B08_Attach_11_Langan_Geotechnical_Report.pdf

1 March 2018

Owen Rosenboom Senior Associate Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1650 Emeryville, California 94608

Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Alcatraz Prison Hospital San Francisco, California Langan Project No.: 731568704

Dear Mr. Rosenboom:

Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. (Langan) is pleased to present the results of our recent field exploration for the proposed strengthening of the Alcatraz Prison Hospital on Alcatraz Island in San Francisco, California (Figure 1). Alcatraz is managed by the National Park Service (NPS). The Hospital Wing is the northernmost wing of Alcatraz Prison. The southernmost wing is the Administration Wing and the central wing is the Main Cell House.

The three wings are structurally separate from one another. We understand seismic upgrades are planned for the Hospital Wing and the exterior envelope of the Cell House.

1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

The proposed improvements involve seismically strengthening the Hospital Wing, including adding new lateral resisting elements such as concrete shear walls and inspecting and replacing foundation elements. We previously performed a limited subsurface investigation of the Hospital Wing in February 2017. During the February investigation, we were unable to explore the north and west sides of the building due to access constraints associated with exterior construction on the building. In our recent exploration, the north and west sides of the building were available to explore. To provide site-specific subsurface information and evaluate the strength of the soil beneath the foundation, we performed dynamic penetrometer tests (DPTs) and made observations in two test pits on the exterior of the building. In addition to our site reconnaissance, we reviewed geotechnical reports that we previously prepared for seismic upgrades to the Main Cell House.

Our scope of services also included developing site-specific spectra in accordance with 2016 California Building Code (CBC) and by reference ASCE 7-10. As such we performed a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) and deterministic analysis to develop site-specific horizontal response spectra for the Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER).

Geotechnical Investigation Alcatraz Prison Hospital San Francisco, California Langan Project No.: 731568704

1 March 2018

The MCER is defined in the 2016 CBC and ASCE 7-10 as the lesser of the risk-targeted probabilistic spectrum having 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years in the direction of maximum response or the 84th percentile deterministic event on the governing fault in the direction of maximum response with appropriate deterministic check. We also developed site-specific response spectra for the Design Earthquake (DE), which is defined as 2/3 of the MCER.

We developed eleven pairs of scaled horizontal time series for the MCER. The time series were scaled in accordance with the criteria in Chapter 16 of ASCE 7-16.

2.0 SUBSURFACE AND EXPLORATION CONDITIONS

We performed seven DPTs and logged two test pits along the perimeter of the building to determine depth to bedrock and presence of fill. The locations of the DPTs and test pits are presented on our site plan, Figure 2. A DPT consists of driving a 1.4-inch-diameter cone-tipped probe into the ground with a hand-held 35-pound safety hammer falling approximately 15 inches. The blows required to drive the hammer are recorded at 10 centimeter intervals and converted to Standard Penetration Test, N-values to obtain bearing pressures. The DPTs were to be advanced until practical refusal was reached (defined as three consecutive 10 centimeter intervals of 30 blows or more or one 10 centimeter interval of 50 blows or more). The results from the DPTs are presented on Figure 3.

A total of 16 DPTs were performed in and around the Hospital Wing. Nine DPTs were performed during the February investigation, the locations of which are shown on Figure 3.

Seven DPTs (designated DPT-10 through DPT-16) were performed on the north and western side of the building at locations pre-approved by NPS. DPT-11 and DPT-13, were performed in Test Pits 1 and 2 (TP-1 and TP-2), respectively. Where the DPTs were not performed in test pits, they were performed at locations cored by Rainbow Waterproofing and Restoration Co.

through 2-inch diameter holes. The results of these seven DPTs are shown on Figure 4.

After our initial investigation in February, we concluded that bedrock was shallow (between 1 and 2 feet) below ground surface (bgs) on the eastern portion of the Hospital Wing, but we were unable to determine the depth to bedrock along the northern and western building perimeters. In order to verify depth to bedrock in these locations, two test pits were excavated;

the locations of DPT-11 and TP-1 were selected in an attempt to capture the fill/bedrock transition.

The test pits were excavated by Rainbow Waterproofing and Restoration, Co. to a maximum depth of 2.75ft bgs. TP-1 was excavated against the northern wall of the Hospital Wing and a retaining wall for the recreation yard. In this location, we hand-excavated loose material and encountered artificial fill with mixed debris to the north of the building wall, and sandstone bedrock in direct contact with the building footing. The bedrock is characterized as moderately hard and moderately strong to strong Franciscan Complex sandstone. In this pit we observed the building foundation resting on bedrock and artificial fill elsewhere in the pit.

San Francisco, California Langan Project No.: 731568704

1 March 2018

TP-2 was excavated along the exterior of the western wall at the southern end of the hospital wing. TP-2 exposed a thin layer (2 to 3 inches) of fill, with sandstone bedrock exposed throughout the test pit and in direct contact with the building footing. We observed the sandstone to be moderately hard, moderately strong to strong.

The logs for Test Pits 1 and 2 are presented on Figures 5 and 6, respectively.

3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In both test pits, we observed the building foundation supported on bedrock. Based on our observations in the pits and DPTs, and our previous investigation of the Hospital Wing and Cell House, we conclude that bedrock is shallow (between 1 and 2 feet bgs) across the Hospital Wing and that the building foundation is bearing on bedrock. Our investigation in February and historical photographs revealed that there could be a significant thickness of artificial fill against the western and northern slopes of the building, we are confident that the building foundation is not bearing on this material.

We believe the fill observed in TP-1 is associated with the concrete deck on the northern end of the building. The fill is retained by a retaining wall above the recreation yard. During our February investigation, artificial fill was observed in Utility Trench A, also associated with the deck to the north of the Hospital Wing. The blow counts collected in DPT-11 support our interpretation that the material encountered is fill. The DPT was terminated in either a block of debris in the artificial fill or bedrock protruding from the northern corner of the bedrock outcrop.

To provide uniform support, we recommend new foundations be designed to gain support in competent bedrock. Considering the subsurface conditions at the site, we evaluated several foundation systems that are capable of supporting the new seismic elements. Our evaluation included spread footings and rock anchors. Spread footings are considered the most economical method of support in areas where adequate bearing material is present within about five feet of the ground surface. To resist uplift forces we recommend micropiles be used.

3.1 Spread Footings

Our field investigation indicates the Hospital Wing is underlain by a thin layer of fill over bedrock throughout much of its footprint. Because there are no records concerning the placement and compaction of the fill, it is likely that the fill was not placed in accordance with modern engineering standards, and should not be relied upon for foundation support. Therefore, we recommend the new seismic elements be supported on footings designed to gain support in competent bedrock below the fill, where practical.

The footings should be at least 24 inches wide, should be bottomed a minimum of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grades, and should extend at least 12 inches into the bedrock. The footings may be designed for allowable bearing pressures of 10,000 pound per square foot (psf) for dead plus live loads and 13,300 psf for total loads, including wind and seismic forces.

San Francisco, California Langan Project No.: 731568704

1 March 2018

We recommend using a shear modulus, G, of 25,000 kips per square foot and Poisson’s ratio, ν, of 0.25 for footings to model the stiffness of footings bottomed in rock per section 8.4.2 of

ASCE 41-13.

Lateral loads may be resisted by a combination of passive pressure on the vertical faces of the footings and friction between the bottom of the footings and the supporting bedrock. To calculate passive resistance, we recommend using an allowable uniform pressure of 6,000 psf in rock. Frictional resistance should be computed using a base friction coefficient of 0.45. The passive and frictional resistance values include a factor of safety of at least 1.5. If additional resistance is required for stability, footings can be deepened to increase the passive resistance.

Footing excavations should be free of standing water, debris, and disturbed material prior to placing concrete. If disturbed, severely weathered, or decomposed bedrock is encountered at the bottom of the excavations, the excavations should be deepened to expose more competent bedrock, as determined by the geotechnical engineer. We should check excavations prior to placing reinforcing steel and concrete. Should excavations extend deeper than the design depth of the footing, the overexcavation can be backfilled with lean concrete.

3.2 Micropiles

We understand that new seismic elements could have net uplift loads under seismic conditions. If the weight of the footings is insufficient, seismic uplift loads can be resisted with micropiles (rock anchors). Micropiles consist of relatively small-diameter, drilled concrete or grout-filled shafts with a steel bar or tendons embedded in the concrete or grout. Allowable capacities of the micropiles will depend upon the drilling method, hole diameter, grout pressure, and workmanship. For estimating purposes, we recommend using an ultimate skin friction value of 5,000 psf in bedrock. The micropiles should have a minimum bond length of 10 feet and the fill should be ignored in determining the bond length. The required bond lengths should be confirmed by a proof test program conducted under the observation of an engineer from Langan. For stressing, the steel bar or tendon should have at least five feet of free length.

We recommend all micropiles be proof tested to at least 150 percent of the transient design load or 200 percent of the dead plus live load, whichever is greater.

We recommend 10 percent of the micropiles be performance tested to confirm they meet the required design capacities. The movement of each test micropile should be monitored with a free-standing, tripod-mounted dial gauge, accurate to 0.001 inch, during testing. The performance test is used to verify the capacity and the load-deformation behavior of the micropile. It is also used to separate and identify the causes of movement, and to check that the designed unbonded length has been established. In the performance test, the load is applied to the micropile in several cycles of incremental loading and unloading. We recommend deflection of the piles be measured in load increment of 25 percent of the design load to the maximum test load and be unloaded in increments of 50 percent of the test load. During the test, the micropile load and movement are measured. The maximum test load should be held for a minimum of 10 minutes, with readings taken at 0, 1, 3, 6, and 10 minutes. If the difference between the 1- and 10-minute reading is less than 0.04 inch during the loading, the

San Francisco, California Langan Project No.: 731568704

1 March 2018 test is discontinued. If the difference is more than 0.04 inch, the holding period is extended by 50 minutes to 60 minutes, and the movements should be recorded at 15, 20, 25, 30, 45, and 60 minutes.

We should evaluate the test results and determine whether the micropiles are acceptable. A performance-test micropile with a ten-minute hold is acceptable if the micropile carries the maximum test load with less than 0.04 inch movement between one and 10 minutes, and total movement at the maximum test load exceeds 80 percent of the theoretical elastic elongation of the unbonded length. A performance-tested micropile with a 60-minute hold is acceptable if it carries the maximum test load with less than 0.08 inch movement between six and 60 minutes, and total movement at the maximum test load exceeds 80 percent of the theoretical elastic elongation of the unbonded length. Micropiles that fail to meet the first criterion will be assigned a reduced capacity.

If the total movement of the micropile at the maximum test load does not exceed 80 percent of the theoretical elastic elongation of the unbonded length, the contractor should replace the micropile.

4.0 SITE SPECIFIC RESPONSE SPECTRA AND TIME SERIES

4.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis

Because the location, recurrence interval, and magnitude of future earthquakes are uncertain, we performed a PSHA, which systematically accounts for these uncertainties. The results of a PSHA define a uniform hazard for a site in terms of a probability that a particular level of shaking will be exceeded during the given life of the structure.

To perform a PSHA, information regarding the seismicity, location, and geometry of each source, along with empirical relationships that describe the rate of attenuation of strong ground motion with increasing distance from the source, are needed. The assumptions necessary to perform the PSHA are:

• the geology and seismic tectonic history of the region are sufficiently known, such that the rate of occurrence of earthquakes can be modeled by historic or geologic data;

• the level of ground motion at a particular site can be expressed by an attenuation relationship that is primarily dependent upon earthquake magnitude and distance from the source of the earthquake;

• the earthquake occurrence can be modeled as a Poisson process with a constant mean occurrence rate.

As part of the development of the MCER spectrum, we performed a PSHA to develop a site-specific response spectrum for a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. The spectrum was developed using the computer code EZFRISK 8.00 (Fugro 2015). The approach used in EZFRISK is based on the probabilistic seismic hazard model developed by Cornell (1968) and

San Francisco, California Langan Project No.: 731568704

1 March 2018

McGuire (1976). Our analysis modeled the faults in the Bay Area as linear sources, and earthquake activities were assigned to the faults based on historical and geologic data. The levels of shaking were estimated using Next Generation Attenuation West-2 relationships that are primarily dependent upon the magnitude of the earthquake and the distance from the site to the fault.

4.2 Probabilistic Model

In probabilistic models, the occurrence of earthquake epicenters on a given fault is assumed to be uniformly distributed along the fault. This model considers ground motions arising from the portion of the fault rupture closest to the site rather than from the epicenter. Fault rupture lengths were modeled using fault rupture length-magnitude relationships given by Wells and Coppersmith (1994).

The probability of exceedance, Pe(Z), at a given ground-motion, Z, at the site within a specified time period, T, is given as:

Pe(Z) = 1 - e-V(z)T where V(z) is the mean annual rate of exceedance of ground motion level Z. V(z) can be calculated using the total-probability theorem.

i

MRMi drdmmrfmfrmzZPzV iii

);()(],|[)( |ν where:

νi = the annual rate of earthquakes with magnitudes greater than a threshold Moi in source i

P [Z > z | m,r] = probability that an earthquake of magnitude m at distance r produces ground motion amplitude Z higher than z fMi(m) and fRi|Mi(r;m) = probability density functions for magnitude and distance

Z represents peak ground acceleration, or spectral acceleration values for a given frequency of vibration. The peak accelerations are assumed to be log-normally distributed about the mean with a standard error that is dependent upon the magnitude and attenuation relationship used.

San Francisco, California Langan Project No.: 731568704

1 March 2018

4.3 Source Modeling and Characterization

The major active faults in the area are the San Andreas, San Gregorio, Hayward, and Calaveras Faults. These and other faults of the region are shown on Figure 7. The segmentation of faults, mean characteristic magnitudes, and recurrence rates were modeled using the data presented in the WGCEP (2008) and Cao et al. (2003) reports. We also included the combination of fault segments and their associated magnitudes and recurrence rates as described in the WGCEP (2008) in our seismic hazard model. Table 1 presents the distance and direction from the site to the fault, mean characteristic magnitude, mean slip rate, and fault length for individual fault segments within 100 km from the site. We used the California fault database identified as “USGS 2014 Lower 48 v0.1” in EZFRISK 8.00. We understand EZFRISK obtained this database directly from USGS and models the faults with multiple segments. Each segment is characterized with multiple magnitudes, occurrence or slip rates and weights. This approach takes into account the epistemic uncertainty associated with the various seismic sources in our model.

San Francisco, California Langan Project No.: 731568704

1 March 2018

TABLE 1

Source Zone Parameters

Fault Segment

Approx.

Distance from fault (km)

Direction from Site

Mean Characteristic

Moment Magnitude

Mean Slip Rate

(mm/yr)

Fault Length

(km)

N. San Andreas; SAN+SAP 13.6 West 7.73 22 274

N. San Andreas; SAN+SAP+SAS 13.6 West 7.87 21 336

N. San Andreas; SAO+SAN+SAP 13.6 West 7.95 22 410

N. San Andreas; SAO+SAN+SAP+SAS 13.6 West 8.05 22 472

N. San Andreas; SAP 13.6 West 7.23 17 85

N. San Andreas; SAP+SAS 13.6 West 7.48 17 147

N. San Andreas; SAN 14 West 7.51 24 189

N. San Andreas; SAO+SAN 14 West 8.00 24 326

Hayward-Rodgers Creek; HN 15 East 6.60 9 35

Hayward-Rodgers Creek; HN+HS 15 East 7.00 9 87

Hayward-Rodgers Creek; RC+HN 15 East 7.19 9 97

Hayward-Rodgers Creek; RC+HN+HS 15 East 7.33 9 150

San Gregorio Connected 18 West 7.50 5.5 176

Hayward-Rodgers Creek; HS 18 East 6.78 9 52

Hayward-Rodgers Creek; RC 29 North 7.07 9 62

Mount Diablo Thrust 34 East 6.70 2 25

Calaveras; CN 36 East 6.87 6 45

Calaveras; CN+CC 36 East 7.00 11 104

Calaveras; CN+CC+CS 36 East 7.03 12 123

Green Valley Connected 38 East 6.80 4.7 56

Point Reyes 38 West 6.90 0.3 47

West Napa 41 Northeast 6.70 1 30

Monte Vista-Shannon 46 Southeast 6.50 0.4 45

Greenville Connected 52 East 7.00 2 50

Great Valley 5, Pittsburg Kirby Hills 55 East 6.70 1 32

Great Valley 4b, Gordon Valley 66 Northeast 6.80 1.3 28

Calaveras; CC 69 Southeast 6.39 15 59

Calaveras; CC+CS 69 Southeast 6.50 15 78

Hunting Creek-Berryessa 72 Northeast 7.10 6 60

Great Valley 7 80 East 6.90 1.5 45

N. San Andreas; SAS 81 Southeast 7.12 17 62

Maacama-Garberville 87 North 7.40 9 221

Great Valley 4a, Trout Creek 87 Northeast 6.60 1.3 19

Zayante-Vergeles 91 Southeast 7.00 0.1 58

San Francisco, California Langan Project No.: 731568704

1 March 2018

4.4 Attenuation Relationships

Based on the subsurface conditions, the site is classified as a rock profile, Site Class B. Using the subsurface information, we estimated the average shear wave velocity of the 100 feet (30 meters) below the foundations, VS30, of approximately 2,500 feet per second (760 meters per second).

Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) embarked on the update of the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) ground motion prediction equations, which were published in 2008. We used the updated NGA West-2 ground motion prediction equations; specifically, Abrahamson et al. (2014), Boore et al. (2014), Campbell and Bozorgnia (2014) and Chiou and Youngs (2014). These attenuation relationships include the average shear wave velocity in the upper 100 feet. Furthermore, these relationships were developed using the same database and each relationship is considered equally credible. Therefore, the average of the relationships was used to develop the recommended spectra.

The NGA relationships were developed for the orientation-independent geometric mean of the data. Geometric mean is defined as the square root of the product of the two recorded components.

4.5 PSHA Results

Figure 8 present the results of the PSHA for two percent probability of exceedance in 50 years.

The average of the four attenuation relationships is also shown on these figures. The results presented on these figures are for the geometric mean as discussed in Section 4.4.

ASCE 7-10 specifies the development of MCER site-specific response spectra in the maximum direction. Shahi and Baker (2014) provide scaling factors that modify the geometric mean spectra to provide spectral values for the maximum response (maximum direction). We used the scaling factors by Shahi and Baker (2014) to modify the average of the PSHA results for 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. Figure 8 also presents the average of the PSHA results in the maximum direction.

Figure 9 presents the deaggregation plots of the PSHA results for the two percent probability of exceedance in 50 years hazard level. From the examination of these results, it can be seen that the San Andreas fault dominates the hazard at the project site at different periods of interest.

4.6 Deterministic Analysis

We performed a deterministic analysis to develop the MCER spectrum at the site. In a deterministic analysis, a given magnitude earthquake occurring at a certain distance from the source is considered as input into an appropriate ground motion attenuation relationship. The governing earthquake scenario was defined as an earthquake on the San Andreas fault having a Moment Magnitude of about 8.0 occurring at a distance of about 13.6 km. This is consistent with the deaggregation results discussed in Section 4.5.

San Francisco, California Langan Project No.: 731568704

1 March 2018

The same attenuation relationships as discussed in Section 4.4 were used in our deterministic analysis. The 84th percentile deterministic results for the four attenuation relationships as well as the average of the four relationships are presented on Figure 10 for the San Andreas fault.

We also developed the 84th percentile deterministic spectrum in the maximum direction using the same scaling factors by Shahi and Baker (2014) as discussed in Section 4.5.

4.7 Recommended Spectra

The MCER as defined in ASCE 7-10 is the lesser of the maximum direction PSHA spectrum having a two percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (2,475-year return period) or the maximum direction 84th percentile deterministic spectrum of the governing earthquake scenario. Furthermore, the MCER spectrum is defined as Risk-Targeted response spectrum, which corresponds to a targeted collapse probability of one percent in 50 years. According to USGS website the risk coefficients for the PSHA spectrum for short and long periods are, 1.070 and 1.013, respectively. We used these risk coefficients to develop the Risk-Targeted PSHA response spectrum.

We followed the procedures outlined in Chapter 21 of ASCE 7-10 to develop the site-specific spectra for MCER. Chapter 21 of ASCE 7-10 requires the deterministic spectrum used to develop the MCER not fall below the Deterministic Lower Limit spectrum as shown on Figure 21.2-1 of ASCE 7-10. Furthermore we checked that the DE spectrum not fall below 80 percent of general design spectrum (Section 21.3 of Chapter 21 ASCE 7-10).

Figure 11 and Table 2 present a comparison of the site-specific spectra for the PSHA 2,475 year return period in the maximum direction, the 84th percentile deterministic in the maximum direction, and the Deterministic Lower Limit spectra for Site Class B per ASCE 7-10. For all periods the 84th percentile deterministic and Deterministic Lower Limit spectra are less than the PSHA 2,475 year-return period and therefore the larger of the 84th percentile deterministic and the Deterministic Lower Limit spectrum should be used to develop the MCER spectrum.

The recommended MCER spectrum is presented on Figure 11 and in Table 2.

San Francisco, California Langan Project No.: 731568704

1 March 2018

TABLE 2

Comparison of Site-specific and Code Spectra for Development of MCER Spectrum per ASCE 7-10

Sa (g) for 5 percent damping

Period (seconds)

Risk-Targeted

PSHA – 2,475

Year Return

Period – Maximum Direction

Deterministic 84th Percentile –

Maximum Direction

ASCE 7-10

Deterministic Lower Limit Site Class B

Recommended

MCER

0.01 0.926 0.628 0.600 0.628

0.10 2.108 1.304 1.350 1.350

0.12 2.146 1.337 1.500 1.500

0.20 2.258 1.434 1.500 1.500

0.30 1.918 1.251 1.500 1.500

0.40 1.648 1.096 1.500 1.500

0.50 1.451 0.974 1.200 1.200

0.60 1.263 0.850 1.000 1.000

0.75 1.067 0.720 0.811 0.811

1.00 0.783 0.566 0.600 0.600

1.50 0.517 0.391 0.414 0.414

2.00 0.385 0.300 0.300 0.300

3.00 0.256 0.211 0.200 0.211

4.00 0.194 0.168 0.150 0.168

Table 3 presents the development of recommended DE spectrum following the procedures outlined in Chapter 21 of ASCE 7-10. The DE is defined as 2/3 of the MCER per ASCE 7-10;

however, the recommended DE may not be below 80 percent of the general spectrum at any period (ASCE 7-10 Section 21.3). Figure 11 and Table 3 presents a comparison of 2/3 of the MCER spectrum and 80 percent of the general spectrum for Site Class B. As shown in Table 3 and Figure 11, 80 percent of the general spectrum is lower than 2/3 of the MCER spectrum for all periods. Therefore, we recommend that 2/3 of the MCER spectrum be used to develop the DE spectrum. The recommended DE spectrum is shown on Figure 11.

San Francisco, California Langan Project No.: 731568704

1 March 2018

TABLE 3

Comparison of Site-specific and Code Spectra for Development of DE Spectrum per ASCE 7-10

Sa (g) for 5 percent damping

Period (seconds)

Recommended MCER 2/3 times MCER

80% of General Design

Spectrum Recommended

DE

0.01 0.628 0.418 0.320 0.418

0.10 1.350 0.900 0.720 0.900

0.12 1.500 1.000 0.800 1.000

0.20 1.500 1.000 0.800 1.000

0.30 1.500 1.000 0.800 1.000

0.40 1.500 1.000 0.800 1.000

0.50 1.200 0.800 0.640 0.800

0.60 1.000 0.667 0.533 0.667

0.75 0.811 0.541 0.427 0.541

1.00 0.600 0.400 0.320 0.400

1.50 0.414 0.276 0.213 0.276

2.00 0.300 0.200 0.160 0.200

3.00 0.211 0.141 0.107 0.141

4.00 0.168 0.112 0.080 0.112

The recommended MCER and DE spectra are presented on Figure 12 along with a comparison of the ASCE 7-10 mapped based spectra. Digitized values of the recommended spectra are presented in Table 4.

San Francisco, California Langan Project No.: 731568704

1 March 2018

TABLE 4

Recommended MCER and DE Spectra Spectral Acceleration (g’s)

Period (seconds)

MCER

Damping Ratio 5%

DE

Damping Ratio 5%

0.01 0.628 0.418

0.10 1.350 0.900

0.12 1.500 1.000

0.20 1.500 1.000

0.30 1.500 1.000

0.40 1.500 1.000

0.50 1.200 0.800

0.60 1.000 0.667

0.75 0.811 0.541

1.00 0.600 0.400

1.50 0.414 0.276

2.00 0.300 0.200

3.00 0.211 0.141

4.00 0.168 0.112

Because site-specific procedure was used to determine the recommended MCER and DE response spectra, the corresponding values of SMS, SM1, SDS and SD1 per Section 21.4 of ASCE 7-10 should be used as shown in Table 5.

San Francisco, California Langan Project No.: 731568704

1 March 2018

TABLE 5

Design Spectral Acceleration Value

Parameter Spectral Acceleration

Value (g’s)

SMS 1.5

SM1 0.600

SDS 1.0

SD1 0.400

4.8 Scaled Time Series

The selection of recorded time series is an important step in developing the site-specific ground motions. The intent in this selection process is to choose time series that have a similar magnitude, and distance as that of the recommended MCER. We searched for records with the following attributes:

• Moment Magnitude greater than or equal to 6.5 to 8

• Rupture distance less 15 km

• VS30 less than 900 m/s

Chapter 16 of ASCE 7-16 requires the average of the maximum direction spectra (ROTD100) from eleven ground motions generally matches or exceeds the target response spectrum over the period range of interest; for this study we used 0.2T to 2.0T

We used the computer program QuakeManager version 1.10 (Earthquake Solutions 2016) to select the proposed time series. The algorithm used in QuakeManager calculates the sum of the squared error (SSE) between the target spectrum (MCER) and initially scaled ROTD100 for each pair of time series in the database. These scaling factors were based on the algorithm used in QuakeManager to reduce the SSE of the suite. The proposed time series were selected generally based on the least SSE; however, we also used our judgment to include time series from a larger earthquake that may not have had the lowest SSE. Table 6 presents the eleven time series used for scaling to MCER.

Figure 13 presents a comparison of the initially scaled ROTD100 spectra for the suite of time series along with average of the eleven spectra and the target MCER.

San Francisco, California Langan Project No.: 731568704

1 March 2018

TABLE 6

Time Series Used for Scaling1

NGA

Seq.

No. EQ Name

Fault Mech. Year

Station Name Mag.

Rrup (km)

Vs30 (m/sec) Comp.

PGA

(g)

PGV

(cm/ sec)

PGD

(cm)

Lowest Useable

Freq.

(Hz)

Tp Pulse Period2

(sec)

Duration D5-75%

Estimated Range 4 to 30 (sec)

Duration D5-95%

Estimated Range 6 to 49 (sec)

Arias Intensity

Estimated Range 0.4 to 3.0 (m/sec)

139 Tabas Reverse 1978 Dayhook 7.35 14 472 L T

0.32 0.41

22.3 27.1

15.2 7.4

0.25 6.7 6.6

11.3 11.0

1.4 1.4

143 Tabas Reverse 1978 Tabas 7.35 2 766 L T

0.85 0.86

98.9 123.4

37.5 93.6

0.125 6.2 8.3 7.8

16.5 16.4

11.8 11.8

Irpinia, Italy-01

Normal 1980 Sturno 6.90 11 382

0.23 0.32

37.0 71.9

13.1 29.3

0.125 3.3 7.0 6.1

15.0 15.2

1.2 1.4

Loma Prieta

Reverse -oblique

Saratoga – W. Valley College

6.93 8 348 0, 0.26, 0.33

42.1, 64.9

24.3, 37.9

0.125 4.6 4.1, 4.1

11.1, 10.7

1.1, 1.3

Chi-Chi, Reverse -oblique

TCU078 7.62 8 443

E N

0.45 0.31

40.2 31.6

30.3 7.5

0.1875 15.8 20.1

25.9 26.0

5.8 3.7

Chi-Chi, Reverse -oblique

TCU129 7.62 2 511

E N

1.00 0.62

62.8 52.9

60.9 29.6

0.0375 14.5 19.0

27.3 30.8

9.2 5.5

Manjil, Strike- Slip

1990 Abbar 7.37 13 724 L T

0.51 0.50

42.5 50.6

14.9 23.8

0.13 7.4 10.8

28.7 29.1

4.6 7.5

5663 Iwate Reverse 2009 IWTH24 6.90 5 486

EW

NS

0.44 0.52

27.6 37.5

13.5 20.1

0.0625 7.3 8.7

24.6 26.8

3.5 2.9

5818 Iwate Reverse 2009 Kurhara City 6.90 13 512

EW

NS

0.70 0.42

48.7 43.1

21.6 15.9

0.1 - 6.8 6.6

13.4 15.2

7.3 4.6

6893 Darfield Strike Slip

2010 DFHS 7 12 204

S17E S73W

0.47 0.51

40.0 29.8

18.5 19.1

0.1625 15.0 13.6

21.3 21.0

2.5 2.8

Duzce Turkey

Strike Slip

1999 IRIGM 498 7.14 4 425

EW

NS

0.35 0.40

25.2 24.2

17.5 17.6

0.1 9.2 9.8

13.8 12.3

1.2 2.2

1 These records and metadata were obtained from the NGA-West2 On-Line Ground-Motion Database Tool

2 From the NGA-West2 On-Line Ground-Motion Database Tool; (-) denotes none pulse record

San Francisco, California Langan Project No.: 731568704

1 March 2018

Chapter 16 ASCE 7-16 requires that the average of the ROTD100 from the eleven ground motions generally matches or exceeds the target response spectrum over the period range of interest.

The average of the maximum-direction spectra from all the ground motions shall not fall below 90 percent of the target response spectrum for any period within the period range of interest for this study based on discussions with Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., the period range of interest was 0.0 to 0.75 seconds. We modified the initial scalars developed by QuakeManager version 1.10 to meet this requirement. The scaling factors are presented in Table 7 for the MCER; because the DE spectrum is 2/3 of the MCER spectrum the scaling factors may be multiplied by 2/3 to obtain the appropriate DE scaling factors, if needed.

TABLE 7

Scaling Factors for MCER Time Series

Time Series Scaling Factor

Tabas, Dayhook 1.65

Tabas, Tabas 0.63

Irpinia, Sturno 1.48

Loma Prieta, Saratoga Aloha Ave 1.53

Chi-Chi Taiwan TCU078 1.21

Chi-Chi Taiwan TCU129 1.00

Manjil Abbar 0.55

Iwate, IWTH24 1.43

Iwate, Kurihara City 1.00

Darfield DFHS 1.47

Duzce 498 1.65

Figure 14 presents a comparison of the scaled ROTD100 spectra for the MCER as well as 90 percent of the recommended MCER, where the period range of scaling is from 0.0 to

0.75 seconds. Figures 15 through 25 present the acceleration, velocity, and displacement of the scaled orthogonal components of time series and comparison between the scaled spectra for each component, ROTD100 and the recommended spectra for the MCER (target) ground motion level.

San Francisco, California Langan Project No.: 731568704

1 March 2018

If you have any questions regarding our findings or conclusions, please contact us.

Sincerely, Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc.

Jane Elliott, PG #9571 John Gouchon, GE #2282 Senior Staff Geologist Principal

\\Langan.com\data\SF\data7\731568704\Office Data\Reports\Geotechnical\731568704.02_JFE_Alcatraz Prison Hospital Update.docx

Attachments: Figure 1: Site Location Map Figure 2: Site Plan Figure 3: Dynamic Penetrometer Test 1 through 9 Figure 4: Dynamic Penetrometer Test 10 through 16 Figure 5: Log of Test Pit TP-1 Figure 6: Log of Test Pit TP-2 Figure 7: Map of Major Faults and Earthquake Epicenters in the San Francisco Bay Area Figure 8: PSHA Results with Directivity – 2 Percent Probability of

Exceedance in 50 Years Figure 9: 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years – Magnitude Distance

Deaggregation Plots Figure 10: Results of 84th Percentile Deterministic Analysis for a

San Andreas Fault Event Figure 11: Comparison of Deterministic, Probabilistic and Code Spectra Figure 12: Recommended Spectra Figure 13: Comparison of Initially Scaled DROT100 and MCER

Figure 14: Comparison of Average Scaled ROTD100 and MCER

Figure 15: Comparison of MCER Response Spectra and Scaled Time Series and Spectra 1978 Tabas Earthquake – Dayhook

Figure 16: Comparison of MCER Response Spectra and Scaled Time Series and Spectra 1978 Tabas Earthquake – Tabas

San Francisco, California Langan Project No.: 731568704

1 March 2018

Figure 17: Comparison of MCER Response Spectra and Scaled Time Series and Spectra 1980 Irpinia Earthquake – Sturno

Figure 18: Comparison of MCER Response Spectra and Scaled Time Series and Spectra 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake – Saratoga – West Valley College

Figure 19: Comparison of MCER Response Spectra and Scaled Time Series and Spectra 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake – TCU078

Figure 20: Comparison of MCER Response Spectra and Scaled Time Series and Spectra 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake – TCU129

Figure 21: Comparison of MCER Response Spectra and Scaled Time Series and Spectra 1990 Manjil Earthquake – Abbar

Figure 22: Comparison of MCER Response Spectra and Scaled Time Series and Spectra 2009 Iwata Earthquake – IWT24

Figure 23: Comparison of MCER Response Spectra and Scaled Time Series and Spectra 2009 Iwata Earthquake – Kurihara City

Figure 24: Comparison of MCER Response Spectra and Scaled Time Series and Spectra 2010 Darfield Earthquake – DFHS

Figure 25: Comparison of MCER Response Spectra and Scaled Time Series and Spectra 1999 Duzce Earthquake – IRIGM498

NOTES:

World street basemap is provided through Langan’s Esri ArcGIS software licensing and ArcGIS online.

Credits: Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN. .

0 3,0001,500

Feet

ALCATRAZ PRISON HOSPITAL

San Francisco, California

Date 11/13/17

SITE LOCATION MAP

Project No. 731568704 Figure 1

SITE

A

DPT-4

DPT-5

DPT-3

DPT-2

DPT-1

DPT-6

DPT-8

DPT-7

DPT-9

C

B

DPT-14

DPT-15

DPT-16

DPT-10

DPT-12

TP-2

DPT-13

TP-1

DPT-11

Recreation yard retaining wall

Date Project No. Figure

SITE PLANSan Francisco, California

ALCATRAZ PRISON HOSPITAL

273156870411/13/17

Approximate scale

0 40 Feet

Reference: Base map from a drawing titled "Citadel Level Reference Plan," Sheet A1.2, by U. Gilmartin, dated 10/05/01.

EXPLANATION

Approximate location of dynamic penetration test by Langan, September 2017

Approximate location of dynamic penetration test by Langan, February 2017

Approximate location of test pit by Langan, September 2017

DPT-10

A

Approximate location of utility trench exposing subsurface conditions

DPT-1

TP-1

Project No. Figure407865137etaD 11/13/17

DYNAMIC PENETROMETER TEST

ALCATRAZ PRISON HOSPITAL

San Francisco, California

Notes:

1. Depth of zero feet on graph corresponds to depth below top of ground surface.

Legend

BLOWS PER 4 INCHES (10.0 centimeters)

D E

P

TH

B E

LO

W

T O

P O

F G

R O

U N

D S

U R

FA

C

E (f ee t)

DPT-1 TO DPT-9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

DPT-1

DPT-2

DPT-3

DPT-4

DPT-5

DPT-6

DPT-7

DPT-8

DPT-9

Project No. FigureDate 73156870411/13/17

DYNAMIC PENETROMETER TEST

Notes:

1. Depth of zero feet on graph corresponds to depth below top of ground surface.

2. DPTs 12 and 13 were only advanced less than 4 inches at 50 blows.

Legend

BLOWS PER 4 INCHES (10.0 centimeters)

D E

P

TH

B E

LO

W

T O

P O

F G

R O

U N

D S

U R

FA

C

E (f ee t)

DPT-10 TO DPT-16

DPT-10

DPT-12

DPT-13

DPT-14DPT-11

DPT-15

DPT-16

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

ALCATRAZ PRISON HOSPITAL

San Francisco, California

PA C I F I CPA C I F I C

O C E A N O C E A N

Alameda

Yolo

Contra Costa

Mendocino

Monterey

Napa

Placer

Sacramento

San Benito

San Joaquin

San Mateo

Santa Clara

Santa Cruz

Solano

Sonoma

Stanislaus

Sutter

Lake

Marin

Collayom i

G reat Valley 4a

O rtigalita

Quien Sabe

Monterey

Bay-Tularcitos

Mount Diablo Thrust

G reat Valley 3

G reat Valley

4b

W est N apa

G reat Valley 5

Great Valley 7

Monte Vista-Shannon

Maacam a-Garberville

Point Reyes

Greenville Connected

Hunting Creek-Berryessa

G reen Valley

Zayante-Vergeles

San Andreas

Rodgers Creek

San G regorio Connected

Total Calaveras

Hayward q

Date 11/13/17

MAP OF MAJOR FAULTS AND

EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS IN

THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA

Project No. 731568704 Figure 7

\\l an ga n.

co m

\d at a\ S

FO

\d at a7

\7

\A rc G

IS

\A rc M ap _D oc um en ts

\F au lt M ap .m xd U se r:

C yo un g

0 10 205

Miles

Earthquake Epicenter

Magnitude 5 to 5.9

Magnitude 6 to 6.9

Magnitude 7 to 7.4

Magnitude 7.5 to 8

Fault

County Boundary

Notes:

1. Quaternary fault data displayed are based on a generalized version of U.S Geological Survey (USGS) Quaternary Fault and fold database, 2010. For cartographic purposes only.

2. The Earthquake Epicenter (Magnitude) data is provided by the USGS and is current through 08/26/2014.

3. Basemap hillshade and County boundaries provided by USGS and California Department of Transportation.

4. Map displayed in California State Coordinate System, California (Teale) Albers, North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83), Meters.

SITE

San Francisco, California

Damping Ratio = 5%

Notes:

1. Estimated VS30 760 meters per second

2. Maximum direction factors from Shahi and Baker (2014)

Project No. 731568704 Figure 8

ALCATRAZ PRISON HOSPITAL

San Francisco, California

PSHA RESULTS WITH DIRECTIVITY - 2 PERCENT

PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE IN 50 YEARS

Date 11/13/17

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

SP

EC

TR

AL

A C

C

EL

ER

AT

IO

N

(g 's

PERIOD (seconds)

Abrahamson et al. (2014)

Boore et al. (2014)

Campbell and Bozorgnia (2014)

Chiou and Youngs (2014)

Average

Average - Maximum Direction

(a) PGA

(b) Sa, T = 1.0 seconds

(c) Sa, T = 4.0 seconds

Project No. 731568704 Figure 9

ALCATRAZ PRISON HOSPITAL

San Francisco, California

2% PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE IN 50 YEARS -

MAGNITUDE DISTANCE DEAGGREGATION PLOTS

Date 11/13/17

1. Estimated VS30 760 meters per second

2. Mw = 8.05, Dist. = 13.6 km from the San Andreas fault

3. Maximum direction factors from Shahi and Baker (2014)

Project No. 731568704 Figure 10

ALCATRAZ PRISON HOSPITAL

San Francisco, California

RESULTS OF 84th PERCENTILE DETERMINISTIC

ANALYSIS FOR A SAN ANDREAS FAULT EVENT

Date 11/13/17

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

SP

EC

TR

AL

A C

C

EL

ER

A

TI

O

N (g

's

PERIOD (seconds)

Abrahamson et al. (2014)

Boore et al. (2014)

Campbell and Bozorgnia (2014)

Chiou and Youngs (2014)

Average

Average - Maximum Direction

1. Estimated VS30 760 meters per second

2. Maximum direction factors from Shahi and Baker (2014)

Project No. 731568704 Figure11

ALCATRAZ PRISON HOSPITAL

San Francisco, California

COMPARISON OF DETERMINISTIC, PROBABILISTIC AND

CODE SPECTRA

Date 11/13/17

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

SP

EC

TR

AL

A C

C

EL

ER

A

TI

O

N (g

's

PERIOD (seconds)

Risk-Targeted PSHA - 2,475 year return period - Maximum Direction

84th Percentile Determinstic - Maximum Direction

ASCE 7-10 Deterministic Lower Limit, Site Class D

ASCE 7-16 - 80% MCER Site Class B

Recommended MCER

2/3 times MCER

ASCE 7-16- 80% General Design Site Class B

Recommended DE

1. Estimated VS30 760 meters per second

Project No. 731568704 Figure 12

ALCATRAZ PRISON HOSPITAL

San Francisco, California

RECOMMENDED SPECTRA

Date 11/13/17

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

SP

EC

TR

AL

A C

C

EL

ER

A

TI

O

N (g

's

PERIOD (seconds)

Recommended MCER

ASCE 7-16 - MCER Site Class B

Recommended DE

ASCE 7-16 - DE Site Class B

Note: Period range of interest is 0.0 seconds to 0.75 second

Project No. 731568704 Figure 13

ALCATRAZ PRISON HOSPITAL

San Francisco California

COMPARISON OF INITIALLY SCALED DROT100 AND

MCER

Date 11/13/17

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

SP

EC

TR

AL

A C

C

EL

ER

A

TI

O

N (g

's

PERIOD (seconds)

Tabas Dayook Tabas, Tabas Irpinia, Sturno Loma Prieta, Saratoga Aloha Ave Chi-Chi Taiwan TCU078 Chi-Chi Taiwan TCU129 Manjil Abbar Iwate, IWTH24 Iwate, Kurihara City Darfield DFHS Duzce 498

MCER

Average DROT100 Recommended MCER

Note: Period range of interest is 0.0 seconds to 0.75 second

Project No. 731568704 Figure 14

ALCATRAZ PRISON HOSPITAL

San Francisco California

COMPARISON OF AVERAGE SCALED ROTD100 AND

MCER

Date 11/13/17

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

SP

EC

TR

AL

A C

C

EL

ER

A

TI

O

N (g

's

PERIOD (seconds)

Tabas Dayook

Tabas, Tabas

Irpinia, Sturno

Loma Prieta, Saratoga Aloha Ave

Chi-Chi Taiwan TCU078

Chi-Chi Taiwan TCU129

Manjil Abbar

Iwate, IWTH24

Iwate, Kurihara City

Darfield DFHS

Duzce 498

Average Scaled

MCER

90 percent of Target

Date 11/13/17 Project No. 731568704 Figure 15

San Francisco, California

COMPARISON OF MCER RESPONSE SPECTRA

AND SCALED TIME SERIES AND SPECTRA 1978

TABAS EARTHQUAKE - DAYHOOK

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0

SP

EC

TR

A

L A

C C

EL

ER

A

TI

O N

(g 's

PERIOD (seconds)

5 percent damping

Target

ROTD100

L T

-0.60 -0.30 0.00 0.30 0.60

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0

AC

C

EL

ER

AT

IO

N

(g 's

Time (seconds) L T

-30.0 -15.0

0.0 15.0 30.0

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0VE

LO

C

IT

Y (c m /s

Time (seconds) L

T

-30.0 -15.0

0.0 15.0 30.0

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0

D

IS

PL

AC

M

EN

T (c m

Time (seconds) L T

Date 11/13/17 Project No. 731568704 Figure 16

San Francisco, California

COMPARISON OF MCER RESPONSE SPECTRA

AND SCALED TIME SERIES AND SPECTRA 1978

TABAS EARTHQUAKE - TABAS

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

SP

EC

TR

A

L A

C C

EL

ER

A

TI

O N

(g 's

PERIOD (seconds)

5 percent damping

Target

ROTD100

L T

-0.60 -0.30 0.00 0.30 0.60

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0

AC

C

EL

ER

AT

Time (seconds) L T

-60.0 -30.0

0.0 30.0 60.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0VE

LO

C

IT

Y (c m /s

Time (seconds) L

T

-60.0 -30.0

0.0 30.0 60.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0

D

IS

PL

AC

M

EN

T (c m

Date 11/13/17 Project No. 731568704 Figure 17

San Francisco, California

COMPARISON OF MCER RESPONSE SPECTRA

AND SCALED TIME SERIES AND SPECTRA 1980

IRPINIA EARTHQUAKE - STURNO

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

SP

EC

TR

A

L A

C C

EL

ER

A

TI

O N

(g 's

PERIOD (seconds)

5 percent damping

Target

ROTD100

-0.60 -0.30 0.00 0.30 0.60

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

AC

C

EL

ER

AT

Time (seconds) 0

-60.0 -30.0

0.0 30.0 60.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0VE

LO

C

IT

Y (c m /s

Time (seconds) 0

-60.0 -30.0

0.0 30.0 60.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

D

IS

PL

AC

M

EN

T (c m

Time (seconds) 0

Date 11/13/17 Project No. 731568704 Figure 18

San Francisco, California

COMPARISON OF MCER RESPONSE SPECTRA

AND SCALED TIME SERIES AND SPECTRA 1989

LOMA PRIETA EARTHQUAKE - SARATOGA -

WEST VALLEY COLLEGE

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

SP

EC

TR

A

L A

C C

EL

ER

A

TI

O N

(g 's

PERIOD (seconds)

5 percent damping

Target

ROTD100

-0.60 -0.30 0.00 0.30 0.60

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

AC

C

EL

ER

AT

Time (seconds) 0

-60.0 -30.0

0.0 30.0 60.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0VE

LO

C

IT

Y (c m /s

Time (seconds) 0

-60.0 -30.0

0.0 30.0 60.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

D

IS

PL

AC

M

EN

T (c m

Time (seconds) 0

Date 11/13/17 Project No. 731568704 Figure 19

San Francisco, California

COMPARISON OF MCER RESPONSE SPECTRA

AND SCALED TIME SERIES AND SPECTRA 1999

CHI-CHI EARTHQUAKE - TCU078

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

SP

EC

TR

A

L A

C C

EL

ER

A

TI

O N

(g 's

PERIOD (seconds)

5 percent damping

Target

ROTD100

E N

-0.60 -0.30 0.00 0.30 0.60

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0

AC

C

EL

ER

AT

Time (seconds) E

N

-50.0 -25.0

0.0 25.0 50.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0VE

LO

C

IT

Y (c m /s

Time (seconds) E

N

-40.0 -20.0

0.0 20.0 40.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0

D

IS

PL

AC

M

EN

T (c m

E N

Date 11/13/17 Project No. 731568704 Figure 20

San Francisco, California

COMPARISON OF MCER RESPONSE SPECTRA

AND SCALED TIME SERIES AND SPECTRA 1999

CHI-CHI EARTHQUAKE - TCU129

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

SP

EC

TR

A

L A

C C

EL

ER

A

TI

O N

(g 's

PERIOD (seconds)

5 percent damping

Target

ROTD100

E N

-1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0

AC

C

EL

ER

AT

Time (seconds) E

N

-60.0 -30.0

0.0 30.0 60.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0VE

LO

C

IT

Y (c m /s

Time (seconds) E

N

-60.0 -30.0

0.0 30.0 60.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0

D

IS

PL

AC

M

EN

T (c m

E N

Date 11/13/17 Project No. 731568704 Figure 21

San Francisco, California

COMPARISON OF MCER RESPONSE SPECTRA

AND SCALED TIME SERIES AND SPECTRA 1990

MANJIL EARTHQUAKE - ABBAR

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

SP

EC

TR

A

L A

C C

EL

ER

A

TI

O N

(g 's

PERIOD (seconds)

5 percent damping

Target

ROTD100

L T

-0.60 -0.30 0.00 0.30 0.60

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

AC

C

EL

ER

AT

Time (seconds) L T

-60.0 -30.0

0.0 30.0 60.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0VE

LO

C

IT

Y (c m /s

Time (seconds) L

T

-60.0 -30.0

0.0 30.0 60.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

D

IS

PL

AC

M

EN

T (c m

Date 11/13/17 Project No. 731568704 Figure 22

San Francisco, California

COMPARISON OF MCER RESPONSE SPECTRA

AND SCALED TIME SERIES AND SPECTRA 2009

IWATE EARTHQUAKE - IWT24

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

SP

EC

TR

A

L A

C C

EL

ER

A

TI

O N

(g 's

PERIOD (seconds)

5 percent damping

Target

ROTD100

EW

NS

-0.60 -0.30 0.00 0.30 0.60

0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0

AC

C

EL

ER

AT

Time (seconds) EW

NS

-60.0 -30.0

0.0 30.0 60.0

0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0VE

LO

C

IT

Y (c m /s

Time (seconds) E W

-30.0 -15.0

0.0 15.0 30.0

0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0

D

IS

PL

AC

M

EN

T (c m

Time (seconds) EW

NS

Date 11/13/17 Project No. 731568704 Figure 23

San Francisco, California

COMPARISON OF MCER RESPONSE SPECTRA

AND SCALED TIME SERIES AND SPECTRA 2009

IWATE EARTHQUAKE - KURIHARA CITY

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

SP

EC

TR

A

L A

C C

EL

ER

A

TI

O N

(g 's

PERIOD (seconds)

5 percent damping

Target

ROTD100

EW

NS

-0.60 -0.30 0.00 0.30 0.60

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0

AC

C

EL

ER

AT

Time (seconds) EW

NS

-50.0 -25.0

0.0 25.0 50.0

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0VE

LO

C

IT

Y (c m /s

Time (seconds) E W

-20.0 -10.0

0.0 10.0 20.0

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0

D

IS

PL

AC

M

EN

T (c m

Date 11/13/17 Project No. 731568704 Figure 24

San Francisco, California

COMPARISON OF MCER RESPONSE SPECTRA

AND SCALED TIME SERIES AND SPECTRA 2010

DARFIELD EARTHQUAKE - DFHS

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

SP

EC

TR

A

L A

C C

EL

ER

A

TI

O N

(g 's

PERIOD (seconds)

5 percent damping

Target

ROTD100

S17E S73W

-0.60 -0.30 0.00 0.30 0.60

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0

AC

C

EL

ER

AT

Time (seconds) S17E

S73W

-60.0 -30.0

0.0 30.0 60.0

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0VE

LO

C

IT

Y (c m /s

Time (seconds) S1 7E

-30.0 -15.0

0.0 15.0 30.0

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0

D

IS

PL

AC

M

EN

T (c m

Time (seconds) S17E

S73W

Date 11/13/17 Project No. 731568704 Figure 25

San Francisco, California

COMPARISON OF MCER RESPONSE SPECTRA

AND SCALED TIME SERIES AND SPECTRA 1999

DUZCE EARTHQUAKE - IRIGM 498

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

SP

EC

TR

A

L A

C C

EL

ER

A

TI

O N

(g 's

PERIOD (seconds)

5 percent damping

Target

ROTD100

EW

NS

-0.60 -0.30 0.00 0.30 0.60

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0

AC

C

EL

ER

AT

Time (seconds) EW

NS

-40.0 -20.0

0.0 20.0 40.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0VE

LO

C

IT

Y (c m /s

Time (seconds) E W

-30.0 -15.0

0.0 15.0 30.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0

D

IS

PL

AC

M

EN

T (c m