateral spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread--
Lateral spread(far from river,inches) —No Lateral Spread--
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(9)3 Dist(knp 525
5
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 -Sand/sivysana
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 5
Probabilistics Hazard Level Me PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) S (9) ciao
s w'm sm seam
BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 25 sand/sitv5aaa
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39 11
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate sand/S.IWSaod
distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerationsfor Site Coss D;6.Selected m
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Schematic Gross Section
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions.
Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5ft-bgs @Oft-MSL
AWL 9it-bgs 116 ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-21A Digester 16
PFM and Description' Tier' Assessment Results
PFM 2:Out-of-plane shear on the
buried walls due to liquefied soil T2 Walls may experience excessive shear forces.
conditions
Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMsl that meet both the BSE-IF and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteq 2019)far additional PFMs considered;2.T1=TierI fegwvalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T1=Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficienry-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Per3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosymec,2019)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 67
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost- Comments
PFM 2:Standard Geotcchnical Mitigation C $940,000 Mitigation required to reduce soil fluid density by50%or
preclude liquefaction development in backfill altogether.
Ground improvement for lateral earth pressure reduction is
required from 9 to 29 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost- Comments
N/A $0 N/A
obl Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $8g0,000
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntea,2019)for descriptions ofStandard Geotechnical and StruRuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates pmvidedare AACEI Class
5"Order-of-Magnitude-estimates,intended forplonning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of Selsmlc Failure
s
Controlling Failure Tvuelsl: •Other Plant I Structures Included In
PS I5-O6 Study
El Ground Shaking sq • *1-33PE062
N Differential Settlement
❑ Lateral Spread
S 3 A O • Abbrevlaflam:
Controlling Conseuuence(s)' 'E LoSF=Likelihood of Seismic Failure
❑ Life Safety N Primary Treatment COSF=Consequence of Seismic Fsllure
El Regulatory El Stakeholder 'S2 P`f ROSF=Rlskgf Seismic Failure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact B -4S Likelihood designated either"0"(meets
75 A•'C' performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Ranking: 1 • flow likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
Lo.SF Rating: 2
COSF,Weighted Some: 5 0 Consequences ranked betwean"1"(no
Overall ROSF=IOSF x COSF= 10 Identified cansequencelantl"5"(high
O Conequence of Wi cFailure(CoSFI S consequence)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 1546
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 68
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
LABORATORY COMPLEX IM,
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
1-34 1 1 IV BUILDINGclass based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely. pstructural components ^ :$4I
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Shallow spread foundation at-grade
Structure Dimensions:200 IT x 90It
g of Stories:2 stories t�_
Date of Original Construction:1989 --
Retrofit(if any):N/A ; ✓1-29 -- -
Projectal u 4
VI
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report 131
®Specifications ❑Other
geohazards and seismicity ..� ✓
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) _
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High 1��
HHWLL AWL2,7 Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 5 to 6 4
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread—
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) --No Lateral Spread— as
`s reacrooa n .—
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(gP Dist(knN -------------"---"---"---"---"---"---------
�.
Near Field San Joaquin Hills 7.5 0.5 2 ¢,
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.17 78 ., sans 5.1 and sit as
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) stla sand
BSEAE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.21 " silty sand
BSE-2E7 5%In 50 yr 7.71 0.46 0.46 1.09 0.39
Well c,aaea sane
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate .as
distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class Q.6.Selected Schematic Gross Session
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and RSE-2E seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 5R-lugs +21 ft-MSL
AWL 10R-bgs +16 ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):1-29 Shop Building A
PFM and Descriptions Ter' Assessment Results
PFM I:Braced frame column axial TI Applicable to all frames in both orthogonal directions.
stress due to overturning forces
PFM2:21d floor diaphragm seismic Applicable to bolted connections and shear transfer connections(diaphragm
load transfer to braced frames T1 welding).The check is not applicable for the LS performance level.
PFM 3:Out-of-plane bracing of braced The east-west braced frame beams have no lateral bracing at the 2nd floor.The check
frame beams T1 is not applicable for the LS performance level.
PFM 4:Braces for braced frames are 8 out of 10 of the braces at the 21d floor are non-compact.The first floor braces are all
non-compact members TI compact.None of the braces meet the compactness requirements for highly ductile
members per AISC 341.
PFM 5:Bending failure of beams over The W24x beams at the roof and 2-floor over the chevron braced frames do not
chevron braced frames T2 have sufficient bending capacity to handle unbalanced brace loads due to buckling in
the compression brace(16 locations).
PFM 6:Connection strength at braces TI The braced frame connections are mostly non-compliant for bolt,weld,and gusset
plate strength.
PFM 7:Roof diaphragm shear T2 Excessive shear demands on the 20 GA corrugated steel deck diaphragm in both the
transverse and longitudinal directions.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 69
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 a 2
PFM B:Column anchorage to the TI The braced frame columns along grid 3 and A(4 columns)have insufficient anchor
foundation bolt capacity to develop the uplift capacity of the footing.
Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet bath the ESE-IF and RSE-2F performance objectives have been amittedhom the list.See Technical
Me omandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=Per 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-eased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/T2=Application ofrer3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
mitieation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 1:Provide additional steel concentric braced frames $2,425,000 Add(5)bays of braced frames in the E-W direction and(3)
from the .of level down to the first floor.Braced frames bays of braced frames in the N-S direction.
should be chevron frames and should be comprised of
bracing members that are similar to the existing frame
braces(double angle).Addition of columns and enlarging
footings is to be included in this mitigation.
PFM 2:See PFM 1 Mitigation — Additional frames will reduce demands on collectors and
diaphragm shear transfer to collectors and frames.
PFM 3:Add out-of-plane bracing of the braced frame $340,000 Applies to(4)locations at the roof and(8)locations at the
beams that lack this bracing. 2nd floor.
PFM 4:Add stiffener plates to the bracing members to $710,000 Applies to(8)braces at the 2nd floor.Each brace is
make the sections compact.Plates should be welded comprised of a double angle,which has two legs.Each
along the length of each leg of each individual angle brace is about 16 feet long,so the application is required
brace. for a total of 512 feet.
PFM 5:Add a tube steel column member belowthe — Applies to(32)locations,which includes locations at the
middle of each chevron braced frame or provide steel (16)existing braced frames and(16)new braced frames as
cover plates to stiffen the existing beam members. recommended per PFM 1 Mitigation.
PFM 6:See PFM 1 Mitigation — Provided that PFM 1 Mitigation is implemented,the
demands on the connections are anticipated to reduce.
PFM 7:Standard Structural Mitigation 61 $1,655,000 Applies to the entire roof diaphragm over an approximate
area of 17,000 square feet.Depending on how new braced
frames are added to the building,the area of diaphragm
mitigation could be reduced.
PFM 8:See PFM 1 Mitigation -- Provided that PFM 1 Mitigation is implemented,the
demands on the anchorage to the foundation will be
diminished and will likely meet the performance objectives.
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $5,130,000
Notes:I.Refer to TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates installed are Mai Gass
S"Order-of luagnitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of Se'Smic Failure
s
Controlling Failure Tvoelsl: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in
PS 15-06 Study
N Ground Shakinga4
❑ Differential Settlement *1-341abolatory Complex
❑ Lateral Spread
r 3 • Abbrewationi:
[ontrollin¢Conseauencelsl: 'E LOSF=Likelihood ofSeismic Failure
N life Safety ❑Primary Treatment : cosF=consequence of5eismic Failure
❑Regulatory ❑ Stakeholder a 2 pww Ill-Riskof Selsmlc Failure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact g Pq4 0kelihood designated either'0'(meets
performance objecdve).or between"1"
Risk Ranking: 1 (lowlikelihood)and `5"(high likelihood)
LOSF Rating: 5
COSF,Weighted Score: 5 O Consequences ranked between"1"(no
Overall RoSF=LoSFx[oSF= 25 identifv--asequence)and"5"(high
O Consequence F)of Seismic Failure(COS S mnsequenml
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15d16
PSIS-06 TM4 Appendix E 70
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
DAFT A, B, & C GALLERY x
, s )
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
2-1 2 1 IV BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and Stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Basement with V-10"thick mat at-6.97'elev.(17.47'
embedment);tie-down anchors(PTA,1"DIA,35'bond length,46'total length) h
Structure Dimensions:144.3 ft x 60IT ) �A
g of Stories;1 story 2 19 1
Date of Original Construction:1977 • i
Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 1993(minor structural modifications) 2 2 2fq
Projects:P2 23 6/P2-42-2 A"rn 1 y 2 q ' 2-!
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report 2-22 �
®Specifications El Other 2-2 x 1��
2-1 i
aeohazards and seismicity I 22d
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High 1,
HHl AVVi - Plan View .-
Surface Settlement(inches) 7 to 10 6 to 9 _
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread
LateralSpread(far from river,inches) --No Lateral Spread
LateralSpread(near marsh,inches) 20 to 40 14 to 28 "
Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) 11 to 21 7 to 15 y illy sana¢Iare"sans
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(gla Dist(kml4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 �" Pooayuraaaa son
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 re-pow. anmor:
iav
Probahilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(g) so(8) ss lgl Ss lgl „ s'my saga ana Silty Clay
BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 « clay
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 n any5ana/clavev5ana
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,;4.Approximate schematic Goss section
distance to center of plant 5.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for5ite Class O,6.Selected
us largest magnitude among significant contributors (>j N) to the hazard; 7.. Ground Ground Water Level Depth elevation
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL aft-bgs +7.5 ft-MSL
AWL 8.5 it logs12 it
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):2-5 PEPS&MAC
PFM and Description' Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 6:Structure response to 2.1"over 60 feet of differential settlement.Differential settlement is 75%of that for
differential settlement due to T1/2 the exemplar.The walls have less reinforcing steel and will be subject to similar
liquefaction tensile stresses at the top.
Ahal Potential Failure Modes thot meet both the ESE-IF and 9SE-2Eperformance objectives have been artatedfrom the list See Technical
Memorandum 4(TMq Geosynteq 2019)for additional PFMS considered;2.TS=TierI(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),72=Tier2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 0eficienry-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of ITer3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See 7144(Geasyntec,2019)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSIS-06 TM4 Appendix E 71
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 6:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $5,160,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by 50%(1"in 60 feet).Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 8 to 59 tt-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
otal Geotechnical and structural Mitigation Cost $5,160,000
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasyntec,2019)Jor descriptions ofStandard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimotesprovidedore AACEI Gass
5"Order-Of-Magnitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
5
Controlling Failure TVoe(sl: •Other Plant I Structures Included In
El Ground Shaking PS 15-06 Study
N Differential Settlement 4 *2-1 DAFT A,9,&C Gallery
❑ lateral Spread B
u S • * O 4 AbbreWtlanu
Controlling Conseauence(s): LoSF=Likelihood of Seismic Failure
N Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment CoSF=Consequence of seismic Failure
El Regulatory El Stakeholder E2 ppw RoSF=Risk of Seismic Failure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact t`4 Likelihood designated either"D"Imeets
d. performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Ranking: 1 S )low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
l Rating: 3
CoSF,Weighted Score: 3 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no
OVera II ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 9 O 1 2 9 4 S Ident10ed consequence)and"5"(high
Consequence
sequce of Selsmlc Fella.(CaSF) consequenre)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 72
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
DAFT D GALLERY & WSSPS
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
2-2 2 1 IV BUILDING
class based performance objectives —
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures r
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and —��
operation are likely. ~' -
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Basement with V-10"thick mat at-7.67'elev.(17.67'
embedment) a
Structure Dimensions:89 ft x 37 ft A
4 of stories:1 below grade 2-19
Date of Original Construction:1993 --� JJ��
Retrofit(if any):N/A e 2 2-2, 2-�
Projects:P2-42-2 ••n y >_ 2-4
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report 2-22 ,(vy4lU(x) '
®Specifications ❑Other 2-2 ' e '� 2-18A
2-1
aeohazards and seismicity 2-20
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High i
HHWLl AWLa.r -- Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 8 to 10 7 to 9
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread
LateralSpread(far from river,inches) --No Lateral Spread
LateralSpread(near marsh,inches) 30 to 62 22 to 42
Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) 14 to 29 10 to 20 silty"sand/aayay sand Basement wun Mai----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(ela Dist(Wny
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 >* Poonv�,adea saod
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 ly
as
Probahilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(g) So(g) ss lgl Ss lgl sucv saga and Silty Clay
BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 n snv Ltt saod
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section
distance to center of plant,S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerotions for Site Class D;6.Selected
us largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%l to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and RSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL aft-lugs +7 trial
AWL 8ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):2-5 PEPS&MAC
PFM and Descriptions Tiers Assessment Results
PFM 4:lateral spread towards the 91(near/far)lateral spread toward the Talbert Marsh.The structure may
Talbert Marsh due to liquefaction T1/2 experience differential spread with DAFT D,which can cause separation at the sump
(surface FED=22-inches). rooms,causing a loss in service and/or structural damage to the sump room.
Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMsI thotmeet both the BSE-IE and RSE-2Eperformonce objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical
Memarondum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,1019)for additional Pi considea l.T1=TIer1(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),72=Vera?
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-nosed Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),T1/T2=Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to o subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 1506
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 73
AdMis ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 lk 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 4:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
at least 50%(surface FED=11-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Norte 3)
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasynteo,2019)for descriptions of5tandard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are Mai Gass
5"Order-of-Magnitude"estimate,intended forplanning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to TM4
(Geo,adec,2019)for additional detail.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
s
Controlling Failure Tvoelsk •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in
❑Ground Shaking PS 15-W Study
El Differential Settlement o 4 • *2-2 DAFT D Gallery&W55P5
® lateral Spread
u 3 * • • 1 Ahbreviatlons:
Controllin¢Conseauencelsl: E L.SF=likelihood of5eismlc allure
® life Safety ❑Primary Treatment u COST=CnnsequenceofStismic allure
❑Regulatory ❑ Stakeholder 5 2 Phr RoSF=Risk of5eismlc Failure
El Financial El Public Impact a6 Likelihood designated either"W(meets
F performance chjective),or behveen"I"
Risk Rankine: 1 5� • (lowlikelihood)and "5"(highlikelihmd)
LOSF Rating: 3
COSF,Weighted Score: 2 O Consequences rankedamamn"1^(no
Overall ROSF=WSFx COSF= 6 iarmined consequence(and"5"(high
O Consequence of Seismic Failure(COSF) S consequence)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 74
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
RAS PS EAST " "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE -
2-3 2 1 IV BUILDING -
class based performance objectives else
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and Stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Basement with 2'thick mat at-7.00'elev.(17.50'
embedment);tie-down anchors(PTA,1"DIA,35'bonded length,46'total length)
Structure Dimensions:114.4 ft x 56.4 ft 2-4 2-5 b
g of Stories;1 above grade,1 below grade
Date of Original Construction:1977 ,'2-18q 2-12
Retrofit(if any):N/A 2-23
Projects:P2-23-6 2-18B
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report b
®Specifications ❑Other 2-20 .2.3
aeohazards and seismicity I
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) _
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High ' )
HHWLL AWL2.7 Plan View — —
Surface Settlement(inches) 7 to 8 6 to 8 _
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 19 to 33 16 to 31
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 15 to 26 13 to 24
Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) 15 to 26 13 to 25 _
Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) 12 to 22 11 to 21 ---- ea.,m.m,wn,NJ IL -
Deterministic Fault Name M PGl Dist Ial silty saga/aayey saga
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 Privy c,aeed sand
➢e-Down Anchors
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) Sil Ss(9) St(9) u sucy saDa
BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 u MW
swam oay --` - -
BSE-2E7 5%in5Oyr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level,-2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section
distance to center of plant;S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected
us largest magnitude among significant contributors (»%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
deformation inputs tostructural analysis based on AWL and BSE-2Eseismic ground orations. HHWL 3n-bgs +7.5 ft-MSL
AWL lft-bgs +2R-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):2-I8B Aeration Basins A-H
PFM and Desviptions Tlert Assessment Results
PFM 1:Vertical irregularities in Discontinuous shear walls at EL 10.50 occur at the east and north walls of the
bui Id ing Shea r walls TI building. Provide for drag connections and strengthening of columns below
discontinuous walls.
PFM 4:Structural response to
differentia l settlement d the to T1/2 which
60 arfeetofdi to occur
esamerate bolo exemplar for typical deficiencies,
liquefaction
which are anticipated to occur at the same rate below the RAS PS East.
PFM 8:Out-of-plane shear on the
buried walls due to liquefied soil T2 Walls may experience shear stresses that are higher than their capacity.
conditions
Notes,I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMS)that meet both the BSE-IE and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,1019)for additional PFMs considered;1.TS=TierI(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),72=Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Degragm,-Based Evaluation Pracedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM=Application affair exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
RENT 6/28/2019 PS I'S-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 75
Al ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 4:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation 81 $1,340,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by 50%(3/4"in 60 feet).Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 8 to 40 tt-bgs.
PFM 8:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation C $460,000 Mitigation required to reduce soil fluid density by
50%or preclude liquefaction development in
backfill altogether.Ground improvement for
lateral earth pressure reduction is required from 8
to 17 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 1:Add new columns and strengthen existing members for axial $180,000 Additional column and strengthening required at
overturning forces below each end of the high shear wall at the 3 locations x 30 feet.Collector length estimated
north side of the building.Provide additional collector member to be 64 lineal feet(1 along grid line B x 32 feet
(steel channel)at the bottom side of the low roof. and 1 along grid line 0.5 x 32 feet).
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $1,990,000
Notes:1.Refer to T144(Geasyntec,2019)Jor descriptions ofStandard Geotechnical and Structumf Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are Mai Gass
5'Order of estimates,intended forplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
S
Controlline Failure Tvoelel: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included In
El Ground Shaking o4 PSIS-06 Study
N Differential Settlement *2-3 RAS PS East
❑ lateral Spread
a a • • • 0 Abbnvlrtlonu
Controlling Conseauencels): LgSF=Llkellhood of Seismic Failure
El Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment COSF=Consequence of5elsmic Failure
N Regulatory El Stakeholder y2 v RgSF=Risk of5elsmic Failure
N Financial ❑Public Impact B 0 Likelihood designated either"G'(meets
Risk Rankine: ` 1 x� •
performance objective),or between"1"
Qowlikelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
LOSF Rating: 4
COSF,Weighted Score: 2.4 D Consequences ranked between"1"(nor
Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 9.6 O 1 2 9 4 S idenum,d consequenca)and"5"(high
Conracoat.M9alomlc Fall..jCgSF) consequenre)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date:X-052(09/01/2032)
REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 76
Jinis ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 IS 2
RAS PS WEST "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
2-4 2 1 IV BUILDING
class based performance objectives Class 1:I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures -
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and 'w-
operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Basement with 2'thick mat at-7.Od elev.(17.50"
embedment);tie-down anchors(PTA,1"DIA,35'bonded length,46'total length) _ _ _
Structure Dimensions:114.4 ft x 56.4 ft
z
g of Stories:2 stories r1 2-19 .
Date of Original Construction:1977 . ..
Retrofft(if any):N/A 2•2i-.21A 2 4 2-5 a 2-,
Projects:P2-23-6 �b
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnlcal Report L 2-18A
®Specifications ❑Other
2 1 2-18B I
aeohazard5 and seismicity 2-20 '.2 1�
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) 3311
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High j
HHWL' AWL2.7 Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 5 to 6 3 Tod _
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 3 to 4 1
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 3 1
Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) 5 to 6 1 to 2
Laterals read far from marsh,inches 4 to 5 1 to 2 -S NF @'Ie/aavev se"d --_-_--_
P ( ) meal war Mac
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(9)3 Dist(km)4 4a• I1 1 I1
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 _€ss Povnyc,aaea saef1 1
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 I I
ne.oaWe Ana a
Probabilistlas Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) + snty sand aea sRy nay
BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 : sntysmd/x ysmd
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section
distance to center of plant;S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected
us largest magnitude among significant contributors (»%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL aft-lugs +7.5 ft-MSL
AWL 8.5 ft-lugs 12 it-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):2-18A Aeration Basins A-H
PFM and Description' Tier' Assessment Results
PFM I:Vertical irregularities in Discontinuous shear walls at EL 10.50 occur at the west and north walls of the
building shear walls TI building.Provide for drag connections and strengthening of columns below
discontinuous walls.
PFM 4:Structural response to 1.2"over 60 feet differential settlement.Refer to exemplar for typical deficiencies,
differential settlement due to T1/2 which are anticipated to occur at the same rate below the RAS PS West.
liquefaction
PFM 8:Out-of-plane shear on the
buried walls due to liquefied soil T2 Walls may experience shear stresses that are higher than their capacity.
conditions
Notes:).Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the ESE-IF and BSE-2Eperformance objectives have been amittedf ern the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteq 2019)for odditional PFMs considered;2.T1=Tier 1(eg ivolent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),72=Tier2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM=Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detafl.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSIS-06 TM4 Appendix E 77
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 4:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation Rl $2,810,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by 40%(3/4"in 60 feet).Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 8 to 66 ft-bgs.
PFM B:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation C $520,000 Mitigation required to reduce soil fluid density by
50%or preclude liquefaction development in
backfill altogether.Ground improvement for
lateral earth pressure reduction is required from 8
to 17 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost2 Comments
PFM 1:Add new columns and strengthen existing members for axial $180,000 Additional column and strengthening required at
overturning forces below each end of the high shear wall at the 3 locations x 30 feet.Collector length estimated
north side of the building.Provide additional collector member to be 64lineal feet(1 along grid line B x 32 feet
(steel channel)at the bottom side of the low roof. and 1 along grid line 0.5 x 32 feet).
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $3,510,000
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasynteq 2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are Mai Gass
5'Order of estimates,intended forplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
S
Controlline Failure Tvoe(sl: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included In
El Ground Shaking o4 PS I5-06 Study
N Differential Settlement *24RAS PS Wert
❑ lateral Spread
a a • • • 0 Abbnvlrtlons:
Controlling Conseauence(s): L.SF=Llkellhoad of Seismic Failure
❑ life Safety ❑Primary Treatment COSF=Consequence of 5elsanic Failure
N Regulatory El Stakeholder
'82 p`v ROSF=Risk 05donar Failure
N Financial ❑Public Impact B 0 Likelihoodith designated eer"d'Imeets
u 1 vo2s� • performance objective),or between"I"
Risk Rankine: Qowlikelihood)and "S'(high likelihood)
LOSF Rating: 4
CaSF,Weighted Score: 2.4 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(na
Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 9.6 O 1 2 9 4 S idenum,d consequence)and"5"(high
Conrequrna of Srllc Fallun IGSF) consequence)
om
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date:X-052(09/01/2032)
REVISED:6/28/2019 PSI'S-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 78
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 A 2
PEPS & MAC "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
2-5 2 1 IV BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components .q*..Pj
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Basement with 2'thick mat at-7.50'elev.(19.00' YS
embedment);tie-down anchors(PTA,1"DIA,35'bonded length,46'total length) A
Structure Dimensions:167 IT x 54IT . I •: • at 0
g of Stories:1 story • _�
Date of Original Construction:1977 2-19
Retront(ifany):1994: Provision of shear transfer at the north wall with window infill /, • A •.A 2-24
and out-of-plane bracing of a non-bearing masonry wall. 2-5 • 2-31b •b
Projects:P2-23-6/P2-23-2 2-4 `
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report / 2 18A �Z 2-12
®Specifications ❑Other
2-23
2-1RB`
geohazards and seismicity 2_20
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) 2-3 )
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High Plan View
HHWL2 AWL2.7
Surface Settlement(inches) 10 to 16 9 to 14
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 30 to 45 28 to 42
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 20 to 31 19 to 29 "
Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) 18 to 30 17 to 26 Eias,m,n wimwa,-----
Lateral Spread(far from marsh,Inches) 17 to 28 15 to 24 a Silty sand/Clayey sand
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(9)2 Dist hi _€ss
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Pi craead San
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 r� oow Any o,a
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) S.(g) SS(9) S2(9) silty sand and silty Clay
BSE-SE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 a. 5nird/smysand
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 Schematic Cross Section
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Ground Water Level Depth Elevatlon
distance to center ofplant'S.probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected HHWL Seth +Berard8.5 SL
as largest magnitude among significant Contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and RSE-2E seismic ground motions. AWL 9.5 it-bgs +2 it-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):N/A
PFM and Descriptio0 Tien Assessment Results
PFM 4:Flexure in bottom mat due to 2.8"differential settlement over 60 feet.Occurs over length of basement wall along
differential settlement due to T3 grid line 6 and at high foundation slab at the west side of the building.Could be
liquefaction compliant if the spring stiffness is assumed to be liquefied(ky is 7.2 ksf/ft).
PFM S:Flexure in walls due to 2.8"differential settlement over 60 feet.Occurs at bottom of east wall over half the
differential settlement T1/2 length of the wall.Could be compliant if the spring stiffness is assumed to be liquefied
Iky=7.2 ksf/ft)
PFM 6:Tension stress in structure 2.8"differential settlement over 60 feet.Occurs at the roof,first floor,and basement
slabs due to differential settlement T3 slab.
PFM 7:Tension stress in structure 2.8"differential settlement over 60 feet.Occurs at the top of the north,south,west,
walls due to differential settlement T3 and at the bottom of the wall along grid line 4(interior wall).
REVISED.WOMB PS 1506
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 79
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
PFM 8:Lateral spread towards the 17.r/12"(near/far)lateral spread toward the Santa Ana River.Foundation is within
Santa Ana River due to liquefaction T1/2 lateral spreading soils.Deep foundation wall at the west end is subject to failure and
the effluent conduit at the south side of the structure will likely separate causing loss
(surface PGD=D.S-inches). ofservice.
PFM 11:Out-orplane shear on the
buried walls due to liquefied soil T2 Walls may experience shear stresses that are higher than thei r capacity.
conditions
Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the BSE-IE and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geasynteq 2019)for additional PFMs ronsidered;2.T1=Ter 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Wriency-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM=Application ofTier3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Gewyntec,2019)for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigatlont CoW Comments
PFM 4-7:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation BS $5,740,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by 60%(1"in 60 feet).Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 10 to 60 It-bgs.
PFM 8:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation required to reduce lateral spread by
75%(surface PGD=7-inches).
PFM11:Standard Geotechnical MitigationC $1,860,000 Mitigation required to reduce soil R uid density by
50%or preclude liquefaction development in
backfill altogether.Ground improvement for
lateral earth pressure reduction is required from
10 to 20 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costt Comments
N/A $0 N/A
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $7,600,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3)
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasynteq 2019)for descriptions of5tandard Geotechnical and5tructural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates providedme AACEI Class
5"Order-of-Magnitude'estimates,intendedfai-a gning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on loteral spread mitigation.Refer to TM4
(Geasynteq 2019)far additional detail.
risk ranking S Rik of of Seismic Failure
Controlling Failure Tvoe(sl; •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in
❑Ground Shaking o 4
PS 15.06 Study
® Differential Settlement zs *2-5 PEPS&MAC
-1 Lateral Spread
all 3 • • • 1 AbbrWirtlonu
Controlling Cunseguencelsl• it LoSF=Likelihood of Selsmic Fallure
❑ life Safety ❑Primary Treatment I CoSF=Consequence of5elsmic Failure
®Regulatory El Stakeholder '152 pAx RoSF=Risk of5elsmic Failure
El Financial ❑Public Impact O.q Likelihood designated elther"0"(meets
performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Ranking: I • (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
Lc SF Rating: 5
Cc SF,Weighted Some: 4 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no
Identined consequence)and"5"(high
Overall RosF=LoSFZCOSF= 20 0 1 3 3 4 5 consequence)
Consequence of Seismic Fellure(CoSF)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date:X-052(09/01/2032)
REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS416
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 80
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
OPERATIONS/CONTROL CENTER BUILDING "
If PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTU RE TYPE
2-6 2 1 IV BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and -
operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Basement with 2'thick mat at-2.50'1(101
embedment) -
Structure Dimensions:95 ft and 66 IT x 65 IT
g of Stories;2 above grade,1 below grade
Date of Original Construction:1977
Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 1992;1994: Provision of collectors and ties at the roof -
diaphragm,provision of tilt-up wall holdowns to the foundation,and strengthening of —-
wall anchorage connections at the roof diaphragm.
Projects:P2-23-5
Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnlcal Report �2' 2-611
N Specifications El Other • _ �•
2-13
Reohazards and seismicity 41OAAA
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) y27
Liquefaction Potential(Nigh/Med/Low):High -- - - -- -•' -`�-
NNWLa AWLz.r Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 12 to 14 11 to 13
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) -----No Lateral Spread----
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) -----No Lateral Spread----- „
Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) ----No Lateral Spread----- _- easemem with Marc--::
Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)a DIA.(km)^ saaa wan aayseams
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So lg) S,(g) S,(g) snry sand with aay seams
BSE-SE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 n sana/onvei
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Schematic Gross Section
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level,2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate
distance to center of plant;S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>S%) to the hazard, 7. Ground HHWL aft-bgs +5 ft-MSL
deformation inputs tostructumlandiiis based on AWL and BSE-2Eseismic ground motions. AWL 6h-bgs +2h-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):2-5 PEPS&MAC
PFM and Desttlptionr Tien Assessment Results
PFM I:Wall anchorage at east and Wall anchorage at the joist bearing seats relies on bending through the bearing seat,
westwalls(original building) TI which has minimal flexural capacity(16 locations).
PFM 3:Wall anchorage at east and Similar design as original building.The connection also has slatted holesthat do not
west walls(addition) TI allowfor transfer of wall anchorage forces into the diaphragm(14 locations).
PFM 5: Incomplete load path at the The canopy has no discernible load path backto the moment frame.The building is
south entrance canopy addition for TI also experiencing static settlement at the south end as the canopyextension is
resisting seismic loads bearing within backfill.
PFM 6:In-plane shear at shearwalls TI N-S seismic at the north building governs.East and westwalls have continuous
openings over most of the building length.
PFM 7:Drag connection at roof to east T3 Connection occurs at the original 1977 building.Retrofit in 1996 is not sufficient to
and west shear walls develop the capacity of the roof diaphragm.
REVISED:6iculu 19 PS 15-06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 81
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
PFM B:Precast wall panel connection TI Precast wall panels have minimal connections to the tops of the foundation walls.
to foundation walls
4.0"over 60 feet of differential settlement Differential settlement is about 43%
PFM 9:Structure response to higher than the exem pla r.The wa l l s a re fra an ed i n a s i in i Is r man ner to the south wa ll
differential settlement at ue to T1/2 of the exemplar.Tensile forces are anticipated to well exceed the wall beam capacity.
liquefaction Also,the mat slab has intend r wa l is and columns that are I i rely to generate large
bending moments and shear demands on the slab,similar to the exemplar.
Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet bath the BSE-1E and eSE-2E performance objectives have been omittedfrom the list See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteq 2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1-Tier 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-130eficienry-Rased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/T1-Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geasyntec,2019)for more detail
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cl Comments
PFM 9:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B3 $6,780,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by 75%(1"in 60 feet).Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 6 to 61 fit-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costa Comments
PFM 1:Add stiffeners to the existing joist bearing seats by field $550,000 Required at 16 locations 2 stiffeners each(32
welding in place to eliminate flexure in the joist seat. total).
PFM 3:Addstiffeners to theexisting)Dist bearing seats byfield $450,000 Required at 14 locations x 2 stiffeners each(28
welding in place to eliminate flexure in the joist seat. Also,field total).
weld bolts to the bearing seat to eliminate gap in the load path.
PFMS:A6d(2)steelbraced frame-withgradebeamsatthesouth $I60,000 Repair to correct settlement within the backfill
canopy. (slab on grade,canopy,stairs,etc.)may also be
considered at the time of mitigation.
PFM 6:Standard Structural MkigationE $20,000 Applies over 15-ftx1-ft windows at(2)locations
least and west walls).
PRO 7:Upgrade the existi ngconnedi on-s with larger uhrough bolts, $-10-,000 Occurs at 10 locations total.
plates,and anchors.
PFM B:Standard Structural Mitigation Al $910,000 Applies to 530 lineal feet.
Dual Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $8,880,000
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosymb,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates providedore AACEI Class
5"Order-of-Magnitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Ri k of Seismic Failure
6
Controlling:Failure TVpeisl: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in
®Ground Shaking o4 P515-M Study
El Differential Settlement -R2-6 Operations/Control Center Bldg
❑ lateralspread
3 • • • Abbreviations:
Controlling CODslRueDcl151' 'E Lo5F=Likelihood of Seismic Failure
E life Safety ❑Primary Treatment u CoSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure
El Regulatory El Stakeholder tot Phi RuSF=Risk of Seismic Failure
El Financial ❑Public Impact B Likelihood designated either"O"lmeets
uI \aF • performance objective),orbetween"1"
Risk Ranking: _ (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
Lo5F Rating: 5
COSF,Weighted Some: 4 a Consequences ranked between"1"(no
Overall Roiis Lo5F x Cl is 20 identified consequence)and"5"(high
D 1 2 3 4 5 consequence)
Consequence of Seismic Failure(Lo5F)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date:X-008(03/01/2028)
REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 82
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
12 kV SERVICE CENTER ` s
If PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
2-7 2 1 IV BUILDING
class based performance objectives w%
Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures � L
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and -"
operation are likely. -
structural components - r.
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Basement with I'thick mat and grade beams at 1' -
elev.IS'embedment)
Structure Dimensions:68 ft x 41 ft
g of stories:1 story
Date of Original Construction:1977
Retrofit(if any):N/A .O
Projects:P2-23-3 2-7
Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report
N Specifications ❑Other
aeohazards and seismicity a I
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High )
HHWLL AWL2.7 - Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 13 11
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 19 to 20 16 to 19
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 17 to 18 15 to 17
Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) --NO Lateral Spread-- Basement with Mac
Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread-- _ and araae seams S. .
ry Send
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(gp Dist(III 1" sand
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 a sand and silrysane
ai
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) Si Ss(9) St(9) as s.I dad eia
BSE-1E 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20
BSE-2P 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.@ u Say
Historic High Water Level,2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section
distance to center of plant;S.probabilistic Seismic Accelerations far Site Class D;6.Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (i to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
deformation inputs to structural analysis based an A WL dedeSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL aft-bgs +7R-MSL
AWL 8ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):2-5 PEPS&MAC
PFM and Descriptions Tien Assessment Results
PFM 1:Wall anchorage to roof at North and south walls have no rigid diaphragm connection as the wall anchorage
north and south walls T1 force wil l be appl ied perpendicular to the 7.5-inch deep deck corrugation.
PFM 3:Wa 11 a nchorage forces at the In conjunction with wall anchorage at the north and south walls,sub-diaphragms and
north and south walls have no suh- T3 struts are required to develop wall anchorage forces into the diaphragm.
diaphragm or ties
PFM 4:Roof diaphragm shear T2 Excessive shear demands for the 7.5-inch deep steel deck(low shear capacity).
PFM S:Shear at frame columns Frame columns along the north and south walls have high shear demands and cannot
T3 develop moment frame behavior due to restraint by the infill wall panels.Conversion
of building to shear wal Is is recommended.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 83
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
PFM 7:Structure response to 4.3"over 60 feet of differential settlement.Differential settlement is about 54%
differential settlement due to T1/2 higher than the exemplar.The walls are framed in a similar manner to the south wall
liquefaction of the exemplar.Tensile forces are anticipated to well exceed the wall beam capacity.
Notts:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the ESE IF and ESE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list.see Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteq 2019)for additional PFMs ronsidered;2.T1=Per 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-130ef tiency-Bosed Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/r2=Application afFer3 exemplar
results to o subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosynteq 2019)for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigations Costa Comments
PFM 7:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $2,300,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by 75%(1"in 60 feet).Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 8 to 50 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 1&3:Standard Structural Mitigation AS $200,000 Applied at 8-ft on center along the north and
south walls(approximately 8locations).
PFM 4:Replace entire roof deck with a new roof support system $42DOW Existing roof deck is 7.5-inch deep steel deck
that provides for new steel beams that span across the building without any concrete topping.Protect electrical
width in the east west direction(40 feet)and a new standard gear in place.
corrugated steel deck that spans in the north-south direction.
PFM 5:Standard Structural Mitigation E $160,000 Applies at the east and west walls for 22-ftx2-ft
window(88 square feet total).
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $3,080,000
Notes:1.Refer to TALI(Geosynteq 2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnicol ond5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates providedere AACEI Class
S-Order of estimates,intended forplonning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
5
Controlling F.!lure Tvoeisl• •Other Plant I Structures Included in
N Ground Shaking o 4 PS 15.06 Study
❑ Differential Settlement *2-712 kV Service Center
❑ Lateral Spread C
u 3 • • • 1 Abbrevlrtlonr:
Controlling Consequence(* it LoSF=Likelihood of Seismic Fallure
❑ Life Safety N Primary Treatment 1 CoSF=Consequence of5elsmlc Failure
El Regulatory El Stakeholder 2 phS RoSF=Risk of5elsmlc Failure
El Financial ❑Public Impact �Fa Likelihood designated elti hateets
1 Net. • performance objective),or between"I"
Risk Ranking: (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
LaSF Rating: 5
CoSF,Weighted Score: 4 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no
IdenuuR u consequence)and"5"(high
Overall RoSF=LoSFz CoSF= 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 consequenm)
Consequence of Seismic Fellure(CoSF)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date:X-047(09/01/2023)
REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 84
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
POWER BUILDING Bw—
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
2-8 2 1 IV BUILDING
-- _
I
class based performance objectives
Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and �"]'I •'��_�
operation are likely. F, 1
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensiom:Tunnel with dropped spread footings at 2.00'elev.
(8.00'embedment)
Structure Dimensions:52.2 It x 40 ft A ..
g of Stories:l story rQ-26e .2_14 2-
Date of Original Construction:1971 �^'$f
Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 1980 and 1996;1994: Provision of roof chords and S Ji 2-16
connections,addition of connections between the roof and shearwalls,and addition 71fx
g_304
of connections between the shear walls and the floor slab.
Protects:PI-15/P2-24-2 ?19> 2-2�
Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report [] 4A
N Specifications ❑Other
A u�,h 12
� L f
Aeohazards and seismicity 4L_ , z-Is
���
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Plan View
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High
HHWL2 AWL2,7
Surface Settlement(inches) 6 to 8 5 to 6
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread
--
LateralSpread(far from river,inches) No Lateral Spread-- Llj,_ a ,/Ca saga Spread rooangs-----
Lateral Spread(near marsh,Inches) ----No Lateral Spread---- s
Lateral Spread(far from marsh,Inches) --No Lateral Spread-- le
i Poony ena.a save
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)2 Dist.(kM)4 1
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 :: silrysam and SXry Day
Probabilistic° Hazard Level Ms PGA(g) so 1g1 Ss(g) Ss(g) >: snty sane/oayav say
BSE-SE 20%in 50 IT 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 Schematic Gross Section
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Noted 1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
distance to center of plant,S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations far Site Class D;6.Selected HHWL aft-bgs +7 it-MSL
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground AWL 8R-bgs +2R-MSL
deformation inputs tostructund onolysis based on AWL and RSE-2Eseismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):1-4 City Water Pump Station
PFM and Description2 Tien Assessment Results
PFM 4:Roof diaph ragm shear T2 Diaphragm shear capacity is limiting.Mitigation is recommended to enhance the
diaphragm capacity.
Notts:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the BSE-lE and SSE-2Eperformonce objectives have been omlttedfrom the list See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=rerl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier1
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Rased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/71=Application of rer3 exemplar
results too subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,201g)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 1506
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 85
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 4:Standard Structural Mitigation BS $210,000 Applies, r the entire roof plan between grid
lines 2 and 5(1,600 sf)and requires the addition
of(2)W12x31 beams x 25-ft long.
Dual Geotechnical and strudwal Mitigation Cost $210,000
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasyntet,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnicalond5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Gass
5'Order Of Magnitude-estimates,intended forplonning purposes only.
risk ranking a -4Sia mlc Fallure
s
Controlling Failure Teoelsk •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in
®Ground Shaking o4 PS SSO65tudy
❑ Differential Settlement 'I '� *28 Power Building 6
❑ lateral Spread
3 • ♦ • Abbr.Yinham:
Controlling Consequence(* 'E LoSF=Likelihood of Seismicfailure
❑ Life Safety ®Primary Treatment d CDSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure
El Regulatory El Stakeholder y2 pwW ROSF=Risk of SelsmlcFellure
El Financial El Public Impact BSJ Likelihood designated either"D"(meets
x�' •
performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Ranking: ` 1
(low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
LOSF Rating: 5
CDSF,Weighted Score: 4 p Consequences ranked between"1"(no
Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 Identined consequence)and"5"(high
Consequence of salad.Failure(CDSF) consequence)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 86
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 8 2
POWER BUILDING C R'
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
2-9 2 1 IV BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components T' -
FoundatbnType/Dimensiom:Tunnel with dropped spread footings at-2.61'elev. -
(13.61'embedment) —
Structure Dimensions:76 ft x 46 ft • • 2 •.
N of Stories:1 story •/' , •
Date of Original Construction:1979 S
Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 1985 and 1996;1994: Provision of braced frames to • •• �••
laterally support the high roof and wall ties.
Projects:P2-24-1/1-6-2 2-9 2-24
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report S
❑Specifications ❑Other
geohazards and seismicity 2-19I•
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) • zodl'1 �•
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High Plan View
HHWD AWL'.r
Surface Settlement(inches) 7 to 9 6 to 8
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread—
—
LateralSpread(far from river,inches) --No Lateral Spread
Lateralh i h Spread near mars ,inches) 9 to 16 8 to 11 - naga.
P ( ) 3iliy 5andand511ry.Clay !mead Foo
Lateral spread(far from marsh,Inches) 8 to 14 7 to 10 t
to Poorly uraded sane
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)a Dist.(knp I
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 silty sand and silt
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 .. Poorly Graded Derse rand
ss silty sand and day
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(8) Ss(9) Ss(9)
BSE-SE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 shy sand and Clay
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 Schematic Cross Section
Notes1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA:4.Approximate
distance to center of plant,S.probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground HHWL aft-bgs ♦S it
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. AVJL 9ft-bgs +2R-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):1-4 City Water Pump Station
PFM and Description' Tier2 Assessment Results
PFM 1:Incomplete lateral load The west end of the building has no lateral load resisting system.The west concrete
resisting system in the east west Tl roof deck will impart large out of plane forces onto the east wall of the digester
direction pump roam creating a collapse hazard.
PFM 6:In-plane wall shear at shear Lack of shear walls in the east-west direction at the west end increase the demands
walls Tl on the remaining walls,which have no load path to resist the seismic loads at the
digester pump room.
PFM 7:Insufficient separation from The roof deck of the digester pump room is separated from the walls of Digester
Tl and Digester S by 1-inch.Pounding of the roof deck into the digester walls can occur
adjacent digesters and cause significant structural damage to the building.
PFM 8:Footings move independent of Tl Walls have no structural tie between the wall and the floor slab.Building wall can
the wall move differentially from other walls(232 ft).
REVISED,6/28/2019 PS 15,06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 87
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 8 2
PFM 9:Tension failure in the CMU 2.2"of differential settlement over 60 feet.Walls are lightly reinforced and shorter
walls due to differential settlement T1/2 than the exemplar.Ground deformation upward will fail the upper portion of the
walls in tension.
6"lateral spread toward Talbert Marsh,which can pull apart the building foundation
PFM 10:lateral spread towards relative to the roof and the because the floor slab is not tied to the wall/footing(232
Talbert Marsh due to liquefaction T1/2 ft).The building is founded on tunnels and shallow footings,which have varying
(surface PGD=7.5-inches) depths.Differential lateral spread is anticipated,which is also a potential cause for
building instability.
Notex,I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)thotmeet bath the ELSE IF and ESE-2EpeQormonce objectives have been omitted from the list See Techniml
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,2019f for additional PFMs considered;2.TI=Tierl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier2
(equivalent to ASCE41-130eficiency-Rased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),T1/T2=Application afFer3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
mitieation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigations Costa Comments
PFM 9:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $2,500,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by at least 50%(1"in 60 feet).Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 9 to 65 ft-bgs.
PFM 10:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation required to reduce lateral spread by
50%.(surface PGD=flinches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costa Comments
PFM 1,6,and 7:Provide new cast-in-place concrete shear walls $210,000 Applied at(2)places is 16 feet x 16-ft tall(32 lineal
Inside the digester control room.Provide with continuous footing. feet).
PFM 8:Standard Structural Mitigation C1 $70,000 Applies over 232 lineal feet.
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $2,780,000 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3)
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of5tandard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cast estimates provided are AACEI Class
5"Order-of-Magnitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to TM4
(Geosyntec.2019)far additional detail.
risk ranking Risk of Selsmlc Failure
5
Controlling Failure Twili •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in
®Ground Shaking o 4 PS 15-06 Study
❑ Differential Settlement zs *2-9 Power Building C
❑ Lateral Spread
u 3 • • • 1 Abbrevletlone:
Controlling[onseguenre(sl: LOSF=Likelihood of Selsmicfallure
® life Safety ❑Primary Treatment COSF=Consequence of5elsmic Failure
El Regulatory El Stakeholder 152 Phµ ROSF=Risk of5elsmic Failure
❑ Financial El Public Impact 1 FA Likelihood designated elther"O"(meets
Ile • performance objective),or between"I"
Risk Rankine: )low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF,Weighted Score: 2 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no
Idenunc.consequence)and"5"(high
Overall RoSF=LoSFZCoSF= 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 consequence)
Consequence of Seismic Fellure(COSF)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISEO:6/28/2019 PSIS-06
PSIS-06 TM4 Appendix E 88
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
POWER BUILDING D , - `
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
2-10 2 1 IV BUILDING -
class based performance objectives
Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures _1
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions:1'4"thick mat at-grade at 8'elev.(1'embedment)
Structure Dimensions:57.7 It x 31.3 It -
g of Stories:1 story E
Date of Original Construction:1985 v a
Retrofit(if any):N/A Aeq r F
Projects:J-62 •
f
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings El210 Geotechnical Report 2 29
®Specifications ❑Other 2 17
2-15 • 2-32
geohazards and seismicity .2-14 .
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) 1216
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High l
HHi AVVL2.7 7ft•A' 2-3D
Surface Settlement(inches) 6to8 5to6 Plan View
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread
--
LateralSpread(far from river,inches) No Lateral Spread
--
Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread
--
LateralSpread(far from marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)a Dist.(kmp , -cGyeJsandandsadv Clay-------------------
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 5"
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 J� Poory Gradedsaad
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9)
BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 11 Siitysana with Dayseams
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 .uy.a io eu
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate son
distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.selected Schematic Cross Section
s largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2F seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 3fli t6ft-MSL
AWL lit-bgs 12 ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):2-5 PEPS&MAC
PFM and Description' Tier' Assessment Results
PFM I:Incomplete load path at the The south side of the high roof has no lateral load resisting elements to transfer shear
south side of the high roof diaphragm TI forces down to the foundation.
PFM 5:Out-of-plane horizontal Horizontal wall reinforcing is less than the minimum.Based on exemplar behavior,
bending TI horizontal bending is a vulnerability.In-plane shear is relatively low and not
considered to be a vulnerability.
Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet bath the ESE-IF and RSE-2Fperformance objectives have been amittedfrom the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=rerl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Defcienry-acted Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Per3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 89
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 1:Provide concentric X-braced frames at the existing louver $260,000 Mitigation required over length of 31 feet.
openings.Provide steel framed blocking at the roof level and weld Frames occur at 4 locations having bay sizes of
the roof deck to it.Provide a new steel member sill and anchor to ft long x 5-ft tall.
the top of the existing masonry wall with epoxy anchors.
PFM 5:Standard Structural Mitigation D $41D,D00 To be applied at a spacing that reduces horizontal
wall spans by 50%.
Mal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $670,000
Notes:1.Refer to Trial(Geasynrec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates pmvidedore AACEI Class
S-order-of-Marvitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
6lip
Controlling Failure Twill •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in
®Ground Shaking o4 P515.O6 Study
❑ Differential Settlement • � *2-10 Power Building
❑ lateral Spread
3 • • • Abl nvlatlona:
Controlling Conseauencelsl• 'E LOSF=Ukellhood of seismic Failure
® Fife Safety ❑Primary Treatment d COSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure
El Regulatory El Stakeholder 2 Phw ROSF=Risk of Seismic Failure
El Financial ❑Public Impact Sa Likelihood designated either"0"Imeets
- t(, performance objettive),or between"I"
Risk Ranking ` 1 •
_ (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
LOSF Rating: 5
COSF,Weighted Some: 2 D Consequences ranked between"1"Ina
Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 10 idenci6ed consequence)and"5"Ihigh
0 1 2 3 4 5 consequence)
Comequence of Selamic Failure ICq$F)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 1546
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 90
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 A 2
CITY WATER PUMP STATION "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
2-11 2 1 IV BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Dropped spread footings at 5.40'elev.(3.10'
embedment)
Structure Dimensions:79.3 IT x 40.7IT
g of Stories:l story I
Date of Original Construction:1995 ' -
Retrofit(if any):N/A
Projects:P2-46 21�1
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report 2 6
❑Other 2-
®Specifications 13
/ /�..J A aA .
geohazards and seismicity a
.V . 7
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) AA -• +-
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High c F dni
HHWLL AWLa.t Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 12 to 14 12 to 13
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread
LateralSpread(far from river,inches) --No Lateral Spread
Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread-- sPiaaa roofings
Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) --No Lateral Spread-- `
_________________________________________
Sand and sby sand
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA III Dist(Will 5"
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Eu sand wah nay saama
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Sz(9) snq sand with Clay seams
BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20
BSE-2P 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 n sand/Gravel
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Schematic Gross Section
distance to center of plant,S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected
us largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL 3R-bgs +5.6ft-MSL
AWL 66R-bgs +2R-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):1-4 City Water Pump Station
PFM and Desviptionz Tien Assessment Results
PFM 1:Wall anchorage at north and Tl Open-web joist seat anchor is subject to pull-out(24 locations).
south walls
PFM 5:Out-of-plane horizontal Horizontal wall reinforcing is less than the minimum.Based on exemplar behavior,
bending TI horizontal bending is a vulnerability at wall corners(8 locations).In-plane shear is
relatively low and not considered to be a vulnerability.
PFM 6:Differential settlement due to 4.6"of differential settlement over 60 feet.Building is of similar size,height,and
liquefaction TI/2 reinforcement to exemplar,but has 2.6 times the amount of differential settlement.
Notes,I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)thotmeet both the BSE-IE and BSE-2Epedormonce objectives have been omittedfrom the list.See Technical
Memarandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,1019)for additional PFMs considered;1.71=Terl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Vera
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/71=Application of 77'er3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
REVISE).6/28/2019 P515-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 91
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 6:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $4,040,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by at least 80%(3/4"in 60 feet).
Ground improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 3 to 65 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 1:Standard Structural Mitigation Al(SIM) $180,000 Similar without additional steel framing members.
Applies at 24 locations.
PFM 5:Standard Structural Mitigation D $560,000 Applies below every other roof joist and at 16-ft
spacing elsewhere.
Mal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $4,780,000
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasynteo,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are Mai Gass
5"Order-of-Magnitude-estimates,intended forplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
5
Controlling Failure Tvoe(sl: •Other Plant I Structures Included in
El Ground Shaking o4
PS 15-06 Study
® Differential Settlement * • *2-11❑ry Water Pump Station
❑ lateral Spread
3 • • • 4 Abbravlatlonu
Controlling Conseeuencelsl• 'E LoSF=Ukellhood of Seismic Failure
® Fife Safety ❑Primary Treatment d COSF=Consequence of Seismic Fellure
El Regulatory ❑Stakeholder .. 2 Phw ROSF=Risk of Seismic Failure
El Financial ❑Public Impact �S, Likelihood designated either"d'Imeets
performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Ranking `_ 1 • (low likelihood)and "5"Thigh likelihood)
LOSF Rating: 4
COSF,Weighted Some: 2 a Consequences ranked between"1"(no
Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 8 identified consequence)and"5"(high
D 1 2 3 4 5 consequence)
Comaquence of Selamic Failure(COSFI
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date:X-036(12/30/2028)
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15416
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 92
Jinis ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 IS 2
12 kV DISTRIBUTION CENTER B -
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE , �--
2-12 2 1 IV BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components "I ,•' <f
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Basement with 2'mat at-5.50'elev.(17.00' `' F
embedment);tie-down anchors(PTA,1"DIA,35'bonded length,46'total length) _ _
Structure Dimensions:112.8 ft x 59.8 ft A y •.• _ •.• • •`
g of Stories:1 above grade,1 below grade e
Date of Original Construction:1978 -�9
Retrofit(if any):N/A -• 2-24
Protects:P2-23-6/ 32-23-2 2-52-31 , .b
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report
2-4 o
®Specifications El Other 2.(2
2-18A
2-23
aeohazards and seismicity 2-toe a I
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) 2-20 *-
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High •2-3
HHWLL AWLz.r Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 10 to 15 9 to 14 _
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 26 to 57 23 to 51
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 18 to 40 16 to 36
Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) 12 to 25 10 to 23
Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) 11 to 23 9 to 21 ---- eazemen:wud marv-----
Determinlstic Fault Name M PGA(g)z Dist(kn)4 sibs saga/aavev saga wars clay
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 " Poorly ode saga
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 reoor,n Ant ors
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) „ siirysana ana silly Oay
BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20
BSE-2P 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 •, sand/silty sand
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section
distance to center of plant;S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Closs D;6.Selected
us largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and 9SE-2E seismic gerund motions. HHWL aft-lugs +8ft-MSL
AWL 9R-bgs +2 it MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):2-5 PEPS&MAC
PFM and Descriptions Tlerz Assessment Results
PFM 2:Structure response to 2.7"differential settlement over 60 feet.Building has nearly identical foundation and
differential settlement due to T1/2 reinforcing as exemplar.Walls have same framing and reinforcing steel and are
liquefaction expected to experience high tensile stresses,similar to the exemplar.
PFM 6:Out-of-plane shear on the
buried walls due to liquefied soil T2 Walls may experience shear stresses that are higher than their capacity.
conditions
Nolen I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the BSE-IE and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteg 2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=Fier I(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),72=Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficient,-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),T1/T2=Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subs idim,structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 93
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 2:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation 61 $3,920,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by 60%(1"in 60 feet).Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from IOto 59ft-bgs.
PFM 6:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation C $1,250,000 Mitigation required to reduce soil Fluid density by
50%or preclude liquefaction development in
backfill altogether.Ground improvement for
lateral earth pressure reduction is required from
10 to IS ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $5,170,000
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasyntec,2019)for descriptions of5tandard Geotechnical ond5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5-order-of-Magniwde"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
8
Controlling Failure Tvoe(sl: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included In
El Ground Shaking o4 P51S-06 Study
N Differential Settlement *2-1212 kV Distribution Center a
❑ Lateral Spread
a 3 * • • 0 Abbnvlatlem:
Controlling Conseeuence(s): 'E LoSF=Likelihood of Seismic Failure
ZLife Safety ❑Primary Treatment COSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure
7 Regulatory El Stakeholder g2 4 ROSF=Risk of Seismic Failure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact Ps�a Likelihood designated either"0"(meets
u1 Sed • performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Ranking: _ (low likelihood)and S"(high likelihood)
LOSF Rating: 3
COSF,Weighted Some: 2 q Consequences ranked between"1"(no
Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 6 identified consequence)and"5"(high
D 1 2 3 4 S consequence)
Consequence of Selsmlc Failure(COSF)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 F51S06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 94
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
12 kV DISTRIBUTION CENTER D "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
2-13 2 1 IV BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and Stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
4.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Shallow spread footings at unknown elevation
Structure Dimensions:28 fit x 22 ft
g of Stories:1 story -
Date of Original Construction:1995
Retrofit(if any):N/A
Projects:P2-35-3
Available Information: ❑Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report 2-1 11
7 Specifications NOther no drawings or spesforthe current configuration '�� 2-6 r�'
2-13
Reohazards and seismicity •`�•• ••
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) a47 ,
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High •• •'
HHWR AWL2.7 _ iA-- the
Surface Settlement(inches) 12 to 14 12 to 13 Plan View
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread
LateralSpread(far from river,inches) --No Lateral Spread
Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread
--
LateralSpread(far from marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread inspread Footings(unknown vend
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(gp Dist.kni , sand and arty sand
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 anon with Daysaam,
Probabilistics Hazard Level M4 PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Sr(9)
BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 gly sand with Clay seam:
BSE-2E7 5%1n 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate at santl%arave�
distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected Schematic Gross Section
as largest magnitude among significant contribution (>1%) to the hazard; 1. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and eSE-2E seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL aft-bgs +6.3 R-MSL
AWL 7.3 ft-bgs +2 fp-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):1-4 City Water Pump Station
PFM and Desciptill Tiers Assessment Results
PFM 4:Differential settlement due to 4'6"of differential settlement over 60 feet.The building has a large opening along the
liquefaction T1/2 north side.The CMU lintel can experience large differential settlement that can stress
the lintel beam into non-linear behavior.
Names,1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)charmer both the age IF and BSE-2Eperformance objectives have been omittedfrom the list Sce Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteg 2019)for additional PFMs considered,-1.TI=Tier)(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),72=Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-eased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),T1M=Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to o subsidiary structure.See T144(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS1506
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 95
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 4:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $1,500,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by at least 80%(1"in 60 feet).Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 3 to 63 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costa Comments
N/A $0 N/A
oral Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $1,500,000
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasyntec,2019)for descriptions o)Standard Geotechnical ond5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5"Order-Of Magnitude-estimates,intended forplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
6
Controlling Failure Tvoelsk •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in
El Ground Shaking o4 + PS 15.06 Study
N Differential Settlement ^ *2-1312 kV Distribution Center D
❑ Lateral Spread
u 3 • • • 0 Abbrrvlrilom:
Controlling Conseguencelsl' LoSF=Ukellhood oFSelsmlc Failure
N Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment '�- CDSF=ConsequenmofSeismicFellure
El Regulatory El Stakeholder E3 P ROSF=RIsk of Seismic Failure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact �+r'a Likelihood designated either"0"(meets
ed performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Ranking, a 1 •
_ (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
LoSF Rating: 4
COSF,Weighted Some: 2 D Consequences ranked between"1"(no
Overall ROSF=LoSF x COSF= 8 Identined consequence)and"5"(high
D 1 2 3 4 5 consequence)
Consequence of 5elsmlc Failure(LoSF)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 96
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 A 2
HEADWORKS POWER BUILDING A E
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
2-14 2 1 IV BUILDING
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components q5
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Dropped spread footings at 3.35'elev.(4.15'
embedment) 7 -. -
Structure Dimensions:50ftx30ft �% 0' 2-10
g of Stories:1 story _ • 2_17 p_2g
Date of Original Construction:1988
Retrofit(if any):N/A
Projects:P2-37/1-33-1 •214 215 •. 232
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report • • '-,LWY ,
b
®Specifications ❑Other ;2-16
2W,. P 304
aeohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) S9
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High • . i
HHWLL AWLt.r Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 13 to 18 13 to 17
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 19 to 28 17 to 25
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 18 to 26 16 to 23
Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread-- " Sp-J ao_:,,s:
Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) --No Lateral Spread-- ""-"-
aayoy saoa/sucysaoa
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)3 Dist(km)4 9+
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 €€€€" Paddy araeaa sand
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 U 5itysaod
Probabilistlas Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) St(9) : wry smd add nay
BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 pay
BSE-2P 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 s:nya aan�s'u l ch,a
Notes:1.Historic High Water level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section
distance to center of plant,S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected
us largest magnitude among signifimnt contributors (»%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL hadeSE-2E seismic grountl motions. HHWL 3R-bgs W.S ft-MSL
AWL 5.5 it logs12 it-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-4 City Water Pump Station
PFM and Descriptions Tiers Assessment Results
PFM 3:Building separation allows Build ing separation is only 3/16-inch,but only occurs in al ign ment with the west wall
pounding TI of the Headworks Standby Power Building.Buildings should be tied together to help
ensure uniform response.
PFM S: Building response to 5.2"of differential settlement over 60 feet.The differential settlement is 3.7times
differential settlement due to T1/2 that at the exemplar.By inspection,the building walls will likely experiencetension
liquefaction failures.
Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PRAsI thotmeet both the BSE-Mood BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list see Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,1019)for add tional PFMs considered;2.T1=Tier1(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),72=Tier2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficienry-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Fier exemplar
results to o subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
REVISED.6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 97
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM S:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $2,150,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by at least 80%(1"in 60 feet).Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 5 to 54 ft-bgs.
Recommended structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 3:Tie the structures together using steel plates and through $60,000 Applies at one location where the east wall
bolts with epoxy anchors.Steel shapes will need to be sized to adjoins to the west wall of 2-16 Headworks
promote uniform response ofthe buildingto ground shaking. Standby Power Building.
rMal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $2,21(1,000
Notes:1.Re)er to TM4(Geosynteq 2019)Jor descriptions o)Standard Geotechnical ond5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates providedove AACEI Class
5"Order-of-Magnitude"estimates,intended forounning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk'oPSeismic Failure
S
Controlling Failure Tvoelsl, •Other Plant 1 Structures Included In
®Ground Shaking PS 15-06 Study
❑ Differential Settlement 4 *'2-14 Headworks Power Bldg
❑ Lateral Spread B
u 3 • • • 0 Abbnvirtlom:
Controlling Conseauencelsl' LOSF=Ukellhood of5elsmlc Failure
® Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment '�- CDSF=Consequence of5eismic Failure
El Regulatory El Stakeholder E2 PNv ROSF=Risk of Seismic Failure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact Likelihood designated either 4W(meets
performance objective),or between"I"
Risk Ranking: 1 • (lowllkelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
LOSF Rating: 5
COSF,Weighted Some: 2 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no
Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 10 Identined consequence)and"5"(high
0 1 2 3 4 s consequence)
Consequence of Seismic Failure(COSF)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PSI5416
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 98
Jil ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 Be 2
HEADWORKS POWER BUILDING B 1V
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
2-1S 2 1 IV BUILDING
J
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures z
substantially retain original strength and Stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components '
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Shallow spread at 5.00'elevation(2.00'embedment)
Structure Dimensions:50 IT x 30 tt rl • _
g of stories:1 story LP 2-10
Date of Original Construction:1990 • 2-17 2'2g
Retrofit(if any):N/A • •• ,
Projects:P2-42-1/J-33-1
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings El2-15 • 2-32
Geotechnical Report •2-14 .o
N Specifications ❑Other
•2-I6
Q
geohazards and seismicity �!rg•A i-30 `
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) ❑_ •
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High •
Hill AWL2.7 • I
Surface Settlement(inches) 13 to 18 13 to 17 Planyiew
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 20 to 30 19 to 27
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 18 to 28 18 to 25
Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread
--
LateralSpread(far from marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread-- " sureaa rnmmg:
Deterministic Fault Name M PG Dist.(kmp , clayey Sand/A(g)° She saga
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0a
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 Poody G,ad Wsand
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) Snrysane
BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 nary sand and day
BSE-2E7 5%1n 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
n sltysan andSla
Notesa.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate L�
distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.selected Schematic Gross Section
s largest magnitude among significant contributors (>3%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and RSE-2E seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL aft-bgs Mft-Nl
AWL 5it-lugs 12 ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-4 City Water Pump Station
PFM and Description' Tier' Assessment Results
PFM 3:Building separation allows Building separation is only 3/16-inch at walls and''/.-inch at the roof,where the
pounding TI adjacent roof diaphragm is lower than the roof deck.This can result in pounding of
the south bearing wall.Sufficient separation at the roof and walls should be provided.
PFM S: Building response to 5.2"of differential settlement over 60 feet.The differential Settlement is 3.7 times
differential settlement due to T1/2 that at the exemplar.By inspection,the building walls will likely experiencetension
liquefaction failures.
Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the RSE-IE and RSE-2Eperformance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical
Memarondum 4(TM4,Geosynteg 2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=Vert(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),72=Tier2
(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Onj7danry-Rased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application ofPer3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
REMSED 6/28/2019 PS 15416
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 99
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 5:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $2,400,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by at least 80%(I"in 60 feet).Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 2 to 53 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 3:Tie the structures together using steel plates and through $130,000 Applies at two wall locations and along the low
bolts with epoxy anchors.Steel shapes will need to be sized to roof of the adjacent 2-16 Headworks Standby
promote uniform response of the building to ground shaking. Power Building(30 lineal feet).
Additional ties at the roof diaphragm of the adjacent building will be
required,since that building's diaphragm will be restrained by tying
the structures together.
obi Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $2,530,000
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntet,2019)Jor descriptions o)Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5"Order-of Magnitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
6
Controlling Failure Tvoelsl: •Other Plant I Structures Included in
❑Ground Shaking PS 15-06 Study
® Differential Settlement 4 *2-15 Headworks Power Bldg 0
❑ Lateral Spread `
u 9 • • • 1 Abbrevlatlans:
Controlling Conseauencelsl' L05F=Likelihood of Selsmic Failure
® Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment COS-Consequence of5eismic Failure
El Regulatory El Stakeholder if 42 Poi RoSF=Risk of Seismic Failure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact M4 Likelihood designated elther"G"Imeets
performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Ranking: 1 • Rmallkeliho,d)and "5"(high likelihood)
LaSF Rating: 4
COSF,Weighted Score: 2 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no
Ovens ll RoSF=LoSFz CoSF= 8 Iden00ed consequence)and"5"Ihigh
O 1 2 3 4 5 consequenm)
Consequence of Seismic Failure ICOSF)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS1S-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 100
Jinis ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
HEADWORKS STANDBY POWER BUILDING "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTU RE TYPE
2-16 2 1 IV BUILDING
class based performance objectives i'�i
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components ` '(;
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Shallow spread at 4.33'elev.(2.67'embedment) A2�cx��lva�
Structure Dimensions:50 IT x 58 tt -
g of Stories:l Story is 2-10
Date of Original Construction:1999 • 2_1 2-29
Retrofit(if any):N/A . ,
Prolects:J-33-1
•� •
Available Information: ®[onstmaion Drawings ®Geotechnical Report • 2-32
2-1q 2-15 y�
®Specifications ❑Other • .
2-16
geohazards and seismicity 2WAI 2-34
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) A - !I
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High
HHWR AWLa.r
Surface settlement(Inches) 13 to 18 13 to 17 Plan View •
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 20 to 29 19 to 28 .,...... .__..__.._
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 18 to 26 17 to 25
Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread
LateralSpread(far from marsh,inches) ---No Lateral Spread-- " Spread rooting.
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)r Dist.(kmp 0ayey Sandi sans
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 gr*
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 �.: Poorly sraaaa sans
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) Still) S,(9) Ss(9) a: silty sand
BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 silty sand and ua,
BSE-2E7 5%1n 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 •+ as
sil¢sanea u
Nohsa.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,'4.Approximate Santl sII!sand
distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected Schematic Cross Section
s largest magnitude among signifimnt contributors (>3%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Downturn
HHWL aft-bgs Oft-MSL
AWL 5it-bgs 12 ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-4 City Water Pump Station
PFM and Description' Tier' Assessment Results
Building separation is only 3/16-inch at walls and%-inch at the roof,where the
PFM 3:Building separation allows Tl adjacent roof diaphragm is higher than the roof deck.This can result in pounding of
pounding the south bearing wall of Headworks Power Building B.Sufficient separation at the
roof and walls should be provided.
PFM s: Building response to 5.2"of differential settlement over 60 feet.The differential settlement is 3.7 times
differential settlement due to T1/2 that at the exemplar.By inspection,the building walls will likely experience tension
liquefaction failures.
Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the ESE-IF and BSE-2Epe formance objectives have been omfttedfrom the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosymeq 2019)far additional PFMs considered,2.T1=TIer1(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),72=ThY2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficierm,Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Tier3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detafl.
REVISED,6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 101
Al ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM S:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $2,970,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by at least 80%(1"in 60 feet).Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 3 to 53 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 3:Tie the structures together using steel plates and through $130,000 Applies at two wall locations and along the low
bolts with epoxy anchors.Steel shapes will need to be sized to roof of the adjacent 2-15 Roadworks Power
promote uniform response of the building to ground shaking. Build ing B(30 li real feet).
Additional ties at the roof diaphragm of the adjacent building will be
required,since that building's diaphragm will be restrained by tying
the structures together.
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $3,100,000
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasyntec,2019)for descriptions o)Standord Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2,Cost estimotes provided are AACEI Class
5"Order-of Magnitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
6
Controlling Failure Tvoil l: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in
❑Ground Shaking PS 15-06 Study
® Differential Settlement 4 *2-16 Headworks Standby Power
❑ Lateral Spread ` Building
u 3 • • • 1 Abbrevlatlone
Controlling Conseauencelsl' LOSF=Likelihood of Selsmic Failure
® Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment CoSF=Consequence of Selsmic Failure
El Regulatory El Stakeholder if E2 P" RoSF=Risk of Seismic Failure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact N.G Likelihood designated elther"O"(meets
performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Ranking: 1 • (lowllkelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
LaSF Rating: 4
COSF,Weighted Some: 2 D Consequences ranked between"1"(no
Overall RoSF=LoSFz[o5F= 8 Identlgeu consequence)and"5"(high
O 1 2 3 4 s consequence)
Consequence of Seismic Failure(COSF)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15.06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 102
jil ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
l
CENTRAL POWER GENERATION BUILDING
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTU RE TYPE
2-17 2 1 IV BUILDING 71
class based performance objectives may '
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures !�•
substantially retain original strength and Stiffness and continued occupancy andIf—
operationarelikely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Basement with 9'mat at-14.00'elev.(25.00'
embedment)
Structure Dimensions:192 IT x 110 ft /)
4 of Stories:l above grade,I below grade T f
Date of Original Construction:1990(7) p • > F
Retrofit(If any):N/A •Prolects:J-19-2/1-15 Q 2-10 f•
Available Information: N Construction Drawings N Geotechnical Report Q-17 2-29
N Specifications ❑Other
WL b
geohazards and seismicity A
2h
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) ;2-16
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High • ..-.
HillAWLa,r a_an • I
Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 9 to 15 8 to 13
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 26 to 33 21 to 27
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 15 to 19 12 to 16
Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) --No Lateral Spread
--
LateralSpread(far from marsh,inches) --NO Lateral Spread-- - ea:emem with Mat-----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(gP Dlst(lanp 1h.
sey
# sa�r wah ea seam
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 '^ Poorly sharer saes
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
a sna sane
Probahilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(g) So(g) Ss Igl Ss Igl
BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 siI sam air
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 lExay
in
Notes:1.instant Hiah Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Schematic Gross Section
distance to center of plant;S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected
us largest magnitude among significant contributors (>156) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
de)ormation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL andeSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL 3R-bgs n8R-MSL
AWL 9it-bgs 12 ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):N/A
PFM and Desciptions Tien Assessment Results
PFM I:Discontinuous shear walls The shear walls along the south side of the mezzanine is not continuous down to the
along grid line B(mezzanine) TI foundation.The first-floor deck does not appear to have been designed for this
condition.
PFM 2:Wall anchorage at the north (2)%"diameter bolts resist wall anchorage force in shear at the top of the pilaster(10
and south walls TI locations).Beam is also slender and requires bracing and/or stiffening.Diaphragm
cross ties are also deficient(low capacity compared to wall anchorage force).
PFM 4:Mezzanine at EL 21 lacks TI Steel-framed mezzanine at EL 21 has no lateral bracing to resist seismic loads.
bracing
PFM S:In-plane shear in shear walls at
shear walls in the east-west direction TI East-west seismic governs.North-south was determined to be adequate.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 103
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 At 2
PFM 6:Roof diaphragm shear transfer TI The ledger angle bolts cannot develop the diaphragm shear strength.
PFM 7:Roof diaphragm shear T2 Roof diaphragm shear in both directions exceeds the capacity of the decking.
Notes,1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)thotmeet both the 8SE-IE and BSE-2Eperformance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteq 2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.n-Tier I(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2-Tmr2
(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Oelpoem,-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/T2-Application ofFer3 exemplar
results to o subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosynteq 2019)for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigations Costt Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costa Comments
PFM I:Provide 50 lineal feet of 12-inch thick cast-in-place concrete $600,000 Conduit and piping is suspended from the first
shear wall at the basement level and upgrade first floor beams with floor deck along grid line B.These would need to
steel channel tie along the entire building length(190 feet)to serve be removed and replaced or relocated.
as a collector.
PFM 2:Standard Structural Mitigation A2(High) $700,000 Occurs at 10 locations.
PFM 4:Provide steel braced frames down to the first floor. $70,000 Occurs at 4 locations.
PFM 5:Standard Structural Mitigation E $110,000 Provide at high and low windows at the south wall
for 25-ft long x 14.5-ft(364 square feet total).
PFM 6:Standard Structural Mitigation 62 $80,000 Supplement existing anchors at 2d'OC(total of
200 epoxy anchors).Provide along the west,
interior,and east walls.
PFM 7:Standard Structural Mitigation B1 $2,330,000 Estimated to be required at 50%of the roof
diaphragm.
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $3,890,000
Notes:1.Refer to TAU(Geasyntec,2019)for descriptions ofStandard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEICIass
5'Order of estimates,intended forplonning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
s
Controlling Failure Tvoeish •Other Plant l Structures Included in
®Ground Shaking _ PS 15-W Study
0 4 •
❑ Differential Settlement *2-17 Central Power Generation
❑ Lateral Spread Building
u 3 1 Ahhreviations:
[ontrollin¢Conseauencelsl: E LoSF=Likelihood of Seismic Failure
El Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment u COSF-Consequence of5eisgic Fall.m
❑Regulatory El Stakeholder .. 2 aH? RoSF=Risk ofSeisgic Failure
® Financial 7Public Impact �^ Likelihood designated either"o"(geets
F performance chjective),or between"1"
Risk Ranking: 1 sc • (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
Logic Rating: S Consequences rankedbetween"1"(no
COerallRghted SFx 4 o identified consequence)and"5"(high
Overall RoSF=LoSFZCo.SF= 20 nsequencd)
0 Consequence of Seismic Failure(COSF) 5 cq
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date:P2-119(09/01/2027)
REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 104
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
AERATION BASINS A-H (NORTHWEST) "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTU RE TYPE
2-18A 2 1 IV TANK
class based performance objectives - .�7
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions:1'-4"mat at-3.33'elev.(14.33'embedment);tie-
down anchors(PTA,1"DIA,35'bonded length,46'mral length)
Structure Dimensions:379.5 ft x 192 fit 2 5 2-31 b x)
g of Stories:1 story ihY. 2-4 " yy�� 'r
Date of Original Construction:1977 IJJ�UJ .
Retrofit(if any):N/A 2-18A 2-12
Projects:P2-23-6/P2-23-2 2-23
Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnlcal Report 2-18B
N Specifications ❑Other 0
2-20 .2-3
aeohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High I
HHl AWL2.7 - Plan View•
Surface Settlement(inches) 5 to 6 4 to 6
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 4 to 5 1 to 3
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 3 to 4 1 to 2
Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) 5 to 7 1 to 3 "
Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) 3 to 4 1 to 2 Clayey sad/soiy Sand ma[----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA III Dist Ial f.a 11 11
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 Povnyi,aaegsaedl +11 I111
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 I I T,i.00 I Aeclyo,:
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ma PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) 1
BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 , slty sand and silty Clay
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 r 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 a Da
Y mry sand/clayey sand
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section
distance to center ofplont;S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerotions for Site Class D;6.Selected
us largest magnitude among significant Contributors (»") to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and eSE-2F seismic ground motions. HHWL aft-lugs r8ft-MSL
AWL 9it-lugs 12 ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure[N/A If Exemplar):N/A
PFM and Desorption' Tier' Assessment Results
1.4"differential settlement over 60 feet.Considers a 10%reduction in capacity due to
PFM 4:Top slab flexure due to T3 corrosion.Bottom bars govern this check.Bottom side of roof deck did not have signs
response to differential settlement of rebar corrosion per condition assessment reports.Check is compliant if the spring
stiffness is assumed to be liquefied(ky=T2 ksf/ft).
PFM 5:Wall flexure due to response to 1.4"differential settlement over 60 feet.Occurs at the reinforcing steel dowels at the
differential settlement at the interior thickened wall base of the interior basin-dividing walls and the north and south
basin dividing walls and the north and T3 perimeter walls.The north and south perimeter walls are Compliant if the spring
south perimeter walls stiffness is assumed to be liquefied(ky-7.2 ksf/ft).
PFM 6:Out-of-plane shear response to 1.4"differential settlement over 60 feet.Occurs at the top slab and base slab.All
differential settlement
T3 conditions are compliant if the spring stiffness is assumed to be liquefied(ky=7.2
ksf/ft1.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15.06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 105
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
PFM 7:Tension in top slab mbar due 1.4"differential settlement over 60 feet.Considers a 20%reduction In capacity due to
to differential settlement T3 corrosion.Occurs at the top slab.Condition is compliant if the spring stiffness is
assumed to be liquefied(ky=7.2 ksf/ft).
PFM B:Tension In Interior basin- 1.4"differentia1 settlement over 60 feet.Good is at the interior basin-dividing walls
dividing walls due to differential T3 and the interior transverse walls.Condition is compliant if the spdng stiffness is
settlement assumed to be liquefied ley=7.2 ksf/ft).
Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the BSE-IF and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4(TMA;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=Tier 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-130eficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI1T2=Application ofVer3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
mitieation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation Costa Comments
PFM 4:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation BS $18,570,000 Applies to approximately 800 square feet total.Mitigation required to
reduce differential settlement by 50%(3/4"in 60 feet).Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 9to 67 It bgs.
PFM S:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation 61 -- Occurs over a length of 800 lineal feet.Mitigation required to reduce
differential settlement by 50%(3/4"in GO feet).Ground improvement
for settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 67 ft-bgs.
PFM 6TSUndard Geotechnical m it,g awb n Bl -- Occu rs at the top slab an d bottom slab.Ova rstress is occu rung at
about 3,000 square feet.Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by 50%(3/4"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for
settlement mitigation is required from 9to 67 ft-bus.
PFM 7:sundard Geotechnical m-I thi zwlo n Bl -- Occurs at the top slab over an area of approximately 30000 square
feet(50%of the top slab area).Mitigation required to reduce
differential settlement by 50%(3/4"in 60 feet).Ground improvement
for settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 67 ft-bgs.
PFM 8:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation 61 -- Occurs over about 30%of all interior basin walls.Mitigation required
to reduce differential settlement by 50%(3/4"in 60 feet).Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 67 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costa Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Mal Geotechnical and Structural $18,570,000
I, Ill Cost
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnicaland structural Mitigations;2.Cast estimates provided are AACEI Class
5"Order-of-Magnitude"estimates,intendedforplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Ni k of Seismic Failure
6
Controlling Failure Tvoeisi: •other Plant I Structures Included in
❑Ground Shaking o 4 PS 15-M Study
® Differential Settlement *2-18 Aeration Basins A-H
❑ Lateral Spread
3 • • • 1 Abbnvlatiom:
Controlling Conseauencefsl' 'E LoSF=Ukellhood of Seismic Failure
❑ Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment u COSF=Consequence of Seismic Fallure
®Regulatory ❑Stakeholder 52 pNV RaSF=Risk of5elsmic Failure
® Financial ❑Public Impact 8 Likelihood designated either"0-himets
- ac performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Ranking:
` 1 •
Ilowlikelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF,Weighted Score: 4 g Conseouences ranked between"1"(na
Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 20 idenuald omsequenceland"5"(high
D 1 2 3 4 5 consequence)
Consequence ofSeismic Failure(CoS l
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date:X-050(03/01/2020)
REVISED:6/28/2019 PSI'S-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 106
jinis ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 A 2
AERATION BASINS A-H (SOUTHEAST) "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTU RE TYPE ! -
2-18B 2 1 IV TANK p, -
class based performance objectives I ! j
Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment Structures cr
substantially retain original strength and Stiffness and continued occupancy and rr
operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions:1'-4"mat at-3.33'elev.(14.33'embedment);tie-
down anchors(PTA,1"DIA,35'bonded length,46'mral length) _. • �_
Structure Dimensions:379.5 It x 192 fit 2-31 .t
g of Stories:1 Story ,Z-4 2-5 0
Date of Original Construction:1977 \��J
Retrofit(if any):N/A 2-18A 2-12
Projects:P2-23-6/P2-23-2 2-23
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report 2-18B
®Specifications ❑Other O
2-20 •2-3
aeohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High )
HHVVl AWLa.z --- Plan View• -
Surface Settlement(inches) 7 to 8 6 to 8
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 18 to 33 16 to 31
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 10 to 19 9 to 18
Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) 16 to 28 13 to 26
Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) 11 to 19 9 to 18 - mail----
` azyey sand/silty sand
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(eP Dist(lamp &m
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 666r Pooa c,aaea sand
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 y na-onwn Anrnn�:
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Si(9) St(9) + silty sang
BSE-1E 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 sn and eay
BSE-2E7 5%lit 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,4.Approximate Schematic Goss Section
distance to center of plant S.probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected
us largest magnitude among significant contributors f>i%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2F seismic ground motions. HHWL 3it-lb, ♦aft-MSL
AWL 9 it has +2 ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):N/A
PFM and Descriptions Tiers Assessment Results
1.8"differential settlement over 60 feet.Considers a 10%reduction in capacity due to
PFM 4:Top slab flexure due to T3 corrosion.Bottom bars govern this check.Bottom side of roof deck did not have signs
response to differential settlement of reba r corrosion per condition assessment reports.Check is call is nt if the spring
stiffness is assumed to be liquefied ley=7.2 ksf/ft).
PFM 5:Wall l flexu re due to response to 1.8"differential settlement over 60 feet.Occurs at the reinforcing steel dowels at the
differential settlement at the interior thickened wall base of the interior basin-dividing walls and the north and south
basin dividing walls and the north and T3 perimeter walls.The north and south perimeter walls are compliant if the spring
south perimeter walls stiffness is assumed to be liquefied(ky=7.2 ksi/ft).
PFM 6:Out-of-plane shear response to 1.8"d ifferential settlement over 60 feet.Occurs at the top sl all and base Sid b.All
differentia l settlement T3 cond itions are compliant if the spring stiffness is assumed to be I quefied(ky-T2
ksf/ft).
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS15.06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 107
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 a 2
PFM 7:Tension in top slab Fiber due 1.8"differential settlement over GO feet Considers a 20%reduction incapacity due to
to differential settlement T3 corrosion.Occurs at the top slab.Condition is compliant if the spring stiffness is
assumed to be liquefied(ky=7.2 ksf/ft).
PFM B:Tension in interior basin- 1.8"differential settlement over 60 feet.Occurs at the interior basin-dividing walls
dividing walls due to differential T3 and the interior transverse walls.Condition is compliant if the spring stiffness is
settlement assumed to be liquefied(ky=7.2 ksf/ft).
Notes,1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)thatmeet both the BSE-1E and SSE-2Eperformance objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4(71144;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T3=Tier 1(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procodure),T2-Ver2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-130eficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),T1/f2=Application of Ter 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
mitieation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation Costa Commerds
PFM 4:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B3 $9,870,000 Applies to approximately 800 square feet total.Mitigation required to
reduce differential settlement by 60%(3/4"in 60 feet).Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 41 it-bgs.
PFM S:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation Bl -- Occurs over a length of 800 lineal feet.Mitigation required to reduce
differential settlement by 60%(3/4"in GO feet).Ground improvement
for settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 41 ft-bgs.
PFM 6TSUndard Geotechnical m it,g awb n B-1 -- Occu rs at the top slab an d bottom slab.Ova rstress is occu rung at
about 3,000 square feet.Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by 60%(3/4"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for
settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 41 ft-bgs.
PFM 7:sundard Geotechnical m-I thi zwio n Bl -- Occurs at the top slab over an area of approximately 36,000 square
feet(50%of the top slab area).Mitigation required to reduce
differential settlement by 60%(3/4"in 60 feet).Ground improvement
for settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 41 it-bgs.
PFM 8:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation Bl -- Occurs over about 30%of all interior basin walls.Mitigation required
to reduce differential settlement by 60%(3/4"in 60 feet).Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is required from 9 to 41 fit-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costa Comments
N/A N/A
Mal Geotechnical and Structural $9,870,000
Mtigation Cost
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mdantians;2,cast estimates crowded are AACEI class
5"Order-of-Magnitude"estimates,intendedforplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Ni k of Seismic Failure
5
Controlling Failure Tvoeisl: •Other Plant l structures Included in
❑Ground Shaking o 4 PS 15-M Study
® Differential Settlement *2-18 Aeration Basins A-H
❑ Lateral Spread
3 • • • 1 Abbnvlatiom:
Controlling Conseauencil l' 'E LoSF=Ukellhood of Seismic Failure
❑ Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment u COSF=Consequence of 5elsmic Failure
®Regulatory ❑Stakeholder 52 pNV RaSF=Risk of Seismic Failure
® Financial ❑Public Impact 8 Likelihood designated either"0"(meets
- ac performance objective),or between"I"
Risk Ranking:
` 1 •
(low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF,Weighted Score: 4 q Conseouences ranked between"1"(na
Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 20 idennuld omsequenceland"5"(high
D 1 2 3 4 5 consequence)
Consequence of Seismic Failure(LOSE)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date:X-050(03/01/2020)
REVISED:6/28/2019 PSI'S-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 108
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 A 2
GAS HOLDER _ "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE f _�
2-19 2 1 IV STEEL TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components WIN
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Ring wall footing(2'wide)at 8.00'elev.(1.50'
embedment) �I r „ ��.__ •_____
Structure Dimensions:42 ft diameter,31 ft height )
g of Stories:1 story •A
Date of Original Construction:1982 ' •' '•'
Retrofit(if any):N/A r
2-19
Protects:P2-24-1
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report : Z;2�(�• 2 5 • .
®Specifications ®Other Shoo Drawings:Gas holder 2-4
22 a -
2-2
aeohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) 21 • _ 2<18
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High
HHWLL AWL2.7 Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 5 4
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 2 to 3 1 '..
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 2 1
Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) 4 to 5 1 to 2 Inamg wall Foma
Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) 4105 1to2 = SIIty:5and(Uayysan all_______________
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(8)3 Dist(Ill
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 i" Poorly Graded Sava
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 in
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) Si SS(9) S,i(9) += silty sand/silty Clay
BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 a SpicirSoadjolarrineySirind
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Schematic Gross Section
distance to center of plant,S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected
us largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7.. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
deformation inputs tostructuroarnalysis based on AWL and SSE-2Eseismic ground motions. HHWL 3n-lugs +6.5 ft-MSL
AWL 7.5 ft-lugs +2 ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):N/A
PFM and Descriptill Tlerz Assessment Results
PFM 6:Tan k shell overstress due to Does not meet 10(BSE IE)performance objectives.Stress in tank shell at the anchor
and settlements
lateral spread T3
location exceeds yield,may result in gas leakage. Does meet LS(BSE 2E)performance
and settlements objectives,D[R>1.0,overstress in steel shell at anchor plates may cause some
permanent deformation and/or gas leakage,low likelihood of collapse.
Does not meet 10(BSE IE)performance objectives.Stress in the anchor plates
PFM 7:Anchor failure overstress due exceeds yield;corrosion observed,damages to similar plate anchors observed in past
to liquefaction-induced lateral spread T3 earthquakes. Does meet LS(BSE 2E)performance objectives,DCR>1.0,overstress in
and settlements plate anchors may cause permanent deformation or fracture,low likelihood of
collapse.
Notes,I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)thotmeet both the BSE-SE and aSE-2Eperformonce objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,1019)for additional PFMS considered;).T1=rent(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),72=Thi
(equivalent to ASCE41-13 De&ieacy-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic evaluation Procedure),TI/T2=Application of Tier3 exemplar
results to o subsidiary structure.See TAN(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
REVISED,6/28/2019 PS 1546
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 109
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 6&7:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $2,300,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement.
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
otal Geotechnical and structural Mitigation Cost $2,300,000
Notes:1.Refer to TM4 g3eosynteg 1019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnicof ond5tructumf Mitigations;2.Cost estimotespmvidedare AACEf Gass
5'Order of estimates,intended faroanning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
S
Controllint Failure Tvoeisl: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included In
❑Ground Shaking o • .
PS 15-06 Study
4
® Differential Settlement *2-19 Gas Holder
❑ Lateral Spread
u 3 • • O 4 Abbr.Artlonr:
Controlling Conseguence(s): mSF=Likelihood of Seismic Failure
El Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment CcSF=Consequence ofSelsmic Failure
®Regulatory El Stakeholder
B2 +f RoSF=Risk of Seismic Fellure
9
❑ Financial ❑Puhlic Impact $ o,� Likelihood designated either"d'(meets
performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Ranking: / (low likelihoDd)and "5"(high likelihood)
LOSF Rating: I
COSF,Weighted Score: 2.4 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no
Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 2.4 0 3 2 9 4 S identi0ed consequence)and"5"(high
ConeequAna of Selamlc Fallure(COSF) consequenre)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date:J-124(In Progress)
REVISED:6/28/2019 PSISu16
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 110
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
SECONDARY CLARIFIERS A-L a. "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
2-20 2 1 IV STEEL TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
a
structural components t
Foundation Type/Dimensions:1'-3"Mat at-2.25'elev.(12.75'embedment);tie-
down anchors(PTA,1"DIA,35'bonded length,46'tWal length) - -
Structure Dimensions:555 ft x 345 ft = 2-21�z 2-5 s O) b "
N of Stories:1 story ` 2-4 '
Date of Original Construction:1977 � 2 18A 2 12
Retrofit(if any):N/A �/
Projects:P2-23-6/P2-42-2 2-2:
Available Information: N Construction Drawings N Geotechnical Report 2-18B a
N Specifications ❑Other Shoo Drawings:Soil anchors 2-20
2-3
aeohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High A
HHWL' AWL2.7 Plan View --
Surface Settlement(inches) 7 to 12 6 to 30 —
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 15 to 23 12 to 23
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 8 to 9 6 to 8
Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) 45 to 88 36 to 77 , :QCayey sa nd/smy sa na -----
Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) 15 to 22 12 to 19 m"0-- --
g' saaa/davevsa�a
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA ill Dist(km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 �'6 Poorpurad.d son ,e.00r,a Anmor:
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) St(9) silty sand and silty Dav
BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 a EIz
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 snty sandand sntLOa
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,;4.Approximate schematic Cross section
distance to center of plant;S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Goss D;6.Selected
us largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth elevation
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL aft-bgs +7.5 ft-MSL
AWL 8.5 ft-bgs 12 ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):N/A
PFM and Description' Tier' Assessment Results
PFM 11:Separation across expansion 3.2"differential settlement over 60 ft.Approximately 1.5 inches of separation may
joints due to differential settlements T3 occur at the expansion joints in the walls,possible water-stop damage.
Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the SSEaE and BSE-2Epectormance objectives have been amittedfrom the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteg 1019)for additional PFMs mnsideemi-2.T1=rerl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),U=Tier2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency Bused Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Far exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TAN(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E Ill
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 11:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation BI $30,240,000 Mitigation is required to reduce differential
settlement by 35%(2.1"in 60 feet).Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 9 to 30 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Mal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $30,240,000
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimotesprovidedare AACEI Class
5"Order-Of Magnitude-estimates,intended forplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk'oPSeismic Failure
5
Controlling Failure Tvoelsk •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in
❑Ground Shaking q PS 15-06 Study
N Differential Settlement 94 � � *2-20 Secondary Clarifiers A-L
❑ Lateral Spread
u 3 • 41 1 Abbnvlatlnm:
Controlling Conseauencelsl' s LoSF=Ukellhool of Seismic Failure
❑ Life Safety ElPrimary Treatment -i COSF=Consequence of5eismic Failure
®Regulatory El Stakeholder E3 pwv RoSF=Risk of SelsmicFellure
N Financial ❑Public Impact �4.a Likelihood designated either"0"(Tests
Us
fi performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Ranking: .11 (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
LoSF Rating: 3
COSF,Weighted Some: 4 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no
Overall ROSF=LoSF x COSF= 12 Identined consequence)and"5"(high
0 1 2 3 4 6 consequence)
Consequence of Seismic Failure(LoSF)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date:X-051(09/01/2027)
REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 112
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
DAFTS A-C "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
2-21 2 1 IV TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely. -
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions:1'-0"Mat at 1.25'elev(9.25'embedment)
Structure Dimensions:55 fit diameter,35 fit height -
g of stories:1 story a
Date of Original Construction:1977 2_19
Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 2011 A
Projects:P2-23-6 s 2,:_:.q
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report 2-4 - 2-5
®Specifications ❑Other
2-22
22 2_1�A
geohazards and seismicity 2-1� -- ,
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Lw):o High ,2-20 ,
HHi AWLe.7 / ),
Surface Settlement(inches) 7to 10 6to 10 Plan View
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --NO Lateral Spread
--
Lateralspread(far from river,inches) --NO Lateral Spread
Lateralspread(near marsh,inches) 20 to 34 14 to 24
Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) 11 to 19 8 to 13 v
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)s Dist.(Wnp .a sit,S-d/aayey S-d
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 s"
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 In Poorly Graded Sand with silt seam:
Probabilistics Hazard Level Me PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9)
BSE-1E 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 u vary sand and Guy Clay
BSE-2E7 5%1 n 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 -
Nohs:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate a AIt Sand/Cl a sand
distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected Schematic Cross Section
as largest magnitude among significant contributor (>I%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2E seismic grountl motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 3it-air ♦73 ft-MSL
AWL BSR-bgs +2 R-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):2-22 DAFT D
PFM and Desviptiont Tlert Assessment Results
PFM 3:Structure response to 2.4"differential settlement over 60 feet.Differential settlement is about 83%of
differential settlement due to T1/2 exemplar.Members are nearly the same thickness and reinforcing.Refer to exemplar
liquefaction for typical deficiencies.
Nahz 1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)thatmeet both the BSE-IE and BSE-2Eperfornswee objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Clearance 2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1-Perl(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Screening Procedure),T2-Tier2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TI/f2-Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See T44(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-os
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 113
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 3:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation BI $4,970,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by 60%(I"in 60 feet).Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 8 to 60 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
[rated Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $4,970,000
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasyntec,2019JJor descriptions oirStandard Geotechnical and Stmctuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
5"Order-Of Magnitude-estimates,intended forplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Riak of Seismic Failure
6
Controlling Failure Tvoelsk •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in
El Ground Shaking o P515.Ofi Study
® Differential Settlement 4 *2-21 DAFT,A{
❑ Lateral Spread
3 • • • Abbravlrtlonin
Controlling Conseguencelsl' E LoSF=Ukellhood of Seismic Failure
® Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment d COSF=Consequence of seismic Failure
El Regulatory El Stakeholder 2 P ROSF=Risk of Selsmic Failure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact g0 Likelihood designated either"0"Imeets
Risk Ranking: J.° 1 v/ •
performance objective),or between"1"
_ (low llkelihootll antl "5"(high likelihood)
Ui Rating: 5
COSF,Weighted Some: 3 0 Consequences ranked between"1"Ina
Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 15 Imr-uned consequence)and"5"(high
0 1 2 3 4 5 consequence)
Consequence of Seismic Failure ICOSF)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 114
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
DAFT D "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
2-22 2 1 IV TANK "
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely. - -
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions:1'-0"Mat at 1.25'elev.(8.75'embedment)
Structure Dimensions:55 fitdiameter,35 fitheight ,
g of Stories:1 story
Date of Original Construction:1993
Retrofit(if any):N/A 2-19
Projects:P2-42-2 • - •
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report • f : :A
®Specifications ®Other Shoo Drawings,Dome retail •`-,�00 2-4
and PI-thrust ring " _
2-2 2'
2-1
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) 2-2p1
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High
HHMILL AVVi Plan View
Surface Settlement(Inches) 9 to 10 8 to 9 - )
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) -----No Lateral Spread
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) --NO Lateral Spread
--
Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) 40 to 76 28 to 52
Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) 20 to 39 14 to 26 sdtysana/aayaysane
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(gp Dist(kmp g"
4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 S" Pooayomaea sand w,rtn snv seams
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 11
nay _
Probabilistics Hazard Level Me PGA(9) So(g) Si(9) Sa(9) +, silty Sand and silty Clay
BSE-1E 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 " Clay
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 75 Silty sandd a sand
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section
distanre to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelemtionsfor Site Class D;6.Selected Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
as largest magnitude among significant Contributors (>i%) to the hazard; 7. Ground HHWL 3ft-bgs +7ft-MSL
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and&SE-2E seismic ground motions. AWL Bit bgs +2 it MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):N/A
PFM and Description' Ter' Assessment Results
PFM 3:Dome-to-wall Connection T2 Shear friction on the dome to wall dowels.The existing joint has building paper to
limit restraint,so the dowel is resisting all of the dome seismic shear.
PFM S:Bottom mat flexure due to T3 2.9"differential settlement over 60 feet.Bottom bars govern this check.Check is
response to differential settlement compliant if the spri ng stiffness is assu med to be liquefied(ky=7.2 ksf/ft).
PFM 6:Bottom mat out-of-plane shear 2.9"differential settlement over 60 feet.Check is compliant if the spring stiffness is
due to differential settlement T3 assumed to be liquefied lky=7.2 ksffft).
PFM 7:Hoop tension in wall and slab 2.9"differential settlement over 60 feet.Check is still non-compliant if the spring
due to differential settlement T3 stiffness is assumed to be liquefied fly=7.2 ksf/ft)for the wall and mat slab.
REVISED.6AW019 P515-06
PSI5-06 Till Appendix E 115
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
PFM 9:Chord/ring tension in the dome T2 The diaphragm thrust due to dead load with the potential seismic chord force
trust ring exceeds the available post-tensioning and mild reinforcement capacity.
Notes:).Potential Failure Modes(PFMS)that meet both the SSE-1E and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T3=Fer 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficient,Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Feet exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 5-7:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B1 $1,940,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by 70%(3"in 60 feet).Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 8 to 60 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 3:Install additional epoxy dowels that tie the dome into the $40,000 Estimated that 40 epoxy dowels are required.
perimeter wall.
PFM 9:Install a perimeter C6 x 13 member along the circumference $70,000 Approximate length of 100 feet.Anchor the steel
of the dome thrust ring. section to the dome using epoxy bonded anchors
(100 anchors).
otal Geotechnical and structural Mitigation Cost $2,050,000
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Class
S"Order-of Magnitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
5
Controlling Failure Tvoe(sk •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in
®Ground Shaking o 4 • .
PS 15-05 Study
® Differential Settlement *2-22 DAFT D
❑ Lateral Spread
w 3 • • • AbbreNations:
Controlling Conseauencefsk InSF=likelihood of seismic Failure
® life Safety El Primary Treatment m CuSF=ConsequenceoFSdisrm,Failum
❑Regulatory ❑Stakeholder 16 2 f,6a RoSF=Risk ofSelsmic Fallum
El Financial ❑Public Impact aIn Likelihood designated either"0"(meets
8 performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Rankine: "' 1 xsF •
(low llkelingod)and "S"(high likelihood)
LOSF Rating: 5
COSF,Weighted Scare: 3 0 Consequences ranked between"1"(no
Overall ROSF=LOSF x COSF= 15 Identified consequence)and"S")high
D Consequence of5eismic Failure(COSF) S 'onsequence)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 MIS-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 116
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
SURGE TOWER NO. 1 4 x W
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE Ill �sll
S
2-23 2 1 IV TANK A SAW
i -
class based performance objectives y pAl -
Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures e..ark �`�'�_,y
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and - -
operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions:2'-6"Mat at-8.50'elev.(19.50'embedment-piles—
PPC(14"S0,60'total length) _ _
Structure Dimensions:28 fit diameter,104 IT height • 2-5 • 2-31 , .Q 0
g of Stories:N/A
Date of Original Construction:1996 2 12
Retrofit(if any):N/A 2-18A
Projects:J-34-1 2-23
Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report 2-18B
0
N Specifications N Other Shoo Drawings:Piles
.2-3
aeohazards and seismicity
Seismic site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High • i
HHWL' AWL2.7 Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 9 to 10 8 to 9
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 53 to 66 42 to 64
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 44 to 55 35 to 53
Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) 14 to 18 12 to 17 "
Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) 13 to 17 12 to 16 s .clayey sand/softy sand "at
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(gP Dist Iarl _
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 1u sury sand v,nn as11:Hr
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
5 sandy 'u/slrvsa11
Probabilistlas Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) so(g) Ss(9) Ss(9)
BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 sa Poorly ,ad San
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 a 5.1l
Notes:1.Historic High Water level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate schematic Cross section
distance to center of plant;S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected
us largest magnitude among signifimnt contributors (aJ%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL aft-lugs t8ft-MSL
AWL 9it-lags 12 it-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):2-24 Surge Tower No.2;Digester 16
PFM and Description' Tier' Assessment Results
PFM 9:Permanent displacements due
to liquefaction-induced lateral spread Permanent horizontal displacements due to lateral spread are likely.LS performance
and settlements(surface PGD=64 Tl/2 level met,low likelihood of collapse.
inches)
PFM 10:Bending/shear failure of piles Bending moment in piles exceed ultimate capacity at around 24-inches of lateral
due to lateral spread(surface PGD=64 T1/2 spread<best estimate PGD=64 inches.Low likelihood of collapse even if the piles
inches) fail.
Notes:I.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the ESE-IF and 8SE-2Eperformance objectives have been omittedfrom the list.See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosynteq 2019)far additional PFMs considered;2.T1=TIerl(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),M=Tier2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application ofWer3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosynteq 2019)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 1506
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 117
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Costa Comments
PFM 9&10:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
at least 75%(surface PGD=15-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costa Comments
N/A $0 N/A
otal Geotechnical and structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3)
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasynteo,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates providedom AACEI Class
5'Order of estimates,intended farplonning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to Me
fGeosynteq 2019)for additional detail.
risk ranking Risk of seismic Failure
s
Controlling Failure Twelsl: •Other Plant 1 structures Included in
❑Ground Shaking P515-O6 Study
El Differential Settlement o4 *2-23 Surge Tower IN
® lateral Spread
u 3 0 Abbreviations:
Controllin¢Conseauencelsl: E Lo5F=likelihood of Seismic Failure
❑ life Safety ®Primary Treatment m COSF=Consequence ofSelsmic Fallure
ElRegulatory O Stakeholder 5 2 *11 RoSF=Risk ofselsmic Fallure
❑ financial ❑Public Impact a6 Likelihood designated eiffier"d'burets
F performance objective),orbetween"1"
Risk Ranking: " 1 �sf •
invalikelilltal nd "5"(highlikelimmi
COSF Rating: 5 Consequences ranked between"1"(no
Lo5F,Weighed Store; 5 0 identified consequence)and"5"(high
O
Overall RoSF=LgSFZCoSF= 25 S o mirmmnarl
Consequence of5eismic Failure(COSF) c
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS1S06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 118
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
SURGE TOWER NO. 2
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
2-24 2 1 IV TANK
class based performance objectives
Class I:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures -,
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely. I
structural components -
FoundationType/Dimension:2'-0"Mat at-4.00'elev.(16.00'embedment) hour " .
Structure Dimensions:26-feet diameter,93-feet height _
g of Stories:N/A AA A
Date of Original Construction:1986 A Aa u SA A A -
Retrofit(if any):N/A 2
Prolects:J-9/J-34-1 19 "
2-24
Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report A .AA•2-31 Ab
N Specifications N Other Shoo Drawings:Steel extension >-4 A 2_5�� a
2-1 BA 2-12
geohazards and seismicity 223 I
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) 2-18U
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High �0
HHWLs AWLtl 2-20 9 rt j
Surface Settlement(inches) 9to 13 9to 11 Plan View
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 90 to 120 65 to 95
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 62 to 82 45 to 65 '..
Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) 10 to 13 7 to 11
Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) 10 to 13 7 to 11 "
.SIIry.Santl/UaVeV Santl Ma0.----
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)3 Dist.(kmp
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 "' Poorly Grader sand
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) S,(9) Ss(9) sllry sand and slla
BSE-lE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 sn an Da
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate
distance to renter of plant.S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.selected Schematic Cron Section
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground
deformation inputs to structural analysis based an A WL and 9SE-2E seismic ground motions. Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
HHWL 3R-bgs +9 ft-MSL
AWL 10 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):N/A
PFM and Description` Tiers Assessment Results
PFM 9:Permanent displacements due
to liquefaction-induced lateral spread Lateral spread and settlements will result in translation and tilting.Low likelihood of
and settlements(surface PGD=65- T3 collapse.Failure of dresser coupling does not meet 10 criteria.
inches).
Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMol thwamet both the BSE-IE and USE-2Eperformance objectives have been omitted from the list see Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFM,considered,-2.T3=TIerl(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Two
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Defcienry-Rased Evaluation Procedure T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),T1/T2=Application ofTier3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 1506
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 119
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM 9:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation A2 See Note 3 Mitigation is required to reduce lateral spread by
at least 75%(surface FED=15-inches).
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $0 (excluding lateral spread mitigation,we Note 3)
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntee,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates providedare AACEI Class
5"Order-of-Magnitude"estimates,intended foroanning purposes only;3.Full retrofit of this structure relies on lateral spread mitigation.Refer to TM4
fGeosyntea,1019)for additional detail.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
s
Controlling Failure Tvi lel: •Other Plant 15tructures Included in
❑Ground Shaking PS 15-M Study
ElDifferential Settlement o4 � *2-24 Surge Tower No.2
® Lateral Spread
u 3 r Abbreviations:
[ontrollln¢Conseauencelsl: E LOSF=likelihood of5eismic Failure
❑ UfeSafety ®Primary Treatment o COST—consequence o1`5eismic Failure
❑Regulatory ❑Stakeholder 16
. 2 P+ RmT—Risk ofSelsmic Failure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impact a'f Likelihood designated either"W hampts
6- performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Ranking: " 1 Y�' •
_ (low likelihood)and "5'yhigh likelihoadl
LOSF Rating: 3
COSF,Weighted Score: 5 p Consequences ranked between"1"(nq
Overall ROSF=LOSF%COSF= 15 identified consequence)and"5"(high
0 Consequence of5eismic Failure(COSF) S consequence)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS416
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 120
ORANGE COUNTY
OF Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
TRUCK LOADING W
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
i i �_ —
2-26 2 II II TANK
class based performance objectives
Class II:Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system;loss of
Ilfe potential Is low.Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before
repair.
structural components s
Foundation Type/Dimensions:4'-9"Mat at 1.75'elev.(7.75'embedment);stone p
-
columns
Structure Dimensions:79 ft x 68 If
g of Stories; stories -
Date of Original Construction;2003 A a•
Retrofit(if any):N/A A
Projects:P2-60 • .• 2^26
Available Information: N Construction Drawings N Geotechnical Report �S
®specifications ❑Other
al I el A �7X
aeohazards and seismicity ','• • 2❑19• 2-2> AI Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) A
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High AA • i
HHWL' AWL'' Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 9 to 11 8 to 10
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) —No Lateral Spread
LateralSpread(far from river,inches) --No Lateral Spread
--
Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread
Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread
-- anal na SitySana
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA I[& Dist(knp Poorll 6,aaea sang
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 " oayseam
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 '.1"Sand serna cgwm�:
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) Sil Ss(9) Ss(9) + 'ary sand and Siltycity
BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 1 e,a
BSE-2E7 5%in50yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 + sand/Silly sand
Notes:1.Historic Hiph Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate schematic Cross section
distance to center of plant;S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected
us largest magnitude among significant contributors (»96) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2F seismic ground motions. HHWL 3 fit-bgs ♦63 R-MSL
AWL 7.5 fit this ♦2 ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):2-5 PEPS&MAC
PFM and Description' Tier' Assessment Results
N/A
Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the Sl and BSE-2Fpetformonce objectives have been amittedfrom the list See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geusynteq 201 additional Pi considered;2.n-Tier 1(equivalent W ASCE41-13 screening Procedure),T2-Tier)
(equivalent to ASCE41-13 Deficienev Bused Evaluation Procedure,T3-Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of 77'er3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TAN(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 121
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
N/A $0 N/A
otal Geotechnical and structural Mitigation Cost $0
Notes:1.Refer to TALI(Geasyntec,2019JJor descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Gass
5"Order-of Magnitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
S
Controlling Failure Tvoelsl: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included In
®Ground Shaking o 4
PS 15-06 Study
❑ Differential Settlement *2-26Truck Loading
-1 Lateral Spread
u 3 • • • 4 Abbrevlatlona:
Controlling Consequencels): L05F=Likelihood of Seismic Failure
e7 Life Safety ❑Primary Treatment Cc,SF=Consequence of 50smlc Failure
El Regulatory El Stakeholder B2 Phw RoSF=Risk of Seismic Failure
® Financial ❑Public Impact �pSa Likelihood designated either"O'(meets
- c(, performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Ranking: e 1 •
(lowlikelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
LOSF Rating: 0
COSF,Weighted Some: 2.4 0 Conseouenonsequence)ranked and"n"1"Ina
Overall ROSF=Lo5F x CaSF= 0 0 1 2 3 4 S conaeRedconsequenre)and"5"(high
ConeequAna of S.I.ork Fall..(COSF) consequenre)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 122
ORANGE COUNTY
OF Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
MAINTENANCE BUILDING.
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE .
2-27 2 II II BUILDING -
class based performance objectives VA& '
Class II:Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system;loss of
life potential is low.Continued occupancy and operation mightnotbe likelybefore #L Al
repair.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Shallow spread at 6.30'elev.(3.00'embedment)
Structure Dimensions:302 It x 51It y
g of Stories;2 stories
Date of Original Construction:1996(?) 2-11
Retrofit(if any):N/A 2-6 ,
Projects:P2-35-3 2-13
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report ••••• ••
®Specifications ❑Other 247
geohazards and seismicity
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) 0. 2-1^
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High - 1'
HHWL" AWL"p Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 12 to 14 11 to 12 ------------------.
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread--
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) --NO Lateral Spread---
's SpreatlFmlings'.
Lateral Spread(far rommarsh,
ma inches)inc) --NO Lateral Spread--- ,
Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) ----No Lateral Spread----- Sena and sucySand--------------------------
DMerministic Fault Name M PGA Ids Dist(kmp Eu sand with Clay Seams
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) Sold SS(9) St(9) * slaysanawah Dayseams
BSEAE 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 " Sirdf ravel
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section
distance to center of plant,'S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site class D;6.Selected Ground water Level Depth Elevation
as largest magnitude among significant contributors (>I%) to the hazard; 1. Ground Hii aft-bgs +6.3 ft-MSL
deformation inputs tostmcturolanalyeisbased on AWL and eSE-2Eseismic ground motions. AWL 7.3 ft-bgs ♦2 fit-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):1-29 Shop Building A
PFM and Description' Ter" Assessment Results
PFM 2:Flexural stress in moment T2 North-south direction flexure in columns has stress of 213 ksi.
frame columns
s in Findings apply to all of the transverse moment frame roof beams(W24x62),which
PFM Flexural/axialstresundatedT2 are unbced for their full span of 51 feet.2nd floor beams in the transverse direction
transvverer se moment frame beams meet the performance objectives.
PFM 38:Flexural/axial stress in Findings apply to all of the longitudinal moment frame roof beams(W12x26),which
longitudinal moment frame beams T2 are unbraced for their full span of 20 feet 2nd floor beams along grid line 4 do not
meet the performance objectives with slightly higher DCRs.
PFM 4:Precast wall cladding interferes The precast concrete wall cladding is rigidly connected with welds to the moment
with moment frames Tl frame columns.The cladding will serve to restrain the moment frame and can result
in excessive damage/collapse of wall panels from the building.
PFM S:Moment frame beam-column T2 All beam-column moment frame Connections at both the roof and 2rd floor levels do
connection not meet the performance objectives.
PFM 7:Moments frames have T1 All moment frame connections have strong beams relative to the columns.A Tier 2
relatively weak columns evaluation was performed.
REVISED.6/28/2019 PS 1506
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 123
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 At 2
PFM B:Columns are noncompact TI Columns are susceptible to buckling.A Tier 2 evaluation was performed.
members
PFM 9:Differential settlement due to 4.4"differential settlement over 60 feet The precast concrete cladding has
liquefaction causes failure of precast T1/2 insufficient connections and joints to accommodate the differential settlement.
concrete wall panels Brittle failure and stalling of the precast concrete panels is anticipated.
Notes Potential Failure Modes mirldi that meet both the BSE1E and BSE-2Ept,,,b m once objectives have been omfttedfrom the list See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;over,teG 2019)for additional PFM,considered;2.TI=Tier 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Phroic ef,T2=Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 deficiency Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM-Application of Tier exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for more dl
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigations CosP Comments
PFM 9:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $15,300,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential
settlement by at least 80%(I"in 60 feet).Ground
improvement for settlement mitigation is
required from 4 to 64 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigations CoW Comments
PFM 2,3A,3B,7,and 8:Provide steel concentric braced frames $2,890,000 Braced frames required at 14 total bays over 2-
from the r.of level down to the first floor in the north-south and stories(28 frames).Will requi re some interior
east-west directions.Braced fro mes should be either chevron or X demo and restoration of interior fin ishes.
braces and may be comprised of tube steel or buckling restrained
braced frame members.Add supplemental connections along
collector lines with steel hardware as required at the roof and 2nd
floor levels.Add columns below existing beam lines in addition to
the bracing.New grade beams and pad footings will be required at
the foundation level.
PFM 4:Remove all welded(fully restrained)w`-a-I I cladding $540,000 8 connections per panel x 38 panels(304
connectionstosteel columns and replace with connectionsthat connections).
have bolts with slotted holes.
PFM S:See PFM 2 Mitigation.The alternative to this option would -- Braced frames required at 14 total bays over 2-
be to upgrade all of the existing moment frame connections(64 stories(28 frames).Will require some interior
locations),which involves strengthening existing columns over their demo and restoration of interior finishes.Cost
full height,adding doubler and continuity plates within the column accounted for in PFM 1-3.
web,and potentially reducing the beam flanges near the joints.
oral Geotechnical and structural Mitigation Cost $18,730,000
Notes:1.Refer to TAM(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of5tandord Geotechnical ond5tructuml Mitigations;2.Cost estimates pmvidedare AACEI Class
5"Order-of-Mognitude"estimates,intendedforplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of Sal smic Failure
B
Controlling Failure Tvoelsl: •Other Plant 1 Structures Included in
®Ground Shaking o PS 15-06 Study
4
P] Differential Settlement *2-27 Maintenance Building
❑ lateral Spread
3 • • • 40 Abbreviations:
Controlling Conseauencelsl• E LoSF=Ukellhood of Seismic Failure
® life Safety ❑Primary Treatment d Chi Consequence ofStismic Fallure
El Regulatory ❑Stakeholder 2 Phr Rdi Risk of Seismic Fallure
❑ Financial ❑Public Impactis 4.9 Likelihood designated either"0"Imeets
performance objective),or between"I"
Risk Ranking: ` 1 •
_ )low llkelihood)and "5"Thigh likelihood)
Lei Rating: 5
COSF,Weighted Score: 5 q Consequences ranked between"1"(na
Overall Roiis LOSF x Cl= 25 identified P.mr,cuence),md"5"(high
O 1 2 3 4 S consequencel
Comequenca olSelamic Failure ICo6P)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 124
ORANGE COUNTY
OF Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
BOILER BUILDING W—
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
2-28 2 II II BUILDING -
class based performance objectives
Class II:Not directly necessary to preserve wastewater flow through system;loss of ,
life potential is low.Continued occupancy and operation might not be likely before —_
repair.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Dropped spread footings at 7.10'elev.(3.90' �> '
embedment)
Structure Dimensions:50.3 IT x 40 ft
N of Stories:1 story �t• 2-26• •2-14 ,tars`
Date of Original Construction:1971 (j / s • WL.-J2,'
Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 1980 and 1996;1994: Provision of roof chords and AA
connections, 2-16
connections,addition of connections between the roof and shearwalls,and addition
of connections between the shear walls and the floor slab. .• 2"E." 2-3 Q
Projects:P2-17
Available Information: N Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report 2- 2 21
N Specifications ❑Other 11
S1
A .
• M all
Aeohazards and seismicity
2-19 . A I
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) Plainview
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High
HHWLs AWLx7
Surface Settlement(inches) 12 to 14 5 to 6
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) --No Lateral Spread-- Spread rooimK:
e slrysand(cYayeysand_
Lateral spread(far from river,inches) No Lateral Spread
-- ------------
Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) ----No Lateral Spread---- '
g,r
Lateral spread(far from marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread-- § � Poodycmam saga
S°
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(g)s Dist.(km)4
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84 + silty sand and Silty Clay
Probabilistics Hazard Level Me PGA Clay
Igl S.(9) Ss(g) Sa Igl un saga/aarevSana
BSE-SE 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 Schematic Cross Section
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42
Nobel 1.Histem,High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Ground Water Level Depth Dwell
distance to center ofPll S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected HHWL aft-bgs lift-hill
do, largest magnitude among significant contributors (>i%) to the hazard; 7. Ground AWL 9ft-bgs 12 ft-MSL
deformation all to structural analysis based on AWL and ESE-2E seismic ground motions.
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):1-4 City Water Pump Station
PFM and Description[ Tiers Assessment Results
PFM 4:Roof diaphragm shear T2 Diaphragm shear capacity is limiting.Mitigation is recommended to enhance the
diaphragm capacity.
Notts:I.Patera or Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the USE-IE and USE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geasyntec,1019)for additional Pi considered,-1.TS=Tier 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Deficiency-Rased Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedme),TI/T2=Application of Tier 3 exemplar
results to a subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosynteq 2019)for more detail.
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 1506
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 125
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation' Costa Comments
N/A $0 N/A
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costa Comments
PFM 4:Standard Structural Mitigation BS $250,000 Applies over the entire roof plan between grid
lines 5 and 9(2,000 sf)and requires the addition
of(3)W12x31 beams x 20-ft long.
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $250,000
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geasyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and5tmctural Mitigations;2.Cast estimates pmvidedare AACEI Gass
5'Order of Magnitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of Seismic Failure
s
Controlling Failure Tvoelsk •Other Plant 1 structures Included in
N Ground Shaking PS 15-06 Study
ElDifferential Settlement o4 *2-28 Boiler Building
❑ Lateral Spread
u 3 • • • Abbnon.ilons:
[ontrollin¢Conseauence(sl: E LoSF=Likelihood of Seismic Failure
® Life Safety El Primary Treatment u CFSF=Consequence cfSFismlc Failure
❑Regulatory ❑Stakeholder 5 2 Q,6q RoSF=Risk m5elsmic Failure
El Financial El Public Impact a'S Likelihood designated either"W(meets
Risk Ranking: ° 1 xfi • performance objective),or between"1"
(low likelihond)and "5"(high likelihood)
LOSF Rating: 5
COSF,Weighted Score: 2 O consequences mnkedbetween"1"(no
Overall ROSF=LoSFx CosF= 10 idenn0ed consequence)and"5"(high
O Consequence dSeismic Failure(COSF) s consequence)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 1546
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 126
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 8, 2
M
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
2-29 2 1 IV BUILDING
class based performance Objectives I "
Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and "e.y„ — fs
operation are likely.
Y
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Basement with 9'thick mat at-14.0D'elev.(25.00'
embedment) f /
Structure Dimensions:132 IT x 190 ft(at base)and 90 ft tat roof) u
g of Stories;West End:2 above grade,one below grade;East End:one below grade f
Date of Original Construction:1990
Retrofit(if any):N/A Q 2-10 f
Projects:J-15 . 2 t7 229
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ®Geotechnical Report A A
®Specifications ❑Other
•2-14 ,,-,�,2-15 • 2-32 �
Reohazard5 and seismicity •2-16
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) .•
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High $•- - F_3 g
HHWL' AWLz.r - i
Surface Settlement(inches) 9to 15 8to 14 Plan View
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 114 to 165 92 to 145
Lateral Spread(far from river,Inches) 26 to 38 21 to 33
Lateral Spread(near marsh,Inches) --No Lateral Spread--
Lateral Spread(far from marsh,Inches) —No Lateral Spread-- --. --_ —_
arnaaaaaaaaaaaa
Basemen(with Mat
Deterministic Fault Name M Pan(g)s Dist.(km)P Ed, Silty 'c Ia e
Near Field Newport Inglewood7.5 0.5 0 E„ Poody craned saes
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ma PGA(9) Si S,(g) S,(g) snow sand
BSE-1E 20%in 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 as an siI
BSE-2P 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 �Ie and Lr
P rl
Notes,1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA'4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section
distance to center of plant S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelemtlons for Site Gass D;6.Selected
as largest magnitude among significant contributors f>3N) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL and BSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL 3it bgs as it MSL
AWL 9it-bgs ♦2 ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A If Exemplar):N/A
PFM and Description' Ter' Assessment Results
PFM I:Wall anchorage at the roof All framing connections along the north and south walls are non-compliant(13
level at the north and south walls Tl locations).
PFM 2:Wall anchorage at the roof All framing connections along the east,west,and interior wall are non-compliant(15
level at the east,West,and interior T1 locations).
wall(grid line G)
PFM 5:Roof diaphragm shear
T1 Roof diaphragm shear in the east-west direction is non-compliant.
REVISED.6/28/2019 P51506
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 127
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
The east end of the structure is an open pit that is significantly less massive than the
PFM B:Uneven buoyant uplift due to building to the west.Buoyant uplift due to liquefied soils is expected to rotate the
T2 east pit upward relative to the building portion,which will result in shear and bending
liquefaction failures in the mat slab and movement of COBS into the Central Power Generation
Building.
Notes,1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the ELSE IF and ESE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical
Memorandum 4(TM4;Geosyntec 2019)for additional PFMs ronsidered;2.T1=Ter 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-130eficiency-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),TIM=Application ofFer3 exemplar
results to o subsidiary structure.See TM9(Geosyntec,2019)for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigation[ Costa Comments
PFM B:G rou ad improvement u nder the foundation $8,230,000 Ground improvement for uplift mitigation is required
under the foundation from 25 to 45 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Costa Comments
PFM 1:Standard Structural Mitigation A2(High) $630,000 Applies at 13locations.
PFM 2:Standard Structural Mitigation A2(High) $780,000 Applies at 15 locations.
PFM S:Standard Structural Mitigation 131&B2 $1,090,000 Mitigation to Ind ode the replacement of the roof
deck(or supplement with steel bracing)in the east-
west direction for a total of 8,600 sf and provision
of supplemental epoxy bonded anchors to the
existing north and south wall ledger angels @ 12"
OC(180 anchors).
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $10,730,000
Notes:1.Refer to TMa(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and structural Mitigations;2.Cast estimates provided are AACEI Class
5"Order-of-Magnitude"estimates,intended forplanning purposes only.
risk ranking Risk of Sed smic Failure
s
Controlling Failure Tvoelsl• •Other Plant I Structures Included in
N Ground Shaking PS 15-M Study
❑ Differential Settlement 4 *2-2900BS
❑ lateral Spread 8
o. 3 • at • 4 0 Abbrevletlpm:
Controlling Conseauencelsl: LOSF=Ukellhmd of Selsmicfallore
❑ life Safety N Primary Treatment COSF=Consequence ofSeBmic Failure
IN El Regulatory El Stakeholder
.52 ph4 ROGF=Risk of SelsmlcFallure
El Financial El Public Impact ecaP Limilhood designated either"0"imeets
ZZ
performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Rankine: 1 • law llkellhood)and "5"(highllmllhood)
LOSF Rating: 5
CoSF,Weighted Score: 5 p Consequences ranked between"1"(no
Overall RoSF= SFx[oSF= 25 p 1 2 3 4 5 idenn0ed consequence)and"5"(high
W
Consequence of Sebmlc hllura(COSF) consequence)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PSI5-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 128
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
12KV DISTRIBUTION CENTER A �{ � ` "
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE •��"[—��-
2-30 2 1 IV BUILDING `•p \ 1 �, t
/
class based performance objectives /
Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components ` a'J •�
6cr;
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Basement with 1'mat and grade beams at d elevation FPE_ „fly �
(9'embedment)
Structure Dimensions:92 ft x 41 ft Q 2-1 D AA
g of Stories:I gory , 217 2-29
Date of Original Construction:1977 -
Retrofit(if any):Remodeled in 1983
Projects:P2-23-3/P2-23-6/P2-47-1 2-15 2-32
2 14 a
Available Information: ®Constmction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report i- �i -
El •
®Specifications Other Jf'J 2-16
7$! 2-3 �
aeohazards and seismicity ,LLJf,
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction) tS
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High ' , i
HHWL° AIll Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches)
lateral Spread(near river,inches)
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches)
Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) a 1:11h ma
Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) ---- and evade na,m:---
Clayay sand/swy sand
Deterministic Fault Name M PGA(9)3 Dlst(li
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 , Poody graded sand
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
soy sand
Probabilistlas Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) 5t(9) r sllry sand and Clay
BSE-1E 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20
BSE-2E7 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 LSia
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section
distance to center of plant;S.probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected
as largest magnitude among significont contributors (>1%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
deformation inputs to structural analysis based an A WL and eSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL 3R-bgs i6R-MSL
AWL 7R-bgs +2R-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Exemplar Structure(N/A if Exemplar):2-5 PEPS&MAC
PFM and Desviptiont Tiers Assessment Results
PFM 1:Wall anchorage to roof at T3 W16x96 anchorage at PWPS(10 locations).
north and south walls
PFM 3:Torsional response due to E-W Distribution Carter A has concrete moment frames along the south side,but shear
TI wall along the north side.Addition of in-fill walls along the north and south sides
seismic should mitigate this PFM.
Frame columns along the north and south walls have insufficient shear capacity and
PFM 4:Shear at frame columns TI ca n not develop moment frame behavior due to restraint by the i Chi l we l l panels.
Conversion of building to shear walls is recommended.
PFM 5:Structure response to 4.1"over 60 feet.Differential settlement is on the order of 46%larger compared to
differential settlement due to TI/2 the exemplar.Wall tensile forces are estimated to be about the same as the
liquefaction exemplar,which would result in tensile overstress.
REVISED:WOMB PS 1506
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 129
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
PFM 9:Out-of-plane shear on the
buried walls due to liquefied soil T2 Walls may experience shear stresses that are higher than their capacity.
conditions
Notes:1.Potential Failure Modes(PFMs)that meet both the BSE-IE and BSE-2E performance objectives have been omitted from the list See Technical
Memorandum 4(771144;Geosyntec,2019)for additional PFMs considered;2.T1=Tier 1(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Screening Procedure),T2=Tier 2
(equivalent to ASCE 41-13 Wriency-Based Evaluation Procedure,T3=Tier 3(Systematic Evaluation Procedure),T1/T1=Application afFer3 exemplar
results to o subsidiary structure.See TM4(Geosynteq 2019)for more detail.
mitigation measures and costs
Recommended Geotechnical Mitigations Costa Comments
PFM S:Standard Geotechnical Mitigation B2 $3,160,000 Mitigation required to reduce differential settlement by 75%
(1"in 60 feet).Ground improvement for settlement mitigation
Is required from 7 to 55 ft-bgs.
PFM 9:standard Geotechnical Mitigation C $840,000 Mitigation required To reduce soil fluid density by 50%or
preclude liquefaction development in backfill altogether.
Ground improvement for lateral earth pressure reduction is
required from 7 to 15 ft-bgs.
Recommended Structural Mitigation' Cost' Comments
PFM I:Standard Structural Mitigation A2(High) $560,000 Applies at the W16x96 beams at 10 locations at the PWPS.
PFM 3&4:Standard Structural Mitigation E $110,000 Applies at the north and south walls of the Distribution Center
(88 square feet inf ll)and at the Plant Water Pump Station(152
sq Lane feet inf ll).
otal Geotechnical and Structural Mitigation Cost $4,670,000
Notes:1.Refer to TM4(Geosyntec,2019)for descriptions of Standard Geotechnical and Structural Mitigations;2.Cost estimates provided are AACEI Gass
5"Order-of-Magnitude-estimates,intended forplonning purposes only.
risk ranking 5 Risk of Sel mlc s Failure
Controlling Failure Tvoe(sl; •Other Plant I Structures Included in
®Ground Shaking o 4 PS 15.06 Study
❑ Differential Settlement *2-3012kV Distribution CenterA
❑ Lateral Spread 8
u 3 • • • 1 Abbrevletlem:
Controlling Canaequenca(S): LoSF=Likelihood of Seismic Failure
® Life Safety I Primary Treatment CoSF=Consequence of Seismic Failure
❑ Regulatory ❑ Stakeholder 2Mf RoSF=Risk of Seismic Failure
❑ Financial 7 Public Impact
Likelihood designated either"0"(meets
performance objective),or between"1"
Risk Rankine: 1 • (low likelihood)and "5"(high likelihood)
LoSF Rating: 5
CoSF,Weighted Score: 2 a CDnseouences ranked between"1"(no
IdentlBed consequence)and"5"(high
Overall RoSF=LoSFZCoSF= 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 consequenre)
Consequence of Seismic Fallurs(C4SF)
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date:X-047(09/01/2023)
REVISED:6/28/2019 PSIS416
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 130
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 g 2
SEJB
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE
2-31 2 1 IV BURIED BOX ,
class based performance Objectives
Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and ' (
operation are likely. ♦ ..
�.
structural components -
FoundationType/Dimensions:Buried structure with 2'thick mat at-19.5'elev.(32.5,
embedment)
Structure Dimensions:21 ft x 20.3 ft 1 A e
y
g of Stories;N/A r
Date of Original Construction:2003 ;19
Retrofit(if any):N/A "-♦ 2-24
Projects:J-77 � .•••2-31 , .O
Available Information: ❑Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report -4 2-5 y� O
❑Specifications ❑Other • j \`C'?\�/1
2-18A 2-12
2-23
geohazards and seismicity 2-18B a
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High 2-2D .2-3
j
HHWLL AWLe.r Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 9 to 12 8 to 10
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 27 to 44 21 to 42
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 24 to 40 19 to 38
Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) 8 to 13 6 to 12
Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) 8 to 13 6 to 12 sby/nayey sana wun aay
DMerminlstic Fault Name M PGA(gP Dlst(knp -' Mae
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 7.5 0.5 0 to 1—y rrad.d sana
Far Field San Andreas 8.5 0.16 84
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Ss(9) sh,Wdand sny Day
BSE-1E 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20
BSE-2P 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 sandsne sand
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA;4.Approximate Schematic Gross Section
distance to center of plant S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected
us largest magnitude among significant contributors (>3%) to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
de)ormation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL andeSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL 3R-bgs +IOR-MSL
AWL 11R-bgs +2R-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Only Geatechnical Evaluation performed for this structure
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 MIS-06
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix E 131
ORANGE COUNTY
Sanitation District
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES AT PLANTS 1 & 2
ABC N
p PLANT CLASS Risk Category STRUCTURE TYPE �•
2-32 2 1 IV BUILDING l
71a
class based performance objectives - � �►���
Class l:Essential to maintenance of wastewater flow and treatment.Structures
substantially retain original strength and stiffness and continued occupancy and
operation are likely.
structural components
Foundation Type/Dimensions:Buried structure with 2.5'thick mat at-15.50'elev.
(27.5'embedment) • _
Structure Dimensions:45 ft x 14 ft
g of Stories:N/A 2-10 , •
Date of Original Construction:2003 • 217 2-29
Retrofit(if any):N/A s
Projects:J-77
Available Information: ®Construction Drawings ❑Geotechnical Report 2-15 2-32
•2-14 ,r,r5 ,o
El Specifications El Other • L-.L.2J,' •
2-16
aeohazards and seismicity "'�•� 2-304 I
Seismic Site Class:Class D(w/o liquefaction);Class F(with liquefaction)
Liquefaction Potential(High/Med/Low):High A • )
HHWLL AWL2.7 Plan View
Surface Settlement(inches) 13 to 19 11 to 17
Lateral Spread(near river,inches) 100 to 150 75 to 130
Lateral Spread(far from river,inches) 58 to 87 43 to 75
Lateral Spread(near marsh,inches) --No Lateral Spread
Lateral Spread(far from marsh,inches) No Lateral Spread-- -siicy Sand with Clay seam
DMerminlstic Fault Name M PGA(gp Dlst Qonp
1
Near Field Newport-Inglewood 8.5 0 Pomry Graded sand
,.
Far Field San Andreas .5 0.1.16 84 Plays,nd
Poon G,aeaa sand
Probabilistics Hazard Level Ms PGA(9) So(g) Ss(9) Sr(9)
BSE-1E 20%In 50 yr 7.71 0.29 0.29 0.53 0.20 silty sand and May
BSE-2P 5%in 50 yr 7.71 0.48 0.48 1.16 0.42 sand/S,lo Sxn
Notes:1.Historic High Water Level;2.Analysis Water Level;3.Median PGA,4.Approximate Schematic Cross Section
distance to center of plant S.Probabilistic Seismic Accelerations for Site Class D;6.Selected
us largest magnitude among signiJimnt contributors (>3N/ to the hazard; 7. Ground Ground Water Level Depth Elevation
deformation inputs to structural analysis based on A WL andRSE-2E seismic ground motions. HHWL 3it-bgs •9 it-MSL
AWL 10 ft-bgs +2 ft-MSL
structural assessment and failure modes
Only Geatechnical Evaluation performed for this structure
comments and clarifications
N/A
Next Planned Project and Date: N/A
REVISED:6/28/2019 PS 15-06
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix E 132
Geosyntec°
comul a m
APPENDIX F
Mitigation Cost Tables
HL1635TS15-06 Qeosy tec F oject Repo -FINAL 9119/2019
Geosyntec°
comul a m
APPENDIX F1
Structural Mitigation Cost Tables
HL1635TS15-06 Qeosy tec F oject Repo -FINAL 9119/2019
Project Name: Waste Sludge Thickener DAFT Pump Room Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-1 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 4 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov,2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL
PFM Direct Cost QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost Reference
PFM#2 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation Al 11
New steel angles at existing wall or perimeter roof beam,8'OC 165 FT $ 41 $ 6,765 $ 6 $ 990 $ 7,755 RS Means.25 Ibs/ft Gal Steel. 16 ft long.
Epoxy anchors at 8'OC 41 EA $ 71 $ 2,947 $ 38 $ 1,559 $ 4,507 RS Means
Wall anchorage to the roof at east and west Puddle welding 26 EA $ 600 $ 15,600 $ 15,600
walls of the north building Additional roof framing members 165 FT $ 41 $ 6,765 $ 6 $ 990 $ 7,755 RS Means.25 lbs/ft Gal Steel. 16 ft long.
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 IS $ 35,617 100%of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 4 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 Construct trailer,utilities,protection,and etc.
$ 83 233
PFM#3 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation BI
Demo existing roofing 1 LS $ 9,600
Roof Framing 390 FT $ 62 $ 24,254 $ 7 $ 2,547 $ 26,801 W34X38
Roof diaphragm shear at the north building Metal decking,galvanized steel, 1-1/2"deep,18 gauge 4688 SF $ 12 $ 56,250 $ 1.5 $ 7,031 $ 63,281 RS Means
Membrane roof for the entire building 4688 SF $ 6 $ 29,109 $ 6 $ 29,109 $ 58,219 Carollo database
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 IS $ 157,901 300%of other costs
$ 315,802
PFM#4 Mitigation
Discontinuous shear walls at the interior of Provide steel beam/channel ties for the full width 80 FT $ 51 $ 4,096 $ 179 $ 14,304 $ 18,400 RS Means.60 Ibs/ft Gal Steel.
the south building in the north-south Epoxy anchors at 6"OC for steel channel tie 161 EA $ 71 $ 6,086 $ 17,589 RS Means
direction (@grid lines 3 and 5) Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 11,503 $ 38 $ 35,989 100%of other costs
$ 71979
Sub-total $ 471,013
Sales Tax 8% $ 18,841
Sub-total $ 489,854
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 146,956
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 636,810
GR/GC 15% $ 95,521
Sub-total $ 732,331
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 73,233
Sub-total $ 805,564
Bond 2% $ 16,111
Sub-total $ 821,676
Insurance 2% $ 16,434
GRAND TOTAL $ 838,109
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 1
Project Name: Blower Building and PEPS Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-2 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 5 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov,2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount perUM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM #2 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation A2(High)
Wall anchorage to the roof at W33x connections at pilasters 30 1 EA $ 150,000 $15000/location. Estimated by lames Doering
the north and south walls of the Additional roof deck welding 10 EA $ 2,400 $ 24,000 $ 24,000
Blower Building Construction difficulty,operations and work restriction! 1 LS $ 174,000 100%of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 5 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 Construct trailer, utilities,protection,and etc.
nii
PFM#3 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation Al(SIM)
Wall anchorage to the roof at New steel angles at existing wall or perimeter roof beam,8'OC 560 FIF $ 27 $ 15,366 $ 74 $ 41,608 $ 56,974 RS Means. 25 Ibs/ft Gal Steel. 16 ft long.
the north and south walls of the Epoxy anchors at 8'OC 140 EA $ 71 $ 10,003 $ 38 $ 5,292 $ 15,295 RS Means
PEPS Building Puddle welding 62 EA $ 600 $ 37,200 $ 37,200
Construction difficulty,operations and work restriction! 1 LS $ 109,469 100%of other costs
$ 218,939
PFM#4 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation A2(High)
Wall anchorage to the roof at W27x connections at pilasters 4 EA $ 60,000 $15000/location. Estimated by James Doering
the east and west walls of the Additional roof deck welding 4 EA $ 2,400 $ 9,600 $ 9,600
PEPS Building Construction difficulty,operations and work restriction! 1 IS $ 69,600
$ 139 200
PFM#5 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation BI
Demo existing roofing 1 IS $ 9,600
Roof diaphragm shear in the Roof Framing 1182 FT $ 78 $ 92,196 $ 8 $ 8,865 $ 101,061 W14X48
north-south direction at the Metal decking,galvanized steel, 1-1/2"deep,18 gauge 8370 SF $ 12 $ 100,440 $ 1.5 $ 12,555 $ 112,995 IRS Means
blower building Membrane roof for the entire building 8370 SF $ 6 $ 50,220 $ 6 $ 50,220 $ 100,440 Carollo database
Construction difficulty,operations and work restriction- I LS $ 324,096 100%of other costs
$ 648,192
Sub-total $ 1,369,331
Sales Tax 8% $ 54,773
Sub-total $ 1,424,104
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 427,231
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 1,851,335
GR/GC 15% $ 277,700
Sub-total $ 2,129,036
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 212,904
Sub-total $ 2,341,939
Bond 2% $ 46,839
Sub-total $ 2,388,778
Insurance 2% $ 47,776
GRAND TOTAL 1 $ 2,436,553
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 2
Project Name: Plant Water Pump Station and Power Building 6 Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-3 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 3 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL
QTY.J Unit I Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM#2 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation A2(Medium)
Wall anchorage mitigation at W24x94 roof beams 8 EA $ 80,000 $10000/location. Estimated by
Wall anchorage to the roof at lames Doering
east and west walls Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 80,000 100%of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 3 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 Construct trailer, utilities,
rotection,and etc.
$ 169,000
PFM#3 Mitigation
Drag connection at the reentrant Provide a steel channel or similar shape 88 FT $ 97 $ 8,488 $ 6 $ 525 $ 9,013 RS Means. 60 Ibs/ft Gal Steel.
corner(intersection of grid line 2 Epoxy anchors 176 EA $ 71 $ 12,575 $ 38 $ 6,653 $ 19,228 Assume 6" OC
and D) Welding to existing steel W12x35 1 EA $ 4,800 $ 4,800 $ 4,800
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 33,041 100%of other costs
$ 66,081
Sub-total $ 235,081
Sales Tax 8% $ 9,403
Sub-total $ 244,484
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 73,345
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 317,830
GR/GC 15% $ 47,674
Sub-total $ 365,504
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 36,550
Sub-total $ 402,054
Bond 2% $ 8,041
Sub-total $ 410,095
Insurance 1 2% $ 8,202
GRAND TOTAL 1 $ 418,297
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 3
Project Name: City Water Pump Station Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-4 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 5.5 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL
PFM Direct Cost CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost Reference
PFM N3 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation C3
Stainless steel angle tie plate,4'OC 130 FT $ 30 $ 3,896 $ 7 $ 944 $ 4,840 RS Means. 1.21 ratio for SST. L4x4x1/2, 2'long
Footings move independent of Epoxy anchors at 4'OC 65 EA $ 71 $ 4,644 $ 38 $ 2,457 $ 7,101 IRS Means
the wall Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 23,883 200%of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 5.5 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 16,500 $ 16,500 Construct trailer, utilities, protection,and etc.
$ 52 324
6
PFM g3 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation A2(Low)
Wall anchorage at east and west Anchorage at W24x131 to pilasters EA $ 45,000 $7500/location. Estimated by James Doering
walls Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 45,000 100%of other costs
90 000
PFM#4 Mitigation
6" concrete overlay 10 CY $ 474 $ 4,740 $ 1,453 $ 14,530 $ 19,270 Carollo database
In-plane shear at south pier Special finishes for concrete 1 LS $ 964 5%of concrete
between louvers Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 200 EA $ 39 $ 7,800 $ 45 $ 9,000 $ 16,800 IRS Means material cost,$100/dowel, 18"OC
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 37,034 100%of other costs
$ 74 067
PFM g5&6 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation D
Out-of-plane horizontal bending Vertical steel tube or steel channel members 6 EA $ 36,000 $6000/each
at east and west walls Epoxy anchors at 8" OC 199 EA $ 71 $ 14,201 $ 38 $ 7,513 $ 21,713 IRS Means
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 57,713 100%of other costs
$ 115 427
Sub-total $ 331,818
Sales Tax 8% $ 13,273
Sub-total $ 345,091
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 103,527
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 448,618
GR/GC 15% $ 67,293
Sub-total $ 515,911
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 51,591
Sub-total $ 567,502
Bond 2% $ 11,350
Sub-total $ 578,852
Insurance 1 2% $ 11,577
GRAND TOTAL $ 590,429
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix Fi 4
Project Name: Power Building 2 Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-5 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 3 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cast Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM#1 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation CI
Stainless steel angle tie plate,4'OC 258 Ff $ 30 $ 7,725 $ 7 $ 1,803 $ 9,528 RS Means.1.21 ratio for SST. L4x4x1/2,2'long
Walls/footing are not tied Epoxy anchors at 4'OC 129 EA $ 71 $ 9,199 $ 38 $ 4,867 $ 14,066 RS Means
together Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS J20,OOO
200%of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 3 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 9,000 Construct trailer,utilities,protection,and etc.
79 780PFM#2 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation Ai(SIM)New anchorage where W32x27 beams are supported at the CMU walls 4 EA $5000 per location
Wall anchorage at the north and Demo existing roofing 1 LS south walls of the low roof Membrane roof for the entire building 2460 SF $ 6 $ 14,760 $ 6 $ 14,760 Carollo database
Additional roof deck welding 4 EA $ 2,400 $ 9,600 Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS 100%of other costs
$ 137 440
Sub-total $ 217,220
Sales Tax 8% $ 8,689
Sub-total $ 225,909
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 67,773
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 293,682
GR/GC 15% $ 44,052
Sub-total $ 337,734
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 33,773
Sub-total $ 371,505
Bond 2% $ 7,430
Sub-total $ 378,938
Insurance 2% $ 7,579
GRAND TOTAL $ 386,516
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 5
Project Name: Power Building 4 Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-6 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 3 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL
CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM#3 Mitigation
Demo existing roofing 1 LS $ 9,600
Membrane roof for the entire building 1760 SF $ 6 $ 10,560 $ 6 $ 10,560 $ 21,120 Carollo database
Concentric X-braced frames at the existing louver openings 94 FT $ 78 $ 7,359 $ 8 $ 708 $ 8,066 RS Means. HSS 8X8X3/2.49lbs/ft.
Incomplete load path at the north Steel framed blockings at the roof level 25 FT $ 78 $ 1,950 $ 8 $ 188 $ 2,138 RS Means. HSS 8X8X3/2.49lbs/ft.
side of the high roof diaphragm Weld steel framed blocking to roof deck 4 EA $ 4,800 $ 19,200 $ 19,200
New steel member sill 39 FT $ 78 $ 3,023 $ 8 $ 291 $ 3,313 RS Means. HSS 8X8X3/2.49lbs/ft.
Epoxy anchors for the new steel member sill,6"OC 79 EA $ 71 $ 5,609 $ 38 $ 2,967 $ 8,576 RS Means
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 72,013 100%of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 3 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 9,000 $ 9,000
$ 153 026
Sub-total $ 153,026
Sales Tax 8% $ 6,121
Sub-total $ 159,147
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 47,744
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 206,851
GR/GC 15% $ 31,034
Sub-total $ 237,954
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 23,792
Sub-total $ 261,717
Bond 2% $ 5,234
Sub-total $ 266,951
Insurance 2% $ 5,339
GRAND TOTAL $ 272,290
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 6
Project Name: Power Building 5 Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-7 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 2 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL
CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM q2 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation A2(Low)
Wall anchorage at the east and west Wall anchorage at W24x94 roof beams 8 EA $ 60,000 $7500/location. Estimated by lames Doering
walls to the roof diaphragm Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 60,000 100%of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 2 MONTH E 3,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 Construct trailer,utilities,protection,and etc.
$ 126,000
Sub-total $ 126,000
Sales Tax 8% $ 5,040
Sub-total $ 131,040
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 39,312
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 170,352
GR/GC 15% $ 25,553
Sub-total $ 195,905
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 19,590
Sub-total $ 215,495
Bond 2% $ 4,310
Sub-total $ 219,805
Insurance 2% $ 4,396
GRAND TOTAL $ 224,201
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix Fi 7
Project Name: Control Center Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-8 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 15 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION tDirect
JRS
CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Reference
PFM#2,4,5,6,10 MitigationConcentric X-braced frames from the roof level down to the first floor 1291 FT $ 78 $ 100,666 $ 8 $ 9,679 Means.HSS 8XSX1/2-49lbs/ft.
Supplement connections along collector at bottom of 2nd Floor 80 EA 06 hr per location
Puddle welding along collector at roof level 1 LS 01 week
Moment frame column Enhancing connections elsewhere for seismic load transfer 1 LS 0 $75000/FLOOR
anchorage is not adequate to Interior demo and restoration of interior finishes 8250 SF $ 25 $ 206,250 50 $ 412,500 0 $75/SF.25%of the entire building.
resist seismic tension demands, Plant SCADA system relocations 2 EA $ 128,000 $ 256,000 0
etc... Fire sprinkler system 8250 SF $ 4 $ 33,000 $ 33,000 25%of the entire building.
Temporary trailers for control center staff 15 MONTH $ 24,000 $ 360,000 $ 360,000 Office trailer,locker rooms,restroom and showers,etc.
Temporary facilities and requirements 15 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 45,000 $ 45,000 Construct trailer,utilities,protection,and etc.
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 1,856,096 100%of other costs
$ 3 712 191
Sub-total $ 3,712,191
Sales Tax 8% $ 148,488
Sub-total $ 3,860,679
Project Level Allowance 30% $ 1,158,204
Sub-total $ 5,018,882
GR/GC 15% $ 752,832
NOTES: Sub-total $ 5,771,715
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Contractor's Profit 10% $ 577,171
Sub-total $ 6,348,886
Bond 2% $ 126,978
Sub-total $ 6,475,864
Insurance 2% $ 129,517
GRANDTOTAL $ 6,605,381
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 8
Project Name: 12kV Service Center Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-9 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 2 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL
OTV. Unit Unit Cast I Amount I per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM M2 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation A2(Low)
Wall anchorage to roof at east and Wall anchorage at W24x84 roof beams 8 EA $ 60,000 $7500/location. Estimated by James Doering
west walls Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 60,000 100%of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 2 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 Construct[railer,utilities,protection,and etc.
$ 126,000
Sub-total $ 126,000
Sales Tax 8% $ 5,040
Sub-total $ 131,040
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 39,312
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 170,352
GR/GC 15% $ 25,553
Sub-total $ 195,905
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 19,590
Sub-total $ 215,495
Bond 2% $ 4,310
Sub-total $ 219,805
Insurance 2% $ 4,396
GRAND TOTAL $ 224,201
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 9
Project Name:Central Power Generation Building Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant l Project 1-10 Prepared By: xHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:)months Data Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov,2028 Accepted BY: JA0
MATERIALS INSTALLATION 1 TOTAL TOTAL
QTV. Unit UnitCost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM of Mst-irrion-StandaM Structural Mitigation F
Lack of lateralthe high roof
ngthe Cast-in-place concrete walls 11.6 CV 5 412 $ 4,769 5 676 5 7,824 $ 12,630 Carollo database
east side of the high roof Special finishes for concrete 1 IS $ 630 5%of cast-in-place connate
diaphragm Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 92 EA $ 39 5 3,575 1 $ 45 1 $ 4,125 $ 7,700 RS Means,18"OC
Demo windows at 35'above floor 12 EA $ NO $ 9,600 $ 9,600
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 US $ 51,044 200%of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirement T MONTH $ 3,000 $ 21,O00 $ 21,000 ConstructDollar,utilities,protection,and etc.
$ 112567
PFM g2 Mitigation
50',12"thick cast-in-place concrete shear wall at basement level 37.0 CY $ 412 $ 15,259 $ 676 $ 25,037 $ 4%296 Carollo database
Lack of lateral bracing alongthe Upgrade first floor beams with steel channel tie along building length 140 FT $ 9T $ 13,580 $ fi $ 840 $ 14,420 AS Means.60lbs/ft Gal Steel.
west side of the low roof and 2nd Epoxy anchors at 6"OC for steel channel tie 281 EA $ 71 $ 20,077 $ 38 $ 10,622 $ 3g699 RS Means
floor at the basement level Canduk,piping,valving,and supports demo 1 IS $ 16,W0
Replacement allowance for conduit,piping,valvin ,and supprons 1 IS $ 65,000
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 166,416 300%of other casts
5 332 831
PFM g3 Mitigation-Standard Structural MRigafianF
Cast-in-place concrete 10.0 CV $ 412 5 4,120 $ 676 $ 6,luu $ 30,880 Carollo database
Insufficient lateral bracing along Special finishes for concrete 1 LS $ 544 5%of cast-in-place concrete
the west side of the building Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels EA $ 39 $ - $ 45 $ - $ - RS Means material cost,$1W/dowel,18"OC
Demo windows at grade 16 EA $ 800 $ 12,BW $ II,800
Construction difficulty,o erations and work restrictions 1 15 $ 24,224 SW%of other costs
$ 48448
PFMa Mit Ion-Standard Structural MHl atlan A2(High) SIM
Demo existing roof 1 LS $ 9,fiW
Wall anchorage at the high roof New steel welded or bolted connections to existing beams 6 EA $ 90,W0 $15000/location.Estimated by James Doering
north and south walls Additional membrane roof 4625 SF $ 6 5 28,721 $ 6 $ 28,221 $ 57,443 Carollo database
Additional roof deck welding 6 EA $ 2,400 $ 14,400 $ 14,400
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 IS $ 171p43 SW%of other casts
342 885
PFM gS Migration Standard Structural MHlgation 01 and 82
Demo existing roofing 0 IS $ Already included in PFM g4
Metal decking,galvanized steel,1 1/2'deep,18 gauge 300) SF $ 12 $ 36,000 $ 2 $ 4,500 $ 40,500 RS Means
High roof diaphragm shear Membrane roof for the entire high roof 7400 SF $ 6 5 44,400 $ 6 $ 44,100 $ 88,800 Carollo database
Supplement existing anchors at 20"OC 90 EA $ 71 $ 6,431 $ 38 $ 3,402 $ 9,833 RS Means
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 IS $ 139,133 100%of other costs
$ 2T8265
PFM B6 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation BS and B2
Demo existing roofing 1 IS $ 4,800
MCUl decking,galvanized steel,1-1/2'deep,18 gauge IOW SF $ 12 $ 12,000 $ 2 $ 1,500 $ 13,500 RS Means
Low roof diaphragm shear Membrane roof for the entire low roof south of grid line 2 49W SF $ 6 $ 29,QO $ 6 $ 29,40(1 $ 58,800 Carollo database
Supplement existing anchors at 20"OC 60 EA $ TI 5 4,282 $ 38 $ ;268 $ 6,555 RS Means
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 IS $ 83,655 SW%of other costs
5 167,310
Sub-total $ 1,282,306
Sales Tax 8% $ 51,292
Sub-total $ 1,333,598
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 400,079
1.This cost estimate only Includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 1,733,672
GR/GC 15% $ 260,052
Sub-total $ 1,993,729
Contractor's Profit to% $ 199,373
Sub-total $ 2,193,107
Bond 2% 5 43,862
Sub-total $ 2,236,964
Insurance 2% $ 44,739
GMNO TOTAL $ 2,281,103
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 10
Project Name: Digester 5&6 Pump Room Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-14 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 3 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION Total TOTAL
CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM#1 Mitigation-Standard Stmctural Mitigation C3
Stainless steel angle tie plate,4'OC 78 FT $ 30 $ 2,323 $ 7 $ 563 $ 2,885 RS Means. 1.21 ratio for SST. L4x4x1/2,2' long
Footings move independent of Epoxy anchors at 4'OC 39 EA $ 71 $ 2,769 $ 38 $ 1,465 $ 4,233 RS Means
the wall Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 14,238 200%of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 3 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 Construct trailer, utilities, protection,and etc.
$ 30 357
PFM Jig Mitigation
Provide cast-in-place concrete shear walls 7.5 CY $ 412 $ 3,090 $ 676 $ 5,070 $ 8,150 Carollo database
Insufficient separation from Special finishes for concrete 1 LS $ 408 5%of cast-in-place concrete
adjacent digesters Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 43 EA $ 39 $ 1,658 $ 45 $ 1,913 $ 3,570 RS Means, 18"OC
Roof connections 1 LS $ 15,000 Estimated by James Doering
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 54,276 200%of other costs
$ 81,414
Sub-total $ 111,771
Sales Tax 8% $ 4,471
Sub-total $ 116,242
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 34,872
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 151,114
GR/GC 15% $ 22,667
Sub-total $ 173,781
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 17,378
Sub-total $ 191,159
Bond 2% $ 3,823
Sub-total $ 194,982
Insurance 2% $ 3,900
GRANDTOTAL $ 198,882
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 11
Project Name: Digester 7&8 Pump Room Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-17 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 3 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION Total TOTAL
CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM NS Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation CI III. I
Stainless steel angle tie plate,4'OC 78 FT $ 30 $ 2,323 $ 7 $ 563 $ 2,885 IRS Means. 1.21 ratio for SST. L4x4x1/2,2' long
Footings move independent of Epoxy anchors at 4'OC 39 EA $ 71 $ 2,769 $ 38 $ 1,465 $ 4,233 IRS Means
the wall Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 14 308 200%of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 3 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 Construct trailer, utilities, protection,and etc.
$ 30,357
PFM q2 Mitigation
Provide cast-in-place concrete shear walls 15.0 CY $ 412 $ 6,180 $ 676 $ 10,140 $ 16,320 Carollo database
Insufficient separation from Special finishes for concrete 1 LS $ 816 5%of cast-in-place concrete
adjacent digesters Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 63 EA $ 39 $ 2,438 $ 45 $ 2,813 $ 5,250 IRS Means, 18" OC
Roof connections 1 LS $ 15,000 Estimated by lames Doering
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 74,772 200%of other costs
$ 112,158
Sub-total $ 142,515
Sales Tax 8% $ 5,701
Sub-total $ 148,215
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 44,465
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 192,680
GR/GC 15% $ 28,902
Sub-total $ 221,582
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 22,158
Sub-total $ 243,740
Bond 2% $ 4,875
Sub-total $ 248,615
Insurance 2% $ 4,972
GRANDTOTAL $ 253,587
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 12
Project Name: Digester 9-10 Pump Room Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-20 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 3 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION Total TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM#1 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation C3
Stainless steel angle tie plate,4'OC 90 FT $ 30 $ 2,700 $ 7 $ 630 $ 3,330 IRS Means. 1.21 ratio for SST. L4x4x1/2,2' long
Footings move independent of Epoxy anchors at 4'OC 45 EA $ 71 $ 3,215 $ 38 $ 1,701 $ 4,916 IRS Means
the wall Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 16,493 200%of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 3 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 Construct trailer,utilities,protection,and etc.
$ 33 739
PFM#2 Mitigation
Provide cast-in-place concrete shear walls 11.9 CY $ 412 $ 4,883 $ 676 $ 8,012 $ 12,895 Carollo database
Insufficient separation from Special finishes for concrete 1 LS $ 645 5%of cast-in-place concrete
adjacent digesters Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 53 EA $ 39 $ 2,080 $ 45 $ 2,400 $ 4,480 IRS Means, 18"OC
Roof connections 1 LS $ 15,000 Estimated by James Doering
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 66,039 200%of other costs
99,059
PFM#4 Mitigation
Diaphragm connections at re- Stainless steel channel 54 FT $ 117 $ 6,338 $ 7 $ 392 $ 6,730 R5 Means.60lbs/ft Gal Steel. 1.21 ratio for SST.
Epoxy anchors at 6" OC 109 EA $ 71 $ 7,788 $ 38 $ 4,120 $ 11,908 IRS Means
entrant corner
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 37,277 200%of other costs
55 915
Sub-total $ 188,712
Sales Tax 8% $ 7,548
Sub-total $ 196,261
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 58,878
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 255,139
GR/GC 15% $ 38,271
Sub-total $ 293,410
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 29,341
Sub-total $ 322,751
Bond 2% $ 6,455
Sub-total $ 329,206
Insurance 2% $ 6,584
GRAND TOTAL $ 335,790
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 13
Project Name: Digester 11-14 Pump Room Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-22 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 5 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION Total TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM#1 Mitigation
Provide cast-in-place concrete shear walls 292 CY $ 412 $ 120,167 $ 676 $ 197,167 $ 317,333 Carollo database
Special finishes for concrete 1 LS $ 15,867 5%of cast-in-place concrete
Insufficient separation from adjacent Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 725 EA $ 39 $ 28,275 $ 45 $ 32,625 $ 60,900 IRS Means, 18" OC
digesters causes structure pounding Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 197,100 50%of other costs
Construct trailer, utilities,
Temporary facilities and requirements 5 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000
protection, and etc.
$ 606,200
Sub-total $ 606,200
Sales Tax 8% $ 24,248
Sub-total $ 630,448
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 189,134
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. 5ub-total $ 819,582
GR/GC 15°% $ 122,937
Sub-total $ 942,520
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 94,252
Sub-total $ 1,036,772
Bond 2% $ 20,735
Sub-total $ 1,057,507
Insurance 2% $ 21,150
GRAND TOTAL $ 1,078,657
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 14
Project Name: Digester 15-16 Pump Room Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-23 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 3.5 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION tTota TOTAL
CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM p1 MitigationProvide cast-in-place concrete shear walls 83 CY $ 412 $ 34,333 $ 676 $ 56,333 Carollo database
Special finishes for concrete 1 LS 5%of cast-in-place concrete
Insufficient separation from Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 225 EA $ 39 $ 8,775 $ 45 $ 10,125 RS Means, 18" OC
adjacent digesters Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS 75%of other costs
Construct trailer, utilities,
Temporary facilities and requirements 3.5 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 10,500 protection, and etc.
$ 238,700
Sub-total $ 238,700
Sales Tax 8% $ 9,548
Sub-total $ 248,248
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 74,474
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 322,722
GR/GC 15% $ 48,408
Sub-total $ 371,131
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 37,113
Sub-total $ 408,244
Bond 2% $ 8,165
Sub-total $ 416,409
Insurance 2%
GRAND TOTAL $ 424,737
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 15
Project Name: Solids Storage Facility Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant Project 1-26 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 2.5 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION Total TOTAL
QTY. J Unit I Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM#1 Mitigation
Building pounding between the Steel plates with slotted connections 53 FT $ 41 $ 2,153 $ 6 $ 315 $ 2,468 IRS Means. 25 Ibs/ft Gal Steel.
north and south structures due Epoxy anchors at 8" OC 80 EA $ 71 $ 5,680 $ 38 $ 3,005 $ 8,685 IRS Means
to out-of-phase response to Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 2 LS $ 16,800 200%of other costs
ground shaking Temporary facilities and requirements 2.5 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 Construct trailer, utilities,protection,and etc.
$ 35,453
Sub-total $ 35,453
Sales Tax 8% $ 1,418
Sub-total $ 36,871
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 11,061
1. This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 47,932
GR/GC 15% $ 7,190
Sub-total $ 55,122
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 5,512
Sub-total $ 60,634
Bond 2% $ 1,213
Sub-total $ 61,847
Insurance 2% $ 1,237
GRAND TOTAL $ 63,084
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 16
Project Name: Warehouse Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-28 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 5 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov,2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION Total LTA
PFM Direct CostL
CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cast Reference
PFM g1 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation C2
Excavation allowance to expose footing 1 LS $ 13,333 $200/CY
Wall panels are not tied to the Exterior cast-in-place concrete tie beam 67 CY $ 285 $ 18,991 $ 446 $ 29,723 $ 48,714 Carollo database.
footings Epoxy dowel the tie beam into existing wall and footings,8"OC 520 EA $ 21 $ 10,691 $ 39 $ 20,535 $ 31,226 RS Means,3/4"diameterX12"long
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 69,955 75%of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 5 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 Construct trailer,utilities,protection,and etc.
178 228
PFM g6 Mitigation
Wall panels are not tied Use steel plates to tie tilt-up wall panels together along their vertical joints 300 FT $ 97 $ 29,100 $ 6 $ 1,800 $ 30,900 RS Means.60 lbs/ft Gal Steel.
together to resist overturning Epoxy anchors at 4'OC 90 EA $ 71 $ 6,431 $ 38 $ 3,402 $ 9,833 RS Means
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 30,549 75%of other costs
$ 71,282
PFM a8 Mitigation
Tension failure in the walls due Provide continuous supplemental steel chord member along the east and west walls 250 FT $ 97 $ 24,250 $ 6 1 $ 1,500 $ 25,750 RS Means.601bs/ft Gal Steel.
to differential settlement Epoxy anchors at 6"OC 501 EA $ 71 $ 35,796 $ 38 $ 28,938 $ 54,734 RS Means
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 60,363 75%of other costs
$ 140 847
Sub-total $ 390,358
Sales Tax 8% $ 15,614
Sub-total $ 405,972
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 121,792
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 527,764
GR/GC 15% $ 79,165
Sub-total $ 606,928
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 60,693
Sub-total $ 667,621
Bond 2% $ 13,352
Sub-total $ 680,973
Insurance 2% $ 13,619
GRAND TOTAL $ 694,593
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 17
Project Name: Shop Building A Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-29 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 5 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION Total TOTAL
CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM#1 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation C2
Excavation allowance to expose footing 1 LS $ 10,667 $200/CY
Wall panels are not tied to the Exterior cast-in-place concrete tie beam 53 CY $ 285 $ 15,193 $ 446 $ 23,779 $ 38,971 Carollo database.
footings Epoxy dowel the tie beam into existing wall and footings,8"OC 520 EA $ 21 $ 10,691 $ 39 $ 20,535 $ 31,226 RS Means,3/4"diameterX12"long
Construction difficulty,operations and work restriction! 1 LS $ 60,648 75%of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 5 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 Construct trailer,utilities, protection,and etc.
$ 156,512
Sub-total $ 156,512
Sales Tax 8% $ 6,260
Sub-total $ 162,772
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 48,832
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 211,604
GR/GC 15% $ 31,741
Sub-total $ 243,344
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 24,334
Sub-total $ 267,679
Bond 2% $ 5,354
Sub-total $ 273,033
Insurance 2% $ 5,461
GRAND TOTAL $ 278,493
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 18
Project Name: Shop Building B and Building 3 Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-30 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 5 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION Total TOTAL
OTy. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM#1 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation C2
Excavation allowance to expose footing 1 LS $ 17,067 $200/CY
Wall panels are not tied to the Exterior cast-in-place concrete tie beam 85 CY $ 285 $ 24,308 $ 446 $ 38,046 $ 62,354 Carollo database.
footings Epoxy dowel the tie beam into existing wall and footings,8"OC 832 EA $ 21 $ 17,106 $ 39 $ 32,856 $ 49,962 RS Means,3/4"diameterX12"long
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 97,037 75%of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 5 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 Construct trailer, utilities,protection,and etc.
$ 241,419
PFM N5 Mitigation
Additional nailing to develop the wall anchorage force into the 1 LS $ 1,600
Wall anchorage of the roof at diaphragm
the south wall of Bldg 3 Install clip angles and screw into both sides of the strut member and 3 EA $ 6 $ 18 $ 3,200 $ 9,600 $ 1,600
bottom side of the plywood diaphragm
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 3,200 100%of other costs
$ 6,400
Sub-total $ 247,819
Sales Tax 8% $ 9,913
Sub-total $ 257,732
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 77,319
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 335,051
GR/GC 15% $ 50,258
Sub-total $ 385,309
Contractor's Profit SO% $ 38,531
Sub-total $ 423,840
Bond 2% $ 8,477
Sub-total $ 432,316
Insurance 2% $ 8,646
GRAND TOTAL $ 440,963
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 19
Project Name: Building 5&6 Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-31 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 9 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION Total TOTAL
CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount perUM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM ft1 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation C2
Excavation allowanceto exp05efooting 1 LS $ 44,133 $200/CY
Wall panels are not tied to the Exterior cast-in-place concrete tie beam 221 CY $ 285 $ 62,859 $ 446 $ 98,384 $ 161,243 Carollo database
footings Epoxy dowel the tie beam into existing wall and footings,8"OC 664 EA $ 21 $ 13,652 $ 39 $ 26,221 $ 39,873 RS Means,3/4"diameterX12"long
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 122,625 50%of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 9 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 27,000 $ 27,000 Construct trailer,utilities, protection,and etc.
394 875
PFM#4 Mitigation
Supplement the existing wall anchorage with additional hardware 13 EA $ 13,000 $1000 for each location
Supplement the existing wall anchorage with epoxy anchors 13 EA $ 71 $ 929 $ 38 $ 491 $ 1,420 IRS Means
Wall anchorage of the 2nd floor Remove building finishes(ceiling panels,etc...) 1 LS $ 5,307 Match replacement installation cost
Replacement allowance for new building finishes(ceiling panels,etc...) 1300 SF $ 20 $ 26,536 $ 4 $ 5,307 $ 31,843 Carollo database
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 51,570 100%of other costs
$ 103140
PFM ft6B Mitigation
Demo existing finishes 1 LS $ 2,000
Bending failure of beams over Replacement allowance for the finishes 200 SF $ 20 $ 4,082 $ 4 $ 816 $ 4,899 Carollo database
chevron braced frames Add steel cover plates to the top and bottom flanges of the steel beam 100 FT $ 97 $ 9,700 $ 6 $ 600 $ 10,300 IRS Means.60 lbs/ft Gal Steel.
Field welding of the new steel plates to the existing beam 15 EA $ 2,400 $ 36,000 $ 36,000
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 53,199 100%of other costs
106 398
PFM ft61) Mitigation
Strengthen existing beam by adding 2 channels along each side 40 FT $ 24 $ 960 $ 6 $ 240 $ 1,200 IRS Means. 13 Ibs/ft Gal Steel
2nd Floor diaphragm shear Replace end connections allowance 1 LS $ 25,000
Enhance floor shear transfer allowance 1 LS $ 25,OD0
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 51,2D0 100%of other costs
102,400
Sub-total $ 706,813
Sales Tax 8% $ 28,273
Sub-total $ 735,085
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 220,526
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 955,611
GR/GC 15% $ 143,342
Sub-total $ 1,098,952
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 109,895
Sub-total $ 1,208,848
Bond 2% $ 241177
Sub-total $ 1,233,025
Insurance 2% $ 24,660
GRAND TOTAL $ 1,257,685
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 20
Project Name: Auto Shop Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-32 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 5 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION Total J75%
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cast PFMReference
PFM M3 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation C2
Excavation allowance to expose footing 1 LS $ 11,667 $200/CY
Wall panels are not tied to the Exterior cast-in-place concrete tie beam 58 CY $ 285 $ 16,617 $ 446 $ 26,008 $ 42,625Carollo database.
footings Epoxy dowel the tie beam into existing wall and footings,8"OC 575 EA $ 21 $ 11,822 $ 39 $ 22,707 $ 34,529RS Means,3/4"diameterX12"long
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 66,615of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 5 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000Construct trailer, utilities,protection,and etc.
PFM M4 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation Al(SIM)
Wall anchorage of the low roof New steel angles at existing wall at the north and south side,8'OC 650 FT $ 41 $ 26,650 $ 6 $ 3,900 $ 30,550RS Means.25 Ibs/ft Gal Steel. 16 ft long.
at the north and south side Epoxy anchors at 8'OC 41 EA $ 71 $ 2,903 $ 38 $ 1,536 $ 4,438RS Means
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 26,24175%of other costs
$ 61,229
Sub-total $ 231,665
Sales Tax 8% $ 9,267
Sub-total $ 240,931
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 72,279
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 313,211
GR/GC 15% $ 46,982
Sub-total $ 360,192
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 36,019
Sub-total $ 396,212
Bond 2% $ 7,924
Sub-total $ 404,136
Insurance 2% $ 8,083
GRAND TOTAL $ 412,219
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 21
Project Name: Central Laboratory Date Prepared: 4/11/2019
Project Number: OCSD Plant 1 Project 1-34 Prepared By: BS/XHK
Project Construction Duration: 12 months Date Accepted: 4/19/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Gost I Amount pe,UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM Nl Mitigation
Concentric chevron braced frames from the roof level down to the first floor 485 FT $ 120 $ 58,200 $ 6 $ 2,910 $ 61,110 RS Means,2L6x6x1-751bs/ft
Saw cut existing concrete slab 725 FT $ 2 $ 1,552 $ 23 $ 16,313 $ 17,864 RS Means
Repair concrete slab 5 CY $ 648 $ 3,552 $ 744 $ 4,078 $ 7,630 Carollo database
Additional columns below frame beams from roof level down to first floor 675 FT $ 78 $ 52,650 $ 8 $ 5,400 $ 58,050 RS Means,HSS 8x8x1/2-49 lbs/ft
Demo and restoration of interior finishes 2391 SF $ 25 $ 59,775 $ 50 $ 119,550 $ 179,325 $75/SF.25%of the entire building.
Braced frame column axial Excavation allowance to expose footing 1 LS $ 59,259 $200/CY
stress due to overturning forces Enlarge existing footings below frame columns 175 CY $ 412 $ 72,176 $ 676 $ 118,425 $ 190,601 Carollo database
Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 200 EA $ 39 $ 7,800 $ 45 $ 9,000 $ 26,800 RS Means
Add footings below new frame columns 67 CY $ 412 $ 27,467 $ 676 $ 45,067 $ 72,533 Carollo database
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 663,173 100%of other costs
Temporary facilities and requirements 12 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 36,000 $ 36,000 Construct trailer,utilities,protection,and etc.
$ 1,362,347
PFM M3 Mitigation
Demo and restoration of interior finishes 215 SF $ 25 $ 5,375 $ 50 $ 10,750 $ 16,125 $75/SF.
Out-of-plane bracing of braced Beam framing 86 FT 1 $ 92 $ 7,912 $ 6 $ 516 $ 8,428 RS Means,w21x57-57 lbs/ft.
frame beams Beam bolted connections 24 EA $ 72,000 $3000/location.Estimated by James Doering
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 96,553 100%of other casts
$ 93,106
PFM g4 Mitigation
Demo and restoration of interior finishes 1169 SF $ 25 $ 29,225 $ 50 $ 58,450 $ 87,675 $75/5F.
Braces for braced frames are Add stiffener plates to existing bracing members 512 FT $ 41 $ 20,992 $ 6 $ 3,072 $ 24,064 RS Means,25 lbs/ft.
non-compact members Field welding of new stiffener plates to existing bracing members 64 EA $ 2,400 $ 153,600 $ 153,600
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 132,670 50%of her costs
$ 398,009
PFM g7 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation 01
Demo existing roofing 1 LS $ 32,000
Roof diaphragm shear Metal decking,galvanized steel,1-1/2"deep,18 gauge 17000 SF $ 12 $ 204,000 $ 2 $ 25,500 $ 229,500 RS Means
Membrane rooffor the entire building 17000 SF $ 6 $ 102,000 $ 6 $ 102,000 $ 204,000 Carollo database
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 IS $ 465,500 1 100%of other costs
$ 931,000
Sub-total $ 2,894,461
Sales Tax 8% $ 115,378
Sub-total $ 2,999,840
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 899,952
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 3,899,791
GR/GC 15% $ 584,969
Sub-total $ 4,484,760
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 448,476
Sub-total $ 4,933,236
Bond 2% $ 98,665
Sub-total $ 5,031,901
Insurance 2% $ 100,638
GRANDTOTAL $ 5,132,539
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 22
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
P515-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name: RAS PS East Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-3 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 3 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION T!46,695
TOTAL
CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Dir PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM#1 Mitigation
New cast in place concrete columns,square TS Cy $ 638 $ 4,782 $ 709 $ 5,321 $ RS means includes forms, 24"
Vertical irregularities in Strengthen existing members 3 EA $ $10000/each. Estimated by James
building shear walls New collector member(steel channel) 64 FT $ 97 $ 6,208 $ 6 $ 384 $ RS Means.60lbs/ft Gal Steel
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 300%of Direct cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 3 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 9,000 $ Construct trailer, utilities, protection,etc.
$ 102389
S $ 102,389
Sales Tax $ 4,096
Sub-total $ 106,495
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 31,945
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 138,430
GR/GC 15% $ 20,764
Sub-total $ 159,194
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 15,919
Sub-total $ 175,114
Bond 2% $ 3,502
Sub-total $ 178,616
Insurance 1 2% $ 3,572
GRAND TOTAL L 5 132,138
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 23
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
P515-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name: RAS PS West Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-4 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 3 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL
CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direc[Cost Reference
PFM#1 Mitigation
New cast in place concrete columns,square 7.5 CY $ 638 $ 4,782 $ 709 $ 5,321 $ 10,103 PIS means includes forms,24"
Vertical irregularities in Strengthen existing members 3 EA $ 30,000 $10000/each. Estimated by lames
building shear walls New collector member(steel channel) 64 FT $ 97 $ 6,208 $ 6 $ 384 $ 6,592 RS Means.60lbs/ft Gal Steel
Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS S 46,695 100%of direct cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 3 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 Construct trailer,utilities,protection,etc.
$ 102 389
Sub-total $ 102,389
Sales Tax 8%1 $ 4,096
Sub-total $ 106,485
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 31,945
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 138,430
GR/GC 15% $ 20,764
Sub-total $ 159,194
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 15,919
Sub-total $ 175,114
Bond 2% $ 3,502
Sub-total $ 178,616
Insurance 1 2% $ 3,572
GRAND TOTAL 1 5 182,188
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 24
ORANGECOUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PS35-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name: Operations Control Center Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OEMO Plant 2 Project 2-6 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 9 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov,2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATF RIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM NI Mitigation
New stiffeners to existing joist bearing seats 32 1 EA $ 641000 $2000/each.Estimated b James
Wall anchorage at east and west Field welding in place 32 EA $ 2,400 $ 26,800 $ 76,800
walls(original building) Construction difficulty,o elation and work restrictions 1 LS $ 140,g00 100%of direct cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 9 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 22,000 $ 22,000 Construct trailer,utilities,protection,ease.
$ 308 BUD
PFM 0 Mitigation
New stiffeners to existing joist bearing seats 28 EA $ 56,000 $2000/each.Estimated by James
Wall anchorage at east and west Field welding in place 28 EA $ 2,400 $ 67,200 $ 62,200
walls(addition) New bolts 28 EA $ 71 $ 1,988 $ 38 $ 1,064 $ 3,052 RS Means
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 US $ 126,252 100%of direct cost
$ 252,504,
PFM 45 Mitigation
Steel braced fames 80 FT $ 92 $ 7,760 $ 6 $ 480 $ 8,240 RS Means.60 lbs/ft Gal Steel
Incomplete load path at the Grade Beams 14 CY $ 412 $ 5,860 $ 676 $ 9,614 $ 15,474 Carollo database
south entrance canopy addition Steel Columns 64 FT $ 82 $ 5,248 $ 3 $ 212 $ 5,460 RS means(6x6x3/81
for resisting seismic loads Demofinishes 1 US $ 61400
Replacement for finishes 1 LS $ 8,000
Construction difficulty,o rations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 43,524 100%of direct cost
$ 87149
PFM N Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation E
Cast-In-place concrete SA CY $ 412 $ 572 $ 676 $ 939 $ 1,511 Carollo Database
Special finishes for concrete 1 LS $ 76 5%oftotal concrete
In-plane shear at shear walls Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 27 EA $ 39 $ 1,M $ 45 $ 1,200 $ 2,240 RS Means material cost,$100/dowel,18"OC
Demo windows at EL 20.00 2 EA $ BUD $ 1,60D $ 1,600
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 5,427 TOM of direct cost
$ 10,853
PFM AT Mitigation
New through bolls,plates and anchors 10 EA $ 233 $ 2,330 $ 68 $ 680 $ 3,010 RS means for bolts,plates and anchors
Drag connection at roof to east Demo existing connections 10 EA $ No Same as installation for new
and west shear walls
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 3,690 100%of directcost
$ 7,379
PFM 48 Miti ion-Standard Structural Mid tion C1
Precast wall panel connection to Steel angles with steel hardware at 8'OC 528 FT $ 41 $ 21,648 $ 6 $ 3,168 $ 24,816 RS Means.1.21 ratio for SST.L4x4x1/2,2'long
foundation walls Epoxied anchors at 8'0C 2112 EA $ ]S $ 149,952 $ 38 $ 80,256 $ 230,208 RS means
Construction difficulty,o erations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 255,024 TOM of direct cost
$ 510,048
Sub-total $ 1,176,533
Sales Tax 8% $ 47,061
Sub-total $ 1,223,595
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 367,078.37
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 1,590,673
6R/GC 15% $ 238,601
5U1h-total $ 1,829,274
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 382,922
5U1h-total $ 2,012,201
Bond 2% $ 40,244
5Ub-[mal $ 2,052,445
Insurance 1% $ 41,049
GRAND TOTAL I$ 2,093,494
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 25
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PS15-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
- FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name: 12 kV Service Center Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-7 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 4.5 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov,2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL
CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM#1 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation Al
Steel angle with steel hardware at 8'OC 245 FT $ 41 $ 10,045 $ 6 $ 1,470 $ 11,515 RS Means.25 Ibs/ft Gal Steel. 16 It long.
Roof framing members 245 FT $ 41 $ 10,045 $ 6 $ 1,470 $ 11,515
Wall Anchorage to roof at north Epoxied anchors at 8'OC 61 EA $ 71 $ 4,349 $ 38 $ 2,328 $ 6,676 RS Means
and south walls Field weld struts to roof deck 8 EA $ 2,400 $ 18,375 $ 18,375
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 48,081 100%of direct cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 4.5 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 13,500 $ 13,500 Construct trailer,utilities,protection,etc.
$ 109,663
PFM#4 Mitigation
Demo roofing 1 LS $ 9,600
Membrane roof 2788 SF $ 6.00 $ 16,728 $ 6.00 $ 16,728 $ 33,456
Roof Diaphragm Shear Demo 7.5 inch deep steel roof deck 1 LS $ 4,182 Installation cost of new
New standard corrugated steel deck 2788 SF $ 12 $ 33,456 $ 2 $ 4,182 $ 37,638 RS Means
New steel beams 246 SF $ 135 $ 33,210 $ 5 $ 1,304 $ 34,514 RS Means.87lbs/ft Gal Steel.
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 119,390 100%of direct cost
$ 238 780
PFM#5 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation E
Cast-in-place concrete 4.1 CY $ 412 $ 1,679 $ 676 $ 2,754 $ 4,433 Carollo database
Special finishes for concrete 1 LS $ 222 5%of cast-in-place concrete
Shear at frame columns Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels,8"OC 288 EA $ 39 $ 11,232 $ 45 $ 12,960 $ 24,192 IS Means material cost,$300/dowel, 18"OC
Demo windows at EL 20.00 2 EA $ 800 $ 1,600 $ 1,600
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $60,892 200%of direct cost
$ 91,339
Sub-total $ 439,781
Sales Tax 8% $ 17,591
Sub-total $ 457,372
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 137,212
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 594,584
GR/GC 15% $ 89,188
Sub-total $ 683,771
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 68,377
Sub-total $ 752,148
Bond 2% $ 15,043
Sub-total $ 767,191
Insurance 2% $ 15,344
GRAND TOTAL $ 782,535
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 26
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PS15-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name: Power Building B Date Prepared: 4/17/2019
Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-8 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 4 months Date Accepted: 4/19/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL
PFM Direct Cost;QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount er UM Amount Direct Cost Reference
PFM N4 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation Bl
Demo existing roofing 1 LS $ 6,400
Metal decking,galvanized steel, 1-1/2"deep, 18 gauge 1600 SF $ 12 $ 19,200 $ 2 $ 2,400 $ 21,600 RS Means
Roof diaphragm shear Membrane roof for the entire building 1950 SF $ 6 $ 11,700 $ 6 $ 11,700 $ 23,400 Carollo database
Addition of(2)W12X31 beams 50 FT $ 50 $ 2,500 $ 6 $ 300 $ 2,800 RS Means.
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 54,200 100%Direct Cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 4 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 Construct trailer, utilities, protection,etc.
$ 120,400
Sub-total $ 120,400
Sales Tax 8% $ 4,816
Sub-total $ 125,216
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 37,565
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 162,781
GR/GC 15% $ 24,417
Sub-total $ 187,198
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 18,720
Sub-total $ 205,918
Bond 2% $ 4,118
Sub-total $ 210,036
Insurance 2% $ 4,201
GRAND TOTAL 1 $ 214,237
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 27
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PS16-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name: Power Building C Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-9 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 4 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION !re
TOTAL
CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM fit Mitigation
New cast in place concrete shear wall 19.0 Cy $ 412 $ 7,828 $ 676 $ 12,844 Carollo database
Incomplete lateral load resisting Epoxy dowels,8"OC 192 EA $ 21 $ 4,032 $ 39 $ 7,488 RS Means, 3/4" diameterX12" long
system in the east-west Continuous footing 9.5 Cy $ 412 $ 3,906 $ 676 $ 6,409 Carollo database
direction Excavation 1 LS Estimated by lames
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS 100%direct cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 4 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 12000 Construct trailer, utilities, protection,etc.
$ 117,016
PFM M8 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation C2
Stainless steel angle tie plates,4'OC 148 FT $ 30 $ 4,425 $ 7 $ 1,033 $ 5,458 RS Means. 1.21 ratio for SST. L4x4x1/2,2'
Footings move independent of long
the wall New epoxy anchors at 4'OC 74 EA $ 71 $ 5,236 $ 38 $ 2,803 $ 8,039 RS Means
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $26,993 200%direct cost
$ 40,4119
Sub-total $ 157,504
Sales Tax 8% $ 6,300
Sub-total $ 163,805
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 49,141
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 212,946
GR/GC 15% $ 311,11,942
Sub-total $ 244,888
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 24,489
Sub-total $ 269,377
Bond 2% $ 5,388
Sub-total $ 274,764
Insurance 2% $ 5,495
GRANDTOTAL $ 280,260
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 28
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
P515-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name: Power Building D Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-10 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 3.5 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL
OTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM#1 Mitigation
Concentric X braced frames at louver openings 76 1 FT 1 $ 78 $ 5,928 $ 8 $ 608 $ 6,536 RS Means. HSS 8X8X1/2.49lbs/ft.
Steel framed blocking 25 FT $ 78 $ 1,950 $ 8 $ 200 $ 2,150iJ100%
RS Means. HSS 8X8X1/2.491bs/ft.
Welding in field 4 EA $ 4,800 $ 19,200 $ 19,200
Incomplete load path at the New steel member sill 31 FT $ 78 $ 2,418 $ 8 $ 248 $ 2,666RS Means. HSS 8X8X1/2.49lbs/ft.
south side of the high roof Epoxy anchors 47 EA $ 71 $ 3,302 $ 38 $ 1,767 $ 5,069RS Means
Membrane roof for entire building 1827 SF $ 6 $ 10,962 $ 6 $ 10,962 $ 21,924Carollo Database
diaphragm Demo existing roofing 1 LS $ 9,600
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 67,145 Direct Cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 3.5 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 10,500 $ 10,500
$ 144,789
PFM N5 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation D
Vertical steel tube or steel channel members 12 EA $ 48,000 Estimated by lames
Out-of-plane horizontal bending New epoxy anchors at 8"OC 176 EA $ 71 $ 12,514 $ 38 $ 6,698 $ 19,211 RS Means
Additional bracing hardware and framing members 12 EA $ 48,000 $4000/brace
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 115,211 100%Direct Cost
$ 230,423
Sub-total $ 375,212
Sales Tax 8% $ 15,008
Sub-total $ 390,220
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 117,066
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 507,286
GR/GC 15% $ 76,093
Sub-total $ 583,379
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 58,338
Sub-total $ 641,717
Bond 2% $ 12,834
Sub-total $ 654,551
Insurance 2% $ 13,091
GRAND TOTAL $ 667,642
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 29
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PSIS-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name: City Water Pump Station Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-11 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 3 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM#1 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation Al(SIM)
New steel angles at existing wall or perimeter roof beam,8'OC 480 FT $ 27 $ 12,960 $ 74 $ 35,520 $ 48,480 RS Means.25 Ibs/ft Gal Steel. 16 h long.
Wall anchorage a[north and Epoxy anchors at 8'OC 120 EA $ 71 $ 8,520 $ 38 $ 4,560 $ 13,080 RS means
south walls
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 30,780 100%Direct Cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 3 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 9,000 $ 9,000
$ 101,340
PFM#5 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation D
Vertical steel tube or steel channel members 17 EA $ 68,500 $4000/each. Estimated by lames
Out-of-plane horizontal bending New epoxy anchors at 8"OC 200 EA $ 71 $ 14,200 $ 38 $ 7,600 $ 21,800 RS Means
Additional bracing hardware and framing members 17 EA $ 68,000 $4000/brace
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 158,300 100%Direct Cost
$ 316,600
Sub-total $ 417,940
Sales Tax 8% $ 16,718
Sub-total $ 434,658
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 130,397
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 565,055
GR/GC 15% $ 84,758
Sub-total $ 649,813
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 64,981
Sub-total $ 714,794
Bond 2% $ 14,296
Sub-total $ 729,090
Insurance 2% $ 14,582
GRAND TOTAL $ 743,672
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 30
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
P515-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name: Headworks Power Building A Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-14 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 2 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount perUM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cos[ Reference
PFM N3 Mitigation
New steel plates 3 EA $ 12,000 $4000/connection. Estimated by James
Building separation allows New through bolts 8 EA $ 6 $ 50 $ 3 $ 27 $ 77 RS means
pounding into adjacent building New epoxy anchors 8 EA $ 71 $ 568 $ 38 $ 304 $ 872 RS means
(2-16 Headworks Standby Power
Building) Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 12,949 100%Direct Cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 2 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000
$ 31 898
Sub-total $ 31,898
Sales Tax 8% $ 1,276
Sub-total $ 33,174
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 9,952
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 43,126
GR/GC 15% $ 6,469
Sub-total $ 49,594
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 4,959
Sub-total $ 54,554
Bond 2% $ 1,091
Sub-total $ 55,645
Insurance 2% $ 1,113
GRANDTOTAL $ 56,758
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 31
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PS15-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name: Headworks Power Building B Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-15 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 2 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
"UnitUnitCost
ATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TI
;QTY. Amount er UM Amount Direct Cost PFM D Reference
PFM 83 Mitigation
New steel plates 3 EA $ 12,000 $4000/connection. Estimated by James
New through bolts 8 EA $ 6 $ 48 $ 3 $ 24 $ 72IRS means
New epoxy anchors 8 EA $ 71 $ 568 $ 38 $ 304 $ 872IRS means
Building separation allows Ties at roof diaphragm 58 FT $ 30 $ 1,740 $ 7 $ 406 $ 2,146to Means. 1.21 ratio for SST. L4x4x1/2, 2'
pounding into adjacent building long 4' OC
(2-16 Headworks Standby Ties to existing roof deck 1 LS $ 5,000Estimated by lames
Power Building) Epoxy anchors,6"OC 116 EA $ 71 $ 8,236 $ 38 $ 4,408 $ 12,644RS means
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 32,734100%Direct Cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 2 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000
$Sub-total $Sales Tax 8% $Sub-total $ ,
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 22,298
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 96,625
GR/GC 15% $ 14,494
Sub-total $ 111,118
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 11,112
Sub-total $ 122,230
Bond 2% $ 2,445
Sub-total $ 124,675
Insurance 2% $ 2493
GRAND TOTAL $ 127168
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 32
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PS1$-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name: Headworks Standby Power Building Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-16 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 2 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL
CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount er UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM#3 Mitigation
New steel plates 3 EA $ 12,000 $4000/connection. Estimated by James
New through bolts 8 EA $ 6 $ 48 $ 3 $ 24 $ 72 RS means
New epoxy anchors 8 EA $ 71 $ 568 $ 38 $ 304 $ 872 RS means
Building separation allows Ties at roof diaphragm 60 EA $ 30 $ 1,800 $ 7 $ 420 $ 2,220 RS Means. 1.21 ratio for SST. L4x4x1/2, 2'
pounding into adjacent building long 4' OC
(2-15 Headworks Power Building Ties to existing roof deck 1 LS $ 5,000 Estimated by lames
B) Epoxy anchors,6"OC 116 EA $ 71 $ 8,236 $ 38 $ 4,408 $ 12,644 RS means
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 32,808 100%Direct Cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 2 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,0001
$ 71,616
Sub-total $ 71,616
Sales Tax 8% $ 2,865
Sub-total $ 74,481
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 2211,344
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 96,825
GR/GC 15% $ 14,524
Sub-total $ 111,349
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 11,135
Sub-total $ 122,483
Bond 2% $ 2,450
Sub-total $ 124,933
Insurance 1 2% $ 2499
GRANDTOTAL $ 127432
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 33
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
y P515-0 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name:Central Power Generation Building Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number:OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-17 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration:8 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov,2018 Accepted By: )AD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL
qTV. Unit Unit Cost Amount perUM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM NI Mitigation
Cast-in- lace concrete shear wall 29.6 CY $ 412 $ 12,207 $ 676 $ 20,030 $ 32,23] Carollo Database
Upgrade first floor beams with steel channel tie alongbuildinglength 190 FT $ 51 $ 9,690 $ 179 $ 34,010 $ 43,]00 RS Means.60 lbs/ft Gal Steel.
Discontinuous shear walls Demo conduit and piping 1 LS $ 16,000 ad
along grid line B(mezzanine) Replace conduit and piping 1 LS $ 65,000
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 156,93] 300%of direct cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 8 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 24,000 $ 24,000 Construct[railer,utilities,protection,and etc.
874
PFM g2 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation A2(High)
Wall anchorage at the north, New steel welded or bolted connections 10 EA $ 15,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Estimated by lames Doerin
south,and interior wall along Add itional roof deck welding10 EA $ 4,800 $ 48,000 $ 48,000
rid line Construction difficul operations and work resol ions 1 LS $ 198,000 100%Direct Cost
$ 396,000
PFMN Mitigation
Mezzanine at EL 21 lacks New steel x-braced frames 186 FT $ 78 $ 14,514 $ 8 $ 1,489 $ 16,002 RS Means.H558X8X3/2.491bs/ft.
bracing Epoxy anchors 32 EA $ 73 $ 2,272 $ 38 $ 1,216 $ 3,488 RS Means
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 19,490 100%Direct Cost
$ 38 981
PFM gS Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation
Cast in place concrete 16.9 CY $ 412 $ 6,943 $ 676 $ 11,392 $ 18,335 Carollo Database
In-plane shear in shear walls at Reinforcingsteel e o% dowels 66 EA $ 39 $ 2,568 $ 45 $ 2,963 $ 5,530 RS Means material cost,$100/dowel,18"OC
shear walls in the east-west Special finishes for concrete 1 LS $ 91] 5%of cast-in-place concrete
direction Demo existing window at grade and at EL 33.00 2 EA $ SW $ 1,600 $ 6,400
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 31,182 _100%Direct Cost
$ J4�780
PFM N6 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation 82
Roof diaphragm shear transfer Supplement existing anchors at 20"OC 420 EA $ 71 $ 29,320 $ 38 $ 15,960 $ 45,780RS means
$PFM gI Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation B3Membrane roof for the entire building 26125 SF $ 6 $ 156,750 $ 6 $ 156,750 $ 313,500
New steel roof framing 432 FT $ 41 $ 17,712 $ 6 $ 2,592 $ 20,304RS Means.25 lbs/ft Gal Steel.
Roof diaphragm shear In both Metal decking,galvanized steal,1-1/2"deep,18 gauge 18000 SF $ 12 $ 216,000 $ 2 $ 2],000 $ 243,000RS Means
directions Demo existing steel roof deck 1 LS $ 38,400
Demo existing roofing 1 LS $ 38,400
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 653,604Lol Direct Cost
$ 1,307,208
Sub-total $ 2,188,206
Sales Tax 8% $ 87,528
Sub-total $ 2,275,734
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 682,720
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 2,958,455
GR/GC 15% $ 443,768
Sub-total $ 3,402,223
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 340,222
Sub-total $ 3,742,445
Bond 2% $ 74,849
Sub-total $ 3,11],294
Insurance 2% $ ]6,346
GRAND TOTAL I$ 3893640
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 34
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
P515-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name: DAFT D Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-22 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 4 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL
CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost References
PFM#3 Mitigation
Install new epoxy dowels 40 EA $ 42 $ 1,680 $ 78 $ 3,120 $ 4,800 RS Means, 3/4" diameterX24" long
Dome-to-wall connection Construction difficulty, operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 9,600 200%of direct cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 2 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 Construct trailer, utilities, protection, and etc.
$ 20,400
PFM#9 Mitigation
Out-of-plane bending on the New C6X13 member anchored to the existing thrust ring 100 FT $ 24 1 $ 2,400 1 $ 6 $ 600 $ 3,000 RS Means. 13 Ibs/ft Gal Steel
buried walls due to liquefied soil Anchor to the dome with epoxy anchors(3/4" diameter X 300 EA $ 71 $ 7,300 $ 38 $ 3,800 $ 30,900 RS Means
conditions 8" long)spaced at 12"OC Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 27,800 200%of direct cost
$ 41,700
Sub-total $ 62,100
Sales Tax 8% $ 2,484
Sub-total $ 6411,584
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 19,375
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 83,959
GR/GC 15% $ 12,594
Sub-total $ 96,553
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 9,655
Sub-total $ 106,208
Bond 2% $ 2,124
Sub-total $ 108,333
Insurance 2% $ 2167
GRAND TOTAL $ 110,499
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 35
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PS15-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name: Maintenance Building Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-27 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 12 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL
QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount erUM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM#2,3A,3B,5,7,and B Mitigation
Steel concentric x-braced frames 1737 FT $ 78 $ 135,495 $ 8 $ 13,897 $ 149,392 PIS Means. HISS 8X8X3/2.49lbs/ft.
Supplemental connections with steel hardware 112 EA $ 448,000 $4000 per brace,James
Building drift at elevated floors New grade beams 84 CY $ 412 $ 34,608 $ 676 $ 56,784 $ 91,392 Carollo database
in the north-south direction Saw cut existing slab and footing 412 FT $ 2 $ 881 $ 23 $ 9,261 $ 10,142 PIS Means.
Replace existing slab and footing 167 CY $ 324 $ 53,992 $ 248 $ 41,390 $ 95,382 Carollo database.
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 794,309 100%of direct cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 12 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 36,000 $ 36,000 Construct trailer,utilities, protection,and etc.
$ 1,624,617
PFM#4 Mitigation
Precast wall cladding interferes Remove all welded wall cladding connections 304 EA $ 152,0007� .
$500/each
with moment frames Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 152,000100%of direct cost
1
Sub-total7
Sales Tax 8% 5
Sub-total2
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% 29
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total0
GR/GC 15% , 24
Sub-total $ 2,998:614
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 299,861
Sub-total $ 3,298,475
Bond 2% $ 65,970
Sub-total $ 3,364,445
Insurance 2% $ 67,289
GRAND TOTAL $ 3,431,734
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 36
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PS15-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name: Boiler Building Date Prepared: 4/17/2019
Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-28 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 4 months Date Accepted:
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL
PFM Direct Cost;QTY. Unit Unit Cost Amount er UM Amount Direct Cost Reference
PFM N4 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation Bl
Demo existing roofing 1 LS $ 9,600
Metal decking,galvanized steel, 1-1/2"deep, 18 gauge 2000 SF $ 12 $ 24,000 $ 2 $ 3,000 $ 27,000 IRS Means
Roof diaphragm shear Membrane roof for the entire building 2000 SF $ 6 $ 12,000 $ 6 $ 12,000 $ 24,000 Carollo database
Addition of(3)W12X31 beams 60 FT $ 50 $ 3,000 $ 6 $ 360 $ 3,360 RS Means. 31 Ibs/ft
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 63,960 100%Direct Cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 4 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 Construct trailer, utilities, protection,etc.
$ 139,920
Sub-total $ 139,920
Sales Tax 8% $ 5,597
Sub-total $ 145,517
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 43,655
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 189,172
GR/GC 15% $ 28,376
Sub-total $ 217,S48
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 21,755
Sub-total $ 239,302
Bond 2% $ 4,786
Sub-total $ 244,088
Insurance 2% $ 4,882
GRAND TOTAL 1 $ 248,970
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 37
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
PS15-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name: GOBS Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-29 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 8 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL
CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount per UM Amount Direct Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM Al Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation A2(High)
New steel welded or bolted connections 13 EA $ 15,000 $ 195,000 $ 195,000 $15000/location. Estimated by James Doering
Wall anchorage at the roof level Additional roof deck welding 13 EA $ 2,400 $ 31,200 $ 31,200
at the north and south walls Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 113,100 100%of direct cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 4 MONTH $ 3,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 Construct trailer, utilities, protection,and etc.
$ 351300
PFM p2 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation A2(High)
New steel welded or bolted connections 15 EA $ 15,000 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 Estimated by James Doering
Wall anchorage at the roof level Additional roof deck puddle welds 82 EA $ 600 $ 49,200 $ 49,200
at the east,west,and interior Roof demo 1 LS $ 9,600
wall (Grid line G) Roof replacement 1 LS $ 91600
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 146,700 100%of direct cost
$ 440 100
PFM#5 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation Ell and 62
Demo existing roofing 1 LS $ 28,800
Metal decking,galvanized steel, 1-1/2"deep, 18 gauge 8600 SF $ 12 $ 103,200 $ 2 $ 12,900 $ 116,100 RS Means
Low roof diaphragm shear Membrane roof for the entire building 11880 SF $ 6 $ 71,280 $ 6 $ 71,280 $ 142,560 Carollo database
Supplement existing anchors at 20"CC 180 EA $ 71 $ 12,861 $ 38 $ 6,804 $ 19,665 RS Means
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 307,125 100%Direct Cost
$ 614,250
Sub-total $ 1,405,650
Sales Tax 8% $ 56,226
Sub-total $ 1,461,876
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 438,563
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 1,900,439
GR/GC 15% $ 285,066
Sub-total $ 2,185,505
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 218,550
Sub-total $ 2,404,055
Bond 2% $ 48,081
Sub-total $ 2,452,136
Insurance 1 22
$ 49,043
GRAND TOTAL $ 2,501,179
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 38
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
P515-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
FUTURE PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Project Name: 12 kV Distribution Center A Date Prepared: 12/31/2018
Project Number: OCSD Plant 2 Project 2-30 Prepared By: XHK/KR
Project Construction Duration: 4 months Date Accepted: 1/8/2019
This estimate is based on midpoint of construction in Nov, 2018 Accepted By: JAD
MATERIALS INSTALLATION TOTAL TOTAL
CITY. Unit Unit Cost Amount er UM tAmntDirect Cost PFM Direct Cost Reference
PFM#1 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation A2(High)
Wall anchorage to roof at New steel welded or bolted connections 10 EA $ 15,000 $ 150,000 $15000/location. Estimated by James Doering
north and south walls Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 150,000 100%of direct cost
Temporary facilities and requirements 4 MONTH $ 3'000 $ 12,000 Construct trailer,utilities,protection,and etc.
$ 312 000
PFM#3 Mitigation-Standard Structural Mitigation E
Cast in place concrete 11.1 Cy $ 412 1 $ 4,578 $ 676 1 $ 7,511 $ 12,089 RS Means.Assume 12"
Shear at frame columns in the Reinforcing steel epoxy dowels 157 EA $ 39 $ 6,110 $ 45 $ 7,050 $ 13,160 PIS Means material cost, $300/dowel, 18"OC
E-W direction Demo existing window 4 EA $ 6,400
Special finishes for concrete 1 LS $ 604 5%of cast-in-place concrete
Construction difficulty,operations and work restrictions 1 LS $ 32,253 100%of direct cost
$ 64,507
Sub-total $ 376,507
Sales Tax 8% $ 15,060
Sub-total $ 391,567
NOTES: Project Level Allowance 30% $ 117,470
1.This cost estimate only includes structural elements. Sub-total $ 509,037
GR/GC 15% $ 76,356
Sub-total $ 585,393
Contractor's Profit 10% $ 58,539
Sub-total $ 643,932
Bond 2% $ 12,879
Sub-total $ 656,810
Insurance L
2% $ 13,136
GRAND TOTAL $ 669,947
CONSTRUCTION COST ONLY
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix F1 39
Geosyntec°
comul a m
APPENDIX F2
Geotechnical Mitigation Cost Tables
HL1635TS15-06 Qeosy tec F oject Repo -FINAL 9119/2019
DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEM ENT AND INCREASED LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE MITIGATION COST ESTIMATE
PS354)6 SEISMIC EVALUATION
ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA
Total quantities Unit costs•($/LF and$/CY) Addt'I casts Cost Estimate l$1
Drilling- Drilling- Total Standard Directional Savingsdueto Structure-specific Sub-Total, Project
Treatment Standard Drilling- Limited Access Grout Rig Drilling Drilling Limited Access Access Grouting Economiesof Modification& Construction Level Contractor's
Depth Rig Directional Access Shafts Volume Cost, Cost' Drilling Cost' Shaft Costs Scale Access Costs Costs Sales Tax Allowance GR/GC Profit Bond Insurance Structure Total
Structure
No. Structure Name (FT) (LF) (LF) (LF) (CITY) (CY) 70 125 95 600,000 90D 8% 30% 15% 10% 2% 2%
14 City Water Pump Station 27 2,910 0 0 0 521 203,695 0 0 0 469,200 0 0 672,895 26,916 209,943 136,463 104,622 23,017 23,4]] $1,197,332
1-5 Power Building 47 6,662 0 0 0 1,221 466,358 0 0 0 1,098,800 0 0 1,565,158 62,606 488,329 317,414 243,351 53,537 54,608 $2,785,003
1-7 Power Buildings 46 0 0 3,022 0 415 0 0 287,109 0 373,050 0 0 660,159 26,406 205,970 133,880 102,642 22,581 23,033 $1,174,671
1-10 Central Power Generation Building 19 2,858 0 0 0 1,10 200,067 0 0 0 997,500 0 0 1,197,567 47,903 373,641 242,867 186,198 40,963 41,783 $2,13D,920
1-14 Digester 5 Pump Room 42 0 0 3,043 0 563 0 0 289,076 0 506,900 0 0 795,976 31,839 248,344 161,424 123,758 2],22] 27,]]3 $1,416,339
1-24 Gas Holder 51 0 0 3,638 0 735 0 0 345,570 0 661,500 0 0 1,007,070 40,283 314,206 204,234 156,579 34,447 35,136 $1,791,955
1-33 PEDB2 29 1,122 0 G 0 435 78,508 0 0 0 391,500 0 0 470,008 18,800 146,643 95,318 73,077 16,0]] 16,398 $836,321
2-1 DAFT A,B,&C Gallery 59 0 0 12,625 0 1,890 0 0 1,199,330 0 1,701,000 0 0 2,900,330 116,013 904,903 588,187 450,%3 99,208 101,192 $5,160,]]5
2-3 RAS PS East 40 626 0 3,]3] 0 692 43,844 0 353,115 0 622,790 0 0 1,019,749 40,790 318,162 206,805 158,551 34,881 35,579 $1,814,517
2-4 RAS PS West 66 697 0 6,732 0 1,317 48,780 0 637,659 0 1,184,880 0 0 1,871,319 74,853 581 379,504 290,953 66,010 65,290 $3,329,780
2-5 PEPS&MAC 60 2,029 0 15,957 0 3,267 142,050 0 1,515,915 0 2,940,608 -326,734 0 4,271,838 170,874 1,332,814 866,329 664,185 146,121 149,043 $7,601,204
2-6 Operations/Control Center Bldg 61 19,213 0 0 0 3,170 1,274,915 0 0 0 2,852,998 -317,000 0 3,810,913 152,437 1,189,005 ]]2,853 592,521 130,355 132,962 $6,781,045
2-7 12 kV Service Center 50 5,738 0 0 0 989 401,625 0 0 0 889,700 0 0 1,291,325 51,653 402,893 261,881 200,]]5 44,171 45,054 $2,297,752
2-9 Power Building 61 0 0 5,902 0 964 0 0 560,666 0 867,420 0 0 1,429,086 57,123 445,563 289,616 222,039 48,849 49,826 $2,541,101
2-11 City Water Pump Station 65 0 0 8,219 0 1,657 0 0 780,829 0 1,491,360 0 0 2,272,189 90,888 708,923 460,800 353,280 77,722 ]9,2]6 $4,043,0]]
2-12 12 kV Distribution Center B 59 1,676 0 9,664 0 2,078 117,318 0 918,099 0 1,870,585 0 0 2,906,002 116,240 906,673 589,337 451,825 99,402 101,390 $5,170,869
2-13 12 kV Distribution Center D 63 0 0 3,062 0 614 0 0 290,871 0 552,920 0 0 843,791 33,752 263,263 171,121 131,193 28,862 29,440 $1,501,421
2-14 Headworks Power Bldg A 54 0 0 4,508 0 867 0 0 428,227 0 781 0 0 1,208,747 48,350 3]],129 245,134 187,936 41,346 42,173 $2,150,814
2-15 Headworks Power Bldg B 53 0 0 4,961 0 1,003 0 0 471,276 0 902,700 0 0 1,373,976 54,959 428,681 278,642 213,626 46,998 47,938 $2,444,819
2-16 Headworks Standby Power Building 53 0 0 5,D82 0 1,213 0 0 5]7,]66 0 1,091,510 0 0 1,669,276 66,]]1 520,814 338,529 259,539 57,099 58,241 $2,97D,269
2-18A Aeration Basins A-H(Northwest) 67 28,375 0 0 0 10,563 1,986,215 0 0 0 9,506,290 -1,056,254 0 10,436,250 417,450 3,256,110 2,116,472 1,622,628 356,978 364,119 $18,570,006
2-18B Aeration Basins A-H(Southeast) 41 17,364 0 0 0 5,412 1,215,445 0 0 0 4,870,395 -541,155 0 5,544,665 221,787 1,729,942 1,124,462 862,089 189,659 193,452 $9,866,076
2-19 Gas Holder 66 0 0 4,678 0 951 0 0 444,386 0 856,320 0 0 1,3DD,706 52,028 405,820 263,783 202,234 44,491 45,381 $2,314,445
2-20 Secondary Clarifiers A-L 30 58,605 0 0 0 15,950 4,102,350 0 0 0 14,354,846 -1,594,983 130,000 16,992,213 679,09 5,301,571 3,446,021 2,641,949 581,229 592,853 $30,235,525
2-21 DAFTS A-C SO 12,056 0 0 0 2,168 843,885 0 0 0 1,951,452 0 0 2,795,337 111,813 872,145 566,894 434,619 95,616 97,529 $4,973,954
2-22 DAFT 60 4,712 0 0 0 846 329,805 0 0 0 761,292 0 0 1,091,097 43,644 340,422 221,274 169,644 37,322 38,068 $1,941,471
2-27 Maintenance Building 64 3],62] 0 0 0 ],45] 2,633,904 0 0 0 6,711,390 -745,710 0 8,599,584 343,983 2,683,070 1,743,996 1,337,063 294,154 300,037 $15,301,887
2-29 COBS 45 0 16,330 0 1 2,483 0 2,041,250 0 60D,ODD 2,234,600 -248,289 0 4,627,561 185,102 1,443,799 938,469 719,493 158,289 161,454 $8,234,158
2-30 12kV Distribution Center A 55 1 1,131 0 7,648 0 1,607 1 79,166 0 726,536 0 1'4 '500 0 0 2,252,202 90,088 702,687 456,747 350,172 ]],038 78,579 $4,007,513
'Column footing widths,where applicable,provided in parentheses.
'Drilling rates include Sleeve Port Grout Pipe(SPGP)installation.
'Grout cast Includes labor and material.Unit cost is per CY of grout delivered,as measured by flow meters,not CY of soil treated.
PSI 5-06 Appendix F2 1
LATERAL SPREAD MITIGATION COST ESTIMATE
PS15-06 SEISMIC EVALUATION
ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA
Wall Column Wall No.
Plant Length Diameter Depth Columns Sub-Total Project
1
(n) (H) (H) (t R. Cost per Pile Construction Level Contractor's AACEI Class S Cost Estimate Range
separation) ($) Costs($) Sales Tax Allowance GR/GC Profit Bond Insurance Total (rounded to the nearest$25M)
8% 30% 15% 30% 2% 2% (UPper end of E9.Range) a50% Best Estimate -50%
1 2,775 4 90 555 $ 150,000 $ 83,250,000 3,330,000 25,974,000 16,883,100 12,943,710 2,847,616 2,904,569 148,132,995 $ 150,000,000 $ 100,000,000 $ 50,000,000
2 1,385 4 90 277 $ 150,000 $ 41,550,000 1,662,000 12,963,600 8,426,340 6,460,194 1,421,243 1,449,668 73,933,044 $ 75,000,000 $ 50,000,000 $ 25,000,000
2-Full Frontage 6,667 4 90 1,333 $ 150,000 $200,010,000 8,000,400 62,403,120 40,562,028 31,097,555 6,841,462 6,978,291 355,892,856 $ 350,000,000 $ 225,000,000 $ 125,000,000
Estimated cost per 4ft diameter,concrete-filled steel pile,90ft deep, as described in Lateral Spread Mitigation Memo. Per pile cost estimate based on average of costs provided by two geotechnical contractors.
PSI 5-06 Appendix F2 2
Geosyntec°
COMUI rs
APPENDIX G
Lateral Spread Wall Concept Memorandum
HL1635TS15-06 Qeosy tec F oject Repo -FINAL 9119/2019
Geosyntec ° 2100 Main Street,Suite 150
Hunting[o¢Beach,California,92648648
consultants PH 7 4.969.0820
FAH 7:4.969.080
www.grosy¢tec.com
Memorandum
Date: 19 July 2019
To: Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)
Copies to: Chris Conkle, P.E.,G.E., Geosyntec Consultants
From: Jacquelyn Allmond,Ph.D., P.E, Project Engineer
Christopher Hunt, Ph.D., P.E., G.E., Senior Principal
Subject: Lateral Spread Wall Concept
Seismic Evaluation of Structures at Plant Nos. 1 and 2
Project No. PS15-06
Geosyntec Project Number: HL1635
Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec)is pleased to present findings and recommendations from the
evaluation of the lateral spread mitigation alternative proposed at Orange County Sanitation
District (OCSD) Plant Nos. 1 and 2. This memorandum summarizes the liquefaction-induced
lateral spreading hazard, the idealized cross-section developed for assessing liquefaction-induced
lateral earth pressures and deformations, the analyses performed to develop an embedded wall
mitigation concept, and an associated cost estimate. The lateral spreading hazard was evaluated at
Plant 1 and 2 as part of Task 3 and the liquefaction mitigation alternatives and costs were
developed in Task 4 of PS 15-06t.
1. LIQUEFACTION AND LATERAL SPREAD HAZARD
Liquefaction is the term used to describe the sudden loss of soil strength due to pore pressure
buildup in response to a loading event such as earthquake shaking. Experiences from previous
earthquakes have demonstrated that loose granular soils located near the ground surface and
saturated by a high-water table are the most susceptible to liquefaction. The loss of strength
associated with liquefaction can cause settlement,flotation of buried structures,increase in lateral
soil pressures, and bearing capacity reduction below shallow foundations or around deep
foundation elements. A related phenomenon is lateral spreading,where liquefied soil located new
an exposed free-face or sloping ground, such as near the Santa Ana River and Talbert Marsh,
moves as a mass towards the face and can apply lateral forces to structures and their foundations.
'A summary of the work executed by the Geosyntec team as part of PSI 5-06 Tasks 3 and 4 are provided in Technical
Memorandum 3(TM3)and 4(TM4),respectively.
engineers I scientists I innovators
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix G 1
Memorandum-Lateral Spread Wall Concept
19 July 2019
Page 2
Lateral spread deformation profiles with depth were developed for each subject-structure in
PSI 5-06 at the analysis ground water level (AWL, see Section 4.1.3 of TM3 for design ground
water levels). Contours of the liquefaction induced lateral spread at the ground surface at Plant 1
and Plant 2 are shown in Figures 4.19 and 4.24 of TM3, respectively, and are based on the lateral
spread predicted at the ground surface at each structure. At Plant 1, the best estimate lateral
spreading displacement was on the order of 3 feet(ft) for the subject-structures nearest the Santa
Ana River frontage. At Plant 2, the best estimate lateral spreading displacement was on the order
of 4 to 6 ft for structures near the Santa Ana River frontage, and 5 It for structures near the Talbert
Marsh frontage. The free-field liquefaction induced lateral spread deformation profiles for each
structure at the AWL and the 5% probability of exceedaice in 50-year earthquake hazard level
(Basic Safety Earthquake 2E) are provided in Appendix C of TM3. Lateral spread deformations
were calculated without consideration of influences from the structure, foundation, surrounding
structures, or surrounding ancillary features such as buried pipes or utility conduits and are
therefore referred to as "free-field".
At both plant locations,assessments indicated that lateral spread would likely affect only a portion
of each site, with lateral spread unlikely to extend to locations distant from the river or marsh
frontages. Ground surface deformations near the river and marsh frontages were assessed to be
greater than what many subject-structures could tolerate in order to meet performance objectives.
Therefore, lateral spread mitigation was recommended at both Plants 1 and 2 for structures which
we subject to lateral spreading displacements larger than their capacity. This memorandum
documents the evaluation of one potential mitigation option for these lateral spreads,an embedded
wall concept proposed to limit excessive lateral displacements towards the river and marsh. The
embedded wall is envisioned as consisting of a series of large diameter steel pipes installed at close
spacings along the perimeter of the plants between the subject-structures and sloped frontages.
A plan and oblique view of the lateral spread wall concept are shown in Figure 1 relative to the
Digesters at Plant 1 and the Santa Ana River. The idealized soil conditions and development of
the wall geometry and material properties are described in greater detail below.
2. IDEALIZED CROSS SECTION
Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading deformations were evaluated at each structure in this study
based on the structure-specific subsurface idealized profile and proximity to the Talbert Marsh
and/or Santa Ana River frontages; however, for this planning level evaluation, one cross-section
was selected to develop the target lateral loads and allowable deflection of the lateral spread wall.
The idealized soil profile at 1-21A Digesters 13-16 at Plant 1 was chosen based on the exemplar
structure's proximity to the Santa Ana River and because movement of the relatively thick
unliquefied"crust"at the surface would place a large demand on the mitigation wall concept. The
2 The probable Failure mode(PFM)associated with excessive lateral spreading and recommended levels of mitigation
(e.g.,60%reduction in lateral spread deformation)to meet performance level objectives for each subject-structure are
provided in the PFM and Mitigation Tables in TM3.
engineers I scientists I innovators
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix G 2
Memorandum-Lateral Spread Wall Concept
19 July 2019
Page 3
analysis of the lateral spread wall targeted a maximum deflection of 12 inches at the ground
surface, which, based on a Tier 3 structural analysis of Digester 16, was a tolerable amount of
ground displacement for the pile-supported digesters to meet their target performance criteria.
A "typical ground water level" (TWL) of 16 It below ground surface was selected for the lateral
spread wall analyses. The TWL is deeper than the Historic High Water Level (HHWL) or AWL
used in other analyses in this study, but captures the majority of the historical ground water data
at Plant 1, and represents a "typical" condition that may be present during an earthquake. The
deeper TWL results in a stronger soil profile near the surface (i.e., less liquefiable soil) and forms
a thicker soil crust that can displace over deeper liquefiable layers during an earthquake event. On
the backside of the wall, this thicker soil cap applies a high driving force on the wall near the
ground surface while providing no lateral resistance on the river-side as the cap spreads laterally
towards the river. This TWL scenario results in greater wall deflection than under the HHWL or
AWL with thinner soil crusts and was therefore considered conservative for this evaluation.
The idealized soil profile at 1-21A is shown in Figure 2 and consists of a 16-ft thick layer of non-
liquefiable (i.e., dry above groundwater) silty sand at the surface over 1 foot of liquefiable sand
and silty sand. These layers overlie a 20-ft thick partially liquefiable clay layer with thin silt and
sandy silt layers,though only the soils in the upper 13 It of this layer were considered to contribute
to lateral spread deformation(i.e., soils above the"lateral spread cut-off' described in TM3). The
bottom sand and silty sand layers (between EL. -10 ft and-40 ft) are considered liquefiable, and
may contribute to settlement, but are not anticipated to contribute significantly to lateral spread.
The best estimate lateral spread profile was developed following the same procedures outlined in
Section 4.1.4 of TM3 using the 1-21A idealized profile,the TWL,and an assumed distance to free-
face of 65 ft, which is the approximate distance from the Santa Ana River free-face to the river-
side edge of the access/perimeter road of Plant 1 (see Figure 1).Based on review of existing utility
as-builts the lateral spread wall concept was developed to allow for construction between existing
underground utilities near the Plant 1 digesters at this 65-ft offset from the river'. Figure 2 shows
the idealized soil profile (at left), the assumed lateral spread cut-off depth, and the best estimate
free-field lateral spread profile at the wall location(at right, red line on displacement plot).
3. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE
The movement of the soil towards the river after liquefaction will impose additional lateral load
on the back side of the wall (structure-side of the wall). In addition, soil will move away from the
wall on the river-side, reducing lateral capacity from surrounding soil. This creates a cantilever
condition with a distributed load along the back of the wall and no resisting load over most of the
upper 30 It of laterally spreading soil.
' An underground clearance assessment was made at both Plant l and Plant 2 based on review of as-built drawings
provided by OCSD. Utility related constraints should be taken into consideration in the ultimate design and
construction of the lateral displacement wall at Plant 1 and Plant 2.
engineers I scientists I innovators
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix G 3
Memorandum-Lateral Spread Wall Concept
19 July 2019
Page 4
The distributed lateral earth pressure from liquefaction was calculated following the methods
presented in Section 5 of TM3. Active lateral earth pressure corresponds to the pressure
experienced at the soil-wall interface when a wall moves away from the adjacent soil and the soil
relaxes as it moves into the space behind the wall, and passive lateral earth pressure is applicable
when soil is compressed as it moves towards a stationary wall (or more conventionally,when the
wall moves into the soil). The crust behind the lateral spread wall will move laterally towards the
river on top of the deeper liquefied soil and as the wall is not completely rigid, the resulting soil
pressure acting on the wall is considered to be neither fully active or fully passive. For these
simplified analyses, the crust was considered to impart at most a lateral load equivalent to its
weight, resulting in an earth pressure coefficient(K) of 1 (i.e.,horizontal and vertical stresses are
equal).For liquefied soil,the equivalent fluid pressure applied by the liquefied soil(e.g.,fluid with
an estimated soil unit weight of 120 pounds per cubic foot(pef)vs water unit weight of 62.4 pef),
and a corresponding hydrodynamic increment of the liquefied soil against the wall were
considered. The following loads were used to develop the lateral earth pressure imposed on the
embedded wall due to liquefaction:
• Above Water Table (Passive Scenario): Earth Pressure with K= 1
• Below Water Table(Liquefied Soil):Hydrostatic(Dense Fluid)+Hydrodynamic Pressure
The resulting liquefied lateral earth pressure is shown in Figure 2 (at left, green line on earth
pressure plot) and was used as the distributed driving load in the lateral spread wall model. Note
that as the soil between elevations 10 ft and-3 ft(lateral spread cutoff)is considered only partially
liquefiable, the use of hydrostatic and hydrodynamic pressures is likely conservative.
4. LATERAL SPREAD WALL MODEL AND RESULTS
The embedded wall concept consists of large diameter drilled pipe piles installed at close spacings
along the perimeter of the Plants between the subject-structures and sloped frontages. The pipe
geometry and material parameters were evaluated given the 1-21A Digester 13-16 idealized soil
profile and liquefied lateral loading scenarios described in previous sections in order to meet the
12-inch target pipe deflection at the ground surface. These analyses were performed using the
program GROUP by ENSOFT,Inc.'The program is used for pushover analysis of pile groups and
includes the ability to apply a distributed lateral load and extract deflection profiles along the piles.
The soil models and parameters used in the GROUP model are shown in Table 1.
Reese,L.C.,Wang,S.-T.,and Vasquez,L.[2016]"Computer Program GROUP—Version 2016—A Program for the
Analysis of a Group of Piles Subjected to Vertical and Lateral Loading—Technical Manual."Prepared for ENSOFT,
Inc.,Austin,TX,May 2016,
engineers I scientists I innovators
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix G 4
Memorandum-Lateral Spread Wall Concept
19 July 2019
Page 5
Table 1: GROUP Model Soil Material Properties
GROUP Layer Depth Effective Unit Friction Angle,(p' Cohesion,c
Soil Model Top Bottom Weight,y'
(ft) (ft) (Pef) (deg) (psf)
Sand(Reese) 0 16 115 35 0
Sand(Reese) 16 17 57.5 35 0
Soft Clay(Matlock) 17 37 52.6 0 800
Sand(Reese) 37 53 62.6 35 0
Sand(Reese) 53 67 67.6 35 0
Sand(Reese) 67 150 67.6 40 0
Several pipe configurations and characteristics were analyzed as part of the parametric study,
including the following:
• Pile length: The critical pipe pile length was selected based on stabilization of the surface
deflection. Load case scenarios were analyzed in GROUP starting with a pipe pile length
of 74 ft and incrementally increased to 125 ft.The resulting deflection at the ground surface
started to stabilize after a pile length of 85 ft as the calculated surface deflection was
unaffected by using longer piles. Based on these evaluations, a 90-ft pile was considered
to provide stable embedment with regard to surface deflection.
• Pile Layout: Two pipe pile diameters, three center-to-center spacings, and two layout
configurations were analyzed to select a wall design to meet the target deflection. Multiple
rows of piles offset at closer spacings were considered; however, the multi-row offset
pattern did not significantly improve deflection at the ground surface with the added cost
of requiring more underground utility clearance. A single line of 4-ft diameter piles at 5-ft
center-to-center spacing (the smallest pipe diameter analyzed at the closest spacing) was
selected as a feasible configuration for construction purposes while meeting the target
surface displacement.
• Liquefaction-Induced Soil Streneth Loss: Consideration was given to the effect of soil
strength loss due to liquefaction on the wall lateral capacity. A typical value of a "p-
multiplier" to account for strength loss is 0.1 (i.e., liquefied soil strength is 10% of
unliquefied soil strength), though this value should be selected based on soil and site
engineers I scientists I innovators
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix G 5
Memorandum-Lateral Spread Wall Concept
19 July 2019
Page 6
conditions'. Lateral soil resistance was reduced in the GROUP analysis by applying the
following p-multipliers:
0 0_0 for all soils which displace further than the deflection of the pipe. This represents
the new surface soil flowing away from the wall, creating a gap at the pipe-soil
interface, and providing no lateral support to the wall.
0 0_1 for liquefied material in contact with the pipe. This represents either liquefied soil
at depth or laterally spreading soil which displaces less than the deflection of the pipe
(i.e.,pipe is still in contact with the flowing soil).
0 1_0 for unliquefied soil(i.e.,no strength reduction).
Based on parametric iterations of the pipe geometry and material properties, a 4-foot diameter,
90-foot long Grade 52 steel pipe with 1"wall thickness, spaced at 5 ft on center with a rebar cage
with twenty-four #18 Grade 75 vertical bars, and filled with 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi)
concrete was found to limit pipe deflection at the ground surface to approximately 12 inches.
A sketch of the non-deformed pipe, deflection of the laterally loaded design pipe (at right,purple
line on displacement plot),and p-multiplier values (at right,blue line on p-multiplier plot)used in
these analyses we shown in Figure 2. Plan and section views of the design pipe and wall
configurations are shown in Figure 3.
5. DRILLED PIPE PILE LATERAL SPREAD MITIGATION COST
ESTIMATE
Lateral spread mitigation cost estimates are an element of the final deliverable(TM4)of the current
project. These estimates will be used for long range planning purposes and we to be prepared at
the American Association of Cost Engineers International (AACEI) Class 5 level. Estimates
prepared at this class are generally prepared at a very early stage of project definition and are
therefore expected to have a wide accuracy range (-50%to+50%).
A cost estimate was formulated by making use of the conceptual approach to the embedded lateral
spread wall using the large diameter drilled pipe piles at the 1-21A location as described in
Section 4. Concept-level rough order pricing was solicited from two separate drilling contractors,
both experienced with performing this type of work in Southern California. According to the cost
estimates received, the average cost for materials and installation is on the order of$150,000 per
pile, which equates to $30,000 per lineal foot of river/marsh frontage for lateral spread mitigation
using the design pipe diameter and spacing pattern described above.
' California Department of transportation (Caltrans). [2013] "Guidelines on Foundation Loading and Deformation
Due to Liquefaction Induced Lateral Spreading"internal design guideline
w .dot.ca.gov/research/stmctures/peer_lifeline program/docs/guidelines_on_foundation_loading_jan20l2.pdf
engineers I scientists I innovators
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix G 6
Memorandum-Lateral Spread Wall Concept
19 July 2019
Page 7
This memorandum outlines the analyses performed to assess an embedded wall concept for lateral
spread mitigation at OCSD Plants 1 and 2. The concept for the lateral spread wall utilizes a single
line of fully embedded 4-foot diameter Grade 52 steel pipes,90 It in length with P'wall thickness
and spaced at 5 ft on center. Within the steel pipe is a rebar cage of 24 EA. #18 Grade 75 vertical
bars and filled with 5,000 psi concrete.Evaluations indicate this configuration limits the deflection
of the wall at the ground surface to approximately 12 inches.
The analyses presented herein were performed for this planning level study using one cross-section
at Plant 1 (1-21A Digester 13-16) and a simplified GROUP model. A more comprehensive
geotechnical and structural analysis should be performed for design and construction of the walls
at Plant 1 and 2 and should at a minimum include consideration of soil and lateral spread
variability, underground utilities and clearances, variability in target pipe pile deflection at the
ground surface, and arching and stability of soils between piles. Note also that slope movement
along the Santa Ana River and Talbert Marsh frontages beyond the mitigation wall was not
considered and would not be mitigated by this approach.Lateral spread mitigation alternatives like
the lateral spread wall concept described in this memorandum will help reduce detrimental ground
deformations on buried structures, foundations, and utilities susceptible to the excessive
liquefaction-induced lateral spread hazard at Plant 1 and 2.
Attachments: Figure 1: Lateral Spread Wall Concept(shown at Plant 1 Digesters)
Figure 2: Idealized Soil Profile, Lateral Spread Displacement, Lateral Earth
Pressure Distribution, and Pipe Deflection
Figure 3: Design Pipe Sections
engineers I scientists I innovators
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix G 7
�. lateral spread Note: drawings not
towards river shown to scale
��a+ Oblique View
(only portion of lateral spread wall shown)
/ Qca
/
I cwa
Jr A ya digesters
7/ %A,
// A
1 21 TO 1 -
65-ft ONset _ rbs� beo. A,
O Santa Ana River
Free-Face
1 -16 TO 1 -20
Lateral Spread Wall Concept Plan View
(shown at Plant 1 Digesters)
OCSD PS15-06
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORINA
GeosmteCD Figure
cotlsultants -
Pmject i HL1635 JULY 2019
PSI5-06 TM4 Appendix G 8
Idealized Soil Profile Llpuefied Lateral Earth Pressure lost) Lateral Displacement and Pipe Deflection fin.) P-multlnller
30 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1 0.5 6
Silty Sand(Non-Liquefiable)
20 soillateral
spread
10 pc towards
river
SandrSilry Sand(Liqueliablel� �6u 0.0
Clay with thin Silt and Sandy Silt 20 Qo liquefied soil displaces
g Layers(Partially Lquefiable) Q more than pipe deflects
q
e0 P------- soil displacement is equal topipe deflection --------
_
0.1
m' --------lateral spread cut-ofF---------- 30
iL liquefied soil displaces
less than pipe deflects 1.0
10 Sand'Silry Sand(Liquefiable)
40
-20
so 0.1
SandlSilry Sand with Silty Clay
.30 Seem(Liquefiable)
60
.40
Sand/Silty Sand(Non-Liquefiable) io
P-multiolier
Idealized Soil Profile, Lateral Spread Displacement, 0.0= no pipe-soil contact(gap)and
Lateral Earth Pressure Distribution,and Pipe Deflection no lateral resistance
OCSD PS15-06 80 1.0
ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORINA 0.1 = pipe-soil contact with
liouefaction strenoth reduction
Geosyntec° Figure 1.0= pipe-soil contact with
consW[ants full lateral resistance
Project No:HL1635 JULV 2019 2
on PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix G 9
5 ft spaced on center
77 Pipe Cross Section
4 ft diameter
Grade 52 steel pipe
• 5,000 psi •
• concrete •
90 ft • •
long • \••
40
1 inch
24 EA. #18
Grade 75
vertical bars
Design Pipe Sections
OCSD PS15-06
ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORINA
Geosynte& Figure
consultams
Project No:HL1635 JULY 2019 3—
PSI 5-06 TM4 Appendix G 10
Geosyntec°
comul a m
APPENDIX H
Likelihood and Consequence of Each PFM,
by Structure
HL1635TS15-06 Qeosy tec F oject Repo -FINAL 9119/2019
General Notes and Legend
1 GS=ground shaking,OS=differential settlement,LS=lateral spread CoSF Weighting
Category Percentage
2 Equals CoSF score times weighting percentage Life Safety 100.0%
Primary Treatment 100.0%
Regulatory 80.0%
Stakeholder 37.5%
Financial 80.0%
3 LoSF score index: Public Impact 0.0%
0=meets performance objective
1=low likelihood
3=medium likelihood
5=high likelihood
4 CoSF score index for Life Safety:
1=Meets performance objectives for life safety.
2=Failure presenting life safety risk for structures with occupancy less than 2,000 person-hours per year,
3=Failure presenting life safety risk for structures with occupancy from 2,000 to 10,000 person-hours per yea r.
4=Failure presenting life safety risk for structures with occupancy from 10,000 to 20,000 person-hours per year.
5=Failure presenting life safety risk for structures with occupancy greater than 20,000 person-hours per year.
5 CoSF score index for Primary Treatment and Primary Solids Handl ing(Oigestion/Thickening/Hauling):
1=Meets objectives for receiving wastewater into the plant and discharging wastewater from the plant with at least a primary level of treatment plus primary solids handling,without interruption.
2=Minor impact to receiving wastewater into the plant and/or discharging wastewater from the plant with at least a primary level of treatment plus primary solids handling,
3=Short term 1-1 week)failure to receive wastewater into the plant and/or discharge wastewater from the plant with at least a primary level of treatment plus primary solids handling.
4-Medium term(1-6 weeks)failure to receive wastewater into the plant and/or discharge wastewater from the plant with at least a primary level of treatment plus primary solids handling.
S=Long term(>6 weeks)failure to receive wastewater into the plant and/or discharge wastewater from the plant with at least a primary level of treatment plus primary solids handling.
6 CoSF score index for Regulatory Attainment:
1=Meets LOS targets for spill management secondary treatment standards,effluent water quality,and health and safety goals,including release of digester gas
2=Minor impact to meeting LOS targets for spill management secondary treatment standards,effluent water quality,and health and safety goals,incl uding release of digester gas.
3=Short term 1-1 month)failure to meet LOS targets for spill management,secondary treatment standards,effluent water quality,and health and safety goals,including release of digester gas
4=Medium term(1-6 months)failure to meet LOS targets for spill management secondary treatment standards,effluent water quality,and health and safety goals,including release of digester gas
S=Long term(>6 months)failure to meet LOS targets for spill management,secondary treatment standards,effluent water quality,and health and safety goals,including release of digester gas
7 CoSF score index for Stakeholder Commitments
1=Meets LOS targets for GWRS source water quality and quantity and other stakeholder expectations.
2=Minor impact to meeting LOS targets for GWRS source water quality and quantity and other stakeholder expectations.
3=Short term("1 month)failure to meet LOS targets for GWRS source water quality and quantity and other stakeholder expectations.
4=Medium term(1-6 months)failure to meet LOS targets for GWRS source water quality and quantity and other stakeholder expectations,
S=Long term(>6 months)failure to meet LOS targets for GWRS source water quality and quantity and other Stakeholder expectations.
8 CoSF score for Financia l lm Pacts:
1=No identified financial impact.Meets LOS target for balanced O&M budget and maintains AAA bond rating.
2=Low costs(to repair or replace facility and address other financial impacts).
3=Medium costs(to repair or replace facility and address other financial impacts).
4=High costs(to repair or replace facility and address other financial impacts).
5=Very high costs(to repair or replace facility and address other financial impacts).
9 CoSF score for Public Impacts:
1=Meets LOS targets for odor complaints and response time.
2=Minor impact to meeting LOS targets for odor complaints and response time.
3=Short term 1-1 month)failure to meet LOS targets for odor complaints and response time.
4-Medium term(1-6 months)failure to meet LOS targets for odor cam plaints and response time.
S=Long term(>6 months)failure to meet LOS targets for odor complaints and response time.
PSI5-06 Appendix H 1
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1.1 Waste Slu ip Makene s(DAFT)Pump Room
Seismic leased Level BSE lE
Wu
4tl =Ma% �,S�
WHI,
ms'. M. L 11JPFM . Fats, Akq nXgmn ry5 p0 Smremm u5ulamryallznmon9e m me,00rzteatl-,l—.
almonnen-rat enoolala n rhea,anw,vaue rva eta x v l v la ox
cemmyxnea,aalmm m pee,eye m meml
aFnne oebn sore
a,e9 See Gelnral na Lsss.d653bre
m.nlnmtrsfF,w1,lh,,m{mxmarym{m.mrvlmp. b,xa,o.mry mu—ga.e.u{mamrvl osxore
uxo�e vs.o
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 2
Risk Ranking Analysis
Struotum 1-1 Wattle Sludge ThI[kemus IDAFO Pump Room
SeismlD Hamm!Level ME 2E
wsP wss we uams
m.,v N
aR/m DWM F 1. ure P., NWe 10m, t,m. W..., suxeM1daer H—cal Imparo RoSF
Pl. DexxNlm Rs Ilol X,mto i sawn smkMoaer m ool
wan. e m me roof,[•....oa west
Is oftM1elh—mrtM1 hulltll N/A 1Gs 3 1 3 1 1 1 3D 3D SA OA 0.8 Dl 30 30
3 Do Ela M1n mmea, 310 N/A s Gs 3 ] 3 1 1 1 3.0 ].D EA OA 08 0.2 30 64
4 us fuloer p ,10 N/A 3 Gs 3 ] 3 1 1 1 3.0 ].D EA OA OB 0.3 30 90
Oen.,J stea lv.rftc i1ua 1 Pl lestluetolMenl
aE suaaa PG04)InNes 33 N/A 1 3 ] 3 l l 1 0.8 OS 3.0 L5.0
sariliry Na 5,: enllswre ]SO
]m eral Noes and Legentl
Inebibrym vaster WPSNtM1ioking M1esmWerareregula[ory lmpenbr�--omerybenmm[Iei.Reeulamry p$$aore 00
S searc LD
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 3
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1Q Blower Building and PEPS
Seismic Hazard!level BSF IF
roof run wel¢nud msF
.W. me/m bR tons pb primary
sz
n sic Impana cou Ion
Reriglon 10 4wem Sa a ulaW stakeMltln Fln wallznmumgeouthmlztuo outee
—,waw mme abwreulaln al 1za s Gs 1 s s 40 s 40 of 40 200
Wall anmmge o the most menunh and
oNb-11,o(ma PEPS amlou es 11 x Gs s 1 s s 30 l0 40 s 40 0z a0 00
Wall amm.mge o the mor at me aaa nd
a wn,of ma Into asuer of to s Gs s 1 s 30 l0 40 s 40 0z 40 10c
s No tlapbagm is II s 3 s s
10 10 40 11 l0 Ot o1
..In,Nates: Overall score 1 A
I m9 see General Nares anc efeuc Gs score
Ire bilIW to Provld,Full noel ry OeIImem at tomina --olwats Farr<gulotc, oullanaaM abdlgrohllost eemndary effluent to oCWO on.holuer 0o score 00
Is score 00
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 4
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-2 Blower Building and PEPS
Seismic Bacard Leval ME 2E
,au wss well rce msr
xWm owm vwn UN, mmaN Pubs¢ ry I an shePegJnwy smMbcu¢. r Impana
ples Detente- Rs II01 3twem i AfeN Ballesceer ImWeus.
Well wChOrge W the roolattM1e noltM1aM
MM1 walls I the mcwet head. SEO We s Gs 3 s s s 30 ?0 <A 19 iA 03 40 300
Wall anaXongeWWe roolattM1e noltM1aM
3 MM1 wallao!<M1e GEPs OUIIGIn We Gs 3 5 5 5 30 ?0 <A ?9 <A OS 12
Wall antXorase W nle=;he eN aM
G wallsal[M1e PEss lullEln Sl0 We s Gs 3 s s 5 30 10 an 13 <A 03 40
Pauldm Fa maM1ev 23 N/A
exit,XOUs: ix ore
Im 5¢e Genenl NaUs antl 4gmtl
InablllrymproolEe Wll semn&rybea[mem atPhm]Fasmrelmpr.4 rorreµla[orymmyYlanceaM ahlGrymhfinerseaontlary effluent m IXWUeueh,dr .scare 00
[Ss re 00
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 5
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1.3 Plant Water PUMP station and Power Sandia,6
Seismic Haard Level BSE 1E
WSi
Las I, Nis
OU/m OWm L11 L. primary Prair Akq ira—I Fear.— snt.bIral f -la IF SF
ammm. 1s Bo score'° m ane,Imw aalreaolda.
Wall ane1—,,m IF.1 1 t...ard wen
3 .111.re-entrant turner, alY a1160 3 45 1 1 1 ID 1.0 00 OA OB
eerdn hh...famm oraaaa d.a m moral
read eomce p4o-wlm�
saaln..a
Log xe 4enenl a.0 a1tl Seec.d
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 6
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1.3 Plant Water PUMP station and Power Sunning 6
Seismic Haard Level BSE ZE
WSF
L. WHIa
OU/m OWm L. Primary Prair Aleq na-1 ...asbry Snts.11a fi—a ImF SF
ndmmn lu Bo score'° .1 uwlam, aaeaolda.
Wall ane1—,,mm.1 1 t...ard wen
3 .111.re-entrant turner talc N/P 0 GS 1 1 1 10 1.0 008 0. OB 03 11
9eMlnp/anezrszllurc oroan due m La-1
read eNmce P6o-wmdreF rv/+ 04
f�al,..a 1 aanulxme
1101 Re General Ndes Fltl leseld
PSI 5-06 Appendix H
Risk Ranking Analysis
snuclum la City water Pump station
Seismic HavM Level BSE 1E
Wo
L.
OU/m OWm WSF Pme L. primary Indiana Akty iXmnr[ Pe{Mabry AalaM1Nier financial Impxta . gux
annimnn is (w) .. nt u{nbmry smuhome,
,nmobtl,pmtlam of me wall
nde,ge,t e.,t and writ wa,It,
In plane saint wdlh po amnOn lddvers
< I 15 5 GS 1 1 1 1 1 20 1D 08 D.0 D.g 03 f011
O t—InnehmlronUll al.l gateastantl
walhdwmgmund mating
Ox afylane hdnbntal canamg In and and
t —twa a mgrountl tleMmatbn
walh d-ta
muM a,.-anon Gm 3.g 3e 5 OS 1 1 t 1 t 3.0 to OA as as OS 30 100
Tarelon fan—l nt'e bna ...wall tlde
tlebrmatlon
9
al ip od bwnd the santa Ana BNen
atA af0 3 IS 2D I 0A D.a Og 113 iA GO
at 1,9 talustre
derall5mre
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 8
Risk Ranking Analysis
snuclum la City water Pump station
Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE
Wo Wew ada-
. Pot.,
OU/m OWm LaSf RM Op primary Publk Akry no"a "'Im" ..andoee Mantial ado oa
nxpalnn s Im swam m nnubtnry maenola,.
W mtltlem of on-11 h/A
,nmwmge,te„t-d.,,t.all, 1., h/A
4 In plane mair at wme pee amnOn IOUWM22 D/A s 41 1 1 1 1 1 2D I CI Oa Og oz 20 Ito
Oulaeplane horlwnUl pmtling at east Intl
walk dae m gmundo mg a/P
Ox afolane xonwntal canamg In and and
t —twa a monan.tleMmalbn N/A
walh d-ta
ra <m undn'.-al- 3.g N/A 5 OS 1 1 t 1 t t 3.0 t.0 ad Oa 0.g 03 30 un
Tarelon fall—l nt'e was ...wall tlue
Eananxtlon X/<
lustre od lwnd the santa Ana BNee
9 asA X/A 3 IS I I I I 1 1 3.D ].D Og DO Og 0,2
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 9
Risk Ranking Analysis
Struclure 1-5 Power Building
Seismic Mead Lend BSE 1E
bsi
L. NXIr
DU/m DWm WSf L. primary puMk Aleq .—I PeguMwry SWkeM1dtle� f me Inp.n, Con SF
acipde. . B xortre .r vaemawry Maandee.
wdWraotle a puleaw<vxe
E d.7mon¢eavne noon aria wum mall:
1ofel— atA a10 ] GS 3 1 1 ] 3.0 ]D OB DO OB 03 EO
mon/allure lntM1e CMV walls tluelo
1.11,matlon
8 Joal iprtatl lowa�tl/M1e5antl4na PNer
ewlpuefenlon atA a]D 3 IS 2D 1D OB Du OB D3 SD 6A
F 11
It, e Ses, us I—
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 10
Risk Ranking Analysis
Struclure 1-5 Poeer Building
Seismic Mead Lend BSE ZE
Wu ccSF� in.
e aman
must. OWm LaSf Pm age primary mp and iXmn[ Reeu. Sbs,.Se flea. ImpxY Scsm RUSF
arxglan Is BD swam m uemawry saanaee.
walWraotl. a ouleaw<vxe rv/4
a'I -x...... noon aria wum mall:
E .111 lowlml alA N/R ] Gs 1 1 1 1 ] 3.0 ]0 OB OA OB OS 30
eon/allure In tM1e CMV walls tlue to
au.Eebrmatlon rv/< 60
8 Joal 5preatllowa�J slle Sow 4na RNer
e wlpuefenlon asA rv/R 3 IS 2D 1D Ds 04 Ds 03 60
WLry Ng vemlllswre 60
IS score 60
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 71
Risk Ranking Analysis
s[ruclum 1.51Power Building
Seismic Mead Lend BSE 1E
b5i
Le, nu.,
OU/m OWm b5f PfM me primary Publix Akry iXmnl[ PryWWry SbMeMIJa Finance, no
no
nXplen us p0 Swrtr° Saou, i m ne{ulamry
w'Plete batl Ptlb R Ne mmh AEe of M
3 p bwMEla brim aIu �Iu < Gs 3 1 ]0 10 60 OA 60 O.E 80
aelllryls— .—Il srort 8.0
uns see sa.emi uemx a.e�ese.e mswre o0
u scare o0
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 12
Risk Ranking Analysis
Smuceure 16 Power Bulidin,4
Seismic emend!Level ME 2P
WS, cuss welgnlee mss
ro nc
SF R.1
C[R/m OG/m six, Pb-.- SaawV ry fleeulatwy 5 expectsdsXmlm Rs 1101 Aa4elwlXv Impana
R�n,aerelwa pain xmemrcn,mearm,
man nm m x/a
R,mlw xew.: om,.0 s,me
]m9 see G—re Ncl.,s,c 4gecc
osswre ao
u s,ore ao
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 13
Risk Ranking Analysis
Stmeture 1-7 Power eulld IMS
Seismic llaaard level ME IF
Wsr ass
xvm om/m as vwa un P. men, sm,r ry Wmamry s
Pl. 00.xplen RS Pol Sim i sarew s,awemlxe. Imwn,
will an<nongea�IM east ma we,twxll,to
meroaalz n.zm 11 22 s ss 1 1 1 zo 10 oe OC l.6 03 zo ]o.o
strvtla d,ftr tnl unlc.cm
a. ewn,mew New,: o..,.lI—
]m9 S,.Gen.nl Notes.na 4,d
�ssmre sD
usmre ao
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 14
Risk Ranking Analysis
Struclure 1J1Power Buildings
Seismic Mead Lend BSE ZE
Wu
k mw
must. OWm LaSf tik primary publk ntia Akry iXmnl[ Reguhlora gW4M1dtle. flnal
P. arxplan L5 0o Smre�° m Peeulamry AaanWa. scess
WallaneM1ongeaolM1eeaztantl motmalls0
bemWalapM1ngm N/A
Itm malrc.,anaa aankmant
e.e mlrenerxi n x/P
w isBma: .emns.n,e
tos see b'eneml nore.and Legend cxsc re
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 15
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-8 Contact Ureter
seismic Hazard Level ME IE
vrelLeed Co
ub IM1wry WbGe
e(q/m pul un" are uk pXmary Iub@ Sorry Thmm geBulahry StaFeM1OIJv flnanlal Irua[b
arm Description 1.1 11.) ..", TorabneM pappriaterr sbkelweer Nand) Im aps 1ppp% 1ppp% W.O% 3i5% B0.0% 16S% fimrc
nt hame odumn a-I.,le not
ahquaU N at aebmie Un9m tlema n4 11 19 1 GS 5 2 2 2 1 50 30 ]6 OB ]6 03 c"p
G 2,c Flmr dia rz.clear 4amter plc a30 2 Gs s 2 2 2 2 1 54 24 ]fi O.B ]6 OS 50 100
s parent hame omnevTon onenec, 3.2 3.2 5 Gs S 2 2 2 2 l
6 Mwnent frame panel zone thearatreMr c1 2.8 1 Gs s 50 30 ]6 OB ]6 03 50 I
20 ent hame beam 0ervre 06 1.9 1 Gs s sd 24 ]6 OB ]6 02 50
raelllry NORr 6renll Scott
l cos eal Nmec one legend Gsxnre
Control Sold),proof aeMre tell neae mmorimpan to Prime,TreTmemana aumry to mq replace requgemen0 oil
u Score
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 16
Risk Ranking Analysis
stm[lure 14coMwl Qnrer
Seismic naiard level ME 2E
b F b6f .."fetes fah
h01k
C[Wm W. SF eA.t We VXmary ry WulaWry 6bNAobv Poanlal IagatO
Pl. dsXglm 1[6 1101 6[wem i AfeN Aa4eblXe,
adeq ntlnme[dumn aC temoe ce.
atl[yuabb resist sekml[Ieulan tlemanEs 150 WA 5 GS 5 50 20 l.6 OB 16 0.1 50 S50
G 2M flan ela hn [1—cruder >10 WA 2 GS 5 2 1 1 50 1 20 1 1.6 1OB 16 0.1 50
en[(nmecmneRion s[re M15c N/A
F—ey Xom:m .11 5cc.
m 4gmX
[om,ol 6u feel eom of aernoe wul moe mlm[Imaaova F,Im,rvT,eanamt,ae.elllry,a meeneguhtory,mal,emm[s os s[ore o0
u s[me ao
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 17
Risk Ranking Analysis
StmcWm 1,9 12kVSemIce Unter
Seismic NazaM Level ME IF
lust mss
h026.1k
C[P/m nG/m We VXmary ry PeeuI—, 5 v gnanlal IIx.
dsXglm RS Iml AIs sceelwleer
wall ancM1omgem rtalateatl IN,meal walls
Ianley Xem: O sl5wr
Sms see .emlxmI...N INJ
Iuss oex AV IN,, ntIl we rnnV lmwcl all pillt -111.pammIlly If R113-le a...ged Is"snucmm 1.101 oss[ore ao
sslme o0
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 18
Risk Ranking Analysis
Strum a 1A 12kVService Unter
Seismic NazaM Level ME 2E
Wsr mss
h01k
cc- ou/m ure rxmary ry neg�I—, : w rvxaMlal lIx.
oecx ew (u llm saren salecleer
wall ancnomge m—.11..ana meat wall: x/A
Ianllry xem: O sl5wr
Sms se..N.Ixmee...legene
Iuss oex AV IN,, ntIl we rnnV lmwn all eillt N 111,pammh.ly If RNGenle a...ged Is"snucNm 1.10) oss[ore o0
u s.o.e o0
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 19
Risk Ranking Analysis
strnawre 1-10 Central Power Generation Building
Sal Handed Level BBE 1E
bSf ctral andsontes!.1
Yk islinds,
OLa/m OCWM LOSE RM um I., Public Sol Thmnt Megull Stakeholder Metal Mpmn WSF ko5{
red. O¢uagkn t5) 0.1 Xorely 1nrol Sale ireatmeiR Ransil Soaked..., S racial arnard, LW.%6 LW.%6 M.o% S]S% M.4% I6.s% Xae Xorc
lark or al Lratlng all the east ad.of
the dldmof Eta three o10 a10 s GS 3 f I f s 1 30 11 09 OA 0.0 al 40 300
lack of lateral bntly along she were side of
meloxmofznaznan...More Gssm.nt
IM
nenreaem lateral bran rag along the weed Lae
s afm.building Lz la ao 4s 3 1 I 1 s 1 3.0 1.0 ox 04 40 0z 4 0 11
.11.-h,at had has mW nMn and
s High root disposal eMn 15 15 s.a GS 3 f I f s 1 30 11 0e oa oo 0.2 4 0 She
6 d.mN alanrzmenear Is 1s SG Gs 3 1 1 1 s 1 3.0 Le 06 04 4 0 oz 4,0 SOa
Oniher.plane amain,on do wall,sue
5 ml uenea mncmatons
oe a 1 6 3 1 1 1 s 1 1 3.0 1 1.0 1 od I 0< 40 0.2 4.0 4.0
wirer N.d.e O.eall stone
]log See General Notes and Legend GS Smre 200
SM,eemN nigh nnanna nsk do.on,-1-of Iearn o55 0.
-SSmre ale
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 20
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-10 Central Plower Gelgeranan 6ul
Seismic igegard level ME 2E
bsi W6f .."Ined Cab
Lso
dandle
DCWm low. life Vubll< ry Mdah., hadede v PoanOal Iwea[p con, F
Deno-onn (. P01 s<wem i gW Al. VXmary AageMl@<
la4 oflAenl count alone the eael aide of
Inenlnlwlam nn >10 We s Gs 3 1 1 1 1 130 10 OA OA ad 0.1 4. .1
deelf Aenl bn<ingalongiM1ewealntoll
1M1e lowmoland Intl OoormtM1e basement
leu<I >10 WA < Gs 3 1 1 1 5 1 30 10 0.g OA QO 0.1
IftichfntlaleNl bn<ingalongiXe west Ldx
3 Walla iltlln 17 WA 5.0 Gs 3 5 30 10 0.g OA QO 0.1 MD
Wallan<M1olageallM M1¢M1�minortM1and
G MM1 walls MO WA 1.0 Gs 3 5 30 10 OA OA QO 0.1 MD
s HI �oMtlla M1n mSM1ear ?s WA In Gs 3 5 30 10 OA OA QO 0.1 MD
6 lawrcof aia n_don, ?s WA 50 Gs 3 5 30 10 0.g OA QO 0.1 MD
ONN9la ne aM1eaeon Naieeaewallsal
r nexea.mu mmm,ana x/A
Faddist mag h.— .11 g
]m 4gma
aalreemm mgn bnan<�,I nn a.<m s.<olcmGm Dssm a0
usmae aD
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 21
Risk Ranking Analysis
Stmc ure 1-11 rlerale n Basins 1-10
Seismic XaaaM UM BSB IF
W r Wss
h01k
Clam oG/m ure rxmary m Mguknry : v gnanm impam
a.,camlm iu BCI saren sawenoia.
.a 26.5
o ,u sue,
ramaykm..:
sws s,,�...,a kat....a Lsa.ne oss.or. o0
LS — ao
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 22
Risk Ranking Analysis
Stmc ure 1-11 rlerale n Basins 1-10
Seismic XaaaM UM BSB 2E
W r Wss
h01k
Clam oG/m ure rxmary m Mguknry : v gnanm impam
a.,camkx lu BCI saren sawenoia. 26.5
.H
o ,u sue,
ramayxm..:
sws s,,�...,a xat....a Lsa.ne oss.or. o0
LS — ao
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 23
Risk Ranking Analysis
StmtNre 1-12 Se[endmq tlaaaers 1-26
Seismic t asail level ME IF
b F WSf ..".aCaS
A" he
afR/m Oq/m 'he e6e Vamary P.aha ry mon.Wry eallo v Poanlal Imeaps coSaF Rot
Mssrlplm RS nen SZ i 5a1e1ce AaaeMlser neonatal Impart,
Separzearn ya a:aue w
a lateral earned to—aethe Santa Ana Rroer ,zo >10 s ua I s s s 1 zo ?o 4.0 1s ao o.z 4. an
Sellars or<omeyoreppharrmg s4 Ulo aue
a to lateral mreamowaMe the Santa Ma Rher no >?S 5 Is a I s 5 s I zo ?o 0.0 1s ao o.z 4. In
12 6andnsfaMzr mill,at pnn au,to Meal
H a.— o „al San 1.r xeaeneralxmee arts 4aene
wseoa 0,0
uume zoo
PS15-06 Appendix H 24
Risk Ranking Analysis
StmtNre 1-125e[endmq tlaaaers 1-26
Seismic t asail level ME 26
b F WSf ..".aCaS
A" he
afR/m Oq/m Visa e6e Vamary P.aha ry mon.Wry eallo v Poanlal Imeaps coSaF Rot
Mssrlplm RS nen SZ i 5a1e1ce AaaeMlser Impana
xaar earned to—dS me Santa aaoew
a lateral earned wwaraa me Sams nos Rroar ,10 WA s ¢ s s s zo ?o 4.0 is an R.z zoo
ReiwremaomeyoreaRMren6nrunuraaue
a to lateral mram e m Ma owaMe Santa Rher ,10 WA 5 6 s 5 s zo ?o 4.0 is ao o.z zoo
aenalnp/aMzr haure of plea sue tolalerzl
WA
RamlN Roves: wars,Sao
smr 1,,.neminoreaana laaene ahll-r� OS
OSSaore 0.0
uuma zoo
PS15-06 Appendix H 25
Risk Ranking Analysis
stmelure 1-13 Ngestee s
Seismic nacald level ME IF
bSi Wsr We18MeE CaS
the
wntl .Nm me'.
S a0ss use rnmary rubM
snm 1 0 ay.OI.BM ry scu.0n<.la wx'igm ��cl 1
PuOPb.1l(21
0.0
i[
raelnv xoto:P we„u Xore
t09 See Genenl Xales antl Legentl Gssmrt 0.0
OSSmre
LSHwe 00
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 26
Risk Ranking Analysis
stmelurc 1-13 dgestea s
Seismic llagald level ME 2E
lust Wss
h01k
.R/m OG/m We VXmary M M{ulanry 5 v Rnanlal Impa[p
Ca[Xglm IU Akq A.4mclss Impana
ma
a[! alry xnus:RFm Orenllsm
]m9 5¢eGmmlNcles anX 4gmX
W Smre 00
uxm¢ ao
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 27
Risk Ranking Analysis
struefure v-Sa digester s IS 6 Pump Roam
Seismic Hazard!level ME IF
b F WSf .."soul Ces
Felm
*v 01k
Mf m Doer Nfe VXmary P.ss1 ry Mgulme, StlNAober hnemou Imc.. SF Rest
Ples dso.W. R Y S 1101 wel° Sees Aa4eMIEer Iou,sm � w keen mwe lnceereent althewall >10 >1.0 S ex 2�0 1� S a e 0 ce a0A I.Sea0G O.1 60
M Inu,MS.nt separbn Gam edje.nl reoc re >30 >1.0 3 GS 2 1 1 1 1 1 20 1.0 ce OA 00 0.2 60
S Torsional response of wlEb Ma >10 >LO GS 20 10 OA OA 0G 0.2 2.
Term-lens re m the wnoetc mile us,m
wwan.rmmnii-
FeedersNam: .11 sw
1m9 See GenmlNoles and L,,,J
X Store 60
u Smr ao
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 28
Risk Ranking Analysis
structure v-Sa dgeaeer s IS 6pump Room
Seismic Ragard level ME 2E
b F W3f .."fetes fa3
h01k
ry Mm Oqm tMefe VXmry P.e 3bNAobv xe nlal ex...
PIM 3 110) i Akq ScAe.l., ImWOf � w Nal.ses N
a kM welntleeMentathe 0 N/A G3 50 0 DA es so
Iw .nt xacon rvm adj— ,cgen_ o WA G3 20 10 OA OA 0G 03 60
0 13 irslanal response of w dW Ma 0 WA G3 0g OA OG 0.1
,n,retn,w—w11,a„m
mae,mmem N/A
ennlry Nnm:
om,Il Y,
1m9 See Genenl Noles anX 4gmX
X Store 60
uxo,e ao
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 29
Risk Ranking Analysis
Stmtlere 1-15 Digester 6
Seismic Hazard level ME IF
Wsr Wss
hbik
CfR/m OG/m We VXmary M M{ulamry 5 v ne.-l Ime—
e«nmlm lu Oal saren cool., Imeana
ma
F—Iffy xnus:eFM Orenllsm
]m9 5¢eGmmlNcles anX 4gmX
W Smre 00
uxm¢ ao
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 30
Risk Ranking Analysis
stmc ure 1-15 dgeste.6
Seismic llagald level ME 2E
lust Wss
hbik
CfR/m OG/m We VXmary M M{ulamry 5 v Rnanlal I26.5%
o«Xmlm lu gul sake sallenola. Imvana
ma N/a
r,[nlry xeM,:RFm o.,musPo
]m9 5¢eGmmlNcles anX 4gmX
1Smre 0c
LSS,— ao
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 31
Risk Ranking Analysis
stmc ure 1-16 dgester
Seismic nagard Level ME IF
Wsr cuss
xvm ou/m ure rxmary m raguhmry : e, rgxaMm impa[C
rk..xm�on Rs gol seessawemiae. impan.
ee�e�w.me n�we m pner d.e t,meal
e,e aun,[e F4o=Is mAes
72
gm xe�e.eaixme,aee Legene
Pmmbal LLebge of tllgenerguhom bNen plpingnn Eefvetl wnMinlmonay resuhing In regulnorysangof3 Wsmre 00
uxoa
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 32
Risk Ranking Analysis
stmelurc v-ls dgestea
Seismic nagagd level ME 2E
Iasi Wss
-R/m OG/m We pXmary M MSulamry 5 v Rnanlal Impa[p
d"Xglm m 1101 sees AagegalXer Impana
9enemg/aMarhlwe W pnn due m meal
e,e aurh[e F4o=1s 13 N/A
r,mhy xn[..: wenllsmr72
[M xe�e.emlxme,aee Legene
Pmmbal LLebge ofdgenerguhom bNen plpingnn Eefvetl wnMinlmonay resuhing In regulnoryndngof3 WSmre 00
uxme
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 33
Risk Ranking Analysis
Stmcture 1-17 dgester)IS IS Pump Roam
Seismic Hazard!level ME IF
b F Wsf .."sues CaS
ublk
M[ m DWM Ilfe pXmary public ry Mgulu., sceNAobv nemou Impa[p SF Rest
PIM Mst. l,- Rs 11m stwem *p Sees Aa4eMv Im IE ',
kocrs mwe'mtleeMent altbewall >10 >3.0 3 ol �5�0 �1�0 ox aos a0G 1ce1 aso
IwalNtientsepanlbn lrvm atlacenl tll{esters a10 >]0 3 Gs 2 1 1 1 1 1 20 10 ce OA 00 0.1 to 60
OiHereMlal hlerel spread bet—,D eesters
q antl etlue to ,tc,d-
Feces N.—: Ox 11 Sct
]m9 see GenmlNol.e anb legenE us It— 6S
W stole 00
S Semi 60
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 34
Risk Ranking Analysis
Stmcture 1-17 dgester)IS a Pump Roam
Seismic Raaard level ME 2E
b F W3f Welgm sfa3
umk
ocel. W. ufe pXmary publl¢ ry Mgulamry 3tlNAobv nemou Impa[p
PIMMssXplen (.1 om 3y
xxw sees ScAemluea ImPaebsous
PoMin sm—lntle eMentaltm-.an 1.0 N/A 3 ol �5�0 m1�0 ce a0A a a 0G ums30.1N so
45um—teepanlbnlrvmatllacemtllgun- >10 N/A 3 G3 1 1 1 1 1 20 10 ne uA 0G 0.1 2c 60
DlHmre lal u-1 spread bN—,Dxaacm
111. and sd-to pueleRmn >10 WA
F.I.I.N.—: Ox 11 Scc
]m9 3ee GenmlNales anX l¢g¢nX
035mre 00
5S,mj 60
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 35
Risk Ranking Analysis
stmc ure v-le dgesterg
Seismic nagard Level ME IF
Wsr cuss
xvm ou/m ure rxmary m raguhmry : e, rgxaMm impa[C
rk..xm�on Rs gol seessawemiae. impan.
ee�e�w.me n�we m pner d.e t,meal
e,e aun,[e F4o=le mAes
72
gm xe�e.eaixme,aee Legene
Pmmbal LLebge of tllgenerguhom bNen plpingnn Eefvetl wnMinlmonay resuhing In regulnorysangof3 Wsmre 00
uxoa
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 36
Risk Ranking Analysis
stmelurc v-le dgesteag
Seismic nagagd level ME 2E
Iasi Wss
-R/m OG/m We pXmary M MSulamry 5 w Poawlal Impa[p
""Xglm m 1101 Afe s AagegalXer
9enemg/aMar hlw[e W pnn due m meal
e,e aurh[e F4o=le 12 N/A
r,mhy xn[..: orenllswr
[M xe�e.emlxwe,aee Legene
Pmmbal LLebge ofdgenerguhom bNen plpingnn Eefvetl wnMinlmonay resuhing In regulnoryndngof3 p55mre 00
we Qe
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 37
Risk Ranking Analysis
stmtlure 1-19 dgesrers 330
Seismic llagagd level ME IF
Iasi Wss
-R/m OG/m We pXmary M MSulamry 5 v Rnanlal Impa[p
d"Xglm ms 1101 sees AagegalXer Impana
ae�e�w=b=e r nlwm M pner a.e m meal
e,e.un,a Reo=aomme,
,[Wiry xnm Oreallsmr
1.s x .emlxme,aee Legere
Pmmbal LLebge ofdgenergu hom bNen pl ping nn Eefvea whMinlmonay resuhing In regulnory sang of3 p55mre 00
xme 121
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 38
Risk Ranking Analysis
stmtlure 1-19 dgesrers 330
Seismic llagagd level ME 2E
Iasi Wss
-R/m OG/m We pXmary M MSulamry 5 v Rnanlal Impa[p
d"Xglm m 1101 sees AagegalXer Impana
9enei rig/aMar hlwre W pnn auem meal
e,e.un,a Rco=aomme, N/A
r,mhy xn[..: wenllsmr
gM xe�e.emlxme,aee Legene
Pmmbal LLebge ofdgenergu hom bNen pl ping nn Eefvea whxinlmonay resuhing In regulnory Hang of3 p55mre 00
u xme 121
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 39
Risk Ranking Analysis
Strum a 1-20 digesters 310 pump Reopen
Seismic Raaam Level ME Ip
USi Wsf WelOmee Cos
u01k
CC0/m D(q/m life pemary Vu411e ry M,es.., Ineop. r Poanlal loea.
dsXplon lu 1101 srwem i pen Sees Asomosev nonsense
Fp.1r mwelntle eMent al".wall >10 >S.0 3 Gs l �z�0 te1�0 ne a0A 000 ]D.2O Soon.60
ImulNuentseparobn lrvm atlacenl tll0eslers >30 >LO 3 Gs 20 LO D.0 OA 00 D.z 60
S iorslanal response olwltlb Ma >30 >LO 3 Gs 20 10 ne oe 00 D.] 60
Dlepersem Connections avecnlrzm Corner
a zD ?D ne D.a ae D.z zo
bleno.ceaetowaM Me Santa Ma River eue
] loli uelatlbn >10 >LO 3 IS 20 ?0 D.0 OA 00
DuereMia I lalenl'need bscoe"Digesters
zne ze den to quelotlbn
ramee No— .11 sPo
lens see G.nerol not....I l.¢ene
os store 60
Sxm 60
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 40
Risk Ranking Analysis
shu[eure 1-20 dgesrers 330 Pump Room
Seismic Huard!level ME 2E
wsF cos
eCIVm o@/m asF sued
vnmary loon¢ n Poavkl
mstlglon 6 10 Xwem safe a ulaW stakeholder Financial Im Xve
ll elntleeMen[ul[be,all >to N/A 3 ]Gs 3 lea, 1 ] 1 1 a 30 30 O1 aIVst a0.8 ]03 30 s60
1 Iwrlfiuen eparwkn fiom adaunl&stands, CIO N/A 3 Gs 2 1 1 1 1 1 Ed 30 OB OA 0.. 03 2
0 60
3 onal res Dose olrcold Ma '10 N/A 3 Gs 2 1 1 1 1 1 30 30 OB OA 0.. 02 30 60
A apMagm...¢Rion&atdonataM corner �10 N/A 1 Gs 2 ] 1 1 1 1 2d SO OB OA 0.. 02 l0
Unseal ea 30
rd m mm.ae same ma RNer one
1 N.uelztlkn �10 N/A 3 Ls 2 1 1 1 1 1 ID 10 06 OA 0.d o2 20 60
D rem lNeul lease' pm,d bnween O rt lgedrs
g 9 and lO due ao llpu..,.d We 3 IS 1c 10 De OA c D.1 60
Fe",NaUst O.eell Sm
109 see General Notes and utadd .1 ,or 60
O score
LSXwe 60
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 41
Risk Ranking Analysis
stm[eure 1-21 dgeseere vl-le
Seismic Hammel level ME IF
bSi cost welgppe W
1k
Cfg/m W. pshs life pXmary publk ry Mgula"ry s--.. Poawlal Impa[p
PFM bsmeeled lu (10) xwem i ul xfeN ..'excess, Impana
center;11-11:sendine'hear mlmre of 01.1
m due to moral spread l:urfare Fe.-z61n[he: 0e a10 1 IS o I 3 a zo Sc z.a ee 3z
en z1l6 suddeglehear Ul,re of plea
due tosutud(odrt m Me 135'm[M1es
Feeley Xem: .11 Suc
1me
Pmenbal LLebge ofdgener gas hom bNen pl ping nn Eefvetl wnMinlmontly resuhing In regulnory sting of3 ps s[ore 0.0
xwe 160
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 42
Risk Ranking Analysis
stsucti 1-21 dgeseen vs-ls
Seismic Hammel level ME 2E
bSi cost' wel'stee CaS
Life 01k
cm,f. W. 1. eke pXmary I.sdsan� l
MgulaWry stlNAobet Poanlal Impaap
bsmeded Rs Iml stwem i AfeN Aa4eMIXv Impana
center;11-13:&nem(/mear mlmre of me:
w due to moral spread isufice=1lmtia11 WA s a 2.4 ee 32 do]CoHm
11
e
n 21169enemg/enear naure of plea
due tospread(odrt m Me 135'meM1es 23 N/A
fanllry Xem: .,cc.
ld ...em..and le¢ene
P .dl.lLL.los.Idgeur gad hom bNen pl pmg nn us..d wdl,,lmontly resuhingl n regumory sting of 3 ossmre 00
Ssewe 111
PW 5W Appendix H 43
Risk Ranking Analysis
stmcture v-n[Ageaeer 12-14 Pump Room
Seismic Ragar4 level ME IF
bSi Wsf W.".afas
u01k
C6q/m Oq/m life pamary Publle ry meal.., sbNAobel ...u, Impapscast F
PlasdsXglm us I. s=a i PM Safeq ScAesolam ImPa[If
Iw t.,l xpmibn halo aaa«m
p venal >10 >1.0 s 6s zc 10 OA ea 16 O.z
lane wm:bear al:bear wane 11 17 s 6s 2 1 1 1 2 1 z0 10 0A OA 16 0.z 100
s Coluan mear at moment name¢ zs ao s 6s 2 1 1 1 2 1 zc 10 0A OA 16 0.z 2. 100
genalne..r aaklt al p,.aw to lateral
s a I...PG0.061n@es 10 11 s 6 2 1 1 1 2 1 20 10 OA OA 16 O.z 2. 100
Eanc—al htenl spread b,tween Dgastars
oc H-W c.c to 6 uehNon
aces Xom: .11 Yo
1 a see General Nays ana 4gma
W s[ore U0
u xpre lac
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 44
Risk Ranking Analysis
stmctum 1-22 dgeaeer 12-14 pump Room
Seismic Raaard level ME 2E
M3 �1
Wsf .."mesfas
hmk
C6Wm W. life VXmary Vublle ry Mguu., sel,Aobv Poanlal Iwe.ce
PrMdsXglm Rs sees ScAesolEv ImWeu
I—ffidem seenMbn ham aala«m aleestea
venal >]o zc 10 OA oA 16 P.u13 20 10 OA oA 16 0.1 60
3 Calumnh—tmomemhames 44 20 10 OA oA 16 0.1 100
Dnc—alW,ml,,dbNween Oiee—
ocl]Wtlueto fi uefac[lon
F.I.I.Xem: O.era ll5m
1.s see GenmlNales ana l¢ge nE
Wsme 00
SS,mj 60
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 45
Risk Ranking Analysis
Stmcture 1-33[Ngestet 15-16 Pump Room
Seismic Raxafd level ME IF
b3i W6f W.".afah
h01k
Plas
Cf6/m Oq/m life 9amary 9u411[ c meal.., 6tlNAoba, Poanlal lagaps
dsaplen I. nen 6[wem i 6M 6afeq Aa4eMlaea ImPaas
IwalRaen[xparMbn lrvm aaacep alxca; >x0 >1a 3 G3 .5.0 m1.0 DAN a0A a06 3D.1N scc2bu05s
Fe
a60
Dlawranuouse wwalls at Ne wuM
elowtlan >10 >LO 3 G3 2 1 1 1 1 1 20 10 OA OA 06 0.1 20 60
3 Ia ne wall sM1eas al SM1eas walls 0) 13 3 G3 30 10 OA OA 06 0.1 30 60
G Column SM1antmomeounames ?6 39 3 G6 30 10 OA OA 06 0.1 10 100
Benalri6/sM1,a�as 1.lu ynesau,m m,rzl
..eau FGD=xDmm„
,alay Naa.,: ome116m
1m9 5¢e G¢nmlNales ana 4gma
W 6[o�e 00
u xa.a ao
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 46
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-23[Ngestet 15-16 Pump Room
Seismic XacaM level ME 26
b3i W3f wel..dW
Nim
C[Wm W. life pXmary P.usa ry se,au.ry 3bNAobv Poanlal Impaps
dsXplen R3 p01 3ewem i aM 3akq Aa4eMlav ImpanaI.PeIwalRuem sepa�pbn lrvm atlacenl tllgeslers WA 3 G3 �5�0 m1�0 P. aea a0G 30.1N 30 aso
Dlemntlnuous s6em walls at Ne mouth
elevation >30 WA 3 G3 20 10 OA CA 0G 0.1 10 60
3 lane wall a'eas al SM1en walls 10 WA 0 G3 10 10 OA CA 0G 0.1 10 00
Wlumn thca r at moment sa rues N/A
F—ey Nom: .11 Yo
1.s 3ee GenmlNoles anE 4gmE
D35eore 00
Lss,mi 00
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 47
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-24 Gaz Holder
Seismic Huard!UM ME IF
b F WSf .."oveCaS
01k
ex V. W. 1. life PX.., public N Mee.., S.N .Wer Pomoo, .'eve
dsdocim Il5 Ilm Srwem i AfeN sc4eMl@r Impanx
1,M SM1ell—.rx.datol,.Talon-
S indUarl aterals reW and eeoe—nU 3 I I I 0 1e 2.4 OA 00 0.1 s 34
Mrnurfziwremernrend-tulipuefedun
-
inau¢dlzhmlxpreWznaxenlememx
F.I.I.xnm: .11 smr 2.4
]m
pmenrlal lelaMagexnE4,dof tligener gax lmm brNen pl ping nn M1e f,dw h,nl—d,rexuhingln reg,,st,rating of 3 MSmre EV
ux a ao
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 48
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-24 Gaz Holder
Seismic Huard!UM ME 2E
b F WSf Welgptve fag
01k
Cfq/m W. 1. life PX.., publle N mee..ry g.N .Wer Pomoo, exere
dsXglon Il5 1101 Srwem i AfeN sc4escl@r Imp,nx
IDnMaM1ell—.rx.daloliquelartian-
e indUarl aterals reW and Settlements 10 N/A 0 OS 3 10 10 2.4 OA Og 0.1 00
M h,rfiwrearcrnrend-mligaelanian-
iad,—il,hmlxweaa ma x,nlemo,o ic x/A
F.I.I.x.—: w,ngg
]m 4gmE
pmentlaLLelaMageiof tligenerg,xlmm brNen pipingnn M1e f,d w h,n1—d,m,,k,ngln reg,,st,rating of 3 MSmre 00
ux a a0
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 49
Risk Ranking Analysis
Stmtlure 1-25 Effluent Junction Box
Seismic Bagard Level ME SE
W5F Wss
h01k
Clam owm ur, rxmary ry heulamry : v gnanlal Imeam
o,,.am1m lu Iml sar,n sallenola. 1n,mn,
Sne,[r,llure lesauemlzhmlawe,a
m.am,m,sa,Am,All u,e.
Hltcxe[.,: o.,,,u sPo
]m9 see Genenl Ncles anx 4gmx00
W s[ore 00
u S,— so
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 50
Risk Ranking Analysis
Stmtlure 1-25 Effluent Junction Box
Seismic Bagard level ME 2E
lull mss
h01k
C[R/m nG/m We VXmary ry MBulamry 5 v Rnanlal Imea[p
dsXmlm RS 1101 Safeq Aa4eMIXv Impana
sne,[rallurcI nlesauemlatcl. we,a
m.,m,tn,s,m,Al,u 12 /A
tc Hl
m9 See Genenl Ncles anX 4gmX
W S[ore 00
u s,m, ioo
PS15-06 Appendix H 51
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-26 Solids Socrep Faeillq
Seismic Hazard level ME IF
,dsi WBf We18aed faB
helk
C88/m W. gHP We VXmary ry WulaWry Scded.. nu nlal Imea[p
m R ousmmls Bog5[mm i AkN AakeMlXe, Imnena
Building mending due as nesmse 37 Be
nloyau-m
inakln >10 N/P B, 3 3 30 10 0.8 oe 20 0.1 30 60
Renal Wand,r hilun W enea aline[M
u,e due mlelme I d,d to nda u.--
gwn[ne[ N/A
eamiN 11 - LI! Bc
dl—nl.dt and 4gend 30
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 52
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-26 Solids Stomp Fadllq
Seismic meard level ME 26
bsi WSf .."Wed Cus
heux
Cfg/m W. ewa We VXmary ry Wulaw, Scded.. nu nlal Imea[p
m Rs Y ousmmls 1mm i AfeN AakeMv lX Imeana
Building mending due to nesedeTe oyou-m
shakne W >SO d Gs 3 1 1 1 3 1 30 10 0.8 OA 20 0.1 30 60
Bending/¢neer hilun W pine a Sn.
ecount,se due mlumrzI vaned l nu u.=
IDinme: N/n
lank,N de, LI!
1de 5¢dl—nl.du andend00
13B
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 53
Risk Ranking Analysis
Strumm 1-27 Chiller Building
Seismlu Hazard Level ME 1E
Wsr Wsr
h01k
xe/m
a :
ry
m Ineam
o xal e x v re x n Iw
PFm ...a n n
!, iry xnm Ore 11
]m9 5¢e Genenl Ncles anx 4gmx
W Smre 00
u xo.e ao
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 54
Risk Ranking Analysis
Strumm 1-27 Chiller Building
Seenink Hazard level ME 2E
Wsr Wsr
h01k
C[R/m nG/m We VXmary M M{ulamry 5 v Rnanlal Imka[p
4aXglm (. 10 Afeq ..e..e, Impana
ma
F—hy N.—RFm .11 Yo
]m9 5¢e Genenl Ncles anX 4gmX
W Smre 00
u xm¢ ao
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 55
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-28 Warehouse Bumming
Seismic nagard Level BS8 IF
b F Coss' Wel..dW
h01k
C[q/m Oq/m VIM eke VXmary Vuble ry xeol ry stlNAobv ne nlal Impaps
Memoclou Rs (10) x 1 wem i AkN scaemclXv ImW[u
Wall nelsamnotkea Wtne laMln >IO >1.c 3 Gs 5 150 M1�0 DgN a0A a0G 30.1N 50 a15D
Wall W nelea snot red WgNntt W E
G uml >10 '10 3 Gs s 50 10 0.g OA OG 0.1 SD SSD
o�lalWre mm...u.e�.W am.l.�ml
FamlN Netl.: .11 Scc
1.9 Se.Genenl Noles.nr 4ge,X GI 0
W xore SSD
ux aD
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 56
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-28 Warehouse Building
Seismic Hazard!Level BS8 28
b F cos Welliver Cas
balk
Dfq/m raw. Pea exe Primary Vuaal a exale., stlNAobv remou laea[p cae
reactum us xm xxv- i l safesalary Tle.cal Mal Aa4eMlry Impaeu [ nall
o.sesWall nelsarenotxea Wtne laMln 1.0 N/A s Gs s sc 1�0 ox x a0A x06 g s ill SD 15D
Wall W re nelsanotxea to Wreffit
6 aWrtamilse c10 N/A 0 Gs I 1 1 1 1 1 10 10 D.g ra 06 D.1 1. 00
aatalwre mm,.,u,e�em alxe�mml
,ml,mmt >10 N/A
Htllxyxae,: o,m.usm
1m9 5¢e G¢nenl Noles am 4gmr
wstom sD
us,— Do
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 57
Risk Ranking Analysis
Somme 1-29 Shop Building A
Seismic BazaM Level ME 1E
WF Wn
h01k
C[R/m nG/m We VXmary M M{ulamry 5 v gnanlal Inea[p
oM[xmlm MI Iv sun, .nosolae. Imnana
Wall nelsareno[osd b ah,fccon
fanllry Xous: Orenll5m
]m9 5¢e G¢nenl Ncles anX 4gmX 12
D 5[ore 00
us[me ac
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 58
Risk Ranking Analysis
Somme 1-29 Shop Building A
Seismic BazaM Level ME 2E
WF Wn
h01k
C[R/m nG/m We VXmary M M{ulamry 5 v gnanlal Inea[p
4aXmlm RS 10 Akq .nosolde Impana
Wall nelsareno[osd b ah,fccon N/P
F—ey Noun: .115
]m9 5¢e G¢nenl Ncles anX 4gmX
D 5[ore 00
us[me ac
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 59
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-30 Shop Building B and Building 3
Seismic Beaed Level ME 1E
b F WSf .."Ines Cos
h01k
Cfq/m n(q/m .is VXma ry aWry sbNAobv Poarclal Impaps
MSXgIm Is5 10 Ssmm i ab xkq ry man
an.,
Financial Im
Wall nelsare not Yetl W[Xe laMln >30 N/P 3 Gsl s aQo �1.0 0..Bx 30A gnG SO.lx s1E0
Wall ancM1orageW Merwla[IM1e nuM xall
N/A
exllM1yls— .11 sm
ams xe Geee.alxme:see Lesme
w xom o0
cube no
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 60
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-30 Shop Building B and Building 3
Seismic Beaed Level ME 2E
b F WSf .."Ines Cos
h01k
Cfq/m n(q/m .is V ry aWry sbNAobv Poarclal Impaps
MSXgIm Is5 10 Ssmm i ab xkq Xmary Financial Im WulSc aesoluer
Wall nelsare not Yetl W[Xe laMln N/P >3.0 3 Gsl s aQo �1.0 0..Bx 30A gnG SO.lx s1E0
Wall ancM1orageW Merwla[IM1e nuM xall
exllM1y Nets: .11 sm
ams xe Geee.alxme:see Lesme
w xom o0
subs no
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 61
Risk Ranking Analysis
StmeNre 1-31 Bulldlnp 5 and 6
Seismic Ba mul Level BSB IF
b F Wsf ..lane CaS
balk
C ns, Oq/m eel.' Yfe VXmary Vualk ry MgulaWry StlNAobv Poanlal Impa[p SF
Msmnew Rs 10 Ymm i safety sca4eMIXer I.Wns asse
Wall wn are not d.c W lae laWn >30 N/P 3 Gsl 5 50 m1�0 D.BN aDA NnG 'D.1N SD 5150
G Wallanaaor a1Me 3neflmr N/A Gs 5 sc 10 D.8 eA nG D.1 SD 300
aenelnplallure W trams wertlerron b-cc
nmes N/A
fanllry Xoua: Orenll Yo
srer see Ge.eralxmee aXe l<¢a.e
wwore 0,0
xm ao
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 62
Risk Ranking Analysis
StmeNre 1-31 Bulldlnp 5 and 6
Seismic Ba mul Level BSB 2E
b F Wsf ..lane CaS
balk
C[q/m Oq/m eN.t Yfe VXan Vualk ry Mgulawn' StlNAobv ne.;al .-.s.s SF R.F
Msmnew Rs 10 Ymm i safety Aa4eMIXer I.Wns
Wall nelsarenottletl Wtae laMln N/P >3.0 3 Gsl 5 50 m1�0 D.Bx a0A xc 'a. 50 11
G Wallanaaor a1Me 3neflmr N/P 1G s Gs 5 50 10 0.: 0A nG 0.2 Sc 250
aenelnplallure W trams wertlenon b-cc
nmes N/P
Iaday N.—: O sll Yo
srer see Ge.eralxmee aNe l<¢tl,e
wstore 0,0
x re ao
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 63
Risk Ranking Analysis
Stmcture 1-3311uto Shop
Seismic nacald UM ME 1E
b F WSf Welgpbe fas
h01k
C[q/m Oq/m IUSi eA.1 We VXmary ry si. sbNAobv Poarclal Impaps
MSXgIm RS 10 Ymm i AfeN Aa4eMIXer
Wall nelsarenot lietl W[Xe laMln >30 N/P 3 Gs < aQO W1.0 ce aol xOG 'o. a13.0
Wall ancM1orageW MelwraWooc-M
a,a,��m aae x/P
ixnxvxntn: om,ll so,
ams x,Ga.,.alxma:aee leame
w store o0
s xo.. po
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 64
Risk Ranking Analysis
Stmcoure 1-3211uto Shop
Seismic nacaed Level ME 2E
b F bsf WelBateX fas
h01k
CfR/m Oq/m bsf pqe p(e pXmary pu4s: ry MSulawry SoNAobv ---,al Impa[p
F.
msxmlm Rs 10 Xwem i sane Aaklwla.
Wall nelsarenotlietl W[Xe laMln N/P >1.0 3 Gs < QO W1�0 D.Bx a0A a0G 1D.lx a120
Wall ancM1orageWMelw�aW a1[M1emM
a,a,��maae rv/P
R:nlW xm.,: o.,musPot
lms xe Ge.emlxme,aee baeoe
wstore oD
uxo.. pD
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 65
Risk Ranking Analysis
Stmtlure 1-33 PFO61
Seismic Hagald Level ME IF
Wsr Wss
h01k
xvm Tmmw w<gmamry : ¢. ne-n.l ilmam
4axmlm Rs Ilal saren Aawelwlxe. Impan,
.a00
r,mlry xn[.,:PFm w,nllsm
]m9 5¢eGmmlNcles anx 4gmx
W Smre 00
u xo., ao
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 66
Risk Ranking Analysis
St..re 1-33 PF062
Seismic Hazard level ME 2E
Wsr Wss
J
Cfa/m me- ufe VXma
xaanmlm M PPI sake sallenola. Immna
W:W9In M1eamnthlbunldwlbtluelo
IOO Meam mnaluna N/A
F—e Nnm
O slsw.
]m9 see GenmlNcres anX 4gmX
os s.om ia.o
o0
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 67
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1-3d Central laboratory
XI31nIg Handed Lavel BSE lE
b6F elgM1<ea CosF
Lose %Imary puall,
OCNm onded l Mat ph %Imary hbll, 'a" iMnl Xeduhlory sm holder Fina lal Impxb Co3F onSF
MM Oaaapol 6 10 Upped W Treatment lde XaMeM1olaer F rcial Im dal 1WL% g0A% 33.5% W.0% 16.5% smrc Xae
men h,memwmn,alalatmo4dem
Mmm rorox 29 o'f s Gs s 50 1.0 ad 0..4 1.6 10 .
zs0
2,d floor disproof deform,load aaneh,m
1 brace,hams, 2.9 of s GS 1 1 1 l 2 1 5.0 1.0 O.B 0.4 1.6 —
3 Ou0o6plane bmtlng olanceEfnmebeams a10 In 3 Gs s 1.0 1.0 Od OA 1.6 11
&ads b,bmatl hams,are non-ompot 1 1 1 3 1
< >]0 >1.0 3 GS s l 1 1 1 ] 0.< 1.6 genaing lallureoi beams—choem«.
s deal lmm. 6.1 6., 5 Gs s 1.0 1.0 Od OA 1.6 S.0
6 werola rtbnm L9 3.8 5 w s 1.0 1.0 Od 0A 1.6 R.0
ne"Iey added ten Ouxrznx«e 15.0
lads see 0enenl proad,mmtegena ba smrc 2s.o
dssmre dd
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 68
Risk Ranking Analysis
structure 1-M Central bWmtory
Xlsmic Hound E<Vel BSE lE
b6F elghtea(o5F
lHe %Imary Publl[
.CWx x,,. .a F FFM ph %Imary hell[ Sahry i t MguWory SUkehda« Flnamial Imp Cw3i MSF
ffM D—dPUan 6 10 Xorelu SN Trexmmt uhb Xakebolae[ F rcial Im SWL% SWL% g0A% 33.5 W.0% I6.3% smte X«e
h,mea0wmn,alalao-ea:euem
rtumm roan al WA s rs s So ]o og nA 16 0.z m 210
B a[exb[bm[ea hamesare non�«npatt
< >10 WA 3 Gs s l 1 1 2 ] S.0 ].0 0.8 04 ].6 OS 50 I5.0
&eainghllured beamaortF[Mmm
s bnceb![ama 65 WA s w 5 50 'n 08 OA 1.6 0.2 50 0.o
6 x4e�%Ib rtbnm 1g WP s Gs 5 50 1.0 Og OA 1.6 0.1 50 R.0
F lllryF xsned Ouxrzn X«a u.0
vol semmeml rvmexma hgma rssmre u.o
Wswm o0
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 69
Risk Ranking Analysis
5[ruRure S-IDARA`CGmleq
Seismic HavM Level BSE 1E
Wee[etices
L.
OU/m OWm LaSf file publk Akq iXmnr[ Reauhlary fraMeM1altler Man[ial
x[Xplen 45 1p Morel° m Pegulamry H
rexpon;:'Merenlial iHlkment
6 [blqueb[rlon alY af0 3 ce 3 1 3 30 1 ]0 I ]6 I OA I 08 00 30 9.0
a[IIIry Herne oera115[m< 9.0
Iro9 fre General kmex and L,d OSSmre e0
Ls sere o0
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 70
Risk Ranking Analysis
StruCure S-IDARA-CGallery
Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE
weU raticos
L. l publie
I'm Or
LaSf LXe primary publk Aq k iXmn[ Reauscory exi,. ltler Manoial Im
xrXglen ry5 p0 Smrem m Pegulamry A
e�otliRe omiajsOw ent
6 olpue(anlan al0 NA 3 OS 3 1 3 30 ]0 ]6 OA 00 00 30 90
aelllry Herne Al,. 1.
uoa xe 6e�emi rime.aye teae�e
msw,a
Ls re,e
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 71
Risk Ranking Analysis
SLruRure 2.2 DAF DGallerya WSSPS
Seismic HavM Level BSE 1E
b5i WeU me Gal-
L. pu",
OU/m OWm Lase LXe primary publk Akq iXmnr[ Reauhlary fraMeM1altler Manoial Im
xrXglen L5 p0 Smrem m Pegulamry A
al spmad mards the Talbert MsTtlue
< Lo ll uef-ion al0 af0 3 LS 3 1 3 1 30 ]0 ]6 OA 68 00 30 60
aelllry Hem: rallSrort 1.
aro9 fre General kem and L,d Ol Smre
LS Smre
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 72
Risk Ranking Analysis
SLruRure Sd DAF DGallerya WSSPS
Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE
b5i WeU me G4
L. pu",
OU/m OWm b5f LXe primary publk Akq iXmnr[ Reauhlary fraFeM1altler Man[ial Im
x[Xgmn
al spreatliwartlitbeialEert MarsM1 tlue
< toll uepttlon al0 NA 3 LS 1 1 1 1 30 10 ]6 OA 6e 00 30 60
a[IIIry Hem: ra115[m< 1.
a�o9 5¢¢G¢neral Xem anE Leg¢nE OSSmre
S re
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 73
Risk Ranking Analysis
structure 2.3 RAs Ps East
Xinnic Hazard Level ME 1E
Po wHl,
CCNm OLRIm
outadylxII denea ronrnnle heunea wall:auee ro tPFM ..
Waaw Hkn .,vt eau f -alFFM tlu MTmenr PV
m manaremd.an —re
a aue mll a10 >la s s 1 s zo 2A
e n ummwu.onemona a za z
o0
a o.a xa o.o xa x]
faYlnxdn: 1-1 xore
1ma z..e.n.rel rvnrm.na az=na osxo.e
Isx
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 74
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2.3 xns PS East
Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE
WSi W,W aNGa
L. 9ublia
bU/m OWm Lell him L. 9nmary item AFeq iXme, seeuhlury frot.hel6er Manoial Im I.F socl
¢mine., is Iw Soon." m "l lmry s.9ehHue.
�es man . as 11 m ,loan,,,wnl, rv/A
mal reap nse In eMertMlalsememem
G tluelof uelalion ale N/e S I3 3 20 LD 11 114 14 11 )l
Oulol9lane shed,on the bonne]walls tlueb
8 Il u.SW wnd Wms 104 N/A 0 OS 1 1 3 1 3 ] 3e ].O 3A OA 3A the 3< 9.6
a¢IIIryHmn: O..IISro. 96
1119 Y¢G¢nenl Xes anE Leg¢nE MSmrt eb
u sin. o0
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 75
Risk Ranking Analysis
snuRurc za Ms PS west
Seismic HavM Level BSE 1E
WSF WeU t aGa
L. Sublla
De/m Dwm holl lame L. Vmnary Yublk Ale, ..a, seauhlary states.... ....ran Im, Seen Marc
¢
¢¢rimer. Is BD Sm e" m arg. Soar saenaae. Some San.
Ica ere. .r1l,11 m em ho nwaes
m alne,emell.mlemm e
G due tote elaalin 119 af0 3 OSS I3 3 2D 1D 20 DA 3A DO II
Dutol9lao Shear on the bonne walls tlueb
. II aAler cal war more, 1.3 1.3 3 05 1 1 3 1 3 ] 30 ].0 3A DA 3A OA 3< R
a¢IIm.— Due.allSrort 31
1119 Y¢G¢nenl X.tes ana Leg¢nE DS Smrt
72
s Y.,e o0
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 76
Risk Ranking Analysis
snuclum za Ms PS west
Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE
WSi WeU ae6Ga
L. Suit,:¢
be/m OWm holl lame L. 9mnary Sum Aleq ..a, seauhlary frabbal6e. Manoial Ine Soon learn
¢
¢¢rimer. 's Iw o..m m "I lmry xal.n.re.
ica ura r .r1l,in m nsabem total,total, ale
m alne,emell rallkmm a
G euelofa elaeli on ale N/A o PSS I3 3 I 20 LD 11 114 L��
11 )l
Oulol9laoe shear on the bonnet walls tlueb
8 Il a.e.,cal war more, 1A N/A 0 OS 1 1 3 1 3 ] 2e S.. 3A et 0Y 3< 9.6
a¢IIIryHmn: Son alll—, 96
1119 Y¢G¢nenl Xrs anE Leg¢nE OSSo. eb
u s¢r. o0
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 77
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1.5 PEPS a MAC
Seismic HavM Level BSE 1E
WSF
-loo1 9Ge1maun eelasaM1eoan,o,nm lmM1el atb.0 retlhw,malh0
,tllu e w a
W,W m Ga
Ls 0pm OWm a t Pbf eahlary
I.m u
ee wl—raa 03 z.s s x v s 1 a 0 o o A fnanual Im0 o 0.0
al,xae n examnlm
areb e,m
G ssW— 1.4 2.0 s 03 x 1 s 1 e o o oA 3.2 o zoo
.mol cueb
emaen,rea -a e
0 tlo lA le 0 LS 1 1 S 1 0 1 0 ]0 OA 31 00
u1.0 m
Sx11h HeLe¢ Ownll Store
Log See General Nde,antl Legentl GS Sm,e
Lon or PEPS eMuemtonEun vAl remit In lass of s...d,venmem me—m.M1 I.ell, r1-1dry veatmentrryu1X p5$rre z00
Sw,e 160
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 78
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2.5 PEPS a MAC
Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE
WSF WeU m,l co
L. Publrt
OM/m OWm la5f LL Pnmary Publk Akq Mmnl[ seeuhlary .1,0.Wer flnantial Im
anione. 1a (m Soon.' m sos.l.anry xabenome.
ndlf —.l
em one wle„elcnon pl X/A s W 3 1 s 1 a zo 1e ao oA 3.z 0A 300
ale enn<eense 11al:<menem 12 N/A
,no d-no
S dMnomlal ssmenont 1.4 NM e M 3 1 s 1 e z 3.0 3.o a0 OA 3.z oA
lemon.— el cuob
eme `o"'n""" N/A
do me sanm Ana Bwe.
0 doe lobeelaa nj alA N/A < LS 3 1 5 1 0 1 3.0 3.0 a0 OA M OA
1-o191ane enea. ,buretl walk duew
l uuelletl sulwntll4ms X/A
nonsm Nma: Owrall5mre
Log Re General Ndes antl eegentl GS Sm�e
Loos or PEPS eMuem ooneun uAl remit In loss of eemndaryve.u000 end—min ololNon oraxondery n—nn neon— p55eore 0.
LSSw�e 30.0
PS15-06 Appendix H 79
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2.60neraeons Control Center
Seismic HaraM Level BSE 1E
Wn WeU m,Qs
L. aublia
OU/m W. L. primary Poblle Areq iXmnr[ secretary ext.s.Wer Manoial Im
Pre amimaa Its Iw smmm nt ugmamry naenaaa.
Wm m,lFprage6eaztantl weatwalls
oriynal builJing
al,tl,n)ragea[eaEantl weEwalls
3 atld6lon A3 63 3 G3 AD 1D 16 04 16 JO� s
300
to bM peh enh,-th emrsru
3 py aEEitun otreptlirysevnrt lmtls alY a10 3 G3 < r r r r r AO r.0 r.6 OA 1.6 r00
6 in lane Luar x fiearwa. 1r 3 G3 < AO 20 16 OA 16 r00
Oragronnettlen atropltoeastaMwest
M1urweltr
all panel.....dunblouMtllon
8 prelkmw 31 Ar 3 G3 < AD 1D 16 OA 16--tialreuee[Oon arY af0 3 03 < 3 3 ] 3 ] AO 3.0 ].6 OA ].6 RO
gyllryHdea: Ouerallsmu rpA
Log $ee General NORs anE LegmE
D33mre 110
S 3mre OD
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 80
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2.60neraeons Control Center
Seismic HaraM Level BSE ZE
Wn WeU m,Qs
L. authe
OfP/m OWm L. primary 'Alle Areq iXmnr[ seerstory ext.s.ltler Manoial
Pre .—rime. is Iw nt "Illmry naenaaa.
Wm m,lForld,,g) tantl weatwalls
bri —,—g,e N/P
all amhoraee a[eaE antl weE wa Its
3 atltlltlon 65 N/4 5 GS AD 1D 16 OA 16 00 300
ere bM psm et h,-therms—
g upyadrm—I rrs iecre—loa4 arY r/A 5 Gg r r r r r AO r.0 r.6 OA 1.6 04 r00
6 In^lane moc,x fiearwa. 1r ryM 5 GS AO ]0 16 OA 16 DO 300
Dmg mnntttlonatroptbeasxwwesl
s=—IN N/A
allpand Dori wase'torouMAlon
8 prelkdw Ar X/A 5 GS AD 1D 16 OA 16 00 211
respontt b tllRerenrial seXkment
9 Eueblreueb[Ilon arY N/A 3 05 0 3 3 ] 3 ] AO 3.0 ].6 OA 1.6 0Y AO RO
Fa1llryHdea: Overall Smr. rDA
Log $ee General NORs anE LegmE 2.0
MSmre 110
S mre DD
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 81
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2.7 MV Serves EeMer
Seismic xzam Level esE 1E
WSF WeU and 45
k public
cm. OWm LaSf L. primary publk Ak<y Mmnt seguhlory scakebolser fnan<ial I
ammla. u uo sw,em m ugmamry saanoae.
Wallan<M1orageto roll m lantlwutl
Walllan<M1oragebrteSaltM1e nmtM1antlsoNM1
wal4ha owbdlaph,orlley
MNdlapMapm Near
5 ral home wlumns r1Y a11.0 5 G5 1 4 a 3 3 ] 3.0 a.0 3.3 "1 3A OY 300
btllflerenfial sellkment
tlue loulreuelxll n
i lw Nc a: 0 Owra1111—
Log See General 14leO antl legmtl
ills onnv servve Cenlerwill rewlun power bss w primaryl—t—am semntlary treatmentwnkn—be panmrymmgetm wnn sramby power(eol[.CenGm Wlll likely beoutof m¢e,xe 5vunureiap o15 x.
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 82
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-7 121kV Service Center
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LOSF COSF Weighted COSF
Life Primary Public
DCR/m DCR/m LoSF PFM Primary Public Safety Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial Impacts COSF ROSF
PFM Description LS (10) Score(3) Typen' Life Safety Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial Impacts 100.0% 100.0% 80.0% 37.5% 80.0% 0.0% Score Score
Wall anchorage to roof at north and south
1 walls >1.0 N/A 5 GS 2 4 4 3 3 1 2.0 4.0 3.2 1.1 2.4 0.0 4.0 20.0
Wall anchorage forces at the north and south
3 walls have no sub-diaphragm or ties >1.0 N/A 5 GS 2 4 4 3 3 1 2.0 4.0 3.2 1.1 2.4 0.0 4.0 20.0
4 Roof diaphragm shear 2.3 N/A 5 GS 2 4 4 3 3 1 2.0 4.0 3.2 1.1 2.4 0.0 4.0 20.0
5 iShear at frame columns >1.0 N/A 5 GS 2 4 4 3 3 1 2.0 4.0 3.2 1.1 2.4 0.0 4.0 20.0
Structure response to differential settlement
7 due to liquefaction I >1.0 N/A 3 DS 2 4 4 3 3 1 2.0 4.0 3.2 1.1 2.4 0.0 4.0 12.0
Facility Notes: Overall Score 20.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend GS Score 20.0
Loss of 12kv Service Center will result in power loss to primary treatment and secondary treatment which can be partially mitigated with standby power(Note:CenGen will likely be out of service,see Structure 2-17) DS Score 12.0
LS Scare 0.0
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 83
Risk Ranking Analysis
Struclure 28 Power Building B
Seismic Mead Level BSE 1E
b5i WeU.GSf
L. Yubh,
OCN/m OWm ,iF: Yublio "ems iXmnl[ Reeuune, fraFeM1altler n..:d
04
xrXglen M1S 110
,4M Pmlala M1 Near
aailiryNE 0 OmallSmre
ues xe ae�e,al nmea aye Fegena
0.0
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 84
Risk Ranking Analysis
Struclure 28 Power Building B
Seismic Mead Level BSE ZE
b5i WeU.GSf
L.Fl,andd sePubh,
OCN/m OWm ,iF: Yublio "ems iXmnl[ Reeuune, fraFeM1altler n..:d
xrXglen M1S mu
P4M Bmlala M1 SM1ear N/P
0 aailiryNE OmallSmre
ues xe ae�e,el nmee eye Fegena 1100
1—
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 85
Risk Ranking Analysis
Struclure 1.9 Power Building
Seismic Mead Level BSE 1E
Wu WeU IN GS
e, publy
must. 00Vm LaSf L. In, publk Aleq Mmnt Reµscorr, eakenalser fnanual Im
acipde. Ls Iw sw,e'° .. mum St,WhWe,
law r.ul,ewumm
6 n plane vall eh....t h...wan, Lc IS
s 45
x v v za va oe oA a.e oo xo loa
neuu-...epntllan imm atlpanl
oove intl.,denl Wme wall
ful—i,11,Cu wall,tlue to
9 tlMereMlal mmemm ,IA a10 3 m 20 10 Ob OA OB 00 so
L—rals,sc tlue x,li ucfslnn
.In naM¢ 0-11 10.0
Lp9 Re General Ndes antl Legentl clS re 100
DSSwre 60
LSSwre 60
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 86
Risk Ranking Analysis
Struclure 2.9 Power Building
Seismic Mead Level BSE ZE
Wu WeU IN GS
L. publy
OU/m OOVm LaSf L. In, publk Aleq Mmnt Reµst, eakenalser fnanual Im
acipde. us,
s Iw sw,s' .. mum St,WhWe.
le�A low,olsmvwumm
/n
6 n plane vall eh....t h...wan, Ls x/A s c, x v v za va oe oA O.e oo xo loa
neuu-...epntllon imm atlpanl
mtlependenl Wme wall X/P
oo ve ful—i,11,CMu wall,tlue to
9 tlMereMlal mmemm ,IA X/R 3 OSI I I 1 1 20 10 Ob OA OB 00 60
L—r.1 ,sc tlue x,li ucfslnn 110 X/P
.In Nma: p 0-11Sw,e 10.0
Lp9 Re General xdes antl Legentl clS rrr 100
Dsswre 60
LSSw,e 60
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 87
Risk Ranking Analysis
snuRum 2.10 Power Building B
Seismic HavM Level BSE 1E
Wn WeU m,QS
l pu",
OU/m Dwm -11 tila puma Akq m. scumdary fraMeM1aWer nnanrial Im
xaXglen 145 110 Smrem m Fl-nd., sense Sex
ugulamry x
ele.,u at Ne SwrtM1Ltle Mme
tlUM1moof JiepMaSmgm
5 mafglane M1amm�olbentling a10 >10 GS 20 ]A OB 04 ng 00 l0
din
rc, Sss
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 88
Risk Ranking Analysis
snuRum 2.10 Power Building B
Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE
Wn WeU m,QS
k
most. Dwm -11 eila puma Akq m. scumde, ex".".Wer nnamial Im
xaXglen M1S 110 SmreuTw tm m "ulamry xFl-nd., sense Sex
ele.,u.SmM1 at NeswrtM1Ltle Mtge
tl',n JiepMagm N/P
5 mafglane M1amm�olbentling a10 N/4 GS 20 ]A n8 n4 ng n0 l0
Fsd7W N—
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 89
Risk Ranking Analysis
Strucl—311 City Water pump Station
Seismic Ha and Level BSE 1E
Wu WeU Lea css
ik
met. Duct. L11 Lila Public Akry iXmn[ Reau ce, fraMeM1. fnam
m ImWUa
arrime. LS lw Sw,el° eL ubuhmry xeanolae.
wal..a,om e.�.onx a�aOWmla
m.or.pb.e xoemmalba_
pme,e,mel,ememem ayem s,"art—
raft`Hma: .araas,om
ttos Irs—linore—e Lld rs=: ao
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 90
Risk Ranking Analysis
Strucl—311 City Water Pump Station
Seismic Ha and Level BSE ZE
Wu WeU rea css
k
OU/m Duct. LaSf L. public ." Tas—, summary fraMeM1aWer fnanual ImWUa
arxglan L5 1m Sw,e�a er utul.mry Aeanolae.
wal.aa,om e.�aonb aae Wau a'aua rv/a
m.ar.Pb.enamaambeaalab rv/+
Pme,e,mel,ememem eae m s,"am°" rv/a
r,aitr Hawa: amaa s,a,a
ttos Irs—lirvom.aaatagam rs sm,e ao
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 91
Risk Ranking Analysis
StruRure 2di 12W Distribution Center B
Seismic Havrd Level BSE lE
WSF WeU and Ga
k
OfP/m OOVm eik vtlmary Yublk Akq '"molt exmeary scaMeM1altler Manoial Im
vrm .mwla. is Iw wmm m veg�lamry saanatle.
sm.11 ercap —n tllX e.ftll lemement
puefanlan
wofglaneshear on Ne Eer walla tluem
Gi uelletl e,I wntllbwu
Fairy XeAa: —sel,-
1109 Re General No&s anE 4egmE fSSwre 60
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 92
Risk Ranking Analysis
StruRure 3di 12W Distribution Center B
Seismic Havrd Level BSE ZE
WSF WeU and Ga
k
OfP/m OOVm eik vtlmary Yublk Akq '"molt exmeary scaMeM1altler Manoial Im
vrm .mwla. is Iw wmm m veg�lamry saanatle.
sm.11 ercap —n tllX e.ftll lemement
puefanlan 110N/P
wofglaneshear on Ne ber walla tluem
Gi uelletl e,I wntllbwu 12 N/P
Fairy XeAa: —sel,-
1109 Re General No&s anE 4egmE fSSwre 60
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 93
Risk Ranking Analysis
snueure 2.1312W Distribution Center B
Seismic HavM Level BSE 1E
b5i WeU aaa Css
L.ce,s Yublia
OU/m OOVm aik Yublk Akq iXmnl[ Realise, sxi,. laer Manoial Im
xaXglen l5 110 Sm em m ugulamn x
oilx..anial:em:mpam a�.iorwuaaa�o�
a .vA .10 a x v zo vo oe oa ae oo eo
nxamx:
10
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 94
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2d312W Distribution Center B
Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE
b5i WeU xaa Css
L. Yublia
OU/m OOVm L. 'Alk ." iXmnl[ Reauscoq scak0older nnamial Im
nX 2 g Ip m Pe{ulamry A
oixaranial:ememaam aye io rwuaea�o�
a .vn x/n a e v zo vo oe oa oe oo eo
nxamx:
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 95
Risk Ranking Analysis
Shuclure 216 Head arks Power Building
Seismic HavM Level BSE 1E
bgi WeU reicss
k Yublla
OU/m OOVm Lac publk Akry iXmnr[ Reauhlary frakeM1aWer fnanual ImWna
ampala. as Ilo .r Me�i.wry a.anaae.
cauw. » po��ai
aulltling respwu lotllMrcMbl u¢lemenl
5 duewlpuefese, "a >10 < as I2D 1D Dg a4 Og 00 84
a MyN—
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 96
Risk Ranking Analysis
Shuclure 214 Head arks Power Building
Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE
WSi WeU reicss
k Yublla
DU/m DOVm Lac publk Akry iXmnr[ Reauhlary frakeM1aWer fnanual ImWna
ampala. as Ilo .r Me�i.wry a.anaae.
cauw. » po��ai rv/4
aulltling respwu lotllMrcMbl u¢lemenl
5 duewlpuefese, "a I WA < DS 2e 1D DS 04 c, DA :LL x
a MyN—
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 97
Risk Ranking Analysis
snuclum z.ss Head arks Power Building
Seismic HavM Level BSE 1E
WSF WeU reicss
k Yubllr
DU/m DOVm Lac publk Akry iXmnr[ Reauhlary frakeM1aWer fnanrial Im"m
ampala. u Ilo .r Me�i.wry a.anaae.
seld, » po��ai
aulltl Ing respwu to tllMrcMbl u¢lemml
5 duewlpuefese, "a >10 < as I2D 1D e. 04 Og DO BD
a MyNgea:
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 98
Risk Ranking Analysis
Struclure 3d5 Head arks Power Building
Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE
WSi WeU reicss
k Fublla
DU/m DOVm Lac publk Akry iXmnr[ Reauhlary frakeM1aWer fnanual ImWna
amala. u Ilo .r Me�i.wry a.anaae.
cauw. » po��ai rv/4
aelleing respwu lotllMrcMbl u¢lemenl
5 duewlpuefese, "a I WA < DS 2e 1D DS 04 c, ILL BD
FrllryN—
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 99
Risk Ranking Analysis
StruRure 5.16 Heml orks Standby Power Building
Seismic HavM Level BSE lE
WSF WeU mN 4F
k publla
OU/m DOVm LaSf Le, publk Akry iXmnr[ Reguhlary frakeM1aWer fnanual ImWna
arxglan L5 IID Swre�u er ugul.mry U=anaxe.
wua. » po�ldl
lulltling respwu lotllMrcMbl u¢lemenl
5 duewlpuefanlon "e >10 < OS 2D 1D Dg 04 Og ILL BD
FrllryN—
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 100
Risk Ranking Analysis
StruRure 5.16 Heml orks Standby Power Building
Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE
WSi WeU mN QS
k publla
OU/m DOVm LaSf Le, publk Akry iXmnr[ Reguhlary frakeM1aWer fnanual ImWna
arxglan L5 IID Swre�u el uguhmry Aaanaxe.
wua. » po�ldl rv/4
lulltling respwu lotllMrcMbl u¢lemenl
5 duemlpuefanlan "e I N/4 < DS 2D 1D DS 04 c, ILL BD
lityN—
Log Notused
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 101
Risk Ranking Analysis
Struclure 2.17 Central power Generation Building
Seismic Havrd Level BSE 1E
Wn WeU m,l Caa
Les Yua
OCg/m OOVm L. Vnmary Yublk Akq iXmnr[ normseary fraMeM1altler Manual Ira
amalan Is Ilo sm." m gagmamry saanatle.
uantlnuoussFearwallsalw.ggrN line.
—ca, e
Wall an n—ea a........a ntl ua.walls egla Sig g GS s I I IgI 30 10 a. OA 6a 00 l00
teN mellanee at..111a4s Matln
ane o.arm sbeer walh.claarwalkm
s IM1e_t4 ttllreNm OB ]3 3 fS 3 1 1 ] g 1 3.0 1.0 ce OA 4.0 0Y 10 80
c saaf daphrom e rbaneler T7 ) g a, 3 1 1 1 g 1 30 10 a OA 4a 00 2
00
flwfdl b s r
.1,..a a 0-11s re
Log See General Nores antl lagentl cl Smre
asswre
u scare o0
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 102
Risk Ranking Analysis
Struclure 2.17 Central power Generation Building
Seismic Havrd Level BSE ZE
WSi weU mo Ga
Les Pua
a.,. OWm L. "Ma" Public Akq Toram, seeuhlary fraM.t.,ro Manaial
amwmn Ls Iw m geLmamry saanatla.
uantlnwusaFear wallsalw.ggrN llnea
Wallan..t.,aa........a ntl ua.walla tA5 N/4 g GS s g 30 10 a. OA 60 00 l00
ri—alrc at EL it lot.bra0n X/<
I
plateo orm 6—walk.abearwal4m
5 M1e eas4vres[dreNm t3 am 3 Gg 3 1 L ] 5 t 3.0 10 ce OA 4.0 OY s0 80
c flwltl M1 SMmbaneler 18 XM g GS 3 g 30 10 a OA 4a 00 lrc
w flltlla M1 SM1ear X/P200
ixllh Nma: a 0—lis"re
Log Re General Noes antl Legentl GS 5mre
DSSwre
Ls xore GG
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 103
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 1.18 Aeration Basins A-H
Seismic HavM Level BSE 1E
Lon WeU tram Card-
L. Inereary Yulan,
owes own I,oF Intel L. pamary Yubk Akq in am, andarturs, ant.h.Wer he...i.' Ind
com. e. Ls (m sm,am snag * nt oa srome .......
amsat . .m reemm k.
m"re an.m.rmentel .m..a
wan nnure a se to marometo referenda,
..oa .mior naan told irc xax
.he ne.0 p.m .,der —Ix
Nnn the
."lots ahem,I mmm me toalxer.mla,
s ttMerrem 21 zl s as s s s e0 I i0 oe ao 00 zoo
mention n rop nth mrar me w differential
mention i.,hm leAl,dine•aua rise to
deferment ordered
recra:ly N oa se, e,ai NIe.d LeanedWrmab,W m
an eain, ma rerun Infl a
I.,ofsmortremant paaq s
and l trm
ursmmeeeswr,requom
emmor moret om
han s nn EM
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 104
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 3.18 Aeration Basins A-H
Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE
Wo W,le rea Can-
L. ,ubb,
Doer OWm bye Pme L. Inery Print Akq ialam, Reauhlary ase..... ...on, ar, con Mon
ani Glen Os B. m ons. ry ...I.er new.c.1
w,Imeame au,m r,...ae dMraal,l
,<me area.,bra.alma I.a m,e,
S aname 1.n1.1d umn cerlmele-l4 XA IOs sI s I s I 30 30 a oA a0 JOB4
ao
Ouralplan.......e.pwua.alflttemnl
/P
mab mW,aue m dReremoll
smemenrme 10 X/P 4 OS 3 s s 30 10 4n OA 40 so
.,basin alvtllrg walls auem0 aleroarmllal xmemem 1A mA 4 OS 3 1 1 1 5 1 3.0 1.0 A0 OA 4.0nn
,clasa ..
L. set r.r—ll H.Rs ana 1,1
l...WPararu.&i.a.mme re..nl.1m.W.a,..aamrearmemupaurv,.anwree.men repulamrvre..IremeMsl.rm.rcma.6 m.mn..
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 105
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 9.19 Gas Holder
Seismic Havrd Level BSE 1E
WSF WeU and Gs
L. Yublie
OU/m OWmtt
primary Public Akq ira—, exaulary fraMeM1aWer ManoialPreamalar, Ls (m ....bade.
uefaabr
mi
b,ri U,I,m o�acess due., 04 re
ally.fealom
meuatl lalmlewead and son om,
saalnxda: a ouenuseu,e
Log See General Ndes antl Leeentl
Potential Lek ofdq,,t,,gaafm,Lmken plplre or csfle wnbirI—th,—ft,In regW—ry rating of3 pss
Lsswre o0
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 106
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 9.19 Gas Holder
Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE
WSF WeU ma Gal-
L. public
bU/m OWm Lasf 1. L. primary publk Afeq iXmnl[ sceecoq fraMeM1aWer Manoial Im
amala:, s (m) swaw afnv * .......
uelam,
we b,ri hilurelovnxcess Eue a llyfealom
md,a emralawead-d ,ftl—, N/A
paalnxda: b ouerausuum
Log See General Ndes antl Legentl
pmemul Leakage ofaigeaaer grs sm,Lmken plpmg—ceflc w i Imomb—ft,In regWcn,rating of3 o15
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 107
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2d05econdar,Omifiem AA
Seismic Hatand Level BSE 1E
b, WeU mdQs
L. pu",
OU/m OWm LaSf Lne primary publk Akq iXmnl[ Reauhlary fraMeM1aWer Manoial Im
xrXglen L5 p0 Smre�u m Pegulamry A
paraYm aaussnex W Xfon Itinb due To
v elreunnaum<m<mx »o .v.a a os s v s s I 1 1 vo 1 vo 1 ao oa ao 0o 40 no
aeuryeaux: muxou
un x<e<n<mi xoux ane v�m,e
lueadsnnnde,Cbr,flers mule rcsunln lms Weemndammsm,m uipmyana more m men mg,hWry mpuir—e lb,—the,b mumne. ns5mre 110
u smu o0
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 108
Risk Ranking Analysis
SWUMM 3-20 Secondary Clarifiers A-L
Selsmlc Hadard Level BSE 3E
msF w.lpw
lHe nue" Nall[
OCNm OCNm LOSF MM LXe Mmary puall[ Sahry iMnt ReWIaWry SUXeMtla iWrclal ImpaN
Oesvlpllon Smrew R a.. SYFeaoltler F dial tW.4% IWL% aRA% 3).5% aRA% Smre Smre
Separatlana[mssaWnslon lolnts dueto
-—ld4alse --ma 1 110 1 N/A
an
Face"Hotel: ..[all Sm[ a.a
]b9 See General XoeeSantl Leaentl GS Soore OA
Loss ofSemntlary Came,could result In loss Msemntlarytreatment apatite andfullure to meet made may rryulremmms for more than 6 memns. US Some 80
is Sore o.o
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 109
Risk Ranking Analysis
snuRum 2.21 DA17A
Seismic HavM Level BSE 1E
b5i WeU ratl Ga
L.
OU/m OOVm xik Public Akq ..0, Reauhlary fraMeM1altler Manrial Im
xaXglen s 110 Sm ern m ugulamry x
responupmtllRe�enlial iHlkment
3 eblqueb[Ilon alY af0 5 OS 3 1 3 3 30 ]0 3< OA 16 Oro 10
15.0
aelllry Herne
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 110
Risk Ranking Analysis
snuRurc 2.21 DA17A
Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE
b6i WeU ratl Ga
L.
OU/m OWm Le, Publk Akq iXmnl[ Reauhlary fraMeM1altler Manrial
xaXglen M16 110 Sm em m ugulamry tt
e�otliRemnlial iHlkment
3 lolpue(aellon r10 N/P 5 OS 3 1 3 3 30 ]0 3< OA 16 00 15.0
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 111
Risk Ranking Analysis
SOruccure 2R2 OAff o
Seismic HavM Level BSE 1E
Wen Wei aN Can
-
I. lammany Pub,
OU/m low. Last Plan I. primary public Akry ..I, fteddury sol.... ...So., Ibre.-
aaxgmn Ls Iw sevr.r° m ugmamry sae ned.,
�.mon
mm nano..a oa m r.,.om.ao
s dMeremlal seMemem 1] 33 5 Os 3 1 I 1 ] 1.. ]0 3a OA 0.8 OA I,I
meom mm omoryian.mean,In.to
<memam
Hoban e,bn In wall Intl slab EUYo
] JMermalalaeNemem 21 Is 1 Os 3 3 Ia 10 20 OA c1 00 11 'so
Frlle/Xgn:
voa seeaeo—1 Xom,eonseae"e
mswr. 110
mr. o0
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 112
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 3R0 OAPf o
Seismic HavM Level BSE ZE
WSF WeU ma 4a
L. eubll.
OU/m OOVM b5f L. 9mnery 9ublk sa" Merv[ Reauhloq scakeM1aWer flnanuaI ImWela
a.xglon is Ilo xo,el° m ue mry saenaae.
�amo.
me lama doe mra:poma to
s da mmlal ssW—m 1.7 x's s Os 3 v l v 1 l0 10 2.4 oA ce 00 Is.O
eonommmomorylaneexea,anelo
ameremlc—i, 11 rvin
.a,ga.ml.bamao
aahrtMlalssMemeM 3.9 N/R 5 OS 3 1 3 1 ] 30 ]0 3A OA 0.8 OA 150
[AOM/nng[e......ntlreaome Mruel rang x/A
sxllh Nma: p Omall3ure ]5.0
Lo9 Re General Noles and legend Gssmre I50
Os swre 15.0
usmre o0
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 113
Risk Ranking Analysis
Stmoture 3-33 Sl Tower Bl
Sel3n1Ie Hadal Ideal BSE lE
Lan Gail ryided.1
Yk mary PUEYe
D@/m DCNm b5F RM ph I., Pohl[ Seery Thmnet!t
Impart Cdn' dal
PFMRurWkn See ireemerR Randall Seeker.Her F neial J... J... 0U% Seem Sears
Permanent tlbplaeemMs dre bllquelaetlon
S Inured leeral spread and sellemenls »0 a10 3 l5 I 5 5 1 E 1 E.0 5.0Inchen30 read surface PGD=6i-males >10 >10 5 6 3 5 5 1 3.0 5.0 0.0 g0 350
FvuIIry ea DY GS er5eme S
leo9 See General Naresantl 4 G1
gend S 00
n1Ssd.
LSYwa 35A
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 114
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2-23 Surge Tower#1
Seismic Hazard Level BSE 2E
LoSF CoSF Weighted CoSF
Life Primary Public
DCR/m DCR/m LaSF PFM Primary Public Safety Trtmnt Regulatory Stakeholder Financial Impacts COSF Ro5F
PFM Description (LS) (10) Scorelal Typelcl Life Safety Treatment Regulatory Stakeholder Financial Impacts 100.0% 100.0% 80.0% 37.5% 80.0% 0.0% Score Score
Bending/shear failure of piles due to lateral
10 spread(surface PGD=64-inches) >3.0 N/A 5 LS 2 5 5 1 2 1 2.0 1 5.0 4.0 0.4 1.6 0.0 1 5.0 25.0
Facility Notes: Overall Score 25.0
1 to 9 See General Notes and Legend GS Score 0.0
DS Score 0.0
LS Score 25.0
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 115
Risk Ranking Analysis
ShuRure 2d45ur[e Towern
Seismic HavM Level BSE 1E
b6i WeU ratl Ga
k Yublia
'CA OWm bfl me vnmary vublk Akq iXmnl[ Reauhlary fraMeM1aWer Manoial Im
amala. lu BD sa,em xaanatle.
ve,manem ei:pla«meme tl11.1.1 u: Ion
6 ntluatllalmispwtlantlseNmmas a1D a10 3 IS 5 20 50 lD 04 16 00 50 ]
u lry sSss
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 116
Risk Ranking Analysis
ShuRure 2.245uge Tower X2
Seismic HavM Level BSE 2E
b5f WeU retl GSf
L.
OCN/m OWm b5f LNe primary public Akry iXmnr[ Reauhlary fraFeM1altler Mantial ImWxaa
nXglen ry5 p0 Smre�° m Peeulamry H
Na IFM Pountl 0 N/P
ixllry Notea: 0 Omallsrore 00
nos xe eeoeoinaex aoa Fe¢eoa vs sere oo
wsmre o0
usmre o0
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 117
Risk Ranking Analysis
StruRure 2.26 Truck L sling
Seismic Haard Level BSE 1E
b5i WeU.GSf
k
OCN/m O(P/m eiF: Publix Akry iXmn[ scemeary fraFeM1.le er fnantial ImWha
xrXpkn M1S Iml Sm emis Fls,an,lm
Na PrM Pountl 0 N/P
ixllry Notea: 0 Omallsrore 00
nos xe eeoeoinaex aoa Fe¢eoa vs say. oo
wsmre o0
usmre o0
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 118
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2d6 Truck ding
Seismic Harand Level BSE ZE
b5i WeU.GSf
L.
OCN/m OWm aik Public Akry iXmnl[ Reauhlary rto a.ltler Mantial ImWUa
xrXpkn M1S Irel
Na PrM Pountl 0 X/P
i 11c,
1 Notes: 0 c Omallsrore 00
nos xe eeoeoinaex aoa te¢eoa vs say. oo
osswre o0
uswre o0
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 119
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2.27 Maintenance Building
Seismic HavM Leuel BSE 1E
WSF WeU[NGa
Las eu
oU/m OWm L. Vmnary Ass Akq Mmnl[ a. bG[
M{uata fraMeM1aWer Mantial I,
amme, lu Iw v m ewlamry al e enc ..
m�sla.lal nea 11 moment Dame
N/P
n«u al/aul Ores In moment name eeame
3 6l N/A 5 GS 5I I I I I SD I Dg OA Og 00 50 i50
[IaEEing lmeMmwlNmwnene
X/P
Moment bane eeamalumn co mete.
5 X/R 5 GS 5 SD I Dg OA Og 00 50 25D
DIHa ant at atttlemem due to nauera[Ilon
sea g urc C M In.A ares, al,...e6 "I X/A a DS 5 SD LD Dg OA Og 00 50 l00
lea east, exalts So,,
De Soo III
Em
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 120
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2.27 Maintenance euilding
Seismic HavrE Level BSE 2E
Wan WeU[NGa
L. Can'
OU/m Dewed 'all died ri, all Yublk Aleq Mmnl[ M{uhlay stabM1aWer Fi l I,
amXama is Iw w.m nt seal mWen ae. a.
.a.11e.lel amen,m moment rmme
N/A
n«ual/aul.—In moment mama eaama
3 N/R SOl 5 GS s I I I I I SD I D6 CIA g 00 50 i50
Pradent Wall Cladding lTeMmwlNw mnene
X/P
Mment o l.me bee-1— mend.5 N/A 36 5 GS s SD I D6 OA Og 00 50 i5D
Dnuard e al Wall due nD nauea lon
Faces"
ure a D.cea coo..ae was aeon X/n elo a as s se ID oe oA 08 on sD zoo
ln Xa.eOWl
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 121
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2.28 Boiler Bpdain,
Seismic HavrE Level BSE 1E
b5i WeU nil GSf
L.
OU/m OOVm riF: 'Ali, Alery ..m, Reauhlary fraFeM1altler .meal ImWPU
xrXglen M1S Iml Sm em
P4M AM ilia M1 SM1ear N/P
N aailim Notes: .—s srom
uva xe 0e�e,ei nmee eye Fe¢eotl es srar. 11
w swre 0,0
u scare 0,0
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 122
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2.28 Boiler Bpdain,
Seismic HavrE Level BSE 2E
b5i WeU nil GSf
L.
OU/m OWm L.
'Ali, Alery Mmnl[ Reauhlary fraFeM1altler Mae,.1 ImWUa
xeXglen M1S Iml
,4M Bahia M1 SM1ear x/P
aailiryNotea: 0 Omallsrore
uva xe 0e�emi nmea aye Fe¢eoa Gssm,.
osswre 0,0
Fsswle 0,0
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 123
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2.29 Ornan ODUall Booster Pump Station
Seismic HanarE Level BSE 1E
Wn WeU retics
L. Puth,
OU/m Dw. L. animusAlk ." Mmnl[ scomeary sto.s.ltler fn..ial Imcon MAI
o¢¢acme. l5 Iw Sm em ¢g at Xnlamry StaeFWe.
Wallan¢ForaBealFermllevel at NeroM
l a nallanuM1orageatlM1e rtW leM a[tlmeast
.antl inlenorwall ntl llneG 1D5 150 5 GS 5 5 I 5 I20 5.0 ea OA A0 00 5 0
M 15.0
nitllapM Near
8 Unertn Ouo antu llR atY NO < Ls 3 5 5 ] 5 ] 3.0 5.0 AO OA 4.0 0Y 50 300
11.Fa Hem: Overall srort 15.0
Log Y¢G¢nenl Xem antl Legmtl
msmre o0
m e zoo
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 124
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 2.29 Ornan ODUall Booster Pump Station
Seismic HanarE Level BSE ZE
Wn WeU ntics
L. Yuth,
OC8/m OWm L. ptlmarytYublk Akq iXmnl[ Reauhlary fraMeM1altler Manoial Im
con MAI
natme. l5 Iw at u5nlamry St
Wallan¢ForaBeaolFermlleuN at NeroM
l a nallanaborageatlM1e rtW leM a[tlmeast
.antl imenorwall Xtl IIneG 15.B NM 5 GS 5 5 2a 50 ea OA A0 00 50MnitllapM Near X/<8 Unertn buo antu llR aBtY N/R < Ls 3 5 5 ] 3.0 5.0 AO OA 4.0 0Y 50 300
11.Fa Hem: Overall srort 15.0
Log Y¢G¢nenl Xem anE LegmE
msmre o0
mm zoo
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 125
Risk Ranking Analysis
StruRure 3d0 12W Distribution Center
Seismic Haard Level BSE lE
WSF W,W red Cea
L. PutOfP/m OOVm Ismst Aq k iXmnr[ sceecary fraMeM1aWer flnantial Im
.mamn 1s SIG s[omr" ., ugm,mry a,aneme.
W all an[M1orage m mM at nmll ana mutl
3 wnal re nm d-1.E-W ulsmlc a03Y ele 3 Gg 1 1 1 30 ]c OB OA ce 00 30
< ralhamemlumna 1g 2A 1 GS I I I I I I 0 10 OB OA Oe 00 20 le,
SVu[rurc-1—b alRaemO ll sAhment
eoemlrioera ,
om.urylme mem un ue eu.mlla aue m
,d,,a a al wnmdwu
r,aigr How,: .ma 1—vos see s—.1l nom.a ye wgene G Gs Score 2Ga
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 126
Risk Ranking Analysis
Structure 3d0 12W Dist ibution Ce rA
Sel mic HavM Level BSE ZE
WSF WeU Ua Ga
L. Primary public
Oq/m nq/m b5r1. pEmary hblk Sale[V aqulMary SU4eboNer Xrwntlal Im
PFM rrtXpbn H(ery i rat gagulam ,4 hb ,r
�11amh,mg,m oof et nonh enb awb
1 alk 3 1 1 1 ] 3.0 ]o OB OA 0.8 OA 30 4,0
3 pnah nsetluebEWttliml[ atA X/R GS 20 ].0 08 0A OB 0A l0
$bearal M1ame.1"ns X/<
m alMer....I smkment
5 tlue roulreuetatri n alA N/R 3 05 3 ] 1 1 ] 3.0 I.o OB 0A 0.8 OA 30 60
r-of9—Shearon Me buretl mlh due
nomm ealwmlbw rv/+ 20
=[IlitlNda: omansure m.o
l ro9 Re General Nores antl Le d GS Scare 100
MSwre 60
Lsxore ao
PSI 5-06 Appendix H 127