Attachment_F _Routine_Inspection_Report_Apr12.pdf

WFI-MCO-12-00101

MOTCO Pier 3 Routine Inspection Report

Facility Number: 00101

Military Ocean Terminal Concord, California

Author: Robert A. Weaver, P.E. (KCI Technologies, Inc.)

Inspection Dates: January 24, 2012 February 10, 2012 Report Date: April 2012

Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

Distribution authorized to U.S. Government Agencies only. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center (CEERD-GS-S), 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180.

ii

PREFACE

This report presents an assessment of the condition of Waterfront Facility Number 00101 (Pier 3) at Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO), California. This report satisfies requirements for Level I (above water) and Level I and II (underwater) inspection established in UFC 4-150-07 (Headquarters, Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force 2001).

The Army Waterfront Inspection Program is sponsored by the Army Transportation Infrastructure Program (ATIP) of the Headquarters Installation Management Command (IMCOM), San Antonio, TX. The IMCOM provided funding for this investigation.

Questions shall be directed to Ali A. Achmar, IMCOM ATIP Program Manager, ali.achmar@us.army.mil.

Contract personnel of KCI Technologies, Inc. (KCI), Marine Solutions, Inc. (MSI), and EnviroScience, Inc. (ESI) performed the inspection of above water and underwater elements. The findings and recommendations presented in this report are based on a routine inspection at MOTCO. The field inspection was performed from January 24 to February 10, 2012. The inspection team consisted of J. Ikaika Kincaid, P.E., Team Leader and Dive Supervisor, John M. Hudacek, P.E., Robert A. Weaver, P.E., Travis M.

Clower, P.E., Christopher J. Luciani, and Steven R. King of KCI, Mark A. Suchan of ESI, and Joseph Guthrie of MSI. Diving operations were overseen by Mr. Richard Benoit and Mr. Todd Manny from the USACE Portland District. Quality Control for this report was provided by Mr. Lance Andrews, P.E., of Pennoni Associates, Inc. The Project Manager for the KCI Technologies/Pennoni Associates Joint Venture was Mr. John M.

Hudacek, P.E.

Mr. Kevin L. Haskins, StEB-GSL was the Project Lead under the supervision of Mr. Terry R. Stanton, Chief, StEB-GSL; Mr. Bartley P. Durst, Chief, Geosciences and Structures Division; Dr. William P. Grogan, Deputy Director, GSL; and Dr. David W.

Pittman, Director, GSL.

COL Kevin J. Wilson was the Commander and Executive Director of the Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), and Dr. Jeffery P. Holland was the Director.

The installation POC is Mr. Malcolm Charles, Director DPW, (925) 246-4023, malcolm.charles@us.army.mil.

The numbering convention for reporting purposes is as shown on the drawings in Appendix C. All units of measure in this report are in US (English) units, unless otherwise noted.

iii

Table of Contents

PREFACE .......................................................................................................................... ii

FIGURES .......................................................................................................................... iv

TABLES ............................................................................................................................ iv

UNIT CONVERSION FACTORS .................................................................................. v

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................. ES-1

2. PROJECT LOCATION

3. PIER 3 DESCRIPTION

A. GENERAL

B. MAIN APPROACH & PLATFORM

C. CONCRETE APPROACH

D. WALKWAY

4. INSPECTION PROCEDURES

5. INSPECTION METRICS AND REPORTING

A. GENERAL

B. FACILITY OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY RATINGS

C. TYPICAL DAMAGE DESCRIPTIONS

D. REPAIR PRIORITY

E. TYPICAL REPAIR DESCRIPTIONS

6. INSPECTION SUMMARY

A. GENERAL

B. MAIN APPROACH & PLATFORM

B.1 Concrete Crane Rail Extension B.2 Fender System

C. CONCRETE APPROACH

D. WALKWAY

7. REPAIR COST SUMMARY

Appendices

APPENDIX A - PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX B - FACILITIES INVENTORY AND FUNCTIONALITY REPORT

APPENDIX C - DAMAGE DESCRIPTION DRAWINGS

APPENDIX D - REPAIR COST ESTIMATES

iv

Figures

Figure 2-1 Location Map Figure 2-2 Vicinity Plan Figure 3-1 Pier 3 Site Plan Figure 3-2 Main Approach & Platform Aerial View Figure 3-3 Main Approach Deck (Looking West East) Figure 3-4 Main Approach Timber Piles and Beam Support Figure 3-5 Main Platform (Looking East West) Figure 3-6 Typical Fender System and Concrete Crane Rail Extension Section Figure 3-7 Concrete Approach Aerial View Figure 3-8 Concrete Approach Deck (Looking South North) Figure 3-9 Typical Concrete Approach Bent Figure 3-10 Walkway Aerial View Figure 3-11 Walkway Deck (Looking North South) Figure 3-12 Typical Walkway Bent Figure 6-1 Aerial View of Main Approach & Platform Section Figure 6-2 Aerial View of Concrete Approach Section Figure 6-3 Aerial View of Walkway Section

Tables

Table 1-1 Summary of Condition Assessment and Recommended Actions ............... ES-2 Table 1-2 Summary of Critical Areas and Recommended Actions ............................. ES-4 Table 5-1 Routine Facility Condition Ratings (From ASCE 101) Table 6-1 2012 Inspection List for Pier 3 at MOTCO, California Table 6-2 Main Approach & Platform Summary of Overall Condition Rating and

Facility Operational Rating Table 6-3 Damage and Repair Summary for Main Approach & Platform Section Table 6-4 Concrete Crane Rail Extension Summary of Overall Condition Rating and

Facility Operational Rating Table 6-5 Fender System Summary of Overall Condition Rating and Facility

Operational Rating Table 6-6 Damage and Repair Summary for Fender System Table 6-7 Concrete Approach Summary of Overall Condition Rating and Facility

Operational Rating Table 6-8 Damage and Repair Summary for Concrete Approach Section Table 6-9 Walkway Summary of Overall Condition Rating and Facility Operational

Rating Table 6-10 Damage and Repair Summary for Walkway Section Table 7-1 Recommendations and Cost Estimate for Pier 3 v

ES-1

PIER 3 AT MOTCO

(MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL CONCORD, CA)

2012 ROUTINE INSPECTION

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

General Project Description

KCI Technologies and its subconsultants, EnviroScience, Inc. (ESI) and Marine Solutions, Inc. (MSI) performed a visual and tactile inspection of the above-water and underwater features of Pier 3 at MOTCO, located at Port Chicago, California from January 24 through February 10, 2012. Pier 3 is located along White Road, west of Pier

4. The summary condition assessment is presented below.

KCI, ESI, and MSI performed a full above-water visual / tactile Level I inspection on all structural elements, a Level I Inspection (visual / tactile inspection) on the submerged structural elements, and a Level II Inspection (detailed inspection with partial cleaning) on 10% of the submerged structural elements of this facility.

Underwater inspection was performed on piles and underwater portions of firewalls.

This included inspection of most of the timber piles under Pier 3 with the exception of 96 bents in which piles were above the waterline or in shallow water (less than 4' deep). The turbidity of the water prevented the divers from taking underwater photographs as the visibility was less than one foot.

The focus of this inspection was to assess and report the conditions of the structure and report damage and deterioration of the above-water and underwater portions of the structure. The 2001 Inspection Report was available and referenced during the inspection.

In accordance with UFC-4-150-07, damage locations and extents of damage were determined and CAD drawings were produced showing locations and extent of deterioration. These drawings are based on the drawings provided from the 2001 Inspection Report, since no professional survey was performed under the Scope of Work.

These drawings are included as part of the inspection documentation and are presented in Appendix C.

Pier 3 is separated into three individual sections (Main Approach & Platform, Concrete Approach, and Walkway) for simplicity of assessment and reporting. Detailed descriptions of each area are given in Section 3 of this Report. A summary of the Condition Rating, Recommended Action, Quantity and Estimated Cost for each repair for each section is shown in Tables 1-1 and 1-2.

Building A22 on the main platform was used for staging and storage of inspection equipment.

The two high profile container cranes located on the main platform were not inspected as part of this assignment.

ES-2 – REVISED 07-24-2012

Structure Condition and Recommendations

Table 1-1 below shows the Overall Condition Rating, Recommended Actions to remediate the problems, and an Estimated Cost for each section of Pier 3. These actions are intended to address the visible defects encountered during this visual inspection.

However, it is anticipated that internal deterioration/damage may be present within the timber piles of this pier. Therefore, in order to better determine the current condition and load-carrying capacity of the timber portions of this pier, in-depth structural investigations should be performed as a High Priority. These investigations may include Level III underwater inspections, non-destructive and/or destructive testing, and structural analyses.

Table 1-1. Summary of Condition Assessment and Recommended Actions

Structure ID Condition

Rating Recommended Action Quantity

Estimated

Cost

Main Approach &

Platform

(Bents 1-251)

(See Section 6.B)

Fair 4

1. Seal the cracks throughout the pavement.

2. Patch all potholes in pavement.

3. Replace the severely decayed portions of timber fascia along the south edge of the upper platform.

4. Repair or replace all missing and broken utility hanger supports, junction box covers, loose wires, and corroded hardware. Clean and repaint corroded areas of conduits and hardware.

5. Remove all urethane wrap repairs from the timber piles, inspect and repair with new fiberglass jackets or replace piles if necessary.

6. Repair (with fiberglass jackets) or replace all timber piles with significant splits, decay, or marine borer damage.

7. Repair the beams and pile caps that have overstressing cracks.

8. Install shims on the piles that are currently non-bearing with the pile cap.

TOTAL

600 LF

LS

189 EA

178 EA

50 LF

43 EA

$20,000

$6,000

$10,000

$15,000

$567,000

$534,000

$12,500

$8,600

$1,173,100

Concrete Crane Rail

Extension

(Bents 1C-9C, 1-97)

(See Section 6.B.1)

Good 6

1. See Main Approach & Platform

Recommendation #4 above.

2. Seal the transverse hairline cracks in the top of the crane rails with a penetrating concrete sealer.

N/A

$4,000

$4,000

ES-3 – REVISED 07-24-2012

Condition

Rating Recommended Action Quantity

Estimated

Cost

Fender System

(Bents 1C-9C, 1-97)

(See Section 6.B.2)

Satisfactory 5

1. Replace broken/missing fender system hardware.

2. Repair the spalled areas on the fender piles.

$8,000

$18,000

Concrete Approach

(Bents 1C-55C)

(See Section 6.C)

1. Seal the cracks throughout the pavement.

2. Patch all potholes in pavement.

3. See Main Approach & Platform recommendation #4 above.

4. Repair spalled and delaminated areas on the piles, pile caps, and curbs.

5. Install guardrail along the west side of the road leading up to the concrete approach.

6. Replace the timber sheeting and fill the eroded area at the southeast corner at the entrance to the concrete approach.

300 LF

120 LF

$5,000

$50,000

$12,000

$85,000

Walkway

(Bents 301-342)

(See Section 6.D)

1. See Main Approach & Platform recommendation #4 above.

2. Replace the rotten deck planks along the pedestrian walkway.

3. Remove all urethane wrap repairs from the timber piles, inspect and repair with new fiberglass jackets or replace piles if necessary.

4. Repair (with fiberglass jackets) or replace all timber piles with significant splits, decay, or marine borer damage.

400 SF

2 EA

32 EA

$6,000

$96,000

$110,000

TABLE 1-1 SUBTOTAL $1,390,100

ES-4 – REVISED 07-24-2012

Critical Findings: Table 1-2 below outlines the Critical Areas of each structure and provides Recommended Action to remediate the problems. The table also provides an

Estimated Cost for each structure ID.

Table 1-2. Summary of Critical Areas and Recommended Actions

Condition

Rating Recommended Action Quantity

Estimated

Cost

Main Platform

(Utilities & Building

A22 Walkway)

Critical 1

1. Replace the perimeter walkway around Building A22.

2. Replace the broken utility hangers from Bents 66 to 72.

3. Enclose or otherwise protect the exposed transformers in the electrical room.

1,035 SF

72 LF

$155,250

$7,200

$170,450

Fender System

(Bent 31.5)

1. Remove and replace the broken concrete fender pile and timber chock top at Bent 31.5.

Walkway

(Handrails, Curbs, and Building 102

Walkway)

1. Replace the rotten portions of the handrails and curbs along the pedestrian walkway.

2. Replace the perimeter walkway around Building 102.

900 LF

480 SF

$90,000

$72,000

$162,000

TABLE 1-2 SUBTOTAL $347,450

FACILITY TOTAL COST $1,737,550

Future Inspection

The next periodic inspection of Pier 3 at MOTCO should be performed in February 2016

(on 4 year cycle), in accordance with the requirements of UFC 4-150-7 for the appropriate type of infrastructure.

Life Expectancy

Although various structural repairs have been completed since original construction in

1944, the majority (approximately 80% to 90%) of the timber piles appear to be original, and there is widespread marine borer damage. The marine borer damage continues to worsen. If no remedial actions are taken, the remaining useful life of Pier 3 is estimated to be as little as five years before extensive rehabilitation/repairs, or replacement, will be required in order to continue missions. This estimate is based solely on a visual inspection of the accessible portions of the structural components. Some portions of the pier structure remain inaccessible for visual inspection, such as the piles with urethane wraps. A more precise estimate of the remaining useful life would require a more in-

ES-5 – REVISED 07-24-2012

depth structural inspection, which may include Level III underwater inspections, non-destructive and/or destructive testing, and structural analyses.

The current load restrictions do not significantly impair mission requirements; however, if no actions are taken, the continued deterioration will ultimately require additional load restrictions which will likely have an adverse impact on mission requirements.

The recommended actions presented in this report focus primarily on addressing the currently deficient conditions on the pier structure (those individual structural elements in poor condition or worse), and will not necessarily improve the overall load capacity of the pier; they will only serve to maintain the current load restrictions. Strengthening repairs are necessary to eliminate the current load restrictions. The determination of these repairs would require additional investigations and structural analyses; however, this determination and any related recommendations are above and beyond the scope of this visual inspection or this report.

Additional repairs (similar to those recommended in this report) will become necessary in the near future, as the deterioration advances in the unrepaired portions of the pier. This repair cycle will be required at regular intervals thereafter, until these repairs become unsustainable and significantly impair mission operations.

Regular cycles of identifying deterioration and performing piece-meal repairs, while the overall condition of the pier structure continues to deteriorate, can be avoided by replacing the pier structure in its entirety with a state-of-the-art facility (utilizing precast/prestressed concrete structures, cathodic protection, etc.), which can immediately provide for current and future mission requirements at a design life of 50 to 100 years or more.

2. PROJECT LOCATION

Figure 2-1 Location Map

Figure 2-2 Vicinity Plan

PIER 3

N

3. PIER 3 DESCRIPTION

A. GENERAL

See Table 6-1 for a list of inspected structures. Figure 3-1 shows the locations of the features inspected (see also Drawing No. A-0 in Appendix C). See Sections 3B through 3D for structure descriptions.

Figure 3-1 Pier 3 Site Plan

CONCRETE

APPROACH

MAIN

APPROACH

WALKWAY

MAIN PLATFORM

PIER 3

MOTCO Pier 3

Owner: Federal Government MOTCO

County: Contra Costa, California IMCOM Region: Central Structure Name: Pier 3 at MOTCO Structure Number: 00101 Location: Concord, California Latitude: 38° 03' 32.00"N

Longitude: 122° 00' 52.60"W Installation POC: Malcolm Charles, DPW Director Installation POC Phone Number: (925) 246-4023 Date of Previous Inspection: November 2001 Inspected By (Above Water): Team Leader: Robert A. Weaver, P.E.

Inspectors: Christopher J. Luciani and John M.

Hudacek, P.E.

Inspected By (Underwater): Team Leader: J. Ikaika Kincaid, P.E.

Inspectors: Travis M. Clower, P.E., Christopher J.

Luciani, Mark A. Suchan, Steven R. King, and Joseph Guthrie

Date of Inspection: January 24 February 10, 2012

B. MAIN APPROACH & PLATFORM

Figure 3-2 Main Approach & Platform Aerial View

Main Approach Section: The Main Approach & Platform of Pier 3 consists of the original timber structure which was built in 1944. The pier is constructed of timber deck planking above longitudinal timber beams (joists), supported by transverse timber beams at pile bents. The pile bents are numbered from 1-251, starting at the east end at the junction with the concrete approach section. The deck has timber curbing and hand railings surrounding the edge of the entire structure. There is also an asphalt wearing surface and several railroad tracks run the length of the pier. The pier has electrical power, a fire suppression system, water, sewer, and lighting. Building A22 is located office space, workshop, and restroom facilities.

In 1966, an elevated concrete extension section was added to the north end of the main platform. This section has concrete piles, concrete bent caps, and a concrete deck. In 1999, concrete crane rail supports were added to the north and south ends of the main platform. The inboard crane rail beam was integrated into the existing pierhead by removing a portion of the deck and timber piles, and the outboard crane rail beam was placed alongside the existing concrete addition. The fender system along the north face of the pier was replaced in 2002 with a concrete fender system, various timber repairs were completed in 2005, and new timber camels were installed in early 2011.

Construction Date: 1944/1966/1999 Reference Drawings: Appendix C: Drawings 3.1-1 through 3.1-5 (Underdeck) Drawings 3.1-9 through 3.1-13 (Deck)

N

MAIN PLATFORM

FENDER

SYSTEM

CONCRETE CRANE

RAIL EXTENSION

BUILDING A22

MAIN APPROACH

Figure 3-3 Main Approach Deck (Looking West East)

Figure 3-4 Main Approach Timber Piles and Beam Support

Figure 3-5 Main Platform (Looking East West)

Figure 3-6 Typical Fender System and Concrete Crane Rail Extension Section

C. CONCRETE APPROACH

Figure 3-7 Concrete Approach Aerial View

Concrete Approach Section: The Concrete Approach Section of Pier 3 was built in 1966 and consists of concrete piles and bent caps supporting concrete beams. A single railroad track runs the length of the approach. The bents are numbered from 1C to 55C, starting at the west end.

Construction Date: 1966 Reference Drawings: Appendix C: Drawings 3.1-6 and 3.1-7 (Underdeck) Drawings 3.1-14 and 3.1-15 (Deck)

CONCRETE APPROACH

Figure 3-8 Concrete Approach Deck (Looking South North)

Figure 3-9 Typical Concrete Approach Bent

D. WALKWAY

Figure 3-10 Walkway Aerial View

Walkway Section: The Walkway Section of Pier 3 is part of the original 1944 construction. The pier is constructed of timber plank decking above longitudinal timber beams (joists), supported by transverse timber beams at pile bents. The piles at the bents are 12 16 inch diameter timber piles with timber cross-bracing. The deck has timber curbing surrounding the edge of the entire structure with timber hand railings along both sides running north to south. The pile bents are numbered from 301-342, starting at the north end at the junction with the main platform. Building 102 is located on the east side of the Walkway from Bents 309 to 312.

Construction Date: 1944 Reference Drawings: Appendix C: Drawings 3.1-2 and 3.1-8 (Underdeck) Drawings 3.1-10 and 3.1-16 (Deck)

BUILDING 102

WALKWAY

Figure 3-11 Walkway Deck (Looking North South)

Figure 3-12 Typical Walkway Bent

4. INSPECTION PROCEDURES

A detailed visual Level I (no removal of marine growth or testing) above-water and underwater inspection was performed on all accessible portions of Pier 3, as required in the Scope of Work. Level II (removal of marine growth in three bands) underwater inspection was performed on 10% of the accessible portions of submerged elements of Pier 3.

Pier 3 was accessible from the land for inspection of the top deck and perimeter sides.

Access to inspect the pier underdeck, support piles, bracing systems, and firewalls was accomplished using small floating platforms. Inspection of the underwater portions of the piles, bracing systems, and fenders was conducted simultaneously with the above-water inspection.

The underwater diving conditions consisted of currents up to two knots, less than one foot of visibility, a tidal change of four feet, and water temperature of approximately 40° bay water. The mudline was not inspected hands-on due to the potential for disturbing possible unexploded ordnance

All accessible above-water areas of Pier 3 were visually inspected (Level I), by taking notes and recording the conditions of the structures, measuring locations of problem areas, relating the locations to pier plan measurements and taking photographs of significant damage areas.

The underwater inspection of Pier 3 was performed by a USACE compliant 6-person dive crew experienced in underwater inspection and included a registered Professional Engineer for direction and supervision. All inspection operations were conducted in accordance with USACE Safety Manual; EM 385-1-1. All exposed portions of the submerged structural elements were visually inspected. Where visibility was limited, tactile examinations were used to obtain structural data. The work included a Level I Inspection (no removal of marine growth or testing) on the entire submerged structure, combined with a Level II Inspection (removal of marine growth in three bands) on 10% of the structural elements. The underwater visibility during the inspection was less than one foot which prevented underwater photographic documentation of defects.

ASCE defines three levels of underwater inspection efforts. During the course of this project, the Level I inspection required by the Scope of Work was augmented by the use of Level II efforts to gather information not attainable with visual inspection only. In addition, this level of effort allowed for a more accurate development of the existing typical condition of the structure with which to conduct the remainder of the inspection.

Level I A close visual examination or a tactile examination above water and underwater; sometimes using large sweeping motions of the hands where visibility is limited underwater. This effort is detailed enough to detect obvious major damage or deterioration caused by overstress or other severe deterioration. It confirms the continuity of the deterioration within the discovered zones of all members and detects undermining or erosion along the mudline of the structural elements.

Level II A detailed inspection that requires marine growth to be removed from portions of the structure below water. Cleaning is time consuming, hence the need to base the inspection on a representative sampling of components. For piles, a 12-in. high band is cleaned near the low waterline, at the mudline, and midway between the low waterline and mudline. On retaining structures, a 1-ft. x 1-ft. area is cleaned at the same three elevations. This inspection is intended to detect and identify damaged and deteriorated areas that may be hidden by surface biofouling or built up corrosion product.

Level III A detailed inspection that involves nondestructive testing, conducted to detect the extent of corrosion by measuring the remaining steel thickness using ultrasonic testing. This level of inspection is limited to key structural areas required to determine a representative sampling of the remaining sheet pile thickness. For timber structures, this level of inspection may include extraction of material samples using an increment borer to examine the piles for internal damage or decay. It may also include measurement of remaining cross-section by use of ultrasonic testing.

Oversight and compliance of diving operations was provided by Mr. Richard Benoit and Mr. Todd Manny from the USACE Portland District.

5. INSPECTION METRICS AND REPORTING

The following inspection ratings are taken from ASCE 101 (Underwater Condition Assessment Ratings) and have been modified slightly to apply to overall structural conditions exhibited at MOTCO Pier 3.

Table 5-1

Routine Facility Condition Ratings (From ASCE 101)

Rating Description

Good

No visible damage or only minor damage noted.

Structural elements may show very minor deterioration, but no overstressing is observed.

No repairs are required.

Satisfactory

Limited minor to moderate defects or deterioration are observed, but no overstressing is observed.

No repairs are required.

Fair

All primary structural elements are sound, but minor to moderate defects or deteriorations are observed.

Localized areas of moderate to advance deterioration may be present but do not significantly reduce the load-bearing capacity of the structure.

Repairs are recommended, but the priority of the recommended repairs is low.

Poor

Advanced deterioration or overstressing is observed on widespread portions of the structure but does not significantly reduce the load-bearing capacity of primary structural components.

Repairs may need to be carried out with moderate urgency.

Serious

Advance deterioration, overstressing, or breakage may have significantly affected the load bearing capacity of primary structural components.

Local failures are possible and loadings restrictions may be necessary.

Repair may need to be carried out on a high-priority basis with urgency.

Critical

Very advance deterioration, overstressing, or breakage has resulted in localized failure(s) of primary structural components.

More widespread failures are possible or likely to occur, and load restrictions should be implemented as necessary.

Repairs may need to be carried out on a very high priority basis with strong urgency.

B. FACILITY OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY RATINGS

The Facility Operational Ratings are defined as:

C-1 Facility Operational: These facilities are in good condition, with no limitations on the original live load or berthing capacity. However, routine maintenance repairs may be required.

C-2 Facility Mostly Operational: These facilities typically have moderate deterioration or defects, but the load capacity is unaffected at present. Further deterioration may result in the downgrading of the load capacity in the future, if maintenance repairs are not performed. Facilities that have broken or missing fender systems are also rated as C-2, because vessel berthing is limited.

C-3 Facility Partially Operational: These facilities typically have areas or elements with severe deterioration that have caused load restrictions on the structure.

C-4 Facility Not Operational: These facilities typically have areas or elements with severe deterioration that has dramatically reduced its structural integrity or resulted in localized, partial or total collapse of the structure.

C. TYPICAL DAMAGE DESCRIPTIONS

The following damage descriptions are to be used in conjunction with the damage columns of the tables shown in Section 6 and Appendix B of this report.

BRK: Breakage - Broken member.

OSC: Overstressing Cracks Cracking as a result of crushing or overstressing of the member.

ABS: Abrasion Damage Damage due to repetitive rubbing or due to impact from vehicles, vessels, debris, or other objects.

SPL: Split Lengthwise separations along the grain and across the annual growth rings.

This includes major checks greater deep.

FUN: Fungal Decay (or Rot) Deterioration of timber due to decay-producing fungi, characterized by a softening and disintegration of the wood.

MBD: Marine Borer Damage Teredo (shipworm) infestation resulting in the hollowing of the member, leaving just the outer shell. Small holes and grooves along the surface of the member are evidence of marine borer infestation.

FDT: Fastener Deterioration Section loss on fasteners due to corrosion. Also includes broken fasteners, hardware, and other connections.

UND: Undermining Void due to missing fill, typically a result of erosion.

FD: Fire Damage Fire has reduced the cross-section and thus the capacity of a timber member.

LS: Loose Member is not connected or fully tightened. Elements may be unstable or not in full contact with each other.

PCR: Pattern Cracking Block, map or alligator cracking.

SNK: Sinkhole A cavity below the ground or other surface caused by loss of subgrade material, typically resulting in a depression in the surface.

CRK: Crack Any crack wider than hairline (1/16

LSC: Loose Connection Member is not fully connected. Also includes loose or detached utility connections.

STL: Settlement Depression in pavement or other surface or element, including differences in elevation between surfaces or elements.

PTH: Pothole An area where the bituminous/asphaltic pavement (wearing surface) is missing or broken up.

CCS: Closed Corrosion Spall Delaminated concrete with no exposed reinforcing steel.

OCS: Open Corrosion Spall Concrete spall with or without exposed reinforcing steel.

LCR: Longitudinal Crack Cracking in the longitudinal direction.

HCR: Horizontal Crack Cracking in the horizontal direction.

VCR: Vertical Crack Cracking in a vertical direction.

COR: Corrosion Rust on a steel member.

BL: Bearing Loss Condition where an element is not in full contact with its supporting element below, typically due to deterioration or a construction flaw.

Examples may include loss of bearing between pile and pile cap, or between pile cap and beam, usually expressed as a percentage of the surface area that is not in contact.

XL: Section Loss Loss of material (or loss of cross-sectional area) from a steel or timber member, due to deterioration or damage.

D. REPAIR PRIORITY

The following Repair Priority descriptions are to be used in conjunction with the Repair Priority columns of the tables shown in Section 6 and Appendix B of this report. Each description below will elaborate on the urgency of the repair listed in the tables.

M MONITOR:

The damage should be monitored during regularly scheduled future inspections and any repair requirements should be re-assessed then.

L LOW PRIORITY REPAIR:

The damage should be repaired, but the urgency of this repair is very low.

There will not be any continued deterioration or any further damage to the structure if this repair is not carried out.

H HIGH PRIORITY REPAIR:

The damage should be repaired in a timelier manner than the low priority repairs, as these damages will continue to deteriorate and may accelerate further damage to the structure until repaired.

There is no safety or structural capacity concerns for these damages.

U URGENT REPAIR:

The damage should be repaired immediately.

Monitoring of these locations until repairs can be completed is recommended.

There is either safety or structural capacity concerns for these damage locations.

R REPLACEMENT:

The damage is extensive and is structurally unsound for the intended use.

These structures should be replaced in their entirety before removing load restrictions.

E. TYPICAL REPAIR DESCRIPTIONS

The following repair descriptions are to be used in conjunction with the general findings and recommendation summaries and the repair column of the tables shown in Section 6 of this report.

Seal Pavement Cracks:

Seal cracks along the deck overlay with a spray-on bituminous sealer or a hot-applied asphaltic joint/crack sealant.

Seal Concrete Cracks:

Power-wash the exposed concrete wearing surface (top surface of crane rail girders). Seal the entire concrete surface with a roll-on or spray-on penetrating recommendations.

Repair Utilities:

Repair or replace all missing and broken utility hanger supports, junction boxes, loose wires, and clean and repaint all corroded areas of conduits and hardware.

Also includes enclosing the exposed transformers to meet current electrical codes.

This work shall be performed by licensed plumbers and electricians.

Remove Wraps:

Remove the existing urethane pile wraps, inspect the areas previously covered for damage and/or deterioration, and determine the appropriate structural pile repairs or replacement.

Repair Piles:

Water blast clean existing pile to remove rotted portions and any marine or biological growth from the pile. Install fiberglass jacket where required over the damaged area. Pump jacket with epoxy grout. Remove any formwork used after installation is complete.

Replace Piles:

Install temporary shoring as necessary. Remove and properly dispose of the deteriorated or damaged pile section. Replace the removed portion of the pile in-kind and splice to the existing pile at top and bottom. Remove temporary shoring.

Replace Pile Cap:

Install temporary shoring as necessary. Remove and properly dispose of the deteriorated or damaged pile cap or pile cap section. Replace the pile cap or the removed portion of the pile cap in-kind. Splice the new section of the pile cap to the existing pile cap. Shim the new section of pile cap so that it is in full contact with the piles and beams. Remove temporary shoring.

Repair Beams and Pile Caps:

Water blast clean existing beams or pile caps to remove rotted portions and any marine or biological growth. Install fiberglass jacket in the damaged area, making sure the jacket is flush. Pump or fill the jacket with flowable epoxy grout and remove any formwork used after installation is complete.

Shim Piles:

Install a treated timber shim in the gap between the pile and pile cap, on the piles that are currently non-bearing with the pile cap.

Replace Perimeter Walkway:

Replace the perimeter walkways, including handrails and supports, around Building A22 and Building 102, using new pressure-treated lumber, and in accordance with current California and USACE standards.

Repair Hardware:

Repair or replace the broken chains, anchorages, and hardware attached to the fender piles.

Replace Fender Pile:

Remove and properly dispose of the broken concrete fender pile. Replace the fender pile in-kind and repair the damaged chock top. Replace the camel chain and UHMW pad.

Repair Spalls:

Saw-cut a rectangular area ( concrete, remove and properly dispose of all damaged or deteriorated concrete until sound concrete is reached. Clean and apply an epoxy coating to any exposed reinforcing steel prior to patching the spall. Concrete spalls shall be repaired with cast-in-place concrete, pneumatically-applied mortar, non-shrink grout, or other cementitious material. Remove all formwork after spalls have been repaired.

Install Guardrail:

Install a guardrail system with proper end treatment along the west side of the roadway leading up to the Concrete Approach, in accordance with current California Department of Transportation standards. The guardrail shall be properly transitioned and tied into the existing railing on the Concrete Approach.

Repair Erosion Hole:

Replace the deteriorated timber sheeting in-kind and fill in the erosion hole at the southeast corner of the Concrete Approach with gravel, bituminous concrete, tamped fill, or other suitable material.

Replace Deck Planks:

Remove the rotten deck planks from the walkway and replace in-kind with new pressure-treated lumber.

Replace Handrails and Curbs:

Remove and replace the broken and decayed handrails and curbs along the walkway with new pressure-treated lumber, in accordance with current California and USACE standards.

Replace Fascia:

Remove the broken/decayed timber fascia members from the south edge of the upper platform, and replace with new pressure-treated timbers of same size.

Patch Potholes:

Saw-cut a square or rectangular perimeter to encompass the deteriorated and/or damaged area of deck overlay. Remove dirt, debris, and loose materials from the area to be repaired. Fill the saw-cut area with a bituminous concrete material (hot-mix asphalt or cold-patch material).

6. INSPECTION SUMMARY

This section contains inspection results, Structure Condition Rating and Repair Recommendations for Pier 3 at MOTCO described by feature. A Facilities Inventory and Functionality Report is presented in Appendix B, and Repair Cost Estimates for repairs are presented in Appendix D.

Table 6-1

2012 Inspection List for Pier 3 at MOTCO, California

Waterfront Facility

Title and Description

Property

Record

Number

Year Built/

Modified

Approx.

Length

(feet)

# of

Piles Material

Level I

Piles

Level II

Piles

6.B Main Approach

& Platform 00101

1944/1966/

3,002 4,577 Timber/ Concrete

4,577 458

6.B.1 Concrete Crane Rail Extension

00101 1999 1,340 645 Concrete 645 64

6.B.2 Fender System 00101 2002 1,340 178 Concrete 178 18

6.C Concrete Approach

00101 1966 1,254 280 Concrete 280 28

6.D Walkway 00101 1944 633 183 Timber 183 18

Each Damage and Repair Summary Table contains the following columns:

Drawing/Photo # - The number before the slash indicates the Drawing Number in Appendix C where the damages label can be found. The number after the slash represents the photo number within Appendix A.

Repair Priority - See Section 5-D for the explanation of this column.

Damage Description The description portion of this column may contain any of the narrative previously defined in Section 5-C, and where necessary, will be more descriptive.

Repair Description This will contain a brief description of the required repair for each can be found in Section 5-E.

Additional information is provided in the Facilities Inventory and Functionality Report in Appendix B and the Repair Cost Estimates in Appendix D.

B. MAIN APPROACH & PLATFORM

CONDITION RATING 4 (FAIR)

Figure 6-1 Aerial View of Main Approach & Platform Section

General Findings and Recommendations:

The Main Approach and Platform section of Pier 3 is in FAIR condition overall with localized areas of severe deterioration and widespread marine borer damage to the timber piles.

Per the 2001 Load Ratings, the 90 Ton Crane is not allowed on the main approach, the main platform, or the elevated deck portion of the main platform.

A summary of the GPS coordinates, Overall Condition Rating, and the Facility Operational Rating for Pier 3 Main Approach Section is presented in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2

Main Approach & Platform Summary of Overall Condition Rating and Facility Operational Rating

FACILITY

NAME

LOCATION

OVERALL CONDITION

RATING

FACILITY OPERATIONAL

RATING

Main Approach

& Platform

N 38º 03 31.39 4 Fair C-2

Facility Mostly Operational W 122º 00 58.35

MAIN PLATFORM

FENDER

SYSTEM

CONCRETE CRANE

RAIL EXTENSION

MAIN APPROACH

DECK

There is minor to moderate wear, rutting, and cracking in the asphalt pavement throughout the main platform and approach.

There is an area of noticeable settlement along the north half of the deck over Bent 205.

This appears to be the result of previous substructure deterioration and/or recent pile and pile cap replacements.

The timber fascia along the south edge of the upper platform has minor damage and fungal decay throughout.

The perimeter walkway around Building A22 is severely decayed and is currently closed to pedestrian traffic. The walkway should remain closed to pedestrian traffic until it is replaced.

In addition, Building A22 is in a general state of disrepair and there are exposed high-voltage transformers in the electrical room.

SUPERSTRUCTURE

The utilities along the underside of the pier have various defects, such as broken hangers, missing junction box covers, a broken ground wire, and severe corrosion on valves, connections, and hardware. There are broken utility hangers from Bents 66 to 72, and the utility conduit is severely sagging.

There are typically minor splits and checks in the timber beams and overstressing cracks or rotten areas in a few isolated members.

SUBSTRUCTURE

The timber piles contain numerous minor to moderate deficiencies, both above and below the mean low water line. A few piles contain major deficiencies such as significant loss of cross-sectional area and internal rot. The types of deficiencies most commonly found are: checks/splits, voids, delaminations, gouges, and marine borer damage.

A urethane wrap repair was placed on numerous piles in order to remediate the marine borer problem. However, these wraps are not effective as a structural repair, and only serve to shield the existing damage from further inspection. Many of the repaired piles still have evidence of damage below the bottom of the wraps, and several wraps are damaged or filled with water.

There are typically minor splits and checks in the timber piles, pile caps, and columns, with overstressing cracks in a few isolated members. There is minor corrosion of the hardware at random locations throughout.

Several piles are not in bearing (contact) with the pile cap.

The timber firewalls exhibit minor deterioration of their lower horizontal members located within the tidal zone. A few firewalls are missing one or two of the lowest members near mean low water. Most of the connection hardware securing the timber members to the piles is tight, however there is typically minor to moderate corrosion. A few bolts are loose, but continue to hold the timber members in place.

Table 6-3

Damage and Repair Summary for Main Approach & Platform Section

DRAWING/

PHOTO NO.

REPAIR

PRIORITY

DAMAGE DESCRIPTION

REPAIR

DESCRIPTION

3.1-9/1 M South ends of deck planks on upper platform are typically decayed

Monitor

3.1-9/2 L Settlement of longitudinal joint along center of ramp

Seal Cracks

3.1-1/3 H Corrosion on pipe valve Repair Utilities

3.1-1/4 H Fungal decay in end of beam Repair Beam

3.1-1/5 H Pile is 100% non-bearing Shim Piles

3.1-9/6 L in the deck wearing surface Seal Cracks

3.1-9/7 L Typical transverse crack in asphalt wearing surface

Seal Cracks

3.1-9/8 L Typical longitudinal crack in asphalt wearing surface

Seal Cracks

3.1-2/9 H Split in pile cap Repair Pile Cap

3.1-2/10 R Typical underside of Building A22 perimeter walkway

Replace perimeter walkway

3.1-10/11 R Building A22 perimeter walkway is in critical condition and has been closed

Replace perimeter walkway

3.1-2/12 H Pile has 50% bearing loss and the shim is loose Shim Piles

3.1-2/13 H Broken conduit and exposed wires Repair Utilities

3.1-2/14 H Fungal decay in pile Repair Piles

3.1-2/15 H Broken conduit and exposed wires Repair Utilities

DRAWING/

PHOTO NO.

REPAIR

PRIORITY

DAMAGE DESCRIPTION

REPAIR

DESCRIPTION

3.1-2/16 U Broken utility hangers Repair Utilities

3.1-2/17 H check in beam Repair Beam

3.1-2/18 H Overstressing cracks in longitudinal pile cap Repair Pile Cap

3.1-3/19 H Broken utility hanger Repair Utilities

3.1-11/20 L Cracked asphalt wearing surface on ramp Seal Cracks

3.1-3/21 H Typical pile wrap repairs Replace Wraps

3.1-3/22 H Marine borer damage Repair Piles

3.1-3/23 H Marine borer damage Repair Piles

3.1-11/24 L Cracked and broken asphalt wearing surface (pothole) around drain cover

Patch Pothole

3.1-3/25 H Marine borer damage Repair Piles

3.1-4/26 H Broken electrical conduit and exposed wires Repair Utilities

3.1-4/27 H Overstressing cracks in beam Repair Beam

3.1-5/28 H Marine borer damage Repair Piles

3.1-5/29 H Typical pile wrap repairs Replace Wraps

3.1-13/30 M Settlement in deck Monitor

3.1-5/31 H Marine borer damage Repair Piles

3.1-5/32 M Decay in south end of firewall Monitor

3.1-5/33 H Loose pile wrap repair and marine borer damage Replace Wraps

3.1-13/34 H Typical checks in light pole and exposed wires at top

Repair Utilities

DRAWING/

PHOTO NO.

REPAIR

PRIORITY

DAMAGE DESCRIPTION

REPAIR

DESCRIPTION

3.1-5/35 H Major check in pile Repair Piles

3.1-5/36 H Open junction box with exposed wires Repair Utilities

3.1-5/37 H Broken electrical conduit with exposed wires Repair Utilities

3.1-5/38 R Fungal decay in pile cap Replace Pile Cap

3.1-13/39 L Transverse crack in asphalt wearing surface with exposed deck planks

Seal Cracks

B.1 Concrete Crane Rail Extension

CONDITION RATING 6 (GOOD)

The Concrete Crane Rail Extension Section is in GOOD condition overall with a few minor spalls.

A summary of the GPS coordinates, Overall Condition Rating, and the Facility Operational Rating for the Concrete Crane Rail Extension Section is presented in Table 6-4.

Table 6-4

Concrete Crane Rail Extension Summary of Overall Condition Rating and Facility Operational Rating

FACILITY

NAME

LOCATION

OVERALL CONDITION

RATING

FACILITY OPERATIONAL

RATING

Concrete Crane Rail Extension

N 38º 03 31.56 6 Good C-1

Facility Operational

W 122º 00 48.34

There are areas of minor cracking in the concrete wearing surface and several small spalls along the outboard curb and around the utility enclosures.

There are several shallow spalls in the crane rail girders.

The pre-stressed concrete piles which support the inboard and outboard crane rail girders (and four light pole platforms) typically exhibit light honeycombing along their entire lengths.

B.2 Fender System

CONDITION RATING 5 (SATISFACTORY)

The Fender System is in SATISFACTORY condition overall with one broken pile and several piles with shallow spalls and cracking.

Operational Rating for the Fender System is presented in Table 6-5.

Table 6-5

Fender System Summary of Overall Condition Rating and Facility Operational Rating

FACILITY

NAME

LOCATION

OVERALL CONDITION

RATING

FACILITY OPERATIONAL

RATING

Fender System

5 Satisfactory C-2

Facility Mostly Operational

W 122º 00 48.30

There is a broken concrete fender pile along the outboard fender at Bent 31.5, including severe damage to the timber chock top.

There is minor spalling and cracking on several fender piles, and several areas of broken or missing hardware on the fender system.

Table 6-6

Damage and Repair Summary for Fender System

DRAWING &

PHOTO NO.

REPAIR

PRIORITY

DAMAGE DESCRIPTION

REPAIR

DESCRIPTION

3.1-1/40 U Broken chock top and fender pile Replace Fender Pile

3.1-1/41 R Broken fender pile Replace Fender Pile

3.1-3/42 H Broken fender pile chains Repair Chains

3.1-3/43 H Broken fender pile chains Repair Chains

C. CONCRETE APPROACH

Figure 6-2 Aerial View of Concrete Approach Section

The Concrete Approach Section of Pier 3 is in FAIR condition overall.

Per the 2001 Load Ratings, between Bents 1C and 4C, the 90 Ton crane with full load is allowed with the outriggers placed over the bents. Between Bents 5C and 55C, only the self-weight of the 90 Ton crane is allowed.

Operational Rating for the Concrete Approach is presented in Table 6-7.

Table 6-7

Concrete Approach Summary of Overall Condition Rating and Facility Operational Rating

FACILITY

NAME

LOCATION

OVERALL CONDITION

RATING

FACILITY OPERATIONAL

RATING

Concrete Approach

N 38º 03 25.21 4 Fair C-2

Operational W 122º 00 34.10

CONCRETE APPROACH

The concrete curb typically has cracks and spalls at the closure pours over the pile caps.

There is an unprotected embankment along the west side of the roadway leading up to the entrance onto the Concrete Approach. This is a rollover hazard for errant vehicles.

There is an eroded area at the southeast corner at the entrance to the Concrete Approach.

There are several spalls with exposed reinforcement and horizontal cracks in the vertical faces and bottom surface of the concrete pile caps.

The concrete piles on the concrete approach have isolated spalls and cracks.

The concrete abutment at the shore end has minor cracks extending from the curbs to the bearing seats along the east and west fascias. The cracks have been repaired and the repairs are in good condition.

Table 6-8

Damage and Repair Summary for Concrete Approach Section

DRAWING &

PHOTO NO.

REPAIR

PRIORITY

DAMAGE DESCRIPTION

REPAIR

DESCRIPTION

3.1-14/44 H Broken junction box with exposed wires Repair Utilities

3.1-6/45 H Broken conduit with exposed wires Repair Utilities

3.1-6/46 L Spall in crane rail girder anchorage bulkhead Repair Spalls

3.1-6/47 L Spall in pile cap Repair Spalls

3.1-14/48 L Typical delaminated concrete curb above pile caps

Repair Spalls

3.1-14/49 H Broken ground wire Repair Utilities

3.1-6/50 L Spall in pile cap with exposed reinforcing steel Repair Spalls

3.1-7/51 H Broken conduit with exposed wires at light pole Repair Utilities

3.1-15/52 L Pothole along north rail Patch Pothole

3.1-15/53 H Rotten timber sheeting and erosion hole at southeast corner

Replace Timber Sheeting and Fill Erosion Hole

3.1-15/54 H Lack of guardrail at southwest corner Install Guardrail

D. WALKWAY

Figure 6-3 Aerial View of Walkway Section

The Pier 3 Walkway is in FAIR condition overall.

Per the 2001 Load Ratings, no vehicles are allowed on the Walkway.

Operational Rating for the Walkway Section is presented in Table 6-9.

Table 6-9

Walkway Summary of Overall Condition Rating and Facility Operational Rating

FACILITY

NAME

LOCATION

OVERALL CONDITION

RATING

FACILITY OPERATIONAL

RATING

Walkway N 38º 03 7.92

4 Fair C-2

Operational W 122º 00 50.90

BUILDING 102

WALKWAY

The walkway has several areas with completely rotten timber handrails and curbs. There are several moderately decayed deck planks.

The perimeter walkway around Building 102 is severely decayed. The walkway should remain closed to pedestrian traffic until it is replaced. In addition, Building 102 is in a general state of disrepair.

The utilities along the underside of the pier have various defects, such as broken hangers, missing junction box covers, and loose wires.

There are typically minor splits and checks in the timber beams.

The timber piles contain numerous minor to moderate deficiencies, including checks/splits, voids, delaminations, gouges, and marine borer damage.

A urethane wrap repair was placed on several piles in order to remediate the marine borer problem. However, these wraps are not effective as a structural repair, and only serve to shield the existing damage from further inspection.

There are typically minor splits and checks in the timber piles and pile caps, and there is minor corrosion of the hardware at random locations throughout.

Table 6-10

Damage and Repair Summary for Walkway Section

DRAWING &

PHOTO NO.

REPAIR

PRIORITY

DAMAGE DESCRIPTION

REPAIR

DESCRIPTION