2-Appendices_1-16_MOTCO_Repair_Pier_3-Phases_II-III_7_of_7.pdf

WFI-MCO-SSI13-00101

MOTCO Pier 3 Special Structural Inspection Final Report Facility Number: 00101 Military Ocean Terminal Concord, California Author: KCI Technologies / Pennoni Associates Joint Venture Inspection Dates: October 14 to 29, 2013 Report Date: May 2014

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 the findings from a special structural inspection 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 performed the inspection and sampling of underwater elements. Wood Advisory Services, Inc.

(WAS) provided on-site and laboratory testing services, and Sea Engineering, Inc. (SEI) provided the dive boat, sampling equipment, and a Boat Captain/Dive Supervisor. The findings and recommendations presented in this report are based on a Special Level III underwater inspection at MOTCO and subsequent laboratory testing and structural analysis. The field inspection was performed October 14-29, 2013. The inspection team consisted of J. Ikaika Kincaid, P.E., Field Team Leader/Dive Supervisor, Kelvin Jordan, Diver, and Matthew McDorman, Diver of KCI Technologies; Michael Rakowski, P.E., Senior Structural Engineer, and Divers Michael J. Scorpa, Charles J. Ahrens, E.I.T., and Joseph Challburg, E.I.T. of Pennoni Associates; Matthew Anderson, Wood Scientist of WAS; and Paul Roberts, P.E., Boat Captain/Dive Supervisor of SEI. Diving operations were overseen by Mr. AR Smith, Dive and Boating Safety Manager from the USACE San Francisco District. The structural modeling and analyses were completed under the supervision of Katharine Arner, P.E., Senior Structural Engineer of Pennoni Associates.

Quality Control for this report was provided by Mr. Robert Weaver, P.E., of KCI. 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.

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

Table of Contents

PREFACE ...................................................................................................................................................... i

UNIT CONVERSION FACTORS ............................................................................................................ .vi

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................ES-1 B. SUMMARY OF INSPECTION FINDINGS ............................................................................... ES-1 C. SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING ...............................................................................ES-2 D. SUMMARY OF STRUCURAL ANALYSES ............................................................................ ES-3 E. LIFE EXPECTANCY ................................................................................................................. ES-4 F. FUTURE INSPECTION & MONITORING ............................................................................... ES-5 G. CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... ES-6 H. REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................. ES-7

2. PROJECT LOCATION

3. PIER 3 DESCRIPTION

A. GENERAL

B. APPROACH, TRANSITION & MAIN PLATFORM

4. INSPECTION (FIELD WORK)

A. GENERAL

B. INSPECTION PROCEDURES

C. INSPECTION FINDINGS

C.1 Level I & II Inspection and Wrap Removal, Bents 1 to 242 C.2 Additional Information for the Structural Model

5. LABORATORY TESTING

A. SCOPE

B. INTRODUCTION

C. MATERIALS & METHODS

C.1 Inspection of Pilings C.2 Resistance Drilling C.3 Mechanical Testing

D. RESULTS

D.1 Visual Inspection of Piles & Pile Sections D.2 Resistance Drilling D.3 Mechanical Test Results

E. DISCUSSION

F. SUMMARY & OPINIONS

6. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS & MODELING

A. SCOPE

B. SOFTWARE

C. GEOMETRY

D. LIVE LOAD

E. PROCESS

F. RECOMMENDATIONS & RESTRICTIONS

G. LOAD RATING CAPACITY ANALYSIS TABLES

7. CONCLUSIONS

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

iii

Appendices

APPENDIX I ULTRASONIC INSPECTION OF WOOD PILING REPORT,

SEPTEMBER 1, 1978

APPENDIX II PIER DRAWINGS & LOCATIONS OF RESISTANCE

DRILLING

APPENDIX III RESISTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX IV MECHANICAL TEST RESULTS & PIER 2 PILE SAMPLE

PHOTOS

APPENDIX V CURRENT ALLOWABLE BASE DESIGN VALUE

CALCULATIONS

APPENDIX VI STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS

Figures

Figure 1-1 Vehicle Loading Restrictions ..................................................................... ES-4

Figure 2-1 Location Map Figure 2-2 Vicinity Plan

Figure 3-1 Site Plan Figure 3-2 West Elevation of Bent 157, in the Approach Area Figure 3-3 North Elevation of the Approach. Looking southwest from Bent 122 Figure 3-4 Main Platform. Looking East to West from the Crane Platform Figure 3-5 Typical Deck. Looking West from Bent 29 Figure 3-6 Typical T-Strap Pile Retrofit. Bent 123, Pile K Shown

Figure 4-1 Pile Circumference Measurements Figure 4-2 Typical MBD (4" H x 1" W x 1" D). Bent 30.25, Pile K Shown

Figure 5-1 Resistance Drilling. Bent 125, Pile L2 Shown Figure 5-2 ASTM D-143 Static Bending Test Figure 5-3 ASTM D-143 Compression Parallel-to-Grain Test iv

Tables

Table 1-1 2012 Repair Recommendations

Table 4-1 Location of timber pile sections removed from Pier 2 Table 4-2 Main Platform Area Pile Diameter Results Table 4-3 Transition Area Pile Diameter Results Table 4-4 Approach Area Pile Diameter Results Table 4-5 Main Platform Pile Embedment Results Table 4-6 Transition Area Pile Embedment Results Table 4-7 Approach Area Pile Embedment Results

Table 5-1 Effective Cross Section Observations for Full Size Pile Sections from Pier 2 Table 5-2 Summary of Resistance Drilling Results Table 5-3 Summary of Resistance Drilling Where Voids were Detected in Pier 3 Piles Table 5-4 Summary of Mechanical Testing Performed for Pier 2 Pile Sections Table 5-5 Results of Mechanical Testing According to the MDB Level of Each Pile Section Table 5-6 Comparison of Results from the Pilings Tested in 2012 & 2013 Table 5-7 Comparison of Allowable Base Design Values for Pier 2 Piles using D2899 & Mean Residual Values

Table 6-1 Bents 29 to 35, Rows G to V of the Main Platform Table 6-2 Bents 157 to 163, Rows G to T of the Approach Table 6-3 Bents 120 to 126, Rows G to T of the Transition v

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 vi

PIER 3 AT MOTCO

(MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL CONCORD, CA)

2013 SPECIAL STRUCTURAL INSPECTION

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The KCI Technologies/Pennoni Associates Joint Venture and its subcontractors, Wood Advisory Services, Inc. (WAS) and Sea Engineering, Inc. (SEI) performed a Special Structural Inspection of the timber piles along the Approach, Transition, and Main Platform areas of Pier 3 at MOTCO, located at Port Chicago, California from October 14 to 29, 2013. Pier 3 is located along White Road, west of Pier 4.

The Special Structural Inspection consisted of a Level I, II, and III (above-water and underwater) inspection of the timber structure (substructure and underside) of Pier 3 from Bents 1 to 242. The purpose of this Special Structural Inspection was to build upon the findings, lab results, and structural analyses presented in Report WFI-MCO-SIR-00101 (2012 Special Inspection), and to conduct and refine the load capacity/structural model.

The specific scope of work consisted of a Level I inspection of approximately 2,770 timber piles under the train tracks (Rows G to T), removal of approximately 200 polyurethane wraps for a Level I and II inspection, a Level II inspection of 245 previously identified piles with marine borer damage (MBD), resistance drilling of 175 timber piles, additional structure information for 3D modeling and structural analysis at three areas (one area each from Approach, Transition, and Main Platform), and the removal of fifteen 5′± long full-section pile samples from the adjacent Facility 00128 (Pier 2, which is currently out of service) for mechanical testing. The results of the mechanical testing were used in the 3D structural analysis. The information gathered in the three areas included exposed pile lengths, pile diameters, percent bearing of the pile cap on the piles, bracing locations and sizes, mechanical connections and sizes, pile cap dimensions, beam dimensions, and stringer sizes.

The turbidity of the water prevented the divers from taking underwater photographs as the visibility was less than one foot.

B. SUMMARY OF INSPECTION FINDINGS

The Level I inspection of approximately 2,770 timber piles between Bents 1 to 242, Rows G to T, did not reveal visual evidence of increased degradation of the timber structure, compared to the results from the 2012 Special Inspection. The general overall condition of the timber portions inspected did not change significantly from the results presented in Report WFI-MCO-12-00101 (2012 Routine Inspection), which resulted in a POOR condition rating for the timber piles, and a FAIR condition rating for the timber pier structure overall. Furthermore, the MBD did not increase and it is similar to the results of the 2012 Routine Inspection.

ES-1

Approximately 33% of the 200 piles inspected, where polyurethane wraps were removed, had measurable MBD under the wrap repair. This indicates that the wrap repairs were not completely effective in preventing marine-borer attacks, that the observed MBD under the wraps was pre-existing, and/or that some of the wraps may have been placed incorrectly on undamaged piles.

The 2012 Routine Inspection identified 245 piles with MBD. There were no significant signs of increased marine borer activity or significant increases in the size of damage/deterioration that was previously identified.

Additional structure information gathered at the three areas (Approach, Transition, and Main Platform) is summarized below. This information was included in the development of the 3D structural model for analysis.

• The pile diameters varied from 13.5 to 14.9 inches.

• The exposed pile lengths varied from 10.0 to 40.0 feet.

• The pile embedment lengths varied from 46.0 to 65.4 feet (these lengths are from the original as-built pile logs and pile driving plans).

• The loss of embedment lengths varied from 8.0 to 32.0 feet.

• There are six piles (out of the 261 piles inspected in these areas) on which the cap beam is partially bearing and two on which the cap beam is 100% non-bearing.

(Note: These bearing losses were not accounted for in the structural model, as they are considered to have a negligible effect on the structural performance of the pier structure.)

C. SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING

Resistance drilling was used to identify the size and location of internal voids in the piles.

The resistance drill is a specially designed drill equipped with a drill bit that feeds the bit into a structural element or connection. The relative resistance of the needle is plotted on chart paper. The result is a density profile chart, or resistograph, of the element or connection sampled. For this study, areas of undetectable density levels were classified as a “void” and were marked on the resistograph. The resistance drilling provided evidence that approximately 6% to 8% of the timber piles at Pier 3 may have internal voids (including small voids of less than 3″ in diameter) caused by Limnoria tripunctata. This is not a significant percentage of the pier structure (See Appendix III).

The mechanical properties evaluated for the wood pilings in this project were compression parallel-to-grain (C//), modulus of rupture (MOR), and modulus of elasticity in bending (MOE). C// is obtained by stressing the fibers parallel to the grain along the full length of the member. MOR, or bending strength, is tested by applying loads until the structural members bend, producing tension in the fibers along the face farthest from the applied load, and compression in the fibers along the face nearest to the applied load.

MOE measures the ratio of the amount a wood member will deflect in proportion to an applied load.

ES-2

The mechanical testing results were similar to the results from the 2012 Special Inspection. The C// test results averaged approximately 3,200 psi, the MOR test results averaged approximately 6,880 psi, the MOE results averaged approximately 1.68×106 psi, the specific gravity (SG) results averaged approximately 0.50, and the moisture content (MC) averaged approximately 77%. These results were used in the structural analyses of the pier.

D. SUMMARY OF STRUCURAL ANALYSES

For each of the three areas included in this inspection (Approach, Transition, and Main Platform), computer software (STAAD.Pro V8i) was used to develop a 3D structural model and to run structural analyses of the model by applying six vehicle configurations as live loads: a firetruck, a forklift, the HS-20 truck, a TJ5000 tractor and Bomb Cart containing a 23,000 lb twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU) on the front and 40,000 lb TEU on the rear, a TJ5000 tractor and Bomb Cart containing a 67,200 lb TEU on the rear only, and a TJ5000 tractor and flatbed trailer containing a 55,000 lb distributed load.

The results of structural calculations performed in 1989 and as part of the 2012 Special Inspection show that the timber stringers control the structural capacity of the pier.

Although the latest analyses contained in this report show similar results (stringers control) for a few of the vehicles in the Approach and Transition areas, the cap beams have been found to generally control the capacity of the pier for most of the vehicles in both the Approach and Main Platform, while the deck generally controls the pier capacity in the Transition area.

The results of the analyses show that only the forklift can traverse the entire pier without restrictions. The TJ5000 with 67,000 lb TEU is prohibited from the Main Platform area altogether. The remaining four vehicles can use the pier, as long as they align their wheels over the railroad tracks. Refer to Figure 1-1 on the following page for the summarized results (see also Appendix II).

ES-3

Figure 1-1. Vehicle Loading Restrictions

ES-4

E. LIFE EXPECTANCY

The controlling element for the life expectancy of Pier 3 remains the vulnerability of the original timber piles installed in 1944 to marine borer attack and wood decay. However, the rate of marine borer attack does not currently appear to be aggressive in comparison to published reports of attack rates elsewhere. The amount of severely deteriorated piles (with internal voids due to Limnoria) reported for Pier 2 in 1978 in the Final Report, Ultrasonic Inspection of Wood Piling Naval Weapons Station, Concord, CA (see Appendix I) was 0.5% (or approximately 19 piles). Although the 1978 report is for Pier 2, it can be assumed that a similar condition at Pier 3 existed at that time. During this Special Structural Inspection, it was determined that up to 8% of the timber piles may have internal voids (approximately 300 piles) to some degree. Based on these available data points and assuming that there were zero voids when the pier was originally built, the rate of attack appears to be exponential rather than linear. However, there are not a sufficient number of available data points throughout Pier 3’s service life to make an accurate projection of how many piles could have internal voids in the future.

It is important to note that 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. Additionally, although we know from the 2012 Special Inspection that the creosote levels are no longer sufficient to prevent marine borer attack, there is no data available which shows precisely when (what year) the creosote levels reached the point at which the piles were no longer protected.

Therefore, it is difficult to predict the future rate of marine borer attacks.

In similar environments, untreated (no creosote) timber piles have been rendered nonfunctional in as little as one year. While the timber piles supporting Pier 3 are not technically “untreated”, the results of the 2012 Special Inspection showed that the creosote levels are no longer sufficient to deter marine borer attacks. It is certainly possible that under specific environmental conditions, the rate of marine borer attack could increase at what would likely be an exponential rate. As a result, it is important to continually monitor and reassess the condition of the timber piles on a regular cycle.

F. FUTURE INSPECTION & MONITORING

The next Routine 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. The 2012 Special Inspection Report recommended an underwater inspection be performed on a 24 month cycle; however, based on the current inspection, the marine borers are not as aggressive as was thought in 2012. Therefore, returning to a 48 month routine inspection cycle is appropriate.

However, in the interim, because marine borer activity is highly dependent upon several environmental factors, it may be beneficial to perform some type of monitoring of the marine borer activity on an annual or semi-annual basis. There are several options for such monitoring, including monitoring of actual MBD as well as monitoring the environmental factors affecting the marine borer activity.

ES-5

These monitoring options are provided below, and can be used alone or in combination with one another.

a) Inspect the existing untreated timber camels (located at the waterline) for marine borer activity/damage. This would involve deployment of a basic 3-person dive team using a boat, and accessing the camels via SCUBA methods, as the diver will remain just below the water surface for this work.

Estimated cost per monitoring visit (local dive team) = $ 5,000

b) Fabricate and install untreated timber “test samples” to secure to the pier and submerge just below the waterline. These can be rigged to be able to pull up to the deck for inspection of marine borer activity/damage. This monitoring can be performed by on-site DPW or contractor/consultant staff.

Estimated cost of fabrication and installation (local contractor) = $ 5,000 Estimated cost for each monitoring visit (one day each) = $ 400

c) Record the temperature and salinity of Suisun Bay at the pier. Although several other factors can affect marine borer activity, the temperature and salinity of the water are the key factors. The other environmental factors tend to increase or decrease proportionally to temperature and salinity. This could be accomplished by installing instrumentation permanently on the pier, allowing continual readings and monitoring, or the readings could be taken by field technicians using hand-held field instrumentation (Note that the permanent instrumentation introduces yet another item to maintain on the pier, and will be subjected to the varying, sometimes harsh, environmental conditions at the site).

Estimated cost to install instrumentation on pier (local contractor) = $ 10,000 Estimated cost for each monitoring visit (one day each, local vendor) = $ 1,000

The most cost-effective solution may be to combine the roles of the monitoring staff, so that the same personnel will check the test samples or camels and will record the temperature and salinity data during the same visit(s). Additionally, this monitoring program would only need to be in effect until the recommended protective wraps are installed on all of the timber piles (See Repair Recommendations in Section H). Any monitoring performed should supplement the Routine Inspections.

G. CONCLUSIONS

This special inspection revealed no significant changes in the overall condition of the timber pier structure since the 2012 Special Inspection, including no significant increases in MBD. Lab testing shows that there are currently no strength reductions in material properties compared to the 2012 Special Inspection, and there is no correlation between material strength and level of marine borer damage. In other words, the marine borers do not appear to have a preference between the varying internal material strengths of different piles. Likewise, the presence of marine borer damage does not appear to affect the actual strength properties of the wood material itself, but rather the damage decreases the cross-sectional dimensions of the pile, and in this manner lowers the structural capacity of the pile.

ES-6

The structural analysis results show that the pier remains functional, but under several vehicle restrictions, foremost of which is limiting most vehicles to align their wheels over the railroad tracks while traversing the pier. These restrictions are a result of the original design and configuration of the superstructure (cap beams and above) of the pier, and not due to the present condition of the piles. However, if left unchecked, future increases in marine borer damage to the piles may eventually control the structural capacity of the pier, and possibly result in more stringent restrictions.

H. REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS

The 2012 Special Inspection Report indicated that repairs should be completed within 2 years. In light of the latest findings, the 2012 Special Inspection Report recommendations are still appropriate and should be implemented, with the Urgent and High priority repairs (if not already completed) made within the next 12 months, in order to preserve the capability of Pier 3 to support current/future operations.

The recommendations from the 2012 Special Inspection Report are provided in Table 1-1 on the following page. Note that these recommendations include areas that were not inspected, and not all defects were verified, during this Special Structural Inspection.

ES-7

Table 1-1. 2012 Repair Recommendations

Note: The estimates for the pile jacket/wrap repairs shown above, including labor days, are based on an approximate 10-person work/dive team. The estimates do not take into account any work-window restrictions, such as during missions or time-of-year in-water construction restrictions in Suisun Bay. Nevertheless, the total number of work days required can vary greatly depending on the time limits specified in a contract and the manpower assigned by a particular contractor. However, the tighter the constraints on the contractor, the higher the contractor's price may become.

It is also important to note that the piles that remain unprotected during the construction period would still be “very susceptible” to continued attack from marine borers.

Repair Priorities: L = Low, H = High, U = Urgent, R = Replacement

Description Repair Priority

Quantity Material

& UOM

Material Total

Labor (Days)

Labor Total Total Contigency Project Total Rounded Total

Replace the perimeter walkway around Building A22. R 1,035 SF 49,680$ 20 74,520$ 124,200$ 31,050$ 155,250$ 155,250$

Replace the broken utility hangers from Bents 66 to 72.

U 72 LF 2,304$ 1 3,456$ 5,760$ 1,440$ 7,200$ 7,200$

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

U 1 LS 2,560$ 2 3,840$ 6,400$ 1,600$ 8,000$ 8,000$

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

R 1 LS 4,800$ 3 7,200$ 12,000$ 3,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$

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

R 900 LF 28,800$ 10 43,200$ 72,000$ 18,000$ 90,000$ 90,000$

Replace the perimeter walkway around Building 102. R 480 SF 23,040$ 10 34,560$ 57,600$ 14,400$ 72,000$ 72,000$

Seal the cracks throughout the pavement. L 900 LF 9,600$ 5 14,400$ 24,000$ 6,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ Patch all potholes in pavement. L 1 LS 3,520$ 2 5,280$ 8,800$ 2,200$ 11,000$ 11,000$

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

L 1 LS 3,200$ 2 4,800$ 8,000$ 2,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$

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.

H 1 LS 4,800$ 2 7,200$ 12,000$ 3,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$

Install a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) jacket/wrap system on all the timber piles along the Main Approach and Platform. Remove all existing urethane wrap repairs prior to installing new jacket.

H 3883 EA 2,485,120$ 260 3,727,680$ 6,212,800$ 1,553,200$ 7,766,000$ 7,766,000$

Install a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) jacket/wrap system on all the timber piles along the Walkway. Remove all existing urethane wrap repairs prior to installing new jacket.

L 183 EA 117,120$ 13 175,680$ 292,800$ 73,200$ 366,000$ 366,000$

Repair the beams and pile caps that have overstressing cracks.

H 50 LF 4,000$ 2 6,000$ 10,000$ 2,500$ 12,500$ 12,500$

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

H 43 EA 2,752$ 2 4,128$ 6,880$ 1,720$ 8,600$ 8,600$

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

L 1 LS 1,280$ 1 1,920$ 3,200$ 800$ 4,000$ 4,000$

Replace broken/missing fender system hardware. H 1 LS 2,560$ 1 3,840$ 6,400$ 1,600$ 8,000$ 8,000$

Repair the spalled areas on the fender piles. L 1 LS 3,200$ 1 4,800$ 8,000$ 2,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ Repair spalled and delaminated areas on the piles, pile caps, and curbs.

L 1 LS 16,000$ 7 24,000$ 40,000$ 10,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$

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

H 120 LF 3,840$ 2 5,760$ 9,600$ 2,400$ 12,000$ 12,000$

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

H 1 LS 2,560$ 1 3,840$ 6,400$ 1,600$ 8,000$ 8,000$

Replace the rotten deck planks along the pedestrian walkway.

R 400 SF 2,560$ 1 3,840$ 6,400$ 1,600$ 8,000$ 8,000$

8,666,550$ 8,666,550$ Pier 3 - Total Repair Cost Estimate

ES-8

2. PROJECT LOCATION

Figure 2-1. Location Map

Figure 2-2. Vicinity Plan

PIER 3

N

3. PIER 3 DESCRIPTION

A. GENERAL

Figure 3-1 shows the locations of the features inspected. 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 Routine Inspection: February 2012 (Level I and II) Date of Previous Special Inspection: September 2012 (Level III) Date of Inspection: October 14-29, 2013 Inspected By: Field Team Leader/Dive Supervisor: Ikaika Kincaid, P.E.

Divers/Inspectors: Paul Roberts, P.E., Kelvin Jordan, Michael Rakowski, P.E., Michael J. Scorpa, Joseph Challburg, E.I.T., Charles J. Ahrens, E.I.T., Matthew McDorman, and Matthew Anderson

APPROACH

MAIN PLATFORM

N

WALKWAY

TRANSITION

B. APPROACH, TRANSITION & MAIN PLATFORM

The Approach, Transition, & Main Platform areas of Pier 3 consist of the original timber structure which was built in 1944. 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 (for the gantry crane) were added to the north and south sides of the main platform. The inboard crane rail beam was integrated into the existing pier head 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 3-2. West Elevation of Bent 157, in the Approach Area.

Figure 3-3. North Elevation of the Approach. Looking southwest from Bent 122

Figure 3-4. Main Platform. Looking East to West from the Crane Platform.

Figure 3-5. Typical Deck. Looking West from Bent 29.

Figure 3-6. Typical T-Strap Pile Retrofit. Bent 123, Pile K Shown.

4. INSPECTION (FIELD WORK)

A. GENERAL

A Special Structural Inspection (detailed inspection including destructive testing) above-water and underwater was performed along the timber portions (substructure and underside) of the Approach, Transition, and Main Platform of 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 approximately four feet, and water temperature of approximately 50° F. In addition, low levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s) were present in the bay water. The mudline was avoided 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 two registered Professional Engineer dive supervisors for direction and guidance. Additionally a senior structural engineer and a wood scientist (non-divers) were part of the inspection team. 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.

This inspection involved the Level I underwater and above-water inspection of approximately 2,770 piles located from Bents 1 through 242 (rows G to T). This included the removal of approximately 200 existing pile wraps encountered during the inspection of these areas.

A Level II inspection was conducted on 245 timber piles that were previously identified in the 2012 Routine Inspection as having MBD.

Additional information about the timber structure was obtained at three areas along Pier 3. This information was used in a 3D structural analysis model. The information obtained consisted of the exposed pile lengths (from the top of the pile to the mudline), pile diameters (at the waterline and mudline), bearing loss (if any, at the top of the piles), bracing locations and sizes, mechanical connections and sizes, pile cap dimensions, beam dimensions, and stringer sizes. The three areas of focus for detailed measurement and analysis were:

• Main Platform Bents 29 to 35 Rows G to V

• Transition Bents 120 to 126 Rows G to T

• Approach Bents 157 to 163 Rows G to T

(See also Appendix II).

Figure 4-1. Pile Circumference Measurements.

Wood Advisory Services, Inc. (WAS) performed resistance drilling on 175 timber piles (only 150 were required in the scope of work) throughout Pier 3. These were taken within the dry, splash and wet (at low tide) zones. Resistance drilling was performed in the three areas above as well as randomly throughout the pier. This test is useful in determining if there are internal voids, deterioration, or rot within a pile. The amount of piles drilled is shown below:

• Main Platform Between Bents 29 to 35 50 Piles Drilled

• Transition Between Bents 120 to 126 50 Piles Drilled

• Approach Between Bents 157 to 163 25 Piles Drilled

• Random Between Bents 1 to 242 50 Piles Drilled

Destructive sampling was conducted at Facility 00128 (Pier 2, which is currently out of service) where 15 five-foot long pile sections were removed. Piles selected for removal were classified as having “Low or No” MBD, “Moderate” MBD, and “Heavy” MBD, whereby five piles from each classification were removed. Two piles from each classification were examined on site by WAS, and the three remaining representative samples from each classification were sent to the WAS laboratory for mechanical testing.

The mechanical tests conducted on these pile samples included C//, MOR, SG, and MC.

Table 4-1 on the following page shows the locations of the pile sections removed from Pier 2 and their MBD classifications.

Pile ID # Bent Row

MBD

Level

1 1 2 Moderate 2 2.5 5 Moderate 3 8 11 Heavy 4 9 12 Low 5* 20.5 5 Moderate 6* 23.5 7 Moderate 7* 23.75 1.5 Moderate 8 48.5 9 Low 9* 56.5 7 Low 10* 59.5 6 Heavy 11* 67.5 7 Heavy 12* 81.5 8 Low 13* 91.8 1.5 Heavy 14* 95.5 7 Low 15 112.8 1.5 Heavy

* Sample shipped to lab for testing

Table 4-1. Location of timber pile sections removed from Pier 2.

B. INSPECTION PROCEDURES

The American Society of Civil Engineers (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.

C. INSPECTION FINDINGS

C.1 Level I & II Inspection and Wrap Removal, Bents 1 to 242

There are approximately 2,770 timber piles between Bents 1 to 242, Rows G to T, which were inspected during this task. A Level I and II inspection was conducted on these piles as well as the pile caps, stringers, and deck planks (underside). This inspection did not show increased degradation of the timber structure and the general overall condition of the timber portions inspected did not change from the 2012 Special Inspection, which resulted in a POOR condition rating for the timber piles and a FAIR condition rating for the timber pier structure overall. There are localized areas of severe deterioration and widespread MBD throughout the timber piles. Following review of the inspection notes, the MBD did not increase and it is similar to the results from the 2012 Special Inspection.

Figure 4-2. Typical MBD (4" H x 1" W x 1" D). Bent 30.25, Pile K Shown.

Approximately 200 polyurethane pile wraps were removed so that a Level I and Level II inspection could be conducted on the underlying pile. Only the pile wraps within Rows G to T were removed. During this task, a total of 67 piles out of the 200 where wraps were removed (or 33%) were found to have visual and measureable MBD under the wrap repair. There seems to be no correlation between previous pile defects and the piles that were wrapped. This indicates that the wrap repairs were not completely effective in preventing marine-borer attacks, that the observed MBD under the wraps was pre-existing, and/or that some of the wraps may have been placed incorrectly on undamaged piles.

The 2012 Routine Inspection identified 245 piles with MBD. There were no significant signs of increased marine borer activity or significant increases in the size of damage/deterioration that was previously identified.

C.2 Additional Information for the Structural Model

During this task, the senior structural engineer was able to obtain several existing reference documents and plans of Pier 3. The following is a list of the documents gathered:

• Original Design Drawings for Pier 3(1944)

• Pile Record Plan for Pier 3(1945)

• Railroad Alignment for Pier 3(1945)

• Utility Repairs for Pier 3(1960)

• Final Report, Ultrasonic Inspection of Wood Piling (1978) – see Appendix I

• Structural Calculations and Design Load Capacity for Barge Pier, and Piers 2, 3 &

4 (1989)

• Repair Plans for Pier 3 (1991)

• Geotechnical Investigation-Upgrade of Ammunition Pier 3 (1995)

• Pier 3 and Pier 4 Load Test (2003)

• Pier 3 Structural Repair Plans (2003)

During the inspection of the three areas for 3D modeling, several minor discrepancies were identified between the plans and the existing pile layout. In the Main Platform area between Bents 29 and 35, Piles 32.0 H and 32.0 K do not exist. Bent 120 has an extra pile at the north end (120 F), Bent 124 has an extra pile at the north end (124 F), and Bent 126 has an extra pile at the south end (126 V). In the transition and approach areas, some of the stringers are 1'-4″deep with dapped ends to match the more prevalent 1'-2″ deep stringers. The locations of the deeper stringers are mostly random but they were used uniformly under the northern-most track rails. These revisions have been reflected in the pile layout drawings included in this report and in the structural modeling/analysis.

The pile diameters were measured at the waterline (approximately mid-height) and just above the mudline within the three areas. No diameter measurements were taken at the top of the piles, because the mid-height and bottom locations had the smallest diameters.

A summary of the pile diameter measurements are presented in Tables 4-2 – 4-4.

Table 4-2. Main Platform Area Pile Diameter Results

Transition Area (Bents 120-126)

Waterline (in) Mudline (in)

Max 19.4 17.8

Min 11.6 10.8

Average 14.7 14.0

Table 4-3. Transition Area Pile Diameter Results

Approach Area (Bents 157-163)

Max 18.1 16.9

Min 11.8 10.2 Average 14.9 13.9

Table 4-4. Approach Area Pile Diameter Results

Review of the pile logs from the Pile Record Plan for Pier 3 (1945) show the lengths of the piles during driving, length of pile after cut-off, elevation of top of pile before and after cut-off and elevation of pile tip. In summary, the Transition piles are approximately 90′ long and the Main Platform and the Approach piles are approximately 77′ long. The embedment values can be compared to the original pile tip elevations to determine loss of embedment due to scour, dredging activities, or general degradation of the riverbed.

In the Main Platform area, the original pile plans show a fairly consistent embedment of the piles at around 68′. Following review of the field measurements, there is a uniform embedment loss of approximately 8′ in this area.

Main Platform Area (Bents 29-35) Pile Embedment (ft) Maximum (Calculated) 63.5 Minimum (Calculated) 59.5

Average (Calculated) 61.3 Original Embedment from Plans 68.0

Table 4-5. Main Platform Pile Embedment Results

Main Platform (Bents 29-35)

Max 16.6 16.6

Min 11.1 11.1

Average 13.5 13.5

In the Transition area, the original pile plans show a fairly consistent embedment of these piles at around 80′. Following review of the field measurements, there is sloped loss of embedment along each bent that varies from 0′ (southern side) up to approximately 32′ (northern side) at this location.

Transition Area (Bents 120-126)

Maximum (Calculated) 80.0

Minimum (Calculated) 48.0

Average (Calculated) 65.4

Original Embedment from Plans 80.0

Table 4-6. Transition Area Pile Embedment Results

In the Approach area, the original pile plans show a fairly consistent embedment of these piles at around 65′. Following review of the field measurements, there is a sloped loss of embedment along each bent that varies from approximately 8′ (southern side) to 31′ (northern side) at this location.

Approach Area (Bents 157-163)

Maximum (Calculated) 57.3

Minimum (Calculated) 34.3

Average (Calculated) 46.0

Original Embedment from Plans 65.0

Table 4-7. Approach Area Pile Embedment Results

The aforementioned pile embedments were accounted for in the structural modeling and analyses.

There were also several locations within the Main Platform, Transition, and Approach areas where the pile caps do not fully rest (non-bearing) on top of the piles. The list of non-bearing and partially bearing locations are listed below:

• Pile 31.0 L 40% Non-Bearing. Pile is offset 5″ to the west.

• Pile 35.25 K 100% Non-Bearing.

• Pile 34.25 K 70% Non-Bearing.

• Pile 34.75 K 100% Non-Bearing.

• Pile 120.0 S 75% Non-Bearing. Pile has a stirrup retrofit in place.

• Pile 123 H 20% Non-Bearing.

• Pile 159.0 G 20% Non-Bearing.

• Pile 163.0 H 50% Non-Bearing.

This list represents only 3% of the total number of piles investigated. Therefore, these bearing losses can be considered to have a negligible effect on the structural performance of the pier. Nonetheless, shimming of these bearing defects has been included in the list of recommended repairs for the pier (See Table 1-1). There are 43 locations to be shimmed throughout the entire pier, according to the 2012 Special Inspection findings.

5. LABORATORY TESTING

A. SCOPE

Wood Advisory Services, Inc. (WAS) evaluated the wood pilings at Pier 2 and Pier 3.

The intent of the laboratory evaluation was to:

• Determine the bending strength, stiffness, and compression strength of nine full size sections of timber marine pilings removed from MOTCO Pier 2, which is currently closed due to deterioration of structural components.

• Perform resistance drilling on 125 timber piles in three areas of Pier 3: 50 piles in the Main Platform area, 50 piles in the Transition area, and 25 piles in the West Approach area.

• Additionally, perform a random set of resistance drillings on 50 piles along the entire length of Pier 3.

• Visually inspect the effective cross section of six full size pile sections removed from Pier 2, based on the level of marine borer degradation observed.

• Provide a summary of the visual and laboratory results and overall condition of the pilings evaluated.

B. INTRODUCTION

Piers 2 and 3 were constructed using the same materials and wood species, and have been subjected to the same environmental conditions since their original construction in the 1940’s. An on-site inspection of numerous wood pilings was performed by WAS from October 17, 2013, through October 21, 2013. Representatives from the KCI Technologies / Pennoni Associates Joint Venture were also present during the inspection.

The evaluation performed by WAS included the inspection of all wood pilings located in three inspection areas along Pier 3: Main Platform, Transition, and West Approach. The Main Platform area was located between Bents 29 and 35, and included Rows G through V. The Transition area was located between Bents 120 and 126, and included Rows G through T. The final area was the West Approach which was located between Bents 157 and 163, and included Rows G through T. Within each of these areas, every wood piling was inspected for evidence of internal voids using two inspection methods; sounding with a hammer and resistance drilling.

For the evaluation of the wood pilings, KCI, Pennoni, and SEI removed 15 pile sections from Pier 2. The pilings were selected based on three pre-determined marine borer degradation levels developed by KCI: Low, Moderate, and Heavy. A Low rating represents a 1″ – 2″ diameter area of MBD up to 1″ deep.

Moderate MBD represents a 2″ – 5″ diameter area of MBE up to 2″ deep. Heavy MBD represents a 5″ or greater diameter area of MBD, greater than 2″ deep. Five pilings representing each MBD level were removed during the on-site inspection. Each pile section was examined by the WAS wood scientist and representatives from KCI. Nine of the 15 pilings were selected for mechanical testing (three representing each MBD level).

These pile sections were retained and shipped to WAS to determine the current bending strength, stiffness, and compression strength due to the MBD present. The remaining six pile sections were examined to determine the effective cross section based on the three MBD levels observed. The pile sections evaluated from Pier 2 were used to represent the mechanical properties of the piles in Pier 3 since both structures were constructed at a similar time frame, using the same materials and wood species, and have been subjected to the same environmental conditions (See Appendix IV).

Virtually no wood decay was observed in any of the pile sections in this investigation, as well as the piles in the 2012 Special Inspection. Wood decay is generally associated with strength loss while MBD is generally associated with loss in cross sectional areas.

Therefore, the only critical issue evaluated for these pilings was the loss of cross section as a result of MBD.

C. MATERIALS & METHODS

C.1 Inspection of Pilings

All of the pilings in the Main Platform, Transition, and West Approach inspection areas (see Section 5B) were inspected for internal voids using a common method in the inspection of large timber members referred to as sounding. Sounding is a simple, yet effective, method for locating internal voids in large timbers. Using a hammer, an inspector taps a timber and listens to the resulting sound. Sharp, quick tones are generally indicative of sound wood. Dull tones are generally indicative of voids.

Occasionally, large checks or splits present in a timber may result in a dull tone and is, therefore, not necessarily indicative of a void. During the inspection of Pier 3, WAS documented pilings with a dull sound and then performed resistance drilling to determine if a void was present and if so, the size of the void. Several other piles which did not exhibit dull sounds were also sampled throughout each inspection area.

Six pile sections were visually inspected on-site after they were removed from Pier 2.

One was classified as having Low MBD, two were classified as having Moderate MBD, and three were classified as having Heavy MBD. At any location along the pile section length where MBD was located, a chain saw was used to cut the pile section and expose the effective cross section. If the observed MBD resulted in a void, the pile section was cut until the entire void size was documented.

C.2 Resistance Drilling

Resistance drilling was conducted on the timber piles of the main platform, transition, approach, and randomly throughout the pier. Resistance drilling is a method used to determine the internal structure of a timber pile, specifically whether it is hollow or rotten in the middle. The resistance drill is a specially designed drill equipped with a drill bit 1'-0" long, and a diameter of ⅛". As the drill bit goes into the pile, the amount of resistance in the bit is measured and recorded by the instrument internally and on graph paper. The result is a density profile chart, or resistograph, of the element or connection sampled. When the drill bit reaches a void or area of rot, the resistance will drop. This is clearly visible in the resistograph, which is referenced to the outside edge of the pile to the void.

Regions on the resistograph represented by consistent…