Attachment_G _Special_Inspection_Report_Mar13.pdf

WFI-MCO-SIR-00101

MOTCO Pier 3 Special Inspection Report Facility Number: 00101 Military Ocean Terminal Concord, California Author: KCI Technologies, Inc.

Inspection Dates: September 7-19, 2012 Report Date: March 2013

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.

PREFACE

This report presents a special inspection and analysis of the condition of Waterfront Facility Number 00101 (Pier 3) at Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO), California. This report is in accordance with MIL-STD-3007, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, “Standard Practice for Unified Facilities Criteria and Unified Facilities Guide Specifications,” December 2006.

The Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC) provided the funding for this investigation. Please direct all questions to Philip Krueger, P.E., Senior Engineer, Ports for National Defense Program, SDDC Transportation Engineering Agency/Joint Distribution Process Analysis Center, Philip.J.Krueger.civ@mail.mil.

Contract personnel of the KCI Technologies/Pennoni Associates Joint Venture, including subconsultants Marine Solutions, Inc. (MSI) and EnviroScience, Inc. (ESI), performed the inspection and sampling of underwater elements. Wood Advisory Services, Inc.

(WAS) provided laboratory testing services. The findings and recommendations presented in this report are based on a Special Level III underwater inspection at MOTCO and subsequent laboratory testing. The field inspection was performed September 7-19, 2012. The inspection team consisted of J. Ikaika Kincaid, P.E., Dive Supervisor, Robert A. Heyman, P.E., Team Leader, and Kelvin Jordan, Diver, of KCI Technologies; Divers Michael J. Scorpa, Charles J. Ahrens, and Joseph Challburg, E.I.T.

of Pennoni Associates; and Divers Mark A. Suchan of ESI and Brad Caroland of MSI.

Diving operations were overseen by 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. of KCI Technologies.

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.

ii mailto:Philip.J.Krueger.civ@mail.mil mailto:malcolm.charles@us.army.mil

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

4. INSPECTION PROCEDURES

5. INSPECTION METRICS AND REPORTING

A. GENERAL

B. FACILITY OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY RATINGS

C. TYPICAL DAMAGE DESCRIPTIONS

D. REPAIR PRIORITY

6. INSPECTION SUMMARY

A. GENERAL

B. MAIN APPROACH & PLATFORM PILES

C. TIMBER EVALUATION SUMMARY

D. RESERVE CAPACITY ANALYSIS

E. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7. REPAIR COST SUMMARY

Appendices

APPENDIX A – PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX B – LEVEL III INSPECTION LOCATIONS AND DETAILED

DEFECT DESCRIPTIONS

APPENDIX C – DRAWINGS: TYPICAL PIER SECTIONS WITH FIELD

MEASUREMENTS AND LEVEL III INSPECTION LOCATIONS

APPENDIX D – LABORATORY REPORT: EVALUATION OF TIMBER

PILINGS

APPENDIX E – RESERVE CAPACITY ANALYSIS AND LOAD RATING

APPENDIX F – REPAIR COST ESTIMATES

iii

Figures

Figure 2-1 Location Map Figure 2-2 Vicinity Plan Figure 3-1 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 Supports Figure 3-5 Main Platform (Looking East – West) Figure 3-6 Main Platform Timber Piles and Beam Supports (Looking West – East) Figure 4-1 Removal of 2" Diameter Core Sample Figure 4-2 Removal of 0.2" Diameter Core Sample Figure 6-1 Aerial View of Main Approach & Platform Section

Tables

Table 1-1 Summary of Condition Assessment and Recommended Actions .................. ES-3 Table 1-2 Summary of Critical Areas and Recommended Actions ............................... ES-5 Table 1-3 Summary of Structural Repairs and Recommended Actions......................... ES-6 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 Timber Piles – Summary of Overall Condition

Rating and Facility Operational Rating Table 6-3 Reserve Capacity Results Table 6-4 Load Rating Results Table 6-5 Damage and Repair Summary for Main Approach & Platform Piles Table 7-1 Recommendations and Cost Estimate for Pier 3 iv

Unit Conversion Factors

Multiply By To Obtain

Acres 4,046.873 square meters acre-feet 1,233.5 cubic meters cubic feet 0.02831685 cubic meters cubic feet per second (cfs) 0.02831685 cubic meters per second cubic inches 1.6387064 E-05 cubic meters cubic yards 0.7645549 cubic meters

Feet 0.3048 meters gallons (U.S. liquid) 3.785412 E-03 cubic meters

Hectares 1.0 E+04 square meters

Inches 0.0254 meters miles (U.S. statute) 1,609.347 meters miles per hour 0.44704 meters per second

Mils 0.0254 millimeters square feet 0.09290304 square meters square inches 6.4516 E-04 square meters square miles 2.589998 E+06 square meters square yards 0.8361274 square meters

Yards 0.9144 meters v

PIER 3 AT MOTCO

(MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL CONCORD, CA)

2012 SPECIAL INSPECTION

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

General Project Description The KCI Technologies/Pennoni Associates Joint Venture and its subconsultants, EnviroScience, Inc. (ESI) and Marine Solutions, Inc. (MSI) performed a special inspection of the timber piles along the Main Approach and Platform of Pier 3 at MOTCO, located at Port Chicago, California from September 7 to 19, 2012. Pier 3 is located along White Road, west of Pier 4. The summary condition assessment is presented below.

The special inspection consisted of a Level III (above-water and underwater) inspection of 173 timber piles along the Main Approach and Platform areas. These samples are considered to be representative of the entire population of timber piles at Pier 3. Samples taken from these timber piles included 223 - 0.20″ diameter increment cores and 54 - 2″ diameter increment cores. The samples were extracted in equal quantities from three zones: underwater, splash zone, or above-water, and each pile was inspected visually (Level I & II). Twenty-four of the inspected piles had an existing urethane wrap repair, which was removed as part of the inspection. In addition, four 6'± long full-section pile samples were removed from the adjacent Facility 00128 (Pier 2, which is currently out of service) for mechanical testing in order to provide additional baseline information on the representative timber properties for analysis of Pier 3. Sample locations and detailed field findings are included in Appendix B.

The turbidity of the water prevented the divers from taking underwater photographs as the visibility was less than one foot. Above water inspection photographs are included in Appendix A.

All 54 of the 2″ diameter increment cores, 95 of the 0.20″ diameter increment cores, and all four cut pile sections were sent to Wood Advisory Services, Inc. (WAS) in Millbrook, NY for laboratory analysis. The evaluation by WAS included species identification, creosote retention analyses, marine borer evaluations, microbiological analyses, and mechanical testing. WAS confirmed the piles to be Douglas-fir. The evaluation found heavy to very heavy marine borer damage on nearly 50% of the 2″ core samples tested, along with some areas of minor rot and isolated areas of moderate to heavy rot. The evaluation also found that creosote levels are inadequate to protect against marine borer attack and therefore the piles are considered to be unprotected. The mechanical testing conducted on the four 6′± long pile samples from Pier 2 showed that the values for compression (parallel to grain) were below the mean published, small clear, strength values for Douglas-fir. The values for modulus of rupture (MOR, or bending strength) ranged from 100% to 80% of the mean published design values for Douglas-fir. The values for modulus of elasticity (MOE) were all above the published mean for Douglas-fir. Strength reduction factors based on the mechanical testing results were applied to the timber piles in the structural analysis performed on the Main Approach and Platform (see

ES-1

ES-2

Appendix E). The timber elements above the piles (pile caps, beams, and deck) were not tested by WAS, since no “hidden” defects were suspected (such as marine borer damage or internal rot). However, WAS recommends a 10% reduction in strength for those elements, based on the standard in the timber industry that a 10% reduction in strength can occur in treated materials. The full report by WAS, “Evaluation of Timber Pilings” is included as Appendix D.

According to SDDCTEA, the typical concept of operation (CONOP) at MOTCO involves the use of specialized trailers, or bombcarts, configured to transport two 20-foot ammunition containers from the holding pads to the pier. This operational flow is considered the most efficient method of container delivery to the ship resulting in the accepted maximum daily throughput capability of 275 containers per day (based on analysis conducted by SDDCTEA). Thus, it is important to determine whether Pier 3, in its current condition, is structurally capable of supporting the live loadings induced by these bombcarts. The live load analysis was based on a configuration consisting of a 23,000 lb container on the front and a 40,000 lb container on the rear. Additional analysis is required to determine the capability (or inability) of Pier 3 to support the loadings from a bombcart loaded with TEU’s exceeding those as analyzed in this report.

The structural analysis revealed that different elements throughout the structure controlled the maximum allowable load. The maximum load on the Main Approach (351 psf) is controlled by the Intermediate Stringers; the maximum load on the 12' Spans of the Main Platform (488 psf) is controlled by the Intermediate Stringers; the maximum load on the 6' Spans of the Main Platform (529 psf) is controlled by the Pile Caps; and the maximum load on the Upper Platform (599 psf) is controlled by the Intermediate Stringers.

In addition to determining the recommended safe working structural capacity of the Main Approach and Platform in psf, a live load structural analysis was performed to determine the current operational load capacity for the vehicles currently in use on Pier 3. The vehicles analyzed included the HS-20 truck, a 124 Ton Locomotive (SW1200), a TJ5000 tractor/bombcart with a 23,000 lb container on the front and a 40,000 lb container on the rear, and an unloaded Terex TFC 45 Super Stacker. Based on the analysis, we recommend the following vehicle restrictions:

All subject vehicles should be prohibited from the timber portion of the

Upper Platform.

The SW1200 Locomotive and TFC 45 Super Stacker should be prohibited from all timber areas of the Pier.

The HS-20 and the TJ5000/bombcart (loaded no more than indicated above) should only be allowed on the timber portions of the pier if the wheels are aligned over the railroad tracks.

A drawing showing the recommended load restrictions is included in Appendix C (Drawing No. 3.1-8), and all calculations are in Appendix E. The Facility Operational Rating in Table 6-2 is based on these recommendations.

CAD drawings were produced showing the inspection locations, field measurements, and allowable maximum loading areas for the pier. These drawings are based on the drawings provided from the 2012 Routine Inspection Report (WFI-MCO-12-00101), 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.

Structure Condition and Recommendations A summary of the Condition Rating, Recommended Action, Quantity, and Estimated Cost is shown in Table 1-1. Although the timber piles along the walkway section were not examined as part of this investigation, it can be assumed that similar deterioration exists within these piles. Therefore, if the Walkway is to remain in service, it is recommended to repair these piles concurrently with the piles along the Main Approach and Platform. Additional recommended repairs to areas of Pier 3 outside of the scope of this investigation are included in Table 1-1. These additional repair recommendations are based on information provided in the 2012 Routine Inspection Report (WFI-MCO-12- 00101).

The overall condition rating and the priority of recommended repairs may not coincide to match the definitions in Table 5-1. The Routine Facility Condition Rating guidelines are based solely on the current condition of the structure; however, the pile repair recommendations and the high priority of the repairs in Table 1-1 are based on the potential for serious marine borer damage in the near future. It is recommended to remediate the piles and all superstructure elements found to have high priority defects within the next 2 years (prior to September, 2014), notwithstanding any requirement to complete any environmental or other regulatory assessment/evaluation.

The recommended wrap repairs consist of wrapping the piles with marine piling tape (with a mastic primer underneath) and installing full-height high-density polyethylene (HDPE) jackets attached with stainless steel bolts. This repair will effectively seal the timber from air and water, preventing further infiltration of rot and/or marine borers. In contrast, the existing pile wraps consist of a single, loosely-wrapped urethane blanket.

They are not full-height and are not sealed against air and water; therefore, marine borers are still able to attack the timber below the waterline and underneath the wrap material.

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. Install a high-density polyethylene

(HDPE) jacket/wrap system on all timber piles. Remove all existing urethane wrap repairs prior to installing new jackets.

2. Seal the cracks throughout the pavement.

3. Patch all potholes in pavement.

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

3,883 EA

600 LF

LS

$7,766,000

$20,000

$6,000 $10,000

ES-3

Rating Recommended Action Quantity Estimated

Cost

5. 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.

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

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

TOTAL

50 LF

43 EA

$15,000

$12,500

$8,600

$7,838,100

Concrete Crane Rail Extension

(Bents 1C-9C, 1-97) Good 6

1. See Main Approach & Platform

Recommendation #5 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

Fender System (Bents 1C-9C, 1-97) Satisfactory 5

1. Replace broken/missing fender system hardware.

2. Repair the spalls on the fender piles.

$8,000

$18,000

Concrete Approach (Bents 1C-55C) Fair 4

1. Seal the cracks throughout the pavement.

2. Patch all potholes in pavement.

3. See Main Approach & Platform recommendation #5 above.

4. Repair the spalls 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) Fair 4

1. Install a high-density polyethylene

(HDPE) jacket/wrap system on all timber piles. Remove all existing urethane wrap repairs prior to installing new jackets.

2. See Main Approach & Platform recommendation #5 above.

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

183 EA

400 SF

$366,000

$374,000

TABLE 1-1 SUBTOTAL $8,319,100

ES-4

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. The repair recommendations in Table 1-2 are based on information provided in the 2012 Routine Inspection Report (WFI-MCO-12-00101).

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

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) Critical 1

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

Walkway (Handrails, Curbs, and Building 102

Walkway)

Critical 1

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 $8,666,550

ES-5

Structural Repairs Table 1-3 below outlines the structural repairs necessary to allow all of the subject vehicles in the analysis across the Main Approach and lower portion of the Main Platform of Pier 3. The repairs in Tables 1-1 and 1-2 are intended to preserve the current condition and capacity of Pier 3 for approximately 10-15 years. Although the structural repairs in Table 1-3 may last for more than 15 years, the overall life expectancy of the pier is based on the condition and recommended repairs to the piles. The recommended actions below are based on the analysis results only, and no design calculations were performed. Therefore, these repair recommendations and associated costs are merely conceptual in nature, to provide a general idea of the types of strengthening repairs and the relative costs that might be needed to upgrade the pier’s capacity to permit all subject vehicles to traverse the timber portions of the pier without restriction. A detailed design would be necessary to give a more accurate estimate of the actual repairs and costs necessary to upgrade the pier to accommodate all of the subject vehicles.

If it is only desired to use the HS-20 trucks and the bombcart vehicles (as analyzed herein) along the pier, but under the recommended restrictions (vehicles aligned over railroad tracks), then the actions listed in Table 1-3 would not be needed.

However, the actions in Tables 1-1 and 1-2 should still be implemented.

Table 1-3. Summary of Structural Repairs and Recommended Actions

Structure ID Recommended Action Quantity Estimated Cost

Main Approach & Platform

(Bents 1-251) (See Section 6.B)

1. Provide additional timber stringers in all spans (includes removal and resetting of deck and replacement of wearing surface).

2. Install steel channels to strengthen all pile caps.

3. Install structural steel jackets* or replace the timber piles with higher capacity piles in the 29’ wide section of the Main Approach.

53,000 LF

25,000 LF

750 EA

$15,900,000

$15,000,000

$3,750,000

$34,650,000

*In addition to the necessary strength required, the steel jacketing system would need to properly seal the piles in order to provide protection against marine borer attacks and fungal decay.

Future Inspection The next periodic inspection of Pier 3 at MOTCO should be performed in February 2016 (on 48 month cycle), in accordance with the requirements of UFC 4-150-7 for the appropriate type of infrastructure. However, based on the current pile conditions, it is recommended that an underwater inspection be performed every 24 months, until pile repairs are completed. Therefore, the next underwater inspection of Pier 3 at MOTCO should be performed in September 2014 (if pile repairs have not been completed). All underwater portions of the piles should receive a Level I (visual) inspection, and at least 10% of the piles should receive a Level II inspection.

ES-6

Life Expectancy The main controlling element for life expectancy of Pier 3 is the vulnerability of the original timber piles installed in 1944 to marine borer attack and wood decay. The timber piles in their current condition do not have sufficient protection against marine borer attack. The creosote retention levels found in the timber pile samples taken in the dry, splash zone, and underwater zones were 3.97 pcf, 4.58 pcf, and 6.71 pcf, respectively. In accordance with the Timber Pile Design and Construction Manual authored by the Timber Piling Council American Wood Preservers Institute, the current creosote preservative assay retention requirement for new structures in marine environments near San Francisco is 20 pcf. The original creosote levels at Pier 3 cannot be confirmed;

however, it appears that the standard for creosote protection was 16 pcf at the time of construction in 1944. The general industry accepted creosote level to deter marine borer attack is 9 pcf. Further analysis of the 2″ diameter core samples verified the decreased creosote levels at Pier 3, whereby nearly 50% of the samples showed evidence of heavy to very heavy marine borer attack (with 51% or greater section loss in the sample cross-section). The primary marine borer is Limnoria tripunctata, which is an aggressive creosote tolerant marine borer, commonly known as a “gribble”. This specific marine borer tunnels into the surface of the wood, eating away at the internal (untreated) wood, thus creating large voids inside the pile. These surface holes, as well as splits and checks, provide access for water to penetrate the untreated areas of the wood, increasing the moisture content, and allowing for additional marine borer attack. The rate of marine borer attack is dependent on temperature, salinity, and oxygen, and even a slight change in these values brought on by drought or an increase in water temperature can increase the attack rate. It is unknown exactly when the creosote level of the Pier 3 piles dropped below 9 pcf, making them more susceptible to marine borer attack. Therefore, it is difficult to determine an accurate future rate of decline of the creosote levels, and likewise, to predict the future rate of the increase in marine borer attacks.

The report by WAS also stated that 30% of the samples showed signs of wood decay and rot, whereby moderate to heavy regions of decay could contribute to strength loss greater than 25% and as high as 75%. This is another indication that the creosote levels are no longer sufficient to protect the piles.

Pier 3’s current, degraded condition indicates that it is beyond the need for routine annual maintenance and more significant repairs are required. The recommended repairs in Tables 1-1 & 1-2 should maintain the current capacity and extend the life of the pier for at least 10 to 15 years. Although the structural repairs in Table 1-3 may last for more than 15 years, the overall life expectancy of the pier is based on the condition and recommended repairs to the piles. Should these repairs not be completed, the condition of the piles will continue to deteriorate at an accelerated rate. If no remedial actions are taken, it is estimated to be approximately five years before extensive rehabilitation/repairs, or replacement, will be required in order to continue missions.

Depending on the chosen jacket/wrap system, there are several factors which dictate longevity. All jacket material types have an inherent rate of deterioration due to atmospheric and environmental factors at the site. Depending on the exposure and level of severity of those factors, the rate of deterioration of the jacket material can either increase or decrease. Another important factor in longevity of the jacket is quality

ES-7

control of the work during installation of the jackets. Current industry standards relating to life-spans of jacket/wrap systems is proportional to the cost of each system.

Additional Facilities at MOTCO There are several additional waterfront facilities located at MOTCO. These include Facility 00126 (Barge Pier), Facility 00128 (Pier 2) and Facility 00104 (Pier 4). These facilities were all built at approximately the same time and with similar methods and materials to Pier 3. In addition, the facilities are in the same marine environment.

Therefore, it can be inferred that a similar level of marine borer attack and timber pile deterioration is occurring concurrently at all of these facilities. Any plans to remediate these additional facilities should take the findings of this report into account, particularly regarding the timber piles.

ES-8

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 Section 3B for structure descriptions.

Figure 3-1 Site Plan

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' 31.39"N Longitude: 122° 00' 58.35"W Installation POC: Malcolm Charles, DPW Director Installation POC Phone Number: (925) 246-4023 Date of Previous Inspection: April 2012 (Level I and II) Inspected By: Team Leader: Robert A. Heyman, P.E.

Dive Supervisor: J. Ikaika Kincaid, P.E.

Divers/Inspectors: Kelvin Jordan, Joseph Challburg, Michael J. Scorpa, Charles J. Ahrens, Brad Caroland, and Mark A. Suchan

Date of Inspection: September 7-19, 2012

MAIN APPROACH

MAIN PLATFORM

N

WALKWAY

B. MAIN APPROACH & PLATFORM

Figure 3-2 Main Approach & Platform Aerial View

Main Approach and Platform Section: The Main Approach & Platform of Pier 3 consists of the original timber structure which was built in 1944. No documentation is available from the original 1944 design. As referenced in the Timber Pile Design and Construction Manual, published by the Timber Piling Council American Wood Preservers Institute, the FHWA has concluded that treated marine piles will last about 50 years in northern climates. Therefore, it is assumed that the intended design life of Pier 3 has been exceeded.

The pier is constructed of timber deck planking above longitudinal timber beams, supported by transverse pile bents. The pile bents are numbered 1-251, starting at the east end at the junction with the east concrete approach section. The deck has timber curbing and hand railings surrounding the edge of the entire structure. 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 near the midpoint of the main platform’s south (inboard) side and contains a forklift garage, office space, workshop, and restroom facilities.

In 1966, an elevated concrete extension section was added to the north (outboard) side 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 sides 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. Additionally, the original timber fender system along the north side 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.

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

Figure 3-4 Main Approach Timber Caps and Piles

Figure 3-5 Main Platform (Looking East to West)

Figure 3-6 Main Platform Timber Caps and Piles (Looking West to East)

4. INSPECTION PROCEDURES

A Special Level III inspection (detailed inspection including destructive testing) above-water and underwater was performed on 173 timber piles along the Main Approach and Platform of Pier 3, as required in the Scope of Work. These piles can be considered representative of the entire population of timber piles at Pier 3.

Access to inspect the piles was accomplished using a survey/dive boat and small floating platforms. 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° F. In addition, low levels of PCB’s were present in the bay water.

The mudline was not inspected hands-on due to the potential for disturbing possible unexploded ordnance (UXO’s).

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. Where visibility was limited, tactile examinations were used to obtain structural data.

Samples were taken from 173 timber piles and included: 223 – 0.20" diameter pencil cores and 54 – 2" diameter cores. In addition to the core samples that were taken, the existing urethane wraps were removed from 24 piles to observe deterioration beneath the wraps and obtain timber samples. In addition, four 6'± long full-section pile samples were removed from the adjacent Facility 00128 (Pier 2, which is currently out of service) for mechanical testing in order to provide additional baseline information on the representative timber properties for analysis of Pier 3. Sample locations and detailed field findings are included in Appendix B.

Figures 4-1 and 4-2 on the following page show snapshots of the 0.20" diameter pencil core and 2" diameter core removal process.

Figure 4-1 Removal of 2" Diameter Core Sample

Figure 4-2 Removal of 0.2" Diameter Core Sample

ASCE defines three levels of underwater inspection efforts. The Level III inspection required by the Scope of Work for this assignment was augmented by the use of Level I and II efforts to gather all necessary information and to accurately assess the existing structural condition of the structure.

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. 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 table shown in Appendix B of this report.

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 more than ½” wide and greater than 5” 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 – Limnoria (gribble) and/or Teredo (shipworm) infestation resulting in the loss of cross-sectional area, either by loss of outer surface or by hollowing of the member leaving just the outer shell.

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 column of Table 6-4 and Appendix F 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.

6. INSPECTION SUMMARY

This section contains Structure Condition Ratings, Inspection Findings (February and September 2012), a Summary of the Laboratory Report “Evaluation of Timber Pilings”, the Reserve Capacity Analysis, and Conclusions and Recommendations for Pier 3 at

MOTCO.

Table 6-1

2012 Special Inspection List for Pier 3 at MOTCO, California

Waterfront Facility Title and Description

Property Record Number

Year Built/ Modified

Approx.

Length (feet)

Approx.

# of Piles

Material Level III Piles

6.B Main Approach & Platform 00101 1944/1966/

1999/2002 3,000 3,833 Timber 173

The Damage and Repair Summary Table contains the following columns:

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 associated damage description. Many will contain “Typical” repair descriptions, which can be found in Section 5-E.

Additional information is provided in the Level III Inspection Locations and Detailed Defect Descriptions in Appendix B and the Repair Cost Estimates in Appendix F.

B. MAIN APPROACH & PLATFORM PILES

CONDITION RATING – 3 (POOR)

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

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

Although the timber piles have an Overall Condition Rating of Poor (with the potential to worsen considerably at a relatively rapid rate), the Main Approach and Platform structures remain globally in Fair condition, as determined in the 2012 Routine Inspection Report, WFI-MCO-12-00101.

The Facility Operational Rating is a function of the current structural capacity of the facility, rather than its condition. If the piles are left unaddressed, this rating could change as the conditions of the piles worsen.

Table 6-2

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

FACILITY

NAME LOCATION OVERALL CONDITION

RATING

FACILITY OPERATIONAL

RATING

Main Approach

& Platform (Timber Piles

Only)

N 38º 03’ 31.39” 3 Poor C-3 Facility Partially

Operational W 122º 00’ 58.35”

C. TIMBER EVALUATION SUMMARY:

The special inspection consisted of a Level III (above-water and underwater) inspection of 173 timber piles along the Main Approach and Platform areas. Samples taken from these timber piles included 223 - 0.20″ diameter increment cores and 54 - 2″ diameter increment cores. These samples are considered to be representative of the entire population of timber piles at Pier 3, and were sent to the WAS laboratory for analysis.

The laboratory report from WAS “Evaluation of Timber Pilings” (see Appendix D) includes species identification and four types of analysis: creosote retention, marine borer analysis, microbiological analysis, and mechanical testing. The results of the creosote retention analysis found the piles to have 3.97 pcf retention in the dry zone, 4.58 pcf retention in the splash zone, and 6.71 pcf retention in the underwater zone. The dry zone is the area of the pile above the Mean Higher High Water level, the splash zone is the area of the pile between the Mean Higher High and the Mean Lower Low Water levels, and the underwater zone is the area of the pile below the Mean Lower Low Water level.

The areas of concern are the splash zone and the underwater zone. These areas have the highest risk of strength reducing defects such as marine borer damage, wood destroying fungi, and moisture content. The retention levels listed above are well below the minimum accepted value of 9 pcf to prevent marine borer attack. Due to the low creosote retention levels caused by leaching of creosote over the pier’s 70-year service life, the piles are highly susceptible to marine borer attack and wood destroying fungi.

Marine borers and evidence of marine borer damage was observed within the core samples. The damage is being done by what appears to be Limnoria tripunctata, a creosote-tolerant species of marine borer commonly known as a gribble. The damage by the Limnoria tripunctata has now opened pathways for attacks by other marine borers, such as shipworms (Teredo), which were confirmed in a few of the lab samples. This is reflected in the results with 87% of the samples having evidence of Limnoria damage and 50% of the samples having heavy to very heavy Limnoria damage.

A microbiological analysis was performed to find evidence of wood destroying fungi (such as brown rot or soft rot) and to evaluate the cellular structure of the piles. The analysis found that 30% of the samples had signs of decay and rot; however, most of the rot was either light or occasional. The results also indicated that most of the samples had good cellular structure.

Mechanical testing was performed to provide mean representative values for modulus of elasticity, compressive strength, and bending strength. The testing yielded values ranging from 80% to 100% of the published values for bending strength, 73% to 89% for compressive strength, and values exceeding the published values for modulus of elasticity. The results also indicated that with a decrease in specific gravity and increased moisture content, there was a decrease in compressive and bending strength. The samples tested from the 2" diameter cores had higher moisture content (97.5%) than the mean moisture content of the full pile sections used during mechanical testing (82.8%). This shows the possibility of decreased strength in the piles with marine borer damage, not only from a loss of cross section, but also due to the increase in moisture content caused by the damaged areas. The mechanical properties from the testing were used in the reserve capacity analysis and load rating of the piles presented as Appendix E. The timber elements above the piles (pile caps, beams, and deck) were not tested by WAS, since no “hidden” defects were suspected (such as marine borer damage or internal rot).

However, WAS recommends a 10% reduction in strength for those elements, based on the standard in the timber industry that a 10% reduction in strength can occur in treated materials.

D. RESERVE CAPACITY ANALYSIS & LOAD RATING:

A structural analysis was performed on the timber structural elements of the pier’s main approach, main platform, and upper platform to determine the maximum allowable surface area loading in pounds-per-square-foot (psf). In addition, a live load structural analysis was performed to determine the current operational load capacity for the vehicles currently in use on Pier 3. The vehicles analyzed included the HS-20 truck, a 124 Ton Locomotive (SW1200), a TJ5000 tractor/bombcart with a 23,000 lb container on the front and a 40,000 lb container on the rear, and an unloaded Terex TFC 45 Super Stacker. The analysis was performed using the Allowable Stress Method and in accordance with the following manuals:

Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) Design: Piers and Wharves (UFC 4-152-01) National Design Specification for Wood Construction 2012 Edition (NDS) NDS Design Values for Wood Construction Supplement, 2012 Edition (NDS SUP) AASHTO Standard Specification for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition (AASHTO) AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation, 2nd Edition (MBE)

No analysis was performed on the concrete portions of the pier.

According to SDDCTEA, the typical concept of operation (CONOP) at MOTCO involves the use of specialized trailers, or bombcarts, configured to transport two 20-foot ammunition containers from the holding pads to the pier. This operational flow is considered the most efficient method of container delivery to the ship resulting in the accepted maximum daily throughput capability of 275 containers per day (based on analysis conducted by SDDCTEA). Thus, it is important to determine whether Pier 3, in its current condition, is structurally capable of supporting the live loadings induced by these bombcarts. SDDCTEA provided the equipment characteristics and standard CONOP at MOTCO supporting the movement of ammunition containers to the piers.

This live load analysis was completed using that information. The live load analysis for the bombcarts was based on a configuration consisting of a 23,000 lb container on the front and a 40,000 lb container on the rear. Additional analysis is required to determine the capability (or inability) of Pier 3 to support the loadings from a bombcart loaded with TEU’s exceeding those as analyzed in this report. Any impacts to MOTCO's daily throughput capability will be determined by the SDDCTEA Ports for National Defense Program.

It was assumed that berthing and mooring loads are carried by the fender system, outboard crane rail, and outboard concrete upper deck. No environmental loads were considered. Since pile driving logs were unavailable, the piles were assumed to achieve fixity 10' beneath the mudline for the pile analysis.

The timber elements (deck, track stringers, intermediate stringers, pile caps, and piles) of the Main Approach, the Main Platform, and the Upper Platform were analyzed individually. The results of the analysis are provided in terms of a surface area load applied to the deck. This area load was found by setting the ratio in the equation below equal to one and solving for live load stress. The remaining live load stress was then converted to a maximum allowable area load (reserve capacity) using the tributary area of each element. The allowable stress for each element was found from the NDS SUP tables and using the appropriate NDS adjustment factors and the reduction factors from the laboratory results. The dead load stress was found by using the recommended AASHTO dead load unit weights and the field measurements. Table 6-3 shows the results of the reserve capacity calculations.

Member Capacity − Dead Load Stress Live Load Stress

= 1.0

Table 6-3

Reserve Capacity Results

Pier Section Controlling Element

Controlling Stress

Max Allowable Stress in

Member (ksi)

Max PSF (LBS/Square Foot

Load) on Deck

Main Approach Intermediate Stringer

Bending Moment 1.12 351

Main Platform within 18'-6'' of South Crane Rail

Support (12' Bent Spacing)

Intermediate Stringer

Bending Moment 1.17 488

Main Platform within 26'-0'' of Upper Platform

(6' Bent Spacing)

Pile Cap Shear 0.13 529

Upper Platform Intermediate Stringer

Bending Moment 1.26 599

Current design criteria per the Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) Design: Piers and Wharves (UFC 4-152-01) suggests a 600 psf area load design value for ammunition piers.

No documentation is available from the original 1944 design of Pier 3 and therefore the original design criteria are unknown. These results show approximately 58% of the current design value for the Main Approach, 81% for the 12' spans of the Main Platform, 88% for the 6' spans of the Main Platform and approximately 100% for the Upper Platform. See Appendix C, Drawing 3.1-8 for recommended load restrictions. The reserve capacity results are not directly comparable to actual vehicle loadings or other concentrated loads. For vehicle load rating results, refer to Table 6-4.

Table 6-4 shows the vehicle load rating results. See Appendix E for more information.

Table 6-4

Load Rating Results

Pier Section HS-20 SW1200 Locomotive

TJ5000

w/Bombcart

TFC 45 Super Stacker

Main Approach Align wheels over railroad tracks Prohibited

Align wheels over railroad tracks Prohibited

Main Platform within 18'-6'' of South Crane Rail

Support (12' Bent Spacing)

Align wheels over railroad tracks Prohibited

Align wheels over railroad tracks Prohibited

Main…