20221222 Owen Summers Evaluation.pdf

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations

Owen Summers and USP&FO

Owen Summers and USP&FO

1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

Prepared for

The Oregon Military Department

Prepared by

MILLER CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.

9600 SW Oak Street, Suite 400, Portland, OR 97223

Ph.: 503-246-1250

MCE Project Number: 220937

December 22, 2022

Eric ARL_Initials

Eric Text Box

DIGITALLY SIGNED

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 1

Table of Contents

Site Photographs and Figures

Owen Summers and USP&FO Executive Summary

Definitions

Scope of Work

Background

Geotechnical Consideration

Structural Items Recommendations

Adjacent Buildings USP&FO / OS Addition

Adjacent Buildings OS Addition / URM Storage Building

USP&FO and Owen Summers Shear Wall Overturning

Owen Summers Rod Bracing Missing at Portions of Steel Roof

Owen Summers Moment Frame Non-Compliance Items

Non-Structural Items Recommendations

Life Safety Systems

Hazardous Materials

Partitions

Light Fixtures

Cladding and Glazing

Masonry Veneer

Stairs

Contents and Furnishings

Mechanical and Electrical Equipment

Water Intrusion

Limitations

Appendix

BPOE Summary Data Sheet and Checklists……………………………………………………..Appendix – A

BPOE Supporting Calculations………………………………………………………………………..Appendix – B

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 2

Site Photographs and Figures

Plan 1: PHOTO PLAN: OWEN SUMMERS FACILITY SOUTH PORTION (Courtesy of Carkin Architects/PC 1988)

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 3

Plan 2: PHOTO PLAN: OWEN SUMMERS FACILITY NORTH PORTION (Courtesy of Carkin Architects/PC 1988)

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 4

Plan 3: PHOTO PLAN: USP&FO BUILDING (Courtesy of Carkin & Sherman Architects 1985)

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 5

Plan 4: Owen Summers Partial Roof Framing Plan - South (Courtesy of Carkin Architects/PC 1988)

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 6

Plan 5: Owen Summers Second Floor & Low Roof Framing Plan (Courtesy of Carkin Architects/PC 1988)

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 7

Plan 6: Owen Summers Partial Roof Framing Plan - North (Courtesy of Carkin Architects/PC 1988)

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 8

Figure 1: Owen Summers North-West Elevation

Figure 2: Owen Summers West Elevation w/ URM Storage Building

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 9

Figure 3: Owen Summers South-West Elevation

Figure 4: Owen Summers East Elevation / USP&FO South Elevation

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 10

Figure 5: USP&FO North Elevation

Figure 6: Non-Compliance Item - USP&FO Adjacent to Owen Summers (Courtesy of Carkin Architects/PC 1988)

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 11

Figure 7: Non-Compliance Item - URM Storage Building Adjacent to Owen Summers

Figure 8: Non-Compliance Item: USP&FO & OS CMU Shear Wall Pier Overturning

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 12

Figure 9: Non-Compliance Item - OS Rod Bracing Not Detailed – Load Path Discontinuity (Courtesy of Carkin Architects/PC 1988)

Figure 10: Non-Compliance Item - OS Rod Bracing Not Detailed – Load Path Discontinuity (Courtesy of Carkin Architects/PC

1988)

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 13

Figure 11: Non-Compliance Item - Girder Truss to Column Moment Connection Typical Throughout OS (Courtesy of Carkin

Architects/PC 1988)

Figure 12: Non-Compliance Item - OS Beam to Column Moment Connection Typical Throughout OS (Courtesy of Carkin

Architects/PC 1988)

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 14

Figure 13: Non-Compliance Item - Fire Suppression Pipe Ceiling Penetration – Typical Throughout Facility

Figure 14: Non-Compliance Item - USP&FO Boiler Gas Line Unbraced & Without Flexible Coupling

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 15

Figure 15: Non-Compliance Item - OS Boiler Gas Line Missing Shutoff, Unbraced, & Without Flexible Coupling

Figure 16: Non-Compliance Item - OS Gas Water Heater - Gas Line Unbraced

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 16

Figure 17: Non-Compliance Item - Top of CMU Wall Bracing - Not Installed in Field (Courtesy of Carkin Architects/PC 1988) –

Typical Throughout OS

Figure 18: Non-Compliance Item - Typical Light Fixture without Bracing – Typical Throughout Facility

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 17

Figure 19: Non-Compliance Item - USP&FO Top Track Bracing – Typical at Exterior Stud Walls

Figure 20: Non-Compliance Item - OS Top of Wall Bracing – Typical at Exterior Stud Walls

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 18

Figure 21: Non-Compliance Item - Top of CMU Wall at OS not braced

Figure 22: Non-Compliance Item - Typical Stair at OS not Detailed for Drift (Courtesy of Carkin Architects/PC 1988)

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 19

Figure 23: Non-Compliance Item - Storage Racks not Anchored with Fall Prone Contents

Figure 24: Non-Compliance Item - USP&FO Mech Units in Ceiling not Braced

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 20

Figure 25: Non-Compliance Item - USP&FO Mech Units in Ceiling not Anchored

Figure 26: Non-Compliance Item - OS In-line Mechanical Unit not Braced

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 21

Figure 27: Water Intrusion - USP&FO Column Connection

Figure 28: Water Intrusion - OS Column to Beam Connection at Roof

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 22

Figure 29: Water Intrusion - OS Floor Girder Truss to Column Connection at Floor

Figure 30: Water Intrusion - OS Roof Girder Truss to Column Connection at Monoslope Roof

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 23

Figure 31: Water Intrusion - OS Roof Joist to Beam Connection at South Entry

Figure 32: Water Intrusion - OS Ceiling Deterioration near Column in 2nd Story Work Space

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 24

Figure 33: Water Intrusion - OS Ceiling Deterioration near Column in 2nd Story Hallway

Figure 34: Wall Efflorescence - OS / USP&FO Courtyard – South Wall

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 25

Figure 35: Wall Efflorescence - OS / USP&FO Courtyard – North and West Wall

Figure 36: Wall Efflorescence and Canopy Deterioration- OS South Entry

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 26

Figure 37: Wall Efflorescence - OS West Wall Near URM Storage Building

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 27

Owen Summers and USP&FO Executive Summary

The Owen Summers facility comprised of the USP&FO building and the Owen Summers addition

(OS) has been seismically evaluated using basic performance levels listed in the ASCE 41-17 with the following goals.

• Basic Performance Objective for Existing Buildings. The goal of this objective is to allow the occupants to safely exit the structure after a major earthquake. This objective is similar to the current building code for most structures.

Owen Summers is located on 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon. USP&FO was constructed from 1985-1986 under the 1983 OSSC and is approximately 15,000 square feet. USP&FO is not considered a benchmark building based on the ASCE 41-17 for the Basic Performance Objective.

USP&FO is classified as a reinforced masonry bearing wall building with flexible diaphragms

(RM1a). The building is a 1-story and was designed to be used as office space. The Owen

Summers addition (OS) was constructed on the South and West sides of the original USP&FO from 1988-1990 under the 1986 OSSC. OS is a two-story building and was originally designed to be the headquarters building. Currently OS is a mixed-use facility with a drill hall, gym, cafeteria, offices, maintenance and storage. OS is not considered a benchmark building based on the ASCE 41-17. OS is a steel framed building and has multiple lateral systems including steel moment-resisting frames and reinforced masonry shear walls. Portions of OS from grid 44 to grid 72 from grids P to F are most closely classified as Steel Moment Frames with rigid floor diaphragms and flexible roof diaphragms (S1/S1a). The remaining portions of OS are most closely classified as a reinforced masonry bearing wall building with flexible diaphragm (RM1a).

The following items need to be addressed under the basic performance objectives.

Structural Items:

• Adjacent buildings USP&FO and OS, and OS and URM Storage Building need to be tied for seismic continuity.

• USP&FO and Owen Summers shear wall overturning. Foundations at USP&FO need to be strengthened for overturning resistance, and the lateral system at OS needs to be strengthened to unload CMU shear walls.

• OS rod bracing at roof level is missing, causing multiple load path discontinuities.

Bracing needs to be added to complete load path.

• OS steel moment frames are non-compliant for strength and drift. New lateral force resisting elements comprised of steel braced frames, concrete shear walls or CMU shear walls are needed for the building to meet life safety or collapse prevention performance.

Non-Structural Items:

• Fire suppression piping needs to be anchored, braced, have flexible couplings, and have appropriate clearance at ceiling penetrations.

• All piping or ductwork containing natural gas needs bracing and flexible connections at the service point and equipment locations in the boiler rooms.

• Heavy partitions need to be braced at the top of wall for out of plane loads.

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 28

Non-Structural Items (continued):

• Light fixtures need independent lateral bracing.

• Top of exterior metal stud walls supporting brick veneer need to be braced for out of plane loads.

• Stairs need flexible connection details capable of allowing building drift.

• Storage racks need to be anchored at the base and anchored to the structure or each other in locations where the aspect ratio is less than 3:1. All contents weighing more than 20 lbs that are more than 4’ above ground need to be restrained.

• Mechanical units in the USP&FO attic need to be anchored and braced for seismic loads.

• Ceiling mounted units in the USP&FO server room need to be braced for seismic loads.

• In-line mechanical units in the OS attic space need to be braced for seismic loads.

• Water heaters and transformers in the OS mechanical and electrical rooms need to be anchored to the concrete slab.

• Water intrusion was observed throughout the facility at framing connections and walls.

Appropriate waterproofing and flashing details should be designed and installed to mitigate water damage before the deterioration becomes a structural concern.

Definitions

Collector: A component that transfers lateral load from the building diaphragm to the lateral force resisting system.

Diaphragm: A roof or floor that supports walls.

Flexible Diaphragm: A diaphragm with horizontal deformation along its length twice or more than twice the average story drift.

Glazing: The glass portion of a window.

Life-Safety Structural Non-Structural Performance Level (N-C) (ASCE 41-17): Performance criteria in which non-structural components may be damaged, but the consequential damage does not pose a life-safety threat.

Life-Safety Structural Performance (ASCE 41-17): Post earthquake damage to a structure is such that the building retains capacity against onset of partial or full collapse.

Load Path: A path through which seismic forces travel through the building to the foundation.

Moment-Resisting Frame (Moment Frame - MF): A frame capable of resisting horizontal forces caused by the members (beams and columns) and joints resisting forces primarily by flexure.

Non-Structural Component: A permanently installed covering, mechanical or electrical component that does not support the primary structure.

Out-of-plane (forces/wall): Loads that act on a wall that typically are trying to push or pull the wall away from the floor or roof.

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 29

Definitions (Continued)

Performance Objective: One or more pairings of the selected hazard level with the acceptable or desirable structural and non-structural performance level.

Post-Installed Anchor: A bolt that is installed in hardened concrete or masonry.

Primary Structure: A portion of a structure that is used to support gravity, snow, rain or wind and earthquake loads.

Reinforced Masonry: Masonry with the following minimum amounts of vertical and horizontal reinforcement: vertical reinforcement of at least 0.20 in2 in cross section at each corner or end, at each side of each opening, and at a maximum spacing of 4 ft (1.2 m) throughout. Horizontal reinforcement of at least 0.20 in2 in cross section at the top of the wall, at the top and bottom of wall openings, at structurally connected roof and floor openings, and at a maximum spacing of 10 ft (3.0 m).

Redundancy: The quality of having alternative load paths in a structure by which lateral forces can be transferred, allowing the structure to remain stable following the failure of any single element.

Rigid Diaphragm: A diaphragm with horizontal deformation along its length less than half the average story drift.

Shear Wall: A wall that resists seismic forces applied to it that are transferred from the roof and/or floor levels.

Strong Column–Weak Beam: A connection where the capacity of the column in any moment frame joint is greater than that of the beams, ensuring inelastic action in the beams.

Unreinforced Masonry (wall): An unreinforced masonry wall is constructed of bricks that are attached together with mortar.

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 30

Scope of Work

Miller Consulting Engineers, Inc. was contracted by the Oregon Military Department to provide

ASCE 41-17 with up to a tier 2 evaluation of the Owen Summers and USP&FO facility. The Basic

Performance Objective is based on the Basic Safety Objective for Life-Safety (N-C).

Background

Owen Summers is a multi-use facility that was constructed in two phases during the mid to late

1980s and the early 1990s. The first phase is known as the USP&FO building and the second phase as the Owen Summers addition (OS). USP&FO is a single story building with attic space used for mechanical equipment, and is currently used as office space and a server room. The structural vertical system is comprised of standing seam metal roof, zee purlins and girder trusses. The lateral system is reinforced masonry shear walls on each grid line at the perimeter of the building. The exterior walls are framed with steel studs and cladded with brick masonry veneer. USP&FO was constructed from 1985-1986 under the 1983 OSSC based on the 1982

UBC. Based on the ASCE 41-17, USP&FO is not considered a benchmark building, and is most closely classified as a reinforced masonry bearing wall building with flexible diaphragm (RM1a).

USP&FO does not quite match the definition of an RM1a because rod bracing is used in lieu of a flexible diaphragm similar to an S3 structure. Also, girder trusses are used to clear span the building, so that the masonry walls are not bearing.

A large addition was made to the South and West sides of the original USP&FO shortly after the building was completed. The addition is known as Owen Summers (OS). OS was constructed from 1988-1990 under the 1986 OSSC based on the 1985 UBC. OS is a two-story building that currently is a mixed use facility with a drill hall, gym, cafeteria, offices, maintenance and storage on the first floor. The second floor is used primarily as office space and conference rooms. The roof can be accessed from the second floor and houses multiple large mechanical units. OS is comprised of differing construction types at the interior of the building and perimeter.

The interior of OS has flat roofs framed with metal deck, steel joists, girder trusses and wide flange beams supported by HSS columns. The northern portion has a second story that is framed with slab on metal deck supported by steel joists, girder trusses, wide flange beams and

HSS columns. The lateral system in OS from grid 44 to grid 72 and from grids P to F are most closely classified as Steel Moment Frames with rigid floor diaphragms and flexible roof diaphragms (S1/S1a).

Around the perimeter of OS, the design mimics the USP&FO building architecturally and structurally with monosloped roofs. These perimeter areas are most closely classified as a reinforced masonry bearing wall building with flexible diaphragm (RM1a). Although OS does not quite match the definition of an RM1a because of the rod bracing used in lieu of a diaphragm

(S3), which is similar to USP&FO. Based on the ASCE 41-17, OS is not considered a benchmark steel moment-resisting frame building or reinforced masonry building.

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 31

For the Basic Performance Objective (BPOE), the Owen Summers facility was checked using the criterion set forth for buildings in high seismicity zones. The BPOE evaluation for the facility consists of the very low seismicity checklist, collapse prevention basic configuration checklist, collapse prevention structural checklists for building types RM1a, S1/S1a, S3 (as applicable), and the non-structural checklist.

As far as the layout of the facility is concerned, the main entrance is on the north side of the first floor of the addition. The north half of OS is a two story area that is used mostly as offices and work space. The USP&FO building is immediately east of the main entrance and is used as additional office space. The south end of the addition contains the drill hall, locker rooms, maintenance and more office space. Rooms throughout OS are typically divided with metal stud partitions, and typically have dropped ceilings. The drill hall is the central point of the building, has a high ceiling, and is surrounded by masonry infill walls. The vault is to the south of the drill hall and is constructed of concrete walls with a concrete lid. Lastly, there is an undocumented detached unreinforced masonry building on the west of the addition that is used for storage.

USP&FO was mostly compliant with the requirements for a RM1a building in a high seismicity zone. There is a complete load path for the building, and the shear walls appear to have adequate capacity for the shear loads applied. The major deficiency for USP&FO is overturning concerns of the cantilevered CMU shear walls due to their aspect ratios. The roof diaphragm is comprised of rod bracing similar to a traditional metal building. There is very little information given in the ASCE 41-17 for evaluating rod braced diaphragms, but the bracing appears to comply with the requirements. USP&FO also has some non-structural non-compliance items observed including ceiling systems, light fixture bracing, HVAC unit bracing and top of exterior metal stud wall bracing.

The Owen Summers addition is mostly non-compliant with the requirements for a steel moment frame building (S1). The lateral system of the building relies on moment frames comprised of HSS tube steel columns with steel beams or girder trusses. After the 1994

Northridge earthquake, revisions were made to the building code that require special detailing to ensure Strong Column-Weak Beam action in moment frames. The frames in OS have weak columns and strong beams. For example, the typical W18x35 beam is 36 times stiffer than the typical HSS 6x6x3/8 columns. Because of this, the moment frames are non-compliant with most of the structural requirements for an S1 building. Another major concern is the drift of the building; the calculated drift ratio of a typical moment frame is 67 times greater than the allowable ratio, such excessive building drift creates concerns for partial or total collapse of the building during a design level seismic event.

OS also has portions of the building that are supported by CMU shear walls that are detailed to match USP&FO, so these walls have the same overturning concerns at the foundation level. The as-built drawings of the areas supported by CMU shear walls appear to have intended to utilize

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 32 rod bracing as the diaphragm similar to USP&FO, however in multiple areas the rod-bracing is not detailed in the drawings or present in the field. This creates a discontinuous load path and does not allow all of the shear walls to participate as the original design appears to intend.

OS has several non-structural items that are non-compliant. These include ceiling bracing, light fixture bracing, heavy partition wall bracing, gas line bracing, mechanical unit anchorage, storage rack anchorage and top of stud wall anchorage.

Lastly, the construction of the OS addition where it adjoins USP&FO at grid H and grid 64 is non-compliant, because there is not a seismic joint to separate the (2) structures. During a seismic event the CMU shear walls supporting USP&FO will not have compatible deflection with the moment frames supporting OS, resulting in pounding of the structures that can amplify the damage to the structural system. Additionally, the URM storage structure on the west side of

OS creates another pounding concern due to the incompatible structural systems.

Geotechnical Consideration

The structural evaluation has been performed assuming site class D-default seismic parameters because there is not a current geotechnical report available for the site. Oregon HazVu:

Statewide Geohazards Viewer was checked for published risks of soil liquefaction or slope failures during a seismic event, and no risks for the site were found. The ASCE 41 evaluation also asks for the evaluation of the risk of surface fault rupture, and there are not tools available to check the risk. A qualified geotechnical engineer would need to be retained to confirm the site class and that the site is not at risk of liquefaction or slope failure, and also to provide information regarding the risk of surface fault rupture.

Structural Items Recommendations

Adjacent Buildings USP&FO / OS Addition

The OS addition was built immediately adjacent to the USP&FO building without any seismic gaps, or lateral ties which creates a non-compliance issue due to pounding of the structures during a seismic event, see Figure 6. The USP&FO building should be tied to the OS addition floor diaphragm for seismic continuity along grids 70, 72 & 74 at grid H and along grids H & F at grid 64. The following ties are recommended (see Figure 38):

• Grid 70 / H: Tie USP&FO truss along grid into OS W18x35 floor beam.

• Grid 72 / H: Tie USP&FO truss along grid into OS W18x35 floor beam.

• Grid 74 / H: Tie USP&FO truss along grid into new beam within OS roof along grid 74 from grid H to J and add rod bracing to develop loads back into the floor diaphragm.

• Grid H / 64: Tie USP&FO column to OS 18LH floor joist. Ensure load path from USP&FO is complete from rod bracing into OS floor diaphragm.

• Grid F / 64: Tie USP&FO bridging at column to new OS floor beam. Ensure load path from USP&FO is complete from rod bracing into OS floor diaphragm.

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 33

Figure 38: Adjacent Buildings USP&FO / OS Addition Proposed Tie Locations (Courtesy of Carkin Architects/PC 1988)

Adjacent Buildings OS Addition / URM Storage Building

The URM storage building is constructed right up to the west side of the OS addition, which causes a non-compliant issue due to pounding of the structures during a seismic event, see

Figure 7. The URM storage building should be tied into the OS floor diaphragm for seismic continuity near grids 60 & 62 at grid R. The storage building walls should be tied into the existing 32” girder trusses and develop the seismic loads into the floor diaphragm.

USP&FO and Owen Summers Shear Wall Overturning

Both USP&FO and OS rely on 4’-0” long reinforced cantilevered masonry shear walls as part of their seismic force resisting system, see Figure 8. The shear walls are non-compliant because they do not meet the aspect ratio requirements for overturning in a high seismicity area and have uplift concerns on the outside face of the building. The spread footings supporting the shear walls are inadequate to resist the overturning forces during a seismic event and should be doweled into and enlarged to provide overturning resistance.

Owen Summers Rod Bracing Missing at Portions of Steel Roof

Portions of the OS addition were designed similar to the USP&FO building and utilized rod bracing as the diaphragm to drag loads to the CMU shear walls. However, at several bays there is no rod bracing present to provide a complete load path, see Figures 9 & 10 for examples. This does not appear to be a construction error but rather an oversight in the original design, because the as-built construction documents do not indicate the bracing on the framing plans.

Bracing or a structural diaphragm would need to be added to complete the load path if the

CMU shear walls are to be used. Figure 39 has been included showing an example of the rod bracing at USP&FO.

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 34

Markups of the original roof framing drawings are included with the checklists for OS showing the locations where bracing is missing. See the markups in Appendix A for clarification.

Locations where the rod bracing is missing include the following:

• OS First Story:

o Grids D - B from grids 48 – 54.

o Grids F – D from grids 56-58 o Grids R - P from grids 68 – 74 o Grids 72 - 74 from grids R – L.

• OS Second Story:

o Grids P – N from grids 62 – 72 o Grids 70 – 72 from grids P – H o Grids H – F from grids 58 - 64

Figure 39: Rod Bracing Installed at USP&FO

Owen Summers Moment Frame Non-Compliance Items

The primary seismic force resisting system of the OS addition is a steel moment frame system

(S1). In the north-south direction the moment frames are comprised of fixed base HSS columns

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 35 and wide flange floor and roof beams. In the east-west direction the moment frames are comprised of the same fixed base HSS columns with roof and floor girder trusses that act as the frame beam. The moment frame system does not meet the criteria for a strong column weak beam frame; therefore, the system has numerous deficiencies when subjected to seismic loads.

See Figures 11 & 12 for details of the as-built moment frame connections.

Moment Frame Non-Compliance Items:

While performing the quick checks for a S1 building, the first non-compliance item noted is the lateral drift of the frames under seismic loading. The ASCE 41-17 uses factors based on the relative stiffness of the beams and columns to determine the drift ratio of the frame. A check of a typical frame in the north-south direction utilizing WF beams with known section properties resulted in a drift ratio of approximately 1.13 at the roof level and 2.0 at the floor level which are 38 and 67 times greater than the allowable ratio of 0.03 respectively. These calculations were performed assuming the column bases will behave as fixed as noted in the construction documents. However, the column base details will provide very little base fixity based on current standards and are more likely to behave as pinned shear connections. With pinned-base connections the drift of the frames would further exceed the allowable values.

The flexural strength of the moment frames is also non-compliant. The WF beams have adequate flexural capacity per the ASCE 41-17. However, the columns are undersized for the flexural load demands at both the life safety and collapse prevention seismic hazard levels.

The east-west moment frames supporting the second story roof along grids 66, 68 and 70 are non-compliant when checking for redundancy because they are only 1-bay moment frames.

This is due to the roof geometry causing monoslope trusses to be constructed on the east and west side of the frame. The lack of redundancy on these gridlines is a concern that is compounded by the drift and strength deficiencies.

There are areas where the moment frames are not adequately isolated from heavy partition walls. At the drill hall there are partial height masonry walls and concrete walls at the vault that interfere with the moment frames causing a non-compliance issue.

The moment resisting connections at the beam to column and girder truss to column do not provide adequate ductility for a seismic moment connection. The connection from a moment truss to column in the east-west direction was difficult to analyze because the plastic moment of the truss is unknown, so the design load listed on the drawings was used a pseudo plastic moment to check the columns which is likely an un-conservative assumption. The columns fail to develop the required forces at both the wide flange beam and girder truss to column connection. Failures include:

• Column cannot develop plastic moment capacity of the beam / truss.

• Column does not have sufficient strength to sustain stresses at the beam to column joint.

• Lower flanges of beams and trusses are not braced against lateral movement.

• Beams and trusses do not have flange continuity through the column.

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 36

Additional non-compliance items at the moment frames include non-conformance to the principles of strong column-weak beam frame design, and the columns do not meet the compactness requirements listed in the AISC 341.

Recommendations:

The non-compliance items related to the moment-frames at the Owen Summers addition are largely caused by the undersized HSS columns used in the frames and non-compliant beam to column detailing. Modifying the moment frames to achieve life safety or collapse prevention performance levels would be very challenging because the fixed-end truss moment frame is not a defined structural system within the ASCE 41-17. Additionally, attempting to strengthen the moment frames would require replacing most of the HSS columns with specially fabricated columns, and require significant shoring, steel fabrication and field welding costs.

Adding strategically placed steel braced frames or CMU or concrete shear walls to the building is the most efficient solution for retrofitting the structure to have acceptable drift performance.

Some portions of existing walls would need to be demolished in order to add braced frames or shear walls that are capable of resisting the applied seismic loads. In addition measures would need to be taken to strengthen the floor and roof diaphragms, add collector elements and add new continuous foundations under the lateral resisting elements to provide a complete load path for seismic loads. This approach allows the existing steel framing to remain in place to support gravity loads.

Future lateral systems could be designed to provide life safety or collapse prevention structural performance. Designing the system to the collapse prevention level would reduce the amount of construction, but also reduce the performance during a seismic event.

Non-Structural Items Recommendations

Life Safety Systems

The OS facility is typically sprinkled (see Figure 13) except at the IT room and kitchen where a chemical fire suppression system is utilized The systems are mostly unbraced, and the ceiling penetrations are not sized adequately to allow seismic movement. To resolve these non-compliance items the fire suppression piping needs to be anchored, braced, have flexible couplings, and have appropriate clearance at ceiling penetrations in accordance with the NFPA

13.

Hazardous Materials

USP&FO and the OS addition each have boiler rooms and equipment that uses natural gas. The equipment faces the following non-compliance issues:

Location Equipment Emergency

Shutoff

Pipe Bracing Flexible

Couplings

USP&FO Boiler Compliant Non-Compliant Non-Compliant

OS Boiler Non-Compliant Non-Compliant Non-Compliant

OS Gas Hot Water Heater Compliant Non-Compliant Compliant

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 37

All piping or ductwork containing natural gas needs bracing and flexible connections at the service point and equipment locations to meet the life safety standards. It is MCE’s understanding that new boilers are planned for the facility. The new equipment should be installed to meet the life safety requirements.

Partitions

Heavy partition walls in the OS addition constructed of CMU are unbraced at the top of the wall typically throughout the addition. Figure 17 shows the original construction documents called for top of wall bracing; however, no bracing was installed in the field. The top of all heavy partition walls should be braced to the diaphragm for out of plane loads.

Light Fixtures

Ceiling grids in both the USP&FO and OS addition are typically acoustic panel drop ceilings and the light fixtures are non-compliant because they are not independently braced from the ceiling grid, see Figure 18. To achieve a life safety performance level, the light fixtures should be braced independently for seismic loading.

Cladding and Glazing

The OS addition is a moment frame system, so the ASCE 41-17 requires that cladding be isolated from the structure with attachments detailed to accommodate drift of the building. As shown in Figures 1-5 much of the building exterior is cladded with metal siding. Cladding attachments were not observable in the field, and the as-builts do not indicate connections that accommodate drift; it is likely the connections are non-compliant. Converting OS to a braced frame or shear wall building as recommended in this report would resolve this non-compliance issue.

There are multiple additional compliance items regarding cladding attachments items that are unknown conditions including the following: threaded rod attachments, minimum panel connections, minimum bearing connection, and seismic rating of overhead glazing (skylights).

Masonry Veneer

Both USP&FO and the OS addition have brick masonry veneer anchored to metal stud backup walls along the exterior as shown in Figures 1-5. The USP&FO as-builts indicate masonry veneer ties at 16” OC, and OS indicates veneer ties per the specifications. The OS specifications were not available for this investigation. Assuming that the ties at OS matched USP&FO, the tie spacing would be compliant. It is unknown if the veneer is adequately anchored to the backup framing at weakened planes.

The exterior metal stud walls supporting the veneer do not have compliant top track anchorage for out of plane loads. USP&FO studs are braced at 8' OC based on field observations (Figure

19), the OS anchorage spacing is unclear, but from the field conditions they are braced at 4' OC

(Figure 20). The bottom track anchorage could not be seen. The top tracks of exterior metal stud walls should be braced adequately for the out of plane loads applied on the walls.

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 38

USP&FO and OS also have CMU buttress shear walls that are cladded with brick masonry veneer. The CMU buttress walls cantilever from the foundation, so the requirements for backup wall anchorage supporting veneer do not apply. The CMU exterior wall along the SW side of OS is not braced at the top to the structure and is non-compliant, see Figure 21. The unbraced exterior CMU walls should be braced to the structure at 4’ OC minimum for out of plane loads.

Stairs

OS has (3) staircases that are constructed with steel stringers and concrete treads. All of the staircases are non-compliant, because the connections are not capable of accommodating building drift, see Figure 22. To bring the stairs into compliance, new connections that can accommodate building drift should be installed. The stair connections will not be able to accommodate the drift requirements of the current moment frame lateral system at OS and should be addressed after or during the installation of new braced frames or shear walls.

Contents and Furnishings

Throughout the OS facility, including in the maintenance areas adjacent to the drill hall and the

URM storage building, there are storage racks that are not anchored to the floor, see Figure 23.

The racks should be anchored with post-installed anchors meeting the requirements in ASCE 7

Chapter 15.

In addition, fall prone contents on the storage racks that weigh more than 20 lbs and are above

4’ off the ground need to be restrained so that material does not fall onto people or into egress pathways during a seismic event.

There are storage racks throughout the facility that are non-compliant due to their height to width aspect ratios being less than 3:1 deeming them as tall narrow contents. These storage racks need to be anchored to the structure or to each other. Locations with non-compliant racks include:

• OS Room 222 – Printing Room

• OS Room 155 – Unit Storage

• OS Room 155 – Unit Storage area with mesh ceiling

• OS Room 156 – Vault

Mechanical and Electrical Equipment

MEP equipment observed included large mechanical units in the ceiling of the USP&FO building, multiple large rooftop units at OS, ground mounted equipment in both USP&FO and OS, and in-line ceiling units in OS.

There are (2) large mechanical units in the ceiling USP&FO accessed by a catwalk that is supported by the roof trusses, see Figures 24 & 25. The gravity load of the units appears to be accounted for in the original design, however the units are non-compliant because they are in the ceiling making them fall-prone and they are not laterally braced for seismic loads, or anchored to the structure. These units should be braced and anchored for seismic loads.

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page 39

In the USP&FO server room there are (2) split air-handler units and a 252 lb fire suppression tank that are not braced. These units will need to be braced to meet the life safety requirements.

In the OS addition in-line equipment was observed on the 2nd story in the open work space area that weighs more than 75 lbs and is not independently braced for seismic loads, see Figure 26.

Bracing for the unit should be added to meet the life safety standards.

On the first floor of OS there are (3) water heaters in mechanical room 229 that are not anchored, (3) transformers in the electrical room 227 that are not anchored, and a water heater on top of the concrete vault room 156 that is not anchored. These units are tall and narrow and need to be anchored to the concrete floor with post-installed anchors.

Water Intrusion

Throughout the OS facility signs of water intrusion were observed during the field investigation.

Figures 27-37 show various locations where water intrusion was observed either as rust on steel framing or efflorescence on masonry walls. At this time water intrusion is a non-structural concern, however, if left unmediated, deterioration of framing elements will become a structural concern. Waterproofing and flashing as required to address the water intrusion concern should be designed by a qualified water proofing professional.

Limitations

The information contained in this report is for the exclusive use of the Oregon Military

Department. Miller Consulting Engineers, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for any use of this report by other parties. This report relates solely to the stated purpose of this investigation; and no representations concerning other aspects (if any) of the circumstance, structure or site are included. The conclusions (if any) are based on the above stated visual observations, and no destructive testing or monitoring was performed. Specific construction details exceed the scope of this report. No guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied, is provided.

Owner-Directed Facility Seismic Evaluations - Owen Summers and USP&FO 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, Oregon

MCE Project No. 220937 Page A

Appendix A

BPOE Summary Data Sheet and Checksheets

Table of Contents - Appendix A:

Appendix C – Summary Data Sheet – USP&FO…………………………………………………………….A – 1

Appendix C – Summary Data Sheet – OS……………………………………………………………………..A – 2

Very Low Seismicity Checklist – USP&FO & OS…………………………………………………………….A - 4

Collapse Prevention Basic Configuration Checklist – USP&FO………………….....................A – 4

Collapse Prevention Basic Configuration Checklist – OS………………………………………………A - 6

Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for RM1 and RM2 – USP&FO..........................A – 8

Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for S3 – USP&FO………………………………………..A – 10

Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for RM1 and RM2 – OS.................................A – 12

Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for S3 – OS…………………………………………………A – 14

Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for S1 and S1a – OS……………………………………A – 20

Nonstructural Checklist - USP&FO & OS……………………………………………………………………A – 24

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA SHEET

BUILDING DATA

Building Name: Date:

Building Address:

Latitude: Longitude: By:

Year Built: Year(s) Remodeled: Original Design Code:

Area [ft2 (m2)]: Length [ft (m)]: Width [ft (m)]:

No. of Stories: Story Height: Total Height:

USE Industrial Office Warehouse Hospital Residential Educational Other: ____________

CONSTRUCTION DATA

Gravity Load Structural System:

Exterior Transverse Walls: Openings?

Exterior Longitudinal Walls: Openings?

Roof Materials/Framing:

Intermediate Floors/Framing:

Ground Floor:

Columns: Foundation:

General Condition of Structure:

Levels Below Grade?

Special Features and Comments:

LATERAL-FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEM

Longitudinal Transverse

System:

Vertical Elements:

Diaphragms:

Connections:

EVALUATION DATA

BSE-1N Spectral Response

Accelerations: SDS = SD1 =

Soil Factors: Class = Fa = Fv=

BSE-_____ Spectral Response Accelerations: SXS = SX1 =

Level of Seismicity: Performance Level:

Building Period: T =

Spectral Acceleration: Sa =

Modification Factor: CmC1C2 = Building Weight: W =

Pseudolateral Force:

V =

CmC1C2SaW =

BUILDING CLASSIFICATION:

REQUIRED TIER 1 CHECKLISTS Yes No Basic Configuration Checklist

Building Type Structural Checklist

Nonstructural Component Checklist

FURTHER EVALUATION REQUIREMENT: _______________________________________________________________

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structures 383

D ow nl oa de d fr om a sc el ib ra ry

.o rg b y

L an e Jo be o n

/0 2/

. C op yr ig ht

A

SC

E . F or p er so na l u se o nl y;

a ll ri gh ts r es er ve d.

Appendix A - 1 of 30

Evan Text Box

USP&FO

1776 Militia Way SE Salem, OR 44.9236645

Evan Text Box -123.0068336

Evan Text Box 11-10-2022

Evan Text Box Evan Altorfer

Evan Text Box

1983 OSSC - 1982 UBC

79 ft (E-W) 24 ft

Evan Text Box 15,000 sf

Evan Line

Evan Line

Evan Text Box Structural Steel Framing

Evan Text Box CFS Stud w/ Storefront Yes CFS Stud w/ Storefront Yes Steel roof trusses w/ metal deck roof

NA

Slab on grade Structural steel (primarily HSS) Fair Crawl space at server room

Evan Text Box Stem walls w/ cont ftg at exterior and spread ftgs at interior

Evan Text Box CMU Shear Wall CMU Shear Wall Rod Bracing

Evan Text Box 0.433

Evan Text Box D - Default

Evan Text Box Life Safety

Evan Text Box CMU Shear Wall CMU Shear Wall Rod Bracing

Evan Text Box 0.354

Evan Text Box 2E

Evan Text Box

RM1

Evan Text Box 462 k

Evan Text Box x x x

Evan Text Box

0.8 1.3

Evan Text Box

0.771 0.578

Evan Text Box High 0.556 0.77 1.8 641 k

Evan Text Box Unknown 192 ft (N-S) 18 ft

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA SHEET

BUILDING DATA

Building Name: Date:

Building Address:

Latitude: Longitude: By:

Year Built: Year(s) Remodeled: Original Design Code:

Area [ft2 (m2)]: Length [ft (m)]: Width [ft (m)]:

No. of Stories: Story Height: Total Height:

USE Industrial Office Warehouse Hospital Residential Educational Other: ____________

CONSTRUCTION DATA

Gravity Load Structural System:

Exterior Transverse Walls: Openings?

Exterior Longitudinal Walls: Openings?

Roof Materials/Framing:

Intermediate Floors/Framing:

Ground Floor:

Columns: Foundation:

General Condition of Structure:

Levels Below Grade?

Special Features and Comments:

LATERAL-FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEM

Longitudinal Transverse

System:

Vertical Elements:

Diaphragms:

Connections:

EVALUATION DATA

BSE-1N Spectral Response

Accelerations: SDS = SD1 =

Soil Factors: Class = Fa = Fv=

BSE-_____ Spectral Response Accelerations: SXS = SX1 =

Level of Seismicity: Performance Level:

Building Period: T =

Spectral Acceleration: Sa =

Modification Factor: CmC1C2 = Building Weight: W =

Pseudolateral Force:

V =

CmC1C2SaW =

BUILDING CLASSIFICATION:

REQUIRED TIER 1 CHECKLISTS Yes No Basic Configuration Checklist

Building Type Structural Checklist

Nonstructural Component Checklist

FURTHER EVALUATION REQUIREMENT: _______________________________________________________________

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Structures 383

D ow nl oa de d fr om a sc el ib ra ry

.o rg b y

L an e Jo be o n

/0 2/

. C op yr ig ht

A

SC

E . F or p er so na l u se o nl y;

a ll ri gh ts r es er ve d.

Appendix A - 2 of 30

Evan Text Box Owen Summers Building 1776 Militia Way SE Salem, OR 44.9236645

Evan Text Box -123.0068336

Evan Text Box 11-10-2022

Evan Text Box Evan Altorfer

Evan Text Box

1986 OSSC - 1985 UBC

210 ft (E-W) 33 ft

Evan Text Box 90,000 sf

Evan Line

Evan Line

Evan Text Box Drill Hall

Evan Line

Evan Line

Evan Text Box Structural Steel Framing

Evan Text Box CMU Partition / CFS Stud w/ Storefront Yes CFS Stud w/ Storefront Yes Steel roof trusses w/ metal deck roof Structural Steel with Slab on Metal Deck Floor Slab on grade Structural steel (primarily HSS) Fair

NA

Addition made onto USP&FO. Undocumented URM building on West side

Evan Text Box Stem walls w/ cont ftg at exterior and spread ftgs at interior

Evan Text Box Steel Moment Frame HSS Columns SOMD / Metal Deck Welded - Moment Connections

Evan Text Box Steel Moment Frame HSS Columns SOMD / Metal Deck Welded - Moment Connections

Evan Text Box D - Default

Evan Text Box

0.8 1.3

Evan Text Box

0.771 0.578

Evan Text Box Life Safety

Evan Text Box High 0.556 0.77 1.8

Evan Text Box 0.433

Evan Text Box 0.354

Evan Text Box 2045 k

Evan Text Box 2206 k

Evan Text Box 2E

Evan Text Box S1

Evan Text Box x x x

Evan Text Box Unknown 435 ft (N-S) 14 ft

CHAPTER 17

TIER 1 CHECKLISTS

17.1 BASIC CHECKLISTS

17.1.1 Very Low Seismicity Checklist. The Very Low Seis-

micity Checklist in Table 17-1 shall be completed for all building types in Very Low Seismicity being evaluated to the Collapse Prevention Performance Level only. Tier 1 screening shall include on-site investigation and condition assessment as required by Section 4.2.1.

Where applicable, each of the evaluation statements listed in this checklist shall be marked Compliant (C), Noncompliant (NC), Not Applicable (N/A), or Unknown (U) for a Tier 1 screen-ing. Items that are deemed acceptable to the design professional in accordance with the evaluation statement shall be categorized as Compliant, whereas items that are determined by the design professional to require further investigation shall be categorized as Noncompliant or Unknown. For evaluation statements classi-fied as Noncompliant or Unknown, the design professional is permitted to choose to conduct further investigation using the corresponding Tier 2 evaluation procedure listed next to each evaluation statement.

17.1.2 Basic Configuration Checklist. The Collapse Preven-

tion Basic Configuration Checklist in Table 17-2 shall be com-pleted for all building types, except buildings in Very Low Seismicity, being evaluated to the Collapse Prevention Perfor-mance Level.