Appendices E - G-Utilization Ratio

City of Palo Alto Long Range Facilities Plan for the RWQCP
APPENDIX E - RWQCP CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Palo Alto/8510B00/Deliverables/Task 11/Appendices/AppCvr.docx
APPENDIX G - SEISMIC EVALUATION OF THE PILES

SUPPORTING THE INCINERATOR AND OPERATIONS
BUILDINGS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CITY OF PALO ALTO

REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT
FACILITY REPAIR AND RETROFIT PROJECT
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF THE PILES
SUPPORTING THE INCINERATOR AND
OPERATIONS BUILDINGS
DRAFT
August 2011
2700 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD SUITE 300 WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94598
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Palo Alto/8510A10/Disciplines/Structural/Seismic Evaluation
(925) 932-1710 FAX (925) 930-0208
CITY OF PALO ALTO

REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT
FACILITY REPAIR AND RETROFIT PROJECT
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF THE PILES SUPPORTING
THE INCINERATOR AND OPERATIONS BUILDINGS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 1
2.1 Incinerator Building ............................................................................................ 1
2.2 Operations Building ............................................................................................ 5
SEISMIC EVALUATION .......................................................................................... 10
3.1 Seismic Evaluation Criteria .............................................................................. 10
3.2 Material Properties and Strengths ..................................................................... 11
3.3 Analysis Procedure ........................................................................................... 12
3.3.1 Mathematical Model .......................................................................... 12
3.3.2 Soil-Pile Interaction Modeling ........................................................... 13
3.3.3 Load Combinations ............................................................................ 17
FINDINGS .................................................................................................................. 17
4.1 Incinerator Building .......................................................................................... 17
4.1.1 Pile Capacity Check ........................................................................... 18
4.2 Operations Building .......................................................................................... 20
4.2.1 Pile Capacity Check ........................................................................... 21
4.3 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 21
RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 22
5.1 Incinerator Building .......................................................................................... 23
5.2 Operations Building .......................................................................................... 26
CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 26
LIST OF APPENDICES
A Photographs
B Soil-Pile Interaction Analysis Results
C Evaluation Calculations
i
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Palo Alto/8510A10/Disciplines/Structural/Seismic Evaluation (DRAFT)
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Seismic Evaluation Parameters ........................................................................ 10

Material Properties - Piles ................................................................................ 11
Pile Lateral Spring Stiffness Values................................................................. 16
Load Combinations .......................................................................................... 17
Analysis Results ............................................................................................... 18
Pile Shear Capacity Check - Incinerator Building ........................................... 20
Analysis Results ............................................................................................... 20
Pile Shear Capacity Check - Operations Building ........................................... 21
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Incinerator Building Floor Plan.......................................................................... 3

Incinerator Building Elevations ......................................................................... 4
Existing Pile Details ........................................................................................... 6
Operations Building Floor Plan.......................................................................... 8
Operations Building Elevations ......................................................................... 9
Incinerator Building Finite Element Model ..................................................... 14
Operations Building Finite Element Model ..................................................... 15
Site Response Spectra (Ground Acceleration versus Building Period) ........... 19
Pile Addition to Existing Pilaster Foundation .................................................. 24
Pile Addition to Existing Slab Edge ................................................................. 25
ii
City of Palo Alto
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF THE PILES SUPPORTING

THE INCINERATOR AND OPERATIONS BUILDINGS
1.0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to present the findings of our seismic evaluation of the existing piles
that support the Incinerator and Operations Buildings located at the Regional Water Quality
Control Plant (RWQCP) for the City of Palo Alto (City), California.
This evaluation was performed to advance the Facility Condition Assessment (FCA) report by
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants (December 19, 2006) that identified deficiencies in the lateral load
capacity of the piles at the Incinerator Building. The previous study was limited to a preliminary
type investigation of the Operations Building. No evaluation of the Incinerator Building was
made. Rather, it was assumed that the Incinerator Building piles lacked lateral capacity since the
Operations Building, which has a lower seismic load, was found to lack lateral pile capacity.
The current evaluation seeks to provide a more complete evaluation for the Incinerator Building
piles and to verify the preliminary findings for the Operations Building. This current evaluation
attempts to capture the building response to seismic loading by modeling the interaction of the
soil and the foundation. Such modeling accounts for the inherent flexibility of the foundation
interaction with the soil and allows for evaluation at generally larger seismic response periods
than response periods developed using the assumption that the foundation is rigidly attached to
the soil, the default approach taken in most evaluations. Larger response periods typically yield
lower seismic load demands.
Additionally, where the results of the evaluation indicate deficiencies in the lateral load resisting
capacity of the piles, recommendations for mitigation are provided.
2.0
BACKGROUND
The following set of drawings was reviewed for as-built information and was used to obtain the
necessary information for the evaluation of the piles:
2.1
Structural drawings of the Incinerator Building prepared by Jenks & Adamson Consulting
Sanitary & Civil Engineers, dated June 1969.
Incinerator Building
The Incinerator Building was originally constructed in 1969 to house the RWQCP solids
handling equipment that included belt presses, two multi-hearth incinerators. Since then the belt
presses have been removed and replaced with centrifuges. The building is rectangular and has
plan dimensions of 98 feet by 54 feet. The building has an approximate height above finished
1
floor of 44 feet. Two interior mezzanine levels at the south side of the building provide access to
equipment. The building also has a partial basement level for access to the bottom of the
incinerators. Photographs of the building are provided in Appendix A.
The roof of the building is constructed with a one-way spanning, cast-in-place concrete slab that
is 7 inches thick and supported by integral cast-in-place concrete joists and beams. The roof
framing is supported down to the foundation by a single line of rectangular concrete columns at
the interior of the building and by concrete pilasters at the perimeter.
The high mezzanine is located 24 feet above the finished floor on the south half of the building
extending across the full length. The floor area of the mezzanine is approximately 2,500 square
feet. The high mezzanine is constructed with a one-way spanning, cast-in-place concrete slab
that varies in thickness from 8 to 10 inches. The slab is supported by a system of integral
concrete joists and beams that are supported by a row of concrete columns that run along the
center of the building and concrete pilasters at the perimeter.
The low mezzanine is located in the southwest corner of the building and has an approximate
height above finished floor of 10 feet. The low mezzanine is relatively small and has a floor area
of 600 square feet. The floor is constructed with an 8-inch thick cast-in-place concrete slab that
is framed with concrete beams. The floor level is supported down to the foundation by concrete
pilasters and 8-inch thick concrete walls.
The perimeter wall of the building is constructed in a non-traditional configuration with large
tapered pilasters that protrude out from the exterior of the building by several feet at the base and
2 feet into the building. Four pilasters are located at the north and south walls, and two are
located at the east and west walls. The corners of the building are constructed with a concrete
column that is rounded to a 4-foot radius at the exterior of the building. The pilasters are
typically 26 inches thick. Concrete walls that are 9 inches thick fill in most of the gaps between
the panels and corners; however, a number of gaps are open and are covered by the building
finish system and associated framing. The exterior walls and open gaps are finished with a
combination of exposed concrete and corrugated steel panels. Refer to Figures 1 and 2 for the
floor plan and elevations of the building as depicted on the record drawings.
The ground floor of the building is constructed with a cast-in-place concrete slab that varies in
thickness from 13 to 14 inches. The slab is framed with concrete grade beams that span in two
directions and are supported on driven piles. The record drawings indicate three different pile
alternatives that include a 12-inch-diameter, steel pipe-encased concrete pile; a 15-inch-diameter,
steel corrugated-encased concrete tapered pile; and a 12-inch-square precast, prestressed
concrete pile. It is not known which pile type was installed, as the record drawings yield no
information in this regard. The piles are spaced apart individually
2
Figure 1
INCINERATOR BUILDING FLOOR PLAN
INCINERATOR AND OPERATIONS BUILDINGS
PILE SEISMIC EVALUATION
CITY OF PALO ALTO
pa811f2-8510.ai
Figure 2
INCINERATOR BUILDING ELEVATIONS
CITY OF PALO ALTO
pa811f3-8510.ai
and are located below columns, pilasters, and grade beams. Figure 3 shows the three different
pile alternatives that were specified on the record drawings.
The basement is partial to the north side of the building and is located directly below the
incinerators and extends down approximately 8 feet below the finished floor level. Concrete
walls that are 15 inches thick form the perimeter of the basement. The floor slab of the basement
is similar to the ground floor level, except that it has a thickness that varies from 16 to 18 inches.
The building houses two incinerators that are supported at the grade level. Each incinerator has
an approximate height of 25 feet and a diameter of 19 feet. The incinerators are fabricated with a
steel exterior shell and with refractory brick at the interior. Each incinerator is mounted to the
building slab at grade level with six pairs of 1.5-inch-diameter anchor bolts. Space for a third
incinerator is provided at the east end of the building. Two elevated steel-framed mezzanines
provide access around both incinerators. The mezzanine is covered with punched metal plank
grating. Seismic evaluation of the incinerators was completed during the ongoing Long Range
Facilities Plan project.
The exterior of the building has heavy air scrubbing equipment located at the northwest side and
solids storage and handling facilities located at the south side.
The lateral load resisting system of the building is comprised of rigid concrete diaphragms at the
roof and elevated floor levels that transfer lateral loads generated in an earthquake in proportion
to the stiffness of the vertical lateral load-resisting elements. The vertical lateral load-resisting
elements are comprised of the perimeter concrete walls and perpendicular pilasters that serve as
shear walls, transferring seismic loads between the elevated levels and the foundation. At the
foundation, lateral loads are transmitted from the soil to the building by the piles and their
connections to the ground floor framing. The piles are embedded directly into concrete grade
beams without any distinct pile caps.
2.2
Operations Building
The Operations Building was originally constructed in 1969 and has a square plan with a side
dimension of 63 feet. The building has two stories above grade with a total height of
approximately 24 feet above the finished floor. Around the entire building, the roof extends 5
feet over the second floor and the second floor extends 5 feet over the first floor. The perimeter
of the building is surrounded by a landscaping pond that is filled with water and structurally
separate from the foundation of the building. Photographs of the building are provided in
Appendix A.
5
Figure 3
EXISTING PILE DETAILS
CITY OF PALO ALTO
pa811f4-8510.ai
The roof of the building is constructed with a 24-inch-deep concrete waffle slab that has a
4-inch-thick deck with ribs spaced on a 30-inch grid. The waffle slab spans in two directions and
is supported at the interior by 18-inch-square concrete columns and at the perimeter by tapered
concrete pilasters that are 18 inches thick and nearly 8 feet long at the base.
The second floor of the building is constructed with a 9-inch thick concrete slab that spans in two
directions to integral concrete beams that are supported down to the foundation by square
concrete columns at the interior and tapered concrete pilasters at the perimeter of the building.
The perimeter wall of the building is constructed in a non-traditional configuration with large
tapered pilasters that protrude out from the exterior of the building by several feet at the base.
Two pilasters are located along each side of the building away from the corners. The corners of
the building cantilever at each level. The exterior of the building is finished with glazing at the
second floor and a combination of glazing and corrugated steel siding at the first floor. Refer to
Figures 4 and 5 for the floor plan and elevations of the building as depicted on the record
drawings.
The first floor of the building is constructed with a 9-inch thick concrete slab that spans in two
directions to grade beams that are supported by driven concrete piles. The record drawings
indicate three different pile alternatives that include a 12-inch-diameter, steel pipe-encased
concrete pile; a 15-inch-diameter, steel corrugated-encased concrete tapered pile; and a 12-inchsquare precast, prestressed concrete pile. It is not known which pile type was installed. The piles
are grouped in clusters of four below the four interior columns and spaced apart individually
below the perimeter pilasters. Figure 3 shows the three different pile alternatives that were
specified on the record drawings.
The lateral load resisting system of the building is comprised of rigid concrete diaphragms at the
roof and elevated floor levels that transfer lateral loads generated in an earthquake in proportion
to the stiffness of the vertical lateral load-resisting elements. The vertical lateral load-resisting
elements are comprised of the perpendicular pilasters at the perimeter of the building, which
serve as shear walls, transferring seismic loads between the elevated levels and the foundation.
At the foundation, lateral loads are transmitted between the building and the soil by the piles and
their connections to the first floor framing. The piles are embedded directly into the concrete
grade beams without any distinct pile caps.
7
Figure 4
OPERATIONS BUILDING FLOOR PLAN
CITY OF PALO ALTO
pa811f5-8510.ai
Figure 5
OPERATIONS BUILDING ELEVATIONS
CITY OF PALO ALTO
pa811f6-8510.ai.ai
3.0
SEISMIC EVALUATION
Seismic evaluation of structures follows standards or guides, such as American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) 31-03 Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings or ASCE 41-06 Seismic
Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. ASCE 31-03 is intended to serve as a guide for the
preliminary seismic evaluation for buildings and structural members, whereas, ASCE 41-06 is a
standard that contains provisions for seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. However, either
of these standards may be used for the purposes of a seismic evaluation, which is defined as a
process or methodology of evaluating deficiencies in a building. Since ASCE 41-06 is more
current and more comprehensive, it was used for the seismic evaluation of the building piles. The
acceptance criteria for the materials will bebased upon the procedures set forth in ASCE 41-06
and the relevant material standards, such as American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318-08 Building
Code Requirements for Structural Concrete.
3.1
Seismic Evaluation Criteria
Two different types of criteria can be used to define the seismic demand for an evaluation,
namely, probabilistic seismic hazard criteria and deterministic seismic hazard criteria. This
evaluation uses a probabilistic approach because it is the standard for building evaluation and
design. A deterministic approach requires a specific seismologic study that is beyond the scope
of this evaluation. Such an approach is highly sensitive to the attenuation relationship used to
estimate ground motion realized at a site.
A probabilistic seismic hazard approach considers all potential earthquake sources that can
significantly contribute to ground shaking at the site. For a given probability of occurrence, there
is an associated ground acceleration. Building codes and seismic evaluation standards
incorporate this approach when establishing seismic demand levels, which are consistent with
the level of ground shaking that has a 10-percent probability of being exceeded in a 50-year time
period. This level of ground shaking may also be regarded as having a return period of 475 years.
Table 1 contains the seismic evaluation parameters that were used to establish the seismic design
criteria associated with the probabilistic seismic hazard for this evaluation.
Table 1
Seismic Evaluation Parameters

Seismic Evaluation of the Piles Supporting the Incinerator
and Operations Buildings
City of Palo Alto
Parameter
Soil Site Class

Latitude
Longitude
Value
E
37 27 11
-122 6 40
10
Table 1
Seismic Evaluation Parameters

City of Palo Alto
Parameter
Ss
S1
Fa
Fv
SDS
SD1
Peak Ground Acceleration
3.2
Value
1.50g
0.62g
0.90
2.40
0.90g
0.99g
0.46g
Material Properties and Strengths
As with any structural or seismic evaluation, two of the more important factors to consider are
the material properties and strengths. The properties and strengths of the materials were gathered
from a review of the record drawings for the Incinerator and Operations Buildings. No material
or destructive testing of any kind was employed to assess the actual in-situ strengths and
properties of the materials being evaluated. Where property values were not reported on the
original construction documents, values consistent with the age of construction and the materials
used were assumed. The properties used in the evaluation for the concrete piles are indicated in
Table 2.
Table 2
Material Properties - Piles

City of Palo Alto
Property
Value
Concrete
Compressive Strength, fc
Poissons Ratio
Modulus of Elasticity, E
Density
3,500 psi
0.17
3,150 ksi
150 pcf
Steel Casing
Yield Strength, Fy
Modulus of Elasticity, E
36 ksi
29,000 ksi
Often materials being evaluated will be tested to determine their in-situ strength, which could be
significantly different than those values assumed from construction records. The piles being
evaluated are not readily available for sampling or testing and would require excavation that
11
exposes the bottom side of foundation elements, which are located at least 3 feet below grade.
Employing material testing of the piles would involve a significant effort since the establishment
of material properties based on sampling and testing will require obtaining samples at numerous
locations.
Knowledge of the actual material strength can help establish higher capacities, but could also
result in reduced capacities. Typically constructed elements have higher capacities than those
assumed provided they are not in a deteriorated state. Decisions to employ testing are typically
made after an initial evaluation so as to avoid expending resources on a task that may not provide
any benefit. Further discussion of testing of materials is provided in Section 5.0 of this report.
3.3
Analysis Procedure
The evaluation of the building piles requires a structural analysis to estimate how the seismic load
demands impact the existing pile system. The capacity of the piles to resist horizontal loading is of
primary interest because shearing of the piles is considered to be a catastrophic type of failure
mechanism. Analysis procedures used in the seismic evaluation of buildings are typically of four types,
namely, linear static procedure (LSP), linear dynamic procedure (LDP), nonlinear static procedure (NSP),
and nonlinear dynamic procedure (NDP). The linear and nonlinear procedures differ in the assumptions
used for material behavior. Linear procedures assume that materials are elastic and respond in the same
manner for all load demand levels. Nonlinear procedures, on the other hand, attempt to capture the
varying response of materials when subjected to actions that create strains beyond the elastic limit.
Incorporating nonlinear and/or dynamic aspects into an analysis can increase the predictive accuracy, but
at significant cost in time and effort. Therefore, when appropriate, seismic evaluations are limited to
linear static procedures. Since the buildings in this evaluation are relatively short, dynamic effects are not
anticipated to have any significant contributions to a buildings response during an earthquake. Also, the
primary member capacity that is being evaluated is the shear capacity of the piles. The behavior of a
concrete pile, when loaded in shear is brittle and exhibits little to no nonlinear behavior. It is considered to
be a force-controlled action. Therefore, a linear static procedure was chosen for the analysis of both
buildings.
3.3.1
Mathematical Model
With any analysis procedure, a mathematical model that represents the structure is needed. For buildings,
mathematical models can be as simple as single vertical beam members or as complex as the actual
building itself with all of its members configured in a manner consistent with the structure. Accuracy will
be sacrificed using oversimplified models. More refined mathematical models can yield significantly
more accurate estimates of the structures fundamental response period, which is important in estimating
the seismic demands for structural analysis.
To achieve higher accuracy of load distribution and to better understand the response of the buildings to
earthquake loads, a finite element analysis (FEA) was employed. STAAD-Pro Version V8i, an FEA
software package, was used to develop the mathematical model and perform the finite element analyses
for each building.
12
The modeling of the lateral support to the buildings, which is provided by the piles, significantly affects
the accuracy of the analysis. Most support conditions for seismic evaluations are assumed to be rigid, i.e.,
no flexibility, and do not account for any soil-pile interaction. To more accurately capture the response of
the structure, the pile supports were modeled in a way that accounts for the anticipated soil-pile
interaction. This interaction yields somewhat longer building response periods, which can result in lower
seismic demand estimates compared to analyses that do not consider the soil-pile interaction. This
interaction is modeled by considering the connections of the building to the piles as linear spring
supports.
A graphic representation of the finite element model with the supports (piles) is provided on Figures 6
and 7 for the Incinerator and Operations Buildings, respectively.
3.3.2
Soil-Pile Interaction Modeling
As previously indicated, modeling of the soil-pile interaction can provide more accurate analysis results.
This approach dictates that the lateral support provided by the piles be modeled as springs. To incorporate
this behavior into the FEA, properties for these springs were needed. The spring stiffness is dependent
upon the pile size and stiffness, its assumed connection to the structure, and the properties of the soil that
the piles are embedded within. With all these factors considered, a geotechnical analysis was performed
for each building considering two different pile connections to the structure.
The two types of connections considered for the development of the soil-pile interaction properties are the
fixed-head and free-head conditions. The fixed-head condition assumes that the top of the pile remains
rigidly attached to the mat foundation and grade beam structure of the building. The free-head condition
assumes that the pile is free to rotate at the connection to the building. Each condition is significantly
different and results in different soil-pile interaction. Since actual conditions are neither fully rigid nor
fully free to rotate, the analysis solution is bounded by these two extreme conditions.
Since the installed pile type is not definitively known, the soil-pile analysis was carried out assuming that
the 12-inch-square concrete pile was installed. The stiffness of the piles was assumed to be 50 percent of
the full value to account for member cracking during actual load conditions.
The piles were analyzed using LPile, a specialized software package, to estimate the pile deflection, shear
force, and bending moment as a function of depth for piles at the Incinerator and Operations Buildings.
Also, analyses were run for both the fixed-head and free-head pile conditions. The soil was assumed to be
settled down from the bottom of the mat foundation and grade beams. This assumption is considered to
represent the softest condition that is likely to be present based on the available geotechnical data. The
results of the pile analyses are contained in Appendix B.
13
Linear
Support
Spring (Typ.)
Figure 6
INCINERATOR BUILDING FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
CITY OF PALO ALTO
pa811f7-8510.ai
Linear
Support
Spring (Typ.)
Figure 7
OPERATIONS BUILDING FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
CITY OF PALO ALTO
pa811f8-8510.ai
The spring stiffness values used in the FEA of the buildings is indicated in Table 3. These values were
derived from the soil-pile analysis results. Since the analysis results are limited to lateral displacements of
1.0 inch and less, the reduced stiffness was estimated for larger displacements.
Table 3
Pile Lateral Spring Stiffness Values

City of Palo Alto
Pile Head Condition
Value
Fixed
14.4 kip/in.
Free
4.8 kip/in.
Operations Building
Fixed
18.5 kip/in.
Free
7.3 kip/in.
It is important to note that the stiffness of the soil varies with the load applied. Generally, as the
lateral load on a pile increases, the soil stiffness decreases. However, the seismic load path is not
known. Therefore, it will not be known how or if soil stiffness degradation will occur.
Additionally, there are other foundation variables that will impact the building response. All of
these variables are difficult to assess at best. Therefore, it is advantageous to analyze the building
for the upper and lower bound soil properties to determine how sensitive the building response is
to changes in assumed soil properties. For the buildings in this evaluation, it was determined that
the sensitivity to soil properties was rather low. The data provided by the geotechnical analysis is
considered to be a lower bounds estimate of the soil properties. At this lower bound estimate, the
building response was found to have a relatively short period. Therefore, it is not likely that the
softening effects of the soil will be substantial enough to allow for a reduced seismic load to the
building. As discussed previously, softer soil will generally increase the building period, which
can reduce the seismic demand.
Each building has concrete basement walls that can potentially work in conjunction with the
piles to resist lateral loads. The passive resistance of near surface soils is considered to be
substantially less intense than that which can be developed for piles. The profile of the east and
west basement walls for the Incinerator Building is limited to a width of less than 20 feet and an
effective depth of less than 8 feet. Small wall profiles, in general, will have limiting contributions
in resistance of total lateral load. Furthermore, lateral seismic loads will be distributed to the
basement walls and piles in proportion to their relative stiffness. The piles will have substantially
higher lateral soil stiffness values than the basement walls can develop. The conditions at the
16
Operations Building are similar. Therefore, the contribution of passive resistance at the basement
walls has been neglected in this evaluation.
Load Combinations
3.3.3
The seismic evaluation of the buildings requires use of the ASCE 41-06 load combinations with
a slight increase to the load factor for the dead load. The dead load factor was increased to
account for the relative uncertainty of the incinerator and other permanent equipment weight.
The combinations used in this evaluation are presented in Table 4, where D represents the weight
of the permanent structure and equipment, E represents the seismic loads, and L is for floor live
load. Additionally, these load combinations were applied in both orthogonal directions for each
building.
Table 4
4.0
Load Combinations
City of Palo Alto
Load Combination
Factors
0.9D + 1.0E
1.2D + 1.0L + 1.0E
FINDINGS
Three analyses were run for each building. Each analysis considered a different potential pile
connection type, namely, the fixed-head condition, free-head condition, and pinned support. As
discussed previously, the fixed-head and free-head conditions account for the soil-pile interaction
and assume rigid and free connections to the foundation, respectively. The pinned support
assumption is a rigid support that does not include any soil-pile interaction effects. This
condition was modeled as a baseline to compare the softening effects that modeling the soil-pile
interaction yield.
4.1
The analysis results of primary interest are the horizontal reactions at the supports. These
reactions are the shear demand on the piles. The results are summarized in Table 5. The analysis
results are presented in Appendix C. Note that the results presented in Appendix C are for an
event with a 2-percent probability of exceedance in a 50-year time period. This evaluation is for
an event with a 10-percent probability of exceedance in 50-years. Therefore, the results in
Table 5 have been reduced by a factor of 1.5.
17
Table 5
Analysis Results
City of Palo Alto
Building Period
(sec)
Average Pile
Shear (kips)
Maximum Pile
Shear (kips)
Fixed Head
0.7
56
76
Free Head
1.2
52
69
0.2 to 0.3
56
76
Pile Connection Type
Pinned Support
Based on the analysis results, the building periods for the fixed-head and free-head conditions
are clearly longer than those estimated assuming the pile connections are pinned supports, which
does not consider any soil-pile interaction. Unfortunately, the increased periods are not
substantial enough to achieve any significant reduction in the seismic load. Figure 8 is a response
spectra for the buildings, which is simply a graph that shows the building acceleration,
equivalent to the seismic load, in percent gravity as a function of the building period. Building
periods greater than 1.10 seconds will generally realize a reduced seismic load because it is
offset from the general earthquake period. If the pile connections are free to rotate, the building
period is about 1.2 seconds and allows for a reduction in seismic load of about 7 percent. Since
this reduction is small compared to the large pile shear forces, the results for the fixed head are
used.
The total weight of the building is estimated to be 9,400 kips. The estimated seismic horizontal
force for the entire building is 8,460 kips. No system reduction factors were considered, since
loading of the piles in shear is the primary means to transfer lateral load between the soil and the
building.
4.1.1
Pile Capacity Check
Since the pile type that is installed is not known, all three alternatives indicated on the record
drawings were checked against the seismic pile shear demand that was estimated in the analysis.
The pile shear capacities were estimated in accordance with the provisions set forth in ACI 31808. In estimating the pile shear capacity, 50 percent of the average axial compression load, which
includes seismic loads, was considered. The results are presented in Table 6.
The pile shear capacity was calculated assuming a capacity reduction factor (Phi-factor) equal to
unity. This check is considered to be a force-controlled action and no ductility or redundancy
was considered in the evaluation. The shear capacity of the steel-encased concrete was assumed
to be limited to the lower of the strength of the steel casing or the concrete. The steel is relatively
thin (less than 1/4-inch) and the condition is not known.
18
Sa (g) vs. T (sec)

1.60
1.40
1.20
Sa (g)
1.00
0 80
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
T (sec)
Figure 8
SITE RESPONSE SPECTRA
(GROUND ACCELERATION VERSUS BUILDING PERIOD)
CITY OF PALO ALTO
pa811f9-8510.ai
Table 6
Pile Shear Capacity Check - Incinerator Building

City of Palo Alto
Pile Type
12-inch-square
prestressed concrete
15-inch-diameter
concrete
12-inch-diameter
steel-encased concrete
Pile Shear
Demand (kips)
56
Pile Shear
Capacity (kips)
33
Demand-Capacity
Ratio
1.7
56
33
1.7
56
24
2.3
Also, very little research has been done to more accurately assess the shear capacity of steelencased concrete piles.
The check of the piles suggests that the demand-capacity ratio (DCR) can be as high as 2.3,
which is a clear indication that the piles lack the needed shear strength to resist the seismic
loading. At this deficiency level, the piles are anticipated to shear off.
4.2
Operations Building
The analysis results of primary interest are the horizontal reactions at the supports. These
reactions are the shear demand on the piles. The results are summarized in Table 7. The analysis
results are presented in Appendix C. Note that the results presented in Appendix C are for an
event with a 2-percent probability of exceedance in a 50-year time period. This evaluation is for
an event with a 10-percent probability of exceedance in 50-years. Therefore, the results in Table
7 have been reduced by a factor of 1.5.
Table 7
Analysis Results
City of Palo Alto
Pile Connection Type

Fixed Head
Free Head
Pinned Support
Building Period
(sec)
0.6
0.9
0.2
Average Pile
Shear (kips)
55
55
55
Maximum Pile
Shear (kips)
59
57
61
Based on the analysis results, the building periods for the fixed-head and free-head conditions
are clearly longer than those estimated assuming the pile connections are pinned supports, which
does not consider any soil-pile interaction. Unfortunately, the increased periods are not enough
to achieve any reduction in the seismic load demand.
20
The total weight of the building is estimated to be 3,068 kips. The estimated seismic horizontal
force for the entire building is 2,760 kips. No system reduction forces were considered, since
loading of the piles in shear is the primary means to transfer lateral load between the soil and the
building.
4.2.1
Pile Capacity Check
Since the pile type that is installed is not known, all three alternatives indicated on the record
drawings were checked against the seismic pile shear demand that was estimated in the analysis.
The pile shear capacities were estimated in accordance with the provisions set forth in ACI 31808. In estimating the pile shear capacity, 50 percent of the average axial compression load, which
includes seismic loads, was considered. The results are presented in Table 8.
Table 8
Pile Shear Capacity Check - Operations Building

City of Palo Alto
Pile Shear
Demand (kips)
Pile Shear
Capacity (kips)
Demand-Capacity
Ratio
12-inch-square
prestressed concrete
55
37
1.5
15-inch-diameter concrete
55
36
1.5
12-inch-diameter
steel-encased concrete
55
27
2.0
Pile Type
The pile shear capacity was calculated assuming a capacity reduction factor (Phi-factor) equal to
unity. This check is considered to be a force-controlled action and no ductility or redundancy
was considered in the evaluation. The shear capacity of the steel-encased concrete was assumed
to be limited to the lower of the strength of the steel casing or the concrete. The steel is relatively
thin (less than 1/4-inch) and the condition is not known. Also, very little research has been done
to more accurately assess the shear capacity of steel-encased concrete piles.
The check of the piles suggests that the DCR can be as high as 2.0, which is a clear indication
that the piles lack the needed shear strength to resist the seismic loading. At this deficiency level,
the piles are anticipated to shear off.
4.3
Discussion
In general, the buildings were found to have seismic load demands that significantly exceed the
shear capacity of the existing piles, whichever type of pile is installed. The DCRs vary from 1.5
to 2.3. This result is not surprising given the location of the site is near the San Andreas Fault
and the age of construction. During a large earthquake, the piles are likely to shear off just below
the top of the pile, after which time the behavior of the building would become unpredictable.
21
Lateral displacement of the building can be significant with excessive collateral and structural
damage. Rotation of the building in plan is also possible.
If the piles had sufficient strength to resist the calculated demands, building lateral deflections
would be significant, being on the order of several inches. At these deflection levels, damage to
connecting piping and other utilities should be anticipated. Additionally, the building may
experience permanent displacement and significant foundation damage.
The results obtained assume that the soil is capable of delivering the large seismic forces that
were estimated in this evaluation. Also, the buildings were not analyzed to evaluate overturning
effects that might include uplift on piles, compression on the piles, and vertical rotation of the
building. Such effects can lead to significant structural and collateral damage. For this
evaluation, net uplift was not identified in any of the analysis results. Furthermore, ASCE 31-03
allows for significant reduction in the calculated overturning actions at the foundation when
evaluating the foundation members.
5.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of the evaluation, it is clear that the existing pile systems for both buildings
lack sufficient shear capacity to resist anticipated seismic loads from an earthquake having a
return period of 475 years. Failure of the pile system can lead to unpredictable behavior and
movement of the building. The foundation can be rehabilitated to provide the necessary shear
capacity to prevent such behavior. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 547
Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings contains seismic retrofit
techniques and strategies for the vast majority of building vulnerabilities, including foundation
deficiencies. The cost of foundation rehabilitation is relatively high and disruptive. Therefore,
the consequences of foundation failure should be carefully evaluated to determine whether large
movements are unacceptable. The cost to repair damaged utilities and connections to the building
should be considered. If the foundation system were rehabilitated to resist the seismic shear
demands, displacement will still be relatively large and may still impose failures upon the
building connections and utilities.
The basic vulnerability identified with the foundation is the lack of pile shear capacity. The
following strategies and variations thereof are available to address this type of deficiency:
Addition of drilled concrete piers or auger-cast piles around the perimeter of the building
with an extension of the foundation as required. Driving piles can adversely affect existing
utilities and adjacent foundations and are not recommended. Other types of piles can also
be used, such as micropiles or battered piles; however, the size and type of pile should be
selected with due consideration to the relative stiffness of the supplemental piles compared
22
to the existing piles. A new pile system that is excessively stiff compared to the existing
piles may underutilize the existing pile system.
Removal of a significant amount of mass from the building to reduce the seismic load
demand. Reduction of mass will directly reduce the potential seismic load transferred to
the foundation. The high seismic base shears calculated in this evaluation will practically
eliminate this strategy as a viable alternative.
Although obvious, building replacement could be a viable alternative. If the cost to seismically
retrofit an older building is a substantial percent of the building replacement value, it may be
economically advantageous to decommission the facility and replace it with a more efficient
system and structure. The building is already more than 40 years old and will require increased
maintenance in the future as the building continues age.
5.1
Addition of new concrete piles to supplement the existing foundation is recommended to prevent
shear failure of the existing pile system. Piles can be added around the perimeter of the building
and connected to a new extension of the foundation. It is estimated that a minimum addition of
forty 18-inch-diameter concrete piles will be required to achieve the necessary shear strength.
More piles may need to be added to address bending capacity limitations of the existing pile
system. The existing piles are 12 to 15 inches in diameter. Addition of any new piles will require
a minimum spacing of 4.5 feet from new and existing piles. The spacing of the existing piles
around the perimeter of the building is approximately 6 to 11 feet on center. Based on the
existing spacing, it appears that the addition of new piles around the perimeter is feasible. Piles
can also be added at the interior of the building; however, this will require large equipment
access, which might be limited by the size of the roll-up doors. A conceptual depiction of the
addition of new piles is shown on Figures 9 and 10 for pile additions made at the existing fins
and perimeter slab, respectively.
The existing conditions around the perimeter of the building will impose restrictions or
necessitate additional work so that piles can be successfully installed. The ash system, sludge
storage tanks, and chemical storage along the north and south sides of the building will limit
accessibility and complicate construction.
A number of building connections exist, including a buried utility tunnel. These connections will
remain vulnerable to failure in the event of a large earthquake.
23
New Pile Cap

Extension as
required
New Piles, Typ 4

at each existing
pilaster
Figure 9
PILE ADDITION TO EXISTING PILASTER FOUNDATION
CITY OF PALO ALTO
pa811f10-8510.ai
New Pile Cap

Extension as
required
New Piles, at
Slab Edge
Figure 10
PILE ADDITION TO EXISTING SLAB EDGE
CITY OF PALO ALTO
pa811f11-8510.ai
Removal of mass can reduce the seismic load to the foundation. However, to make any
meaningful difference for the Incinerator Building, the mass would need to be able to be reduced
by approximately 60 percent. The weight of the ground floor alone exceeds the weight that
would not overload the piles in shear. Therefore, it is not practical to reduce the building weight
alone. To do so would require complete demolition of the building and foundation. A
combination of mass reduction with pile addition can help reduce the total number of
supplemental piles required.
5.2
Operations Building
Addition of new concrete piles to supplement the existing pile foundation is recommended to
mitigate the identified vulnerability. It is estimated that a minimum addition of twelve 18-inchdiameter concrete piles will be required to achieve the necessary shear strength. Additional piles
may need to be provided to address bending capacity limitations of the existing pile system. The
existing piles around the perimeter of the building are located below the existing fin walls. Based
on the existing locations, it appears that the addition of new piles around the perimeter is
feasible. Addition of piles at the interior plan of the building does not appear feasible since
access of heavy construction equipment is not practical. A conceptual depiction of the addition
of new piles will be similar to that shown on Figure 9.
The building is completely surrounded at the exterior by a shallow landscaping pond. Installation
of new piles will require the pond to be drained. Repairs to the pond system will likely be
required after any construction work.
Mass reduction of the building would necessitate demolition of the elevated levels and
reconstruction if this strategy were to be employed alone. Given the size of the building, mass
reduction does not appear to be a practical strategy to implement.
6.0
CONCLUSIONS
The seismic evaluation of the existing pile foundations for the Incinerator and Operations
Buildings reveals that the existing piles lack adequate shear capacity to safely resist the seismic
loads imparted by an earthquake with a level of ground shaking that has a 10-percent probability
of being exceeded in a 50-year time frame. Under this scenario, the piles are anticipated to shear
off, allowing the buildings to displace laterally in an uncontrolled manner with large-scale
displacements. Severe damage to existing building connections, including utilities, will likely
result. Structural and non-structural collateral damage are anticipated to be more substantial due
to shearing of the piles.
As the cost to rehabilitate existing deep foundation systems is relatively high, due consideration
should be given to the acceptability of large-scale, uncontrolled lateral displacement of the
26
building. If such behavior is determined to be unacceptable, rehabilitation of the existing

foundation can be achieved by adding new concrete piles with associated pile cap extensions
around the perimeter of each building. A rough order of magnitude cost for construction is
estimated to be $1.1 million for both buildings. This estimate assumes that the building is
rehabilitated to meet the life safety performance level that is consistent with the design of new
buildings. Construction will involve mobilization, excavation around the buildings, installation
of additional piles, casting of pile caps, backfilling, repairing/restoring existing construction, etc.
A foundation rehabilitation design will require preparation of engineering plans and perhaps
additional investigation into the existing soils below each building. It should be emphasized that
a rehabilitated foundation with adequate shear capacity may still result in relatively large lateral
displacements. Soil improvement may be a necessary part of a foundation rehabilitation design to
help reduce lateral displacements that may be deemed intolerable. The rough cost of soil
improvement techniques, such as injection grouting, has not been considered in this evaluation.
The building replacement cost for each building should be considered before embarking on a
rehabilitation program, as it may be economically advantageous to replace the existing buildings
with new construction that will have considerably longer service lives.
27
City of Palo Alto
APPENDIX A - PHOTOGRAPHS
20-PaloAlto3-111FAppendixA1-8510A10.AI
Figure A-1
Incinerator Bldg: The east elevation. The walls of the building are constructed with steel-framed wall
panels and cast-in-place concrete.
Figure A-2
Incinerator Bldg: The north elevation. A scrubber system is located adjacent to the building.
APPENDIX A
Figure A-3
Incinerator Bldg: The west elevation.
Figure A-4
Incinerator Bldg: The south elevation.
APPENDIX A
Figure A-5
Incinerator Bldg: View of the roof looking from the west to the east. The roof is framed with a concrete slab
and beam system.
Figure A-6
Incinerator Bldg: View of the interior of the building as seen from the west entrance.
APPENDIX A
Figure A-7
Incinerator Bldg: Entrance stair to the basement where access to the bottom of the furnaces is provided.
Figure A-8
Incinerator Bldg: View of the concrete roof framing system as seen from the interior of the building.
APPENDIX A
Figure A-9
Incinerator Bldg: Solids dewatering equipment located at the high mezzanine level that occurs on the
south side of the interior of the building.
Figure A-10
Incinerator Bldg: Furnace No. 2 as seen from the high mezzanine.
APPENDIX A
Figure A-11
Incinerator Bldg: View of the concrete columns that support the roof level and high mezzanine down to
the foundation.
Figure A-12
Incinerator Bldg: Furnace No. 2 adjacent to a roof and high mezzanine support column.
APPENDIX A
Figure A-13
Incinerator Bldg: Interior of the building at ground level just north of the furnaces.
Figure A-14
Incinerator Bldg: Typical concrete column support and high concrete-framed mezzanine.
APPENDIX A
Figure A-15
Operations Bldg: Northeast elevation. The exterior of the building is framed with steel-framed siding
panels and cast-in-place concrete cladding and fin walls.
Figure A-16
Operations Bldg: Southeast elevation. The south side of the building includes a concrete pedestrian
bridge that provides access to an second floor entrance.
APPENDIX A
Figure A-17
Operations Bldg: Southwest elevation.
Figure A-18
Operations Bldg: Northwest elevation. The building is surrounded on four sides by a landscaping pond.
APPENDIX A
Figure A-19
Operations Bldg: Corner of the building with concrete cladding. The floors are framed with a cast-in-place
concrete waffle slab system.
Figure A-20
Operations Bldg: Concrete pedestrian bridge connection to the second floor at the south side of the building.
APPENDIX A
City of Palo Alto
APPENDIX B - SOIL-PILE INTERACTION ANALYSIS RESULTS
Jan 13, 2011, ground settled from pile cap
LPILE Results where ground has settled away from bottom of pile caps
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
5a
5b
5c
5d
5e
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
2B0
2B0
2B0
2B0
2B0
Oper
Oper
Oper
Oper
Oper
Bldg,
Bldg,
Bldg,
Bldg,
Bldg,
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Ground,12in
Ground,12in
Ground,12in
Ground,12in
Ground,12in
SQ
SQ
SQ
SQ
SQ
Pile,
Pile,
Pile,
Pile,
Pile,
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Gross
Gross
Gross
Gross
Gross
EI,
EI,
EI,
EI,
EI,
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Head,
Head,
Head,
Head,
Head,
Load vs Top Deflection

Deflection vs Depth
Shear vs Depth
Moment vs Depth
Soil Reaction
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
9a
9b
9c
9d
9e
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
4D0
4D0
4D0
4D0
4D0
Inci
Inci
Inci
Inci
Inci
Bldg,
Bldg,
Bldg,
Bldg,
Bldg,
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Ground,12in
Ground,12in
Ground,12in
Ground,12in
Ground,12in
SQ
SQ
SQ
SQ
SQ
Pile,
Pile,
Pile,
Pile,
Pile,
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Gross
Gross
Gross
Gross
Gross
EI,
EI,
EI,
EI,
EI,
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Head,
Head,
Head,
Head,
Head,
Load vs Top Deflection

Deflection vs Depth
Shear vs Depth
Moment vs Depth
Soil Reaction
Figure 13a
Deflection
Figure 13b
Figure 13c
Figure 13d
Figure 13e
- Case 2B0x - Oper Bldg, Soft Ground,12in SQ Pile, 50% Gross EI, Fixed Head, Load vs Top
Figure 17a
Deflection
Figure 17b
Figure 17c
Figure 17d
Figure 17e
- Case 4D0x - Inci Bldg, Soft Ground,12in SQ Pile, 50% Gross EI, Fixed Head, Load vs Top
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
2B0x
2B0x
2B0x
2B0x
4D0x
4D0x
4D0x
4D0x
figure titles_run01132011.docx
Oper
Oper
Oper
Oper
Inci
Inci
Inci
Inci
Bldg,
Bldg,
Bldg,
Bldg,
Bldg,
Bldg,
Bldg,
Bldg,
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
1 of 1
Ground,12in
Ground,12in
Ground,12in
Ground,12in
Ground,12in
Ground,12in
Ground,12in
Ground,12in
SQ
SQ
SQ
SQ
SQ
SQ
SQ
SQ
Pile,
Pile,
Pile,
Pile,
Pile,
Pile,
Pile,
Pile,
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Gross
Gross
Gross
Gross
Gross
Gross
Gross
Gross
EI,
EI,
EI,
EI,
EI,
EI,
EI,
EI,
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
1/17/11, 8:07 AM
Head,
Head,
Head,
Head,
Head,
Head,
Head,
Head,
Deflection vs Depth
Shear vs Depth
Moment vs Depth
Soil Reaction
Deflection vs Depth
Shear vs Depth
Moment vs Depth
Soil Reaction
6
5
1
Lateral Load (kips)
10
11
12
Case 1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Pile-Head Deflection (in)

Figure 5a - Case 2B0 - Oper Bldg, Soft Ground,12in SQ Pile, 50% Gross EI, Free Head, Load vs Top Deflection
Lateral Deflection (in)

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
25
50
45
40
35
30
Depth (ft)
20
15
10
-0.1
Case 0
Case 4.0135
Case 5.7039
Case 8.1191
Case 11.588
Figure 5b - Case 2B0 - Oper Bldg, Soft Ground,12in SQ Pile, 50% Gross EI, Free Head, Deflection vs Depth
-8
-6
-4
-2
10
25
50
45
40
35
30
Depth (ft)
20
15
10
Shear Force (kips)
Case 0
Case 4.0135
Case 5.7039
Case 8.1191
Case 11.588
Figure 5c - Case 2B0 - Oper Bldg, Soft Ground,12in SQ Pile, 50% Gross EI, Free Head, Shear vs Depth
Bending Moment (in-kips)

-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
25
50
45
40
35
30
Depth (ft)
20
15
10
-100
Case 0
Case 4.0135
Case 5.7039
Case 8.1191
Case 11.588
Figure 5d - Case 2B0 - Oper Bldg, Soft Ground,12in SQ Pile, 50% Gross EI, Free Head, Moment vs Depth
Mobilized Soil Reaction (lbs/in)

-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
25
50
45
40
35
30
Depth (ft)
20
15
10
-300
Case 0
Case 4.0135
Case 5.7039
Case 8.1191
Case 11.588
Figure 5e - Case 2B0 - Oper Bldg, Soft Ground,12in SQ Pile, 50% Gross EI, Free Head, Soil Reaction
4
3.5
3
0.5
1.5
2.5
Lateral Load (kips)
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
Case 1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

Figure 9a - Case 4D0 - Inci Bldg, Soft Ground,12in SQ Pile, 50% Gross EI, Free Head, Load vs Top Deflection

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
25
50
45
40
35
30
Depth (ft)
20
15
10
-0.1
Case 0
Case 2.2172
Case 3.2255
Case 4.7379
Case 7.0123
Figure 9b - Case 4D0 - Inci Bldg, Soft Ground,12in SQ Pile, 50% Gross EI, Free Head, Deflection vs Depth
-8
-6
-4
-2
25
50
45
40
35
30
Depth (ft)
20
15
10
Shear Force (kips)
Case 0
Case 2.2172
Case 3.2255
Case 4.7379
Case 7.0123
Figure 9c - Case 4D0 - Inci Bldg, Soft Ground,12in SQ Pile, 50% Gross EI, Free Head, Shear vs Depth

-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
25
50
45
40
35
30
Depth (ft)
20
15
10
-100
Case 0
Case 2.2172
Case 3.2255
Case 4.7379
Case 7.0123
Figure 9d - Case 4D0 - Inci Bldg, Soft Ground,12in SQ Pile, 50% Gross EI, Free Head, Moment vs Depth

-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
25
50
45
40
35
30
Depth (ft)
20
15
10
-400
Case 0
Case 2.2172
Case 3.2255
Case 4.7379
Case 7.0123
Figure 9e - Case 4D0 - Inci Bldg, Soft Ground,12in SQ Pile, 50% Gross EI, Free Head, Soil Reaction
12
10
2
Lateral Load (kips)
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
Case 1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

Figure 13a - Case 2B0x - Oper Bldg, Soft Ground,12in SQ Pile, 50% Gross EI, Fixed Head, Load vs Top Deflection

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
25
50
45
40
35
30
Depth (ft)
20
15
10
-0.1
Case 0
Case 8.0741
Case 11.741
Case 17.218
Case 25.459
Figure 13b - Case 2B0x - Oper Bldg, Soft Ground,12in SQ Pile, 50% Gross EI, Fixed Head, Deflection vs Depth
Shear Force (kips)

-5
10
15
20
25
30
25
50
45
40
35
30
Depth (ft)
20
15
10
-10
Case 0
Case 8.0741
Case 11.741
Case 17.218
Case 25.459
Figure 13c - Case 2B0x - Oper Bldg, Soft Ground,12in SQ Pile, 50% Gross EI, Fixed Head, Shear vs Depth
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
25
50
45
40
35
30
Depth (ft)
20
15
10
Case 0
Case 8.0741
Case 11.741
Case 17.218
Case 25.459
Figure 13d - Case 2B0x - Oper Bldg, Soft Ground,12in SQ Pile, 50% Gross EI, Fixed Head, Moment vs Depth

-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
25
50
45
40
35
30
Depth (ft)
20
15
10
-500
Case 0
Case 8.0741
Case 11.741
Case 17.218
Case 25.459
Figure 13e - Case 2B0x - Oper Bldg, Soft Ground,12in SQ Pile, 50% Gross EI, Fixed Head, Soil Reaction
9
8
7
1
Lateral Load (kips)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Case 1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

Figure 17a - Case 4D0x - Inci Bldg, Soft Ground,12in SQ Pile, 50% Gross EI, Fixed Head, Load vs Top Deflection

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
25
50
45
40
35
30
Depth (ft)
20
15
10
-0.1
Case 0
Case 4.9953
Case 7.6238
Case 11.749
Case 18.238
Figure 17b - Case 4D0x - Inci Bldg, Soft Ground,12in SQ Pile, 50% Gross EI, Fixed Head, Deflection vs Depth
-8
-6
-4
-2
10
12
14
16
18
25
50
45
40
35
30
Depth (ft)
20
15
10
Shear Force (kips)
Case 0
Case 4.9953
Case 7.6238
Case 11.749
Case 18.238
Figure 17c - Case 4D0x - Inci Bldg, Soft Ground,12in SQ Pile, 50% Gross EI, Fixed Head, Shear vs Depth

-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
200
400
25
50
45
40
35
30
Depth (ft)
20
15
10
-1200
Case 0
Case 4.9953
Case 7.6238
Case 11.749
Case 18.238
Figure 17d - Case 4D0x - Inci Bldg, Soft Ground,12in SQ Pile, 50% Gross EI, Fixed Head, Moment vs Depth

-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
25
50
45
40
35
30
Depth (ft)
20
15
10
-500
Case 0
Case 4.9953
Case 7.6238
Case 11.749
Case 18.238
Figure 17e - Case 4D0x - Inci Bldg, Soft Ground,12in SQ Pile, 50% Gross EI, Fixed Head, Soil Reaction
City of Palo Alto
APPENDIX C - EVALUATION CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX F INCINERATORS SEISMIC EVALUATION

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CITY OF PALO ALTO

LONG RANGE FACILITIES PLAN FOR THE
RWQCP
INCINERATORS SEISMIC EVALUATION
DRAFT
APRIL 2012
2700 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD SUITE 300 WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94598
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Palo Alto/8510B00/Deliverables/Task 14/Incinerator Seismic Evaluation TM
(925) 932-1710 FAX (925) 930-0208
City of Palo Alto

LONG RANGE FACILITIES PLAN FOR THE RWQCP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ........................................................................ 1
2.0
BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 2
2.1
Existing Facilities............................................................................................. 2
2.2
Operations ........................................................................................................ 3
3.0
SEISMIC EVALUATION ........................................................................................... 3

3.1
Seismic Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................. 3
3.2
Historic Seismicity ........................................................................................... 8
3.3
Procedures ........................................................................................................ 8
4.0
CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................ 22
LIST OF APPENDICES
A Incinerator Photographs
B Incinerator Seismic Stability Evaluation
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Faults Near City of Palo Alto ............................................................................. 6

Seismic Evaluation Parameters per ASCE 7-05 ................................................ 7
Material Properties Steel and Concrete ......................................................... 10
Material Properties Refractory Brick ............................................................ 11
Hearth Analysis Temperatures ......................................................................... 14
Hearth Gravity Loads ....................................................................................... 14
Hearth Loads and Load Combinations ............................................................. 15
Normal Radial Stresses, Sy ............................................................................... 21
Normal Circumferential Stresses, Sx ................................................................ 22
i
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Palo Alto/8510B00/Deliverables/Task 14/Incinerator Seismic Evaluation TM (C)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Cross-sectional View of the Incinerator ............................................................. 4

Detailed Section of a Typical Elevated Hearth .................................................. 5
Map of the Peak Ground Acceleration for The 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake.
Courtesy Of The California Geological Survey ................................................. 9
The Finite Element Model of the Incinerator for the Anchorage Evaluation .. 11
The Finite Element Model Developed for the Evaluation of the Hearths ........ 13
Depiction of Stresses Reported in the Finite Element Analysis....................... 16
Radial and Circumferential Stresses for Load Combination No. 1 (LC100) ... 17
Radial and Circumferential Stresses for Load Combination No. 3 (LC300). .. 19
ii
Technical Memorandum

1.0
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
The City of Palo Alto (City) operates two multi-hearth furnaces (MHFs) to incinerate solids at
the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The incinerators were originally fabricated
in 1971 and began operation in 1972 and are located within the Incinerator Building, which is a
concrete-framed building with a concrete steel-framed roof. The plant is located within a region
that is well known for its potential for large earthquakes. Therefore, buildings and large
equipment may, at any time, be subjected to strong ground motions without warning. As part of
the Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFP), the City requested Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Carollo) to
provide a description of the MHFs, an overview of the approach and procedures used, and
recommendations for addressing potential deficiencies identified.
Over the years, the design of buildings and non-building structures has improved considerably
with the advancement of knowledge within the fields of structural engineering and seismology.
As a result, structures designed and constructed within the last 20 to 30 years may be expected to
perform better than those constructed in an earlier time period. Furthermore, design standards
and guides for special structures, such as steel tanks and silos, have also evolved over the years
to include necessary seismic design provisions. The incinerators are considered to be a special
type of structure that is quite different than a typical tank due to the internal operations, materials
of construction, and the service conditions to which the structure will be subjected. As a result,
one would expect that a specific standard exists to address structural concerns, especially related
to seismic design. However, due to the fact that solids incineration using MHFs has been
superceded by other technologies, such a standard did not develop. Additionally, the MHFs are
more than 40 years old. Consequently, given the age of the MHFs and lack of a design standard,
there is a need to more clearly understand what the seismic-related risks might be to both the life
safety of plant operators and to the operation of the solids handling process. Carollo was scoped
to evaluate the MHFs to identify potential seismic-related deficiencies of the structural
components.
The seismic evaluation of the incinerators included a visit to the site on November 3, 2010, a
review of the record drawings for the Incinerator Building and the MHF equipment, and a
subsequent finite element analysis (FEA) of the anchorage and hearth elements.
1
2.0
BACKGROUND
2.1
Existing Facilities
The two incinerators are located within the Incinerator Building and are approximately 25 feet in
height and nearly 19 feet in diameter. Furnace No.1 and Furnace No. 2 (the incinerators) are
situated along the north side of the building, with Furnace No. 1 closest to the west side of the
building. The incinerators are constructed with an exterior steel shell that is 3/8-inch thick. The
shell is circumferentially spliced together with three bolted, steel plate sections that are of equal
length. The interior of each incinerator is comprised of six hearths. Each hearth is constructed
with a low-profile sprung arch of refractory brick material that relies upon the compressive
pressure between each brick to maintain stability against collapse. The supporting compressive
pressure between each brick is comprised of two components, namely, the weight of the bricks
and the interlocking pressure created by carefully fitting the bricks together during construction,
the latter pressure being difficult to estimate. The interior perimeter is constructed with a single
4.5-inch wide layer of refractory brick and a 9-inch thick layer of castable refractory material for
insulation, creating a total insulation thickness of 13.5 inches. This insulation also serves to
vertically support all of the hearth levels. The exterior shell is reinforced with an additional
5/8-inch by 6-inch tall steel plate at each hearth level to provide the necessary resistance to the
thrust loading generated by the arch action of the hearth and the thermal expansion caused by
heating within. The reinforcing rings are spliced with bolts. The top and bottom of the
incinerators are framed with steel framing that is insulated with castable refractory.
A mechanical shaft is located at the center of the incinerator. The central shaft is fitted with
rabble arms at each hearth level to move the solids through the incinerator. The shaft is insulated
with castable refractory. The hearth levels have alternating openings to allow the passage of
solids from the top to the bottom. The openings alternate from the center to the perimeter at each
subsequent hearth.
Each incinerator is mounted to the building slab at grade level with six pairs of 1.5-inch diameter
anchor bolts. For access to equipment, an 8-foot deep pit is located below the bottom of the
incinerators. Additional concrete piers provide support to the center drive mechanism and
mechanical equipment. The foundation of the building is comprised of concrete piles that extend
down into the site soils.
Two elevated steel-framed mezzanines provide access around both incinerators. The mezzanine
is covered with punched metal plank grating. Access to the top is provided from an adjacent
concrete-framed mezzanine and the tops of each incinerator are joined together by a small steelframed bridge. Two stairs located at the north and south ends of the incinerators provide access
to the various elevated levels. A 24-inch diameter steel emergency bypass exhaust stack exits
through the roof of the building above each incinerator.
2
2.2
Operations
The plant currently operates the incinerators on an annual alternating cycle where one is online
for a year while the other is off-line for maintenance and repair. At the time of the site visit in
November of 2010, Furnace No. 1 was in operation. Solids are introduced into the incinerator at
the top on a conveyor belt after passing through a belt-press filter. The solids are heated at
different temperatures at each hearth level to induce drying and combustion. The rabble arms
constantly spread and move the solids across the hearth surface. Ash is collected at the bottom
hearth and extracted. The maximum normal operating temperature was reported by plant staff to
be approximately 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit, with spikes occasionally reaching 2,000 degrees
Fahrenheit. Heating is achieved by burning natural gas at select hearth levels.
Start-up and shutdown of the incinerator is performed over multiple days to avoid spalling from
boiling water and to avoid thermal shock to the interior materials, which can cause differential
expansion/contraction that can potentially destabilize the refractory brick resulting in a hearth
collapse. The refractory brick does not have the capacity to resist tensile forces since there is no
physical bond or connection between the individual bricks. This is understood to be an inherent
risk of operating a MHF. During heating the hearths expand, but are restrained by the exterior
steel shell, which causes the hearth to displace vertically at the center.
Excerpts from the record drawings of the incinerators are provided on Figures 1 and 2.
Photographs of the incinerators are contained in Appendix A.
3.0
SEISMIC EVALUATION
Seismic evaluation of structures typically follows a standard or guide, such as American Society
of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 31, Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings. Non-building
structures may have a specific design standard that can be used as a guide, such as American
Water Works Association (AWWA) D100 for prestressed concrete tanks. However, for the
incinerators, no such standard exists. Therefore, the seismic hazard used in the assessment and
the acceptance criteria for the materials will be based upon the principles contained in ASCE 705, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, and the relevant current
material standards, respectively.
3.1
Seismic Evaluation Criteria
The seismic hazard for the site is a function of the anticipated reoccurrence and intensity of
earthquakes that affect the site. The intensity of an earthquake at a site is dependent upon many
variables, including earthquake magnitude, fault distance, directivity, and energy attenuation
from the epicenter to the site. An inverse relationship exists between the probability of
occurrence of an earthquake and its magnitude. In other words, a lower magnitude earthquake
has a much higher probability of occurrence within a given time period.
3
Figure 1
Cross-sectional View of the Incinerator
4
Figure 2
Detailed Section of a Typical Elevated Hearth
California is in a region of the world that has experienced significant seismic events and is
therefore an area of high seismic risk. The primary source of Californias seismicity is derived
from its location, which straddles the North American and Pacific Plates, which are moving in
opposite longitudinal directions. The primary interface between the two plates is the San Andreas
Fault. The plate interactions also have created a host of complementary earthquake faults that
generally are parallel to the San Andreas Fault. Examples of these faults include the NewportInglewood Fault in Southern California, the Hayward Fault in the Bay Area, and the Garlock
Fault in the Owens Valley.
Some significant historic damaging earthquakes include the 1857 Fort Tejon earthquake on the
San Andreas Fault, the 1906 Great San Francisco earthquake, the 1971 San Fernando earthquake,
the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, and the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
Some substantial faults that may influence the RWQCP site are indicated in Table 1. These faults
are those that are known to have been active within the last 11,000 years. Note that this list is not
meant to be comprehensive. Bear in mind that earthquakes are not confined to known or listed
faults. Seismologists are still actively identifying and cataloging new faults that were previously
unknown. The thrust fault that generated the 1994 Northridge earthquake was one such fault.
Two different types of criteria can be used to define the seismic demand for an evaluation,
namely, a probabilistic seismic hazard criteria and a deterministic seismic hazard criteria. This
evaluation utilizes a probabilistic approach because it is the standard for building evaluation and
design. A deterministic approach requires a specific seismologic study that is beyond the scope
of this evaluation. Such an approach is highly sensitive to the attenuation relationship used to
estimate ground motion realized at a site.
5
Table 1
3.1.1
Faults Near City of Palo Alto(1)

Fault Name
Distance from RWQCP Site (miles)
Monte Vista-Shannon
6.0
San Andreas
8.0
Hayward-Rodgers Creek
11.0
Calaveras
15.0
San Gregorio
18.0
Sargent
24.0
Greenville
29.0
Probabilistic Criteria
A probabilistic seismic hazard approach considers all potential earthquake sources that can
significantly contribute to ground shaking at the site. For a given probability of occurrence, there
is an associated ground acceleration. Building codes and seismic evaluation standards
incorporate this approach when establishing seismic demand levels, which are consistent with
the level of ground shaking that has a 10-percent probability of being exceeded in a 50-year time
period. This level of ground shaking may also be regarded as having a return period of 475 years.
Table 2 contains the seismic evaluation parameters obtained from ASCE 7-05.These parameters
were used to establish the seismic design criteria associated with the probabilistic seismic hazard
for this evaluation.
3.1.2
Deterministic Criteria
A deterministic approach is not used in this evaluation as it is beyond the scope of work.
Development of a deterministic approach requires a specific geologic and seismologic study. A
deterministic approach considers an earthquake of a particular magnitude that might occur along
a particular segment of a fault at a specified distance from the site. The particular earthquake
considered in a deterministic approach may be considered as the maximum credible event or an
event that has a greater potential to occur. Such an approach is often more suited for qualitative
evaluations, such as emergency response studies, or worst-case scenarios, as such events are less
likely to occur in any given time period and can result in significantly higher level forces for an
evaluation.
1 U.S. Geological Survey and New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, 2006, Quaternary
fault and fold database for the United States, accessed Feb 1, 2011, from USGS web site:
http//earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults/.
6
Table 2
Seismic Evaluation Parameters per ASCE 7-05

Parameter
Value
Soil Site Class
Latitude
37 27 11
Longitude
-122 6 40
Ss
1.50g
S1
0.62g
Fa
0.90
Fv
2.40
SDS
0.90g
SD1
0.99g
Peak Ground Acceleration
0.46g
Notes:
(1) g = vertical acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface
(2) Ss = mapped maximum credible earthquake, 5 percent damped, spectral response
acceleration parameter at short periods
(3) S1 = mapped maximum credible earthquake, 5 percent damped, spectral response
acceleration parameter at 1 second
(4) Fa = short-period site coefficient
(5) Fv = long-period site coefficient
(6) SDS = design, 5 percent damped, spectral response acceleration parameter at short
periods
(7) SD1 = design, 5 percent damped, spectral response acceleration parameter at 1 second
A previous geotechnical report prepared for an incinerator rehabilitation project at the RWQCP
in 1998 by CH2M Hill contains a deterministic study of potential earthquake scenarios. The
dominating scenario reported was a magnitude 8.3 earthquake centered 8 miles southwest of the
site. The scenario considered was a maximum credible event, an earthquake with a 2,500-year
return interval that had an estimated peak ground acceleration of 0.44g. The results presented in
the 1998 report are significantly less than those estimated by a probabilistic analysis per current
building design codes and seismic evaluation standards. The probabilistic approach indicates that
the peak ground acceleration for the maximum credible earthquake is 0.73g. It is not known why
the discrepancy is so large. Typically, a deterministic approach using the maximum credible
earthquake yields a larger seismic ground acceleration than that of a probabilistic analysis when
all maximum credible scenarios have been considered. The report was prepared in 1998, which
was before the United States Geological Survey (USGS) issued iso-seismal maps with new data
in 2002. Perhaps this is a reason for the discrepancy. Therefore, using the 1998 data is not
7
recommended, as it appears to be substantially less than the seismic criteria established using the
probabilistic approach, which is based on current code requirements.
3.2
Historic Seismicity
The plant site has been subjected to strong ground motion since the incinerators were constructed
in 1970. Most notable is the Loma Prieta earthquake of October 1989 that had a magnitude of 6.9
and was centered near Watsonville, California, which is approximately 31 miles from the site to
the south. According to USGS published estimates that were obtained shortly after the Loma
Prieta earthquake, two seismic stations that are both located less than 3 miles from the site
recorded peak ground accelerations of 28-percent gravity and 13-percent gravity. The higher
acceleration was recorded at Station VMP, which is located nearest the intersection of State
Highway 101 and County Highway 114. The lower acceleration was recorded at Station XDUM,
which is located near the electrical substation at the west end of the Dumbarton Bridge. It is
likely that the peak ground acceleration experienced at the plant was between these values
measured at the two stations. It is clear that these accelerations, while associated with a relatively
large earthquake, are significantly less than that predicted for the site using the probabilistic
approach noted in Section 3.1.1. Refer to Figure 3 for a map of the peak ground accelerations
recorded during the Loma Prieta earthquake.
Incinerator damage due to the Loma Prieta earthquake was not reported or observed for the
current evaluation. Based on the probable level of ground acceleration experienced at the plant
during the Loma Prieta earthquake, it is not likely that any structural damage occurred. The
biannual inspections of each incinerator did not find anything of note following this event.
3.3
Procedures
Two potential failure modes were identified upon inspection of the incinerator structure. These
potential failure modes are, namely, the anchorage to the foundation and the collapse of an
elevated hearth level inside of the incinerator. Other potential failure modes, such as collapse of
the wall or buckling of the exterior shell, are possible, but are considered less likely to occur and
a detailed evaluation of these elements was not conducted.
A finite element model of the incinerator and a typical elevated hearth were created using
STAAD-Pro Version V8i to evaluate the potential for anchorage failure and hearth collapse,
respectively. The full incinerator model was also used to estimate the fundamental period of the
incinerator for the purpose of estimating the seismic load demand for the evaluation.
8
Figure 3
Map of the Peak Ground Acceleration for The 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake.
Courtesy Of The California Geological Survey
The following sets of drawings were reviewed for as-built information and were used to obtain
the necessary information to build the structural finite element models and evaluate the structural
elements:
Erection drawings prepared by BSP Corporation, dated August 1970 with revisions
through January 1971.
Structural drawings of the Incinerator Building prepared by Jenks & Adamson Consulting
Sanitary & Civil Engineers, dated June 1969.
3.3.1
Material Properties
The properties of the materials were gathered from a review of the erection drawings for the
incinerators and the structural drawings of the Incinerator Building. No material testing or
destructive testing of any kind was employed to assess the actual in-situ strengths of the
materials being evaluated. Where property values were not reported on the original construction
documents, values consistent with the age of construction and the materials used were assumed.
The properties used in the analysis for the steel and concrete elements are indicated in Table 3.
9
Table 3
Material Properties Steel and Concrete

Property
Value
Steel
Tensile Yield Strength, Fy
Poissons Ratio
Modulus of Elasticity
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
Density
Concrete
Compressive Strength, fc
Density
Notes:
(1) ksi = kips per square inch
(2) psi = pounds per square inch
(3) pcf = pounds per cubic foot
36 ksi
0.30
29,000 ksi
6.0 x 10-6 in./in.F
490 pcf
3,500 psi
150 pcf
The interior hearths are comprised of low-sprung arches and vertical walls at the interior
perimeter that are constructed with refractory brick. This type of brick is quite dense compared to
normal load-bearing masonry and is used in applications with exposure to high temperatures,
such as incinerators, ovens, furnaces, chimney flues, and the like. For most applications,
refractory brick is not placed in a horizontally spanning configuration and, consequently, the
structural properties of the refractory brick are not readily available. Furthermore, refractory
brick is manufactured in many varieties with differing mechanical properties and chemical
composition. Therefore, no standard property can be necessarily assumed.
Carollo contacted the contractor, Dee Engineering, who performs annual rehabilitation work and
repair on the refractory brick inside of the incinerators. It was learned that the bricks are typically
replaced with Clipper DP brick manufactured by Harbison-Walker Refractories Company. The
manufacturer provided estimated properties that are presented in Table 4.
3.3.2
Incinerator Anchorage Evaluation
The finite element model was assembled to capture the total mass of the incinerator and the
geometric distribution of that mass. The steel shell, roof and bottom plates, and hearths were
modeled using plate elements. The anchor supports were modeled as pinned supports, capable of
resisting loads in the vertical and both orthogonal directions. The depiction of the finite element
model used in the analysis of the incinerator anchorage is presented on Figure 4.
10
Table 4
Material Properties Refractory Brick

Property
Value
Poissons Ratio
0.10
Modulus of Elasticity
1,800 ksi
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
3.1 x 10-6 in./in.F
Density
142 pcf
Modulus of Rupture
1,300 psi
Cold Crushing Strength
6,000 psi
Notes:
(1) ksi = kips per square inch
(2) pcf = pounds per cubic foot
(3) psi = pounds per square inch
Figure 4
The Finite Element Model of the Incinerator for the Anchorage Evaluation
The seismic load demand used to check the anchorage was derived from the seismic base shear
equations for non-structural elements contained in Chapter 15 of ASCE 7-05. The seismic
demand was reduced by an R factor equal to 3 to account for the inherent ductility of the steel
shell and anchor bolts. Load combinations consistent with ASCE 7-05 were used to check the
capacity of the anchors. The capacity of the anchors was checked against the provisions of
American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318-08 Appendix D. The worst anchorage scenario occurs at
the anchor bolt installation at the top of a 30-inch square column, where the maximum edge
distance is limited to 12 inches. The anchor bolts have a diameter of 1.5 inches and an
11
embedment indicated as 15 inches on the erection drawings. The anchor bolts occur in pairs at
six locations around the base of the incinerator and are connected to the shell with a stiffened
steel seat. The yield strength of the bolts was assumed to be 36 kips per square inch (ksi) and the
compressive strength of the concrete was assumed to be 3,500 pounds per square inch (psi). No
material tests were performed to assess the actual strengths of the materials being evaluated.
An equivalent linear static analysis was performed on the model. The analysis results indicate
that the most heavily loaded anchor bolt connection to the foundation has an estimated demandcapacity-ratio (DCR) of 1.04 with respect to the concrete pryout failure mode. This level of
overstress is considered to be slight. The anchors are encapsulated with No. 3 ties, which will
help ensure ductile behavior in shear. Analysis also indicated that there is no net tensile load
imposed on the anchors under seismic loading. This is an important finding because it implies
that the tank is not subject to lifting off of the foundation, which can cause anchor failure and
buckling of the steel shell at the bottom courses.
The calculations for the anchorage evaluation are contained in Appendix B.
3.3.3
Incinerator Hearth Evaluation
To capture the behavior of a typical hearth, it was only necessary to generate a finite element
model for a single hearth. Due to the circular and domelike features of the hearth, the elements
used to model the elevated hearth are trapezoidal. The supports of the hearth were modeled at the
perimeter to mimic the vertical support provided by the refractory brick insulation walls and the
horizontal restraint induced by the exterior steel shell. Since there is no physical connection of
the refractory brick to the exterior shell, the interaction between the shell and the refractory can
only allow compressive forces. The exterior shell can only confine the interior hearth. Therefore,
the supports were carefully modeled with compression-only springs in the radial direction. It was
also assumed that the hearth could not transfer circumferential shear forces to the shell. To model
this behavior the supports were assigned zero stiffness in the circumferential direction. A graphic
depiction of the finite element model of a typical hearth is provided on Figure 5.
The seismic load demand used to evaluate the hearth is based on the probabilistic seismic
shaking hazard at the site due to an event with a return period of 475 years. The fundamental
period of the incinerator was used in conjunction with the response spectra developed in
accordance with ASCE 7-05 to estimate the seismic acceleration. The fundamental period was
estimated to be less than 0.10 second, which is relatively stiff. At this period, the seismic
response acceleration of the incinerator was estimated to be 0.60g. Higher vibration modes
beyond the fundamental mode were not considered in this evaluation.
12
Figure 5
The Finite Element Model Developed for the Evaluation of the Hearths
13
The incinerator has six hearths and they are numbered, for the purpose of this evaluation, from
top to bottom with the top being Hearth No. 1 and the bottom being Hearth No. 6. The
temperature loads were estimated from data provided to Carollo by plant operations staff. Each
hearth has a different operating temperature that fluctuates within a range. Consequently, the
differential temperature between each hearth level fluctuates within a range. To simplify the
analysis, average hearth temperatures and average differential temperatures were considered.
Table 5 provides a summary of the hearth temperatures used in the analysis. No differential
temperature is assumed to occur at the steel shell because it is insulated by refractory material.
Table 5
Hearth Analysis Temperatures

Hearth No.
Average Operating T (F)
Average Differential T (F)(1)
900
-300
1,200
-100
1,300
100
1,200
500
700
570
130
N/A
Note:
(1) Differential hearth temperatures are relative from the hearth above to the hearth below.
Although hearth temperatures may peak as high as 2,100 degrees Fahrenheit, these extreme
conditions do not occur over sustained periods of time and are highly unlikely to occur in
conjunction with a large earthquake. Therefore, the extreme temperatures and differential
temperature conditions were not included in the analysis.
In addition to temperature, the hearths are subjected to uniform gravity loads, which are
summarized in Table 6.
Table 6
Hearth Gravity Loads

Load
Value
Self-weight, W
71 psf
Sludge, LL
20 psf
Note:
(1) psf = pounds per square foot
Since the hearths are subject to self-weight, heating, differential heating, sludge loading, and
potential seismic loads, and because the operating conditions vary for each hearth, a number of
load combinations were developed. These load combinations were developed to capture the most
14
likely loading scenarios that the hearths will be exposed to during an earthquake and are
provided in Table 7. Load Combination No. 1 (LC100) is an unrealistic load condition that was
included to understand the stresses induced by gravity loads only. Load Combination No. 2
(LC200) represents the operating condition without seismic loads. This load combination is
important in quantifying the stresses due to the temperature loading. Load Combination No. 3
(LC300) is the seismic load scenario under operating conditions. Load Combination No. 4
(LC400) is the seismic load scenario under non-operating conditions, which addresses the
incinerator that is out-of-service. Load Combination No. 5 (LC500) is the seismic load scenario
under extreme temperature conditions.
Table 7
Hearth Loads and Load Combinations(1)
Load Combination Designation
Value
LC100 (No. 1)
W + LL
LC200 (No. 2)
W + LL + T
LC300 (No. 3)
W + LL + T + E
LC400 (No. 4)
W+E
LC500 (No. 5)
W + LL + TE
Note:
(1) Where W = Self-weight, LL = Sludge live load, T = Operational temperature load,
E = seismic load, TE = Extreme temperature load.
Although there are six hearths, there are only five elevated hearth structures within each
incinerator. These hearths experience a wide range of temperatures. Since the analysis is
concerned with determining the worst load-case scenario, the results were screened to analyze
only the hearth with the highest stress levels. The reasoning is that failure of any single hearth
will constitute a failure of the entire process. It is assumed that the incinerator cannot operate
with any failed hearths. Therefore, the results of the analysis are presented for the elevated hearth
level that occurs between Hearth Nos. 5 and 6. The average temperature that this level
experiences is only 415 degrees Fahrenheit, but it experiences the highest differential
temperature with an average of 570 degrees Fahrenheit.
Since the hearths are constructed with refractory brick that is carefully fitted together, any
bending stresses or axial tension stresses created within the hearth are of particular interest. The
FEA is limited in that it cannot model the lack of tensile strength between the elements. In
reality, the bricks are not physically tied together with any material that will allow development
of tensile strength. However, the fitting of the bricks together creates a pre-compression force
that helps to limit the development of any net tension in the hearth. It is not known what this
pre-compression force is and no attempt was made to include an estimate within the analysis.
Therefore, there are limitations in our ability to model the actual behavior of the hearth. With this
15
understanding, clearly the hearths are stable under normal operations where they are subjected to
extraordinary temperatures. The purpose of this analysis is to compare the changes in stress
between the operating load cases with and without seismic loads to see the impact that the
seismic load has on the hearth.
The results of the FEA are presented on Figures 7 through 11. Each figure contains the combined
normal stresses for both top and bottom fibers of the refractory brick. Normal stresses in the
circumferential direction are shown as Sx, while those in the radial direction are shown as Sy.
Refer to Figure 6 for a graphic representation of these stresses.
Figure 6
Depiction of Stresses Reported in the Finite Element Analysis
Figure 7 shows the combined normal stresses under LC100. It can be seen that these stresses are
very low, as expected.
Figure 8 represents the combined normal stresses under LC200. Both the compressive and tensile
stresses are relatively high under normal operating conditions, which might explain some of the
observed damage to the refractory brick and the need to replace it annually.
Stresses due to the LC300 are shown on Figure 9. It is clear that the stresses have increased
under seismic loading. However, upon careful examination, it is determined that this increase is
relatively small for both the compressive and tensile stresses. These results indicate that the
stresses induced in the refractory brick under temperature loading under normal operating
conditions far exceed those induced under seismic loading.
Additionally, Load Combination No. 5 (LC500) considers an extreme temperature scenario
where the hearth is exposed to peak differential temperatures on the order of 650 degrees
16
17
Radial and Circumferential Stresses for Load Combination No. 1 (LC100)

Figure 7
18

Figure 8
19
Radial and Circumferential Stresses for Load Combination No. 3 (LC300).

Figure 9
Fahrenheit. Figure 10 depicts the stresses induced in the hearth for LC500. These stresses appear
to exceed those of LC300, which is for the normal operating condition with seismic loading. This
result corroborates the finding that the seismic load only adds a small incremental amount of
stress to the hearth. The load effects due to thermal loading of the hearth far exceed those
induced by seismic loading.
It is expected that the hearths will suffer some localized damage to the refractory brick when
subjected to ground motion having a return period of 475 years. Based on this judgment, a
complete collapse of any or all of the hearths within the incinerator is unlikely to occur.
Figure 10
Stresses for the out-of-service incinerator, Load Combination No. 4 (LC400), are represented on
Figure 11. Both compressive and tensile stresses are relatively low. Limited localized damage
may occur when subjected to the ground motion criteria used in this evaluation.
20
Figure 11
Radial and Circumferential Stresses for Load Combination No. 4
Table 8 provides a summary of the maximum compressive and tensile normal forces for the
radial direction for all load combinations considered. Table 9 provides a summary of the
maximum compressive and tensile normal forces in the circumferential direction for all load
combinations considered.
Table 8
Normal Radial Stresses, Sy
Load Combination
Compressive Stress(1) (psi)
Tensile Stress(1) (psi)
LC100 (No. 1)
-46.2 TF
0.0
LC200 (No. 2)
-380.0 TF
502.0 BF
LC300 (No. 3)
-387.0 TF
509.0 BF
LC400 (No. 4)
-43.6 TF
7.4 BF
LC500 (No. 5)
-581 TF
800.0 BF
Notes:
(1) TF = Top Fibers, BF = Bottom Fibers.
21
Table 9
Normal Circumferential Stresses, Sx
Load Combination
Compressive Stress(1) (psi)
Tensile Stress(1) (psi)
LC100 (No. 1)
-68.3 TF
69.2 BF
LC200 (No. 2)
-1,382.0 TF
1,042.0 BF
LC300 (No. 3)
-1,407.0 TF
1,049 BF
LC400 (No. 4)
-52.7 TF
33.7 BF
LC500 (No. 5)
-2,193.0 TF
1,658.0 BF
Note:
(1) TF = Top Fibers, BF = Bottom Fibers.
The stability of the internal refractory brick walls that line the interior of the steel shell is also of
interest. These walls are stabilized by the steel shell, which will confine the brick walls from
moving outward. The circular shape of the brick walls provides inherent strength and stability for
loads that push in towards the center, such as a seismic load. This type of loading that might be
generated by an earthquake will put the wall in ring compression. The compressive strength of
the refractory brick is quite high and no significant damage is anticipated as a result of seismic
loading. Furthermore, the 2010 California Building Code, Chapter A1, Seismic Strengthening
Provisions for Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Buildings, does not require an evaluation of
the out-of-plane stability of unreinforced masonry walls that have a slenderness ratio less than 9.
The slenderness ratio of the interior walls is less than 3.5. Furthermore, the provisions cited are
for buildings that have straight walls, which have less stability to resist seismic loads than
circular walls.
4.0
CONCLUSIONS
Our task was to evaluate the structural stability of the two incinerators located at the Citys
RWQCP when subjected to an earthquake. The earthquake chosen for this evaluation is
consistent with the ground motion at the site that has a 10-percent probability of being exceeded
in a 50-year period. This seismic demand criteria is based on requirements set forth in current
building codes and is appropriate for new design and seismic evaluations. Since it is a
probabilistic approach, the seismic demand for the site is not linked to any specific earthquake
scenario, such as a magnitude 8.1 earthquake on the Hayward Fault centered in Hayward or a
7.6 magnitude earthquake on the San Andreas Fault centered in Daly City. Rather it is the ground
motion that is likely to be exceeded at the site in a 50-year time period due to any earthquake
located anywhere.
22
We considered the two greatest vulnerabilities of the incinerators to be the anchorage at the base
and the stability of the elevated hearths, which are built as low-profile arches. Other aspects of
the incinerators were not quantitatively evaluated for reasons stated elsewhere in this technical
memorandum. In our evaluation of the hearths, we used a FEA to capture the behavior of the
structure as best as possible. Due to the nature of the refractory brick material, lacking tensile
capacity, the analysis method does have some limitations. Therefore, several load combinations
were developed to understand the stresses developed so that they could be compared with one
another. We determined that the stresses induced by seismic loading were comparatively minute
with those generated by the heating and differential heating between hearths.
Upon completion of the seismic evaluation of the two incinerators located at the Citys RWQCP,
we have determined that the incinerators may sustain interior damage during an earthquake.
However, we do not anticipate that this damage will involve collapse or other significant
structural failure mechanisms that would pose a life safety hazard to the occupants of the
building or the long-term operation of the incinerators.
The inherent risk with operating a multi-hearth incinerator is the fact that excessive heating or
cooling rates could render the interior structure unstable and subject it to collapse. This is the
reason why start-up and shutdown requires a relatively long period of time. Upon heating or
cooling in a slow manner, the brick material is allowed to redistribute stresses to remain stable.
Thermal shock may not allow stresses to redistribute and this can lead to excessive damage
and/or collapse of the elevated brick hearths. If an earthquake causes a sudden loss of heat, the
internal structure may be subject to thermal shock, which can lead to damage and/or collapse
internally.
Since some localized damage is likely to occur during an earthquake, some interruption of the
service of the hearth is to be expected. Development of a contingency plan is recommended to
deal with the loss of one or both incinerators after an earthquake. As part of a contingency plan,
immediately following an earthquake, the temperatures within the hearth should be reduced
slowly and the active incinerator should be removed from service for inspection and repair, if
required. The inactive incinerator should be inspected and repaired as required. An alternative
way to dispose of solids will need to be identified while the incinerators are out of service.
23
APPENDIX A - INCINERATOR PHOTOGRAPHS
20-PaloAlto1-110FAppendixA1-88510B00.AI
Figure A-1
West elevation of the Incinerator Building that houses two multi-hearth incinerators.
Figure A-2
View of the top of Furnace No. 2 (easterly furnace) as seen from the upper mezzanine level of the building.
APPENDIX A
Figure A-3
View of Furnace No. 1 (westerly furnace) as seen from the ground level inside
of the building. Each furnace has a diameter of nearly 19 feet.
Figure A-4
Furnace No. 2 can be seen behind walkway platforms and ducting. Each furnace rises about 25 feet
above ground floor inside of the building.
APPENDIX A
Figure A-5
The bottom of each furnace is framed with steel plate and rolled steel members.
Figure A-6
The basement below each furnace is constructed with a concrete mat slab and walls.
The perimeter shell of the furnace is supported on top of the walls and the mat slab at grade level.
APPENDIX A
Figure A-7
The center gear drive that turns the rabble arms is supported on a concrete pedestal that rises
above the basement mat slab.
Figure A-8
Interior view of Furnace No. 2, which was off-line during the walkdown. Pictured is one of the six hearths
with rabble arms and center mechanism.
APPENDIX A
Figure A-9
Top view of Furnace No. 1. Air pipes have expansion joints to isolate the piping system from the
furnace structure.
Figure A-10
Each furnace has three elevated platforms that circumnavigate the perimeter of each furnace.
Pictured is Furnace No. 1 at the 3rd floor level.
APPENDIX A
Figure A-11
Typical furnace shell vertical splice with thickened steel plate and bolts.
Figure A-12
Typical thrust ring reinforcing with thickened steel plate and bolts occurs where each hearth level meets
the shell. The horizontal bolted splice for this thrust ring is seen in this photo.
APPENDIX A
Figure A-13
Typical third level catwalk grating support at the furnace shell. A thrust reinforcing ring occurs just below
the grating support angle.
Figure A-14
The catwalk support framing has a separation of about 2 inches from the west wall and no separation at
the northwest corner. Differential movement during an earthquake can cause the
platform to bang against the building wall.
APPENDIX A
Figure A-15
View of the second level catwalk at the northwest corner of the building adjacent to Furnace No. 1.
Figure A-16
View of the catwalk framing support columns that abut against the northwest corner of the building wall.
APPENDIX A
Figure A-17
Typical furnace shell anchorage is comprised of (2) 1-1/2-inch diameter anchor bolts at six locations.
Figure A-18
Bottom of Furnace No. 2 at the south side where the shell is supported from the ground level mat slab.
APPENDIX A
Figure A-19
View of Furnace No. 1 from the ground level.
Figure A-20
View of Furnace No. 1 from the ground level below the second level catwalk at the north side of the furnaces.
APPENDIX A
Figure A-21
Typical wide flange column and base plate connection at the ground level mat slab.
The columns support the elevated catwalks.
Figure A-22
Grating at the ground floor that spans the basement between the two furnaces.
APPENDIX A
Figure A-23
Close-up view of a rabble arm inside of one of the hearths at Furnace No. 2.
Also, note the refractory brick that frames the floor of the hearth above.
Figure A-24
View inside a hearth at Furnace No. 2. The hearths are constructed with refractory brick in a slight arch.
Openings between hearths alternate from the inside to the outside (pictured here above)
from hearth to hearth.
APPENDIX A
Figure A-25
View of the center mechanism that rotates the rabble arms inside Furnace No. 2.
The mechanism is protected with castable refractory concrete.
Figure A-26
Close-up view of a perimeter opening in the floor of a hearth above.
APPENDIX A
Figure A-27
Typical access hatch into a furnace hearth.
Figure A-28
Typical furnace exhaust stack exiting the concrete roof slab.
APPENDIX A
Figure A-29
View of the exhaust stack of Furnace No. 1.
Figure A-30
Close-up view of a typical air line expansion joint located at the top of the furnace.
APPENDIX A
Figure A-31
Solids conveyor system that feeds the furnace from the top.
Figure A-32
Typical furnace exhaust stack at the roof of the Incinerator Building.
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B - INCINERATOR SEISMIC STABILITY

EVALUATION
PROFIS Anchor 2.1.4
www.hilti.us
Company:
Specifier:
Address:
Phone I Fax:
E-Mail:
Specifier's comments:
Carollo Engineers
10540 Talbert Ave, Suite 200E, Fountain Valley, CA
714-593-5100 | -
Page:
Project:
Sub-Project I Pos. No.:
Date:
1
Palo Alto Incinerator
8510B00
7/6/2011
Incinerator Seismic Stability Evaluation - File Name: Incinerator.pa2
1. Input data
Anchor type and diameter:

Effective embedment depth:
Material:
Heavy Hex Head ASTM F 1554 GR. 36, 1 1/2

h ef = 15.000 in.
ASTM F 1554
Proof:
Stand-off installation:
Anchor plate:
Profile
Base material:
Reinforcement:
design method ACI 318 / CIP

e b = 0.000 in. (no stand-off); t = 0.500 in.
lx x l y x t = 20.000 x 20.000 x 0.500 in. (Recommended plate thickness: not calculated)
no profile
cracked concrete , , fc' = 3500 psi; h = 24.000 in.
tension: condition A, shear: condition A; anchor reinforcement: tension, shear
edge reinforcement: > No. 4 bar with stirrups
yes (D.3.3.6)
Seismic loads (cat. C, D, E, or F):

Geometry [in.] & Loading [lb, in.-lb]
Input data and results must be checked for agreement with the existing conditions and for plausibility!
PROFIS Anchor ( c ) 2003-2009 Hilti AG, FL-9494 Schaan Hilti is a registered Trademark of Hilti AG, Schaan
PROFIS Anchor 2.1.4
www.hilti.us
Company:
Specifier:
Address:
Phone I Fax:
E-Mail:
Carollo Engineers
714-593-5100 | -
Page:
Project:
Date:
2
8510B00
7/6/2011
2. Load case/Resulting anchor forces

Load case (governing):
Anchor reactions [lb]
Tension force: (+Tension, -Compression)
Anchor
Tension force
Shear force
Shear force x
Shear force y
9150
9150
9150
y
2
9150
max. concrete compressive strain []: 0.01

max. concrete compressive stress [psi]: 60
resulting tension force in (x/y)=(0.000/0.000) [lb]: 0
resulting compression force in (x/y)=(0.000/0.000) [lb]: 24010
Compression
x
3. Tension load
Load Nua [lb]
Capacity fNn [lb]
Utilization bN [%] = Nua /fNn
Status
Steel Strength*
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Pullout Strength*
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Concrete Breakout Strength** 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Concrete Side-Face Blowout,
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Proof
direction**
* anchor having the highest loading **anchor group (anchors in tension)
1
Tension Anchor Reinforcement has been selected!
4. Shear load
Load V ua [lb]
Capacity fVn [lb]
Utilization bV [%] = Vua /fVn
Status
Steel Strength*
9150
31894
29
OK
Steel failure (with lever arm)*
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
18300
17764
104
not recommended
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Proof
Pryout Strength**
Concrete edge failure in direction** 1
* anchor having the highest loading **anchor group (relevant anchors)

1
Shear Anchor Reinforcement has been selected!
Anchors are installed on top of concrete

walls/columns with both HZ and VR
rebar. Concrete edge failure mode is
highly unlikely.
PROFIS Anchor 2.1.4
www.hilti.us
Company:
Specifier:
Address:
Phone I Fax:
E-Mail:
Carollo Engineers
714-593-5100 | -
Page:
Project:
Date:
3
8510B00
7/6/2011
Steel Strength
Equations
Vsa
= n 0.6 Ase,V futa
f Vsteel Vua
Variables
n
1
ACI 318-08 Eq. (D-20)

ACI 318-08 Eq. (D-1)
Ase,V [in.2]
1.41
futa [psi]
58000
fsteel
0.650
f Vsa [lb]
31894
Calculations
Vsa [lb]
49068
Results
Vsa [lb]
49068
Vua [lb]
9150
Pryout Strength (Concrete Breakout Strength controls)

Equations
Vcpg
= kcp
[(AA ) y
Nc
ec,N
Nc0
yed,N yc,N ycp,N Nb
ACI 318-08 Eq. (D-31)
ACI 318-08 Eq. (D-1)

f Vcpg Vua
ANc see ACI 318-08, Part D.5.2.1, Fig. RD.5.2.1(b)
ANc0 = 9 h2ef
ACI 318-08 Eq. (D-6)
1
2 e'N 1.0
ACI 318-08 Eq. (D-9)
yec,N =
1+
3 hef
ca,min
1.0
ACI 318-08 Eq. (D-11)
yed,N = 0.7 + 0.3 1.5h
ef
ca,min 1.5hef
1.0
ACI 318-08 Eq. (D-13)
ycp,N = MAX c , c
ac
ac
5/3
'
ACI 318-08 Eq. (D-8)
Nb
= 16 l fc hef
Variables
kcp
2
l
1
)
)
hef [in.]
7.333
ec1,N [in.]
0.000
ec2,N [in.]
0.000
ca,min [in.]
11.000
yc,N
1.000
cac [in.]
-
Nb [lb]
28196
f'c [psi]
3500
Calculations
ANc [in.2]
726.00
ANc0 [in.2]
484.00
yec1,N
1.000
yec2,N
1.000
yed,N
1.000
ycp,N
1.000
Results
Vcpg [lb]
84589
fconcrete
0.700
fseismic
0.750
fnonductile
0.400
f Vcpg [lb]
17764
Vua [lb]
18300
kc
24
PROFIS Anchor 2.1.4
www.hilti.us
Company:
Specifier:
Address:
Phone I Fax:
E-Mail:
Carollo Engineers
714-593-5100 | -
Page:
Project:
Date:
4
8510B00
7/6/2011
5. Warnings
Condition A applies when supplementary reinforcement is used. The factor is increased for non-steel Design Strengths except Pullout Strength
and Pryout strength. Condition B applies when supplementary reinforcement is not used and for Pullout Strength and Pryout Strength. Refer to
ACI 318, Part D.4.4(c).
Checking the transfer of loads into the base material and the shear resistance are required in accordance with ACI318 or the relevant standard!
The anchor plate is assumed to be sufficiently stiff in order to be not deformed when subjected to the actions!
The design of Anchor Reinforcement is beyond the scope of PROFIS Anchor. Refer to ACI-318-08, Part D.5.2.9 for information about Anchor
Reinforcement.
The design of Anchor Reinforcement is beyond the scope of PROFIS Anchor. Refer to ACI-318-08, Part D.6.2.9 for information about Anchor
Reinforcement.
Anchor Reinforcement has been selected as a design option, calculations should be compared with PROFIS Anchor calculations.
An anchor design approach for structures assigned to Seismic Design Category C, D, E or F is given in ACI 318-08 Appendix D, Part D.3.3.4 that
requires the governing design strength of an anchor or group of anchors be limited by ductile steel failure. If this is NOT the case, Part D.3.3.5
requires that the attachment that the anchor is connecting to the structure shall be designed so that the attachment will undergo ductile yielding at a
load level corresponding to anchor forces no greater than the controlling design strength. In lieu of D.3.3.4 and D.3.3.5, the minimum design
strength of the anchors shall be multiplied by a reduction factor per D.3.3.6.
An alternative anchor design approach to ACI 318-08, Part D.3.3 is given in IBC 2009, Section 1908.1.9. This approach contains "Exceptions" that
may be applied in lieu of D.3.3 for applications involving "non-structural components" as defined in ASCE 7, Section 13.4.2.
An alternative anchor design approach to ACI 318-08, Part D.3.3 is given in IBC 2009, Section 1908.1.9. This approach contains "Exceptions" that
may be applied in lieu of D.3.3 for applications involving "wall out-of-plane forces" as defined in ASCE 7, Equation 12.11-1 or Equation 12.14-10.
It is the responsibility of the user when inputing values for brittle reduction factors ( fnonductile ) different than those noted in ACI 318-08, Part D.3.3.6 to
determine if they are consistent with the design provisions of ACI 318-08, ASCE 7 and the governing building code.
Selection of fnonductile = 1.0 as a means of satisfying ACI 318-08, Part D.3.3.5 assumes the user has designed the attachment that the anchor is
connecting to undergo ductile yielding at a force level <= the design strengths calculated per ACI 318-08, Part D.3.3.3.
Fastening does not meet the design criteria!
PROFIS Anchor 2.1.4
www.hilti.us
Company:
Specifier:
Address:
Phone I Fax:
E-Mail:
Carollo Engineers
714-593-5100 | -
Page:
Project:
Date:
5
8510B00
7/6/2011
6. Installation data
Anchor plate, steel: Profile: no profile
Hole diameter in the fixture: df = 1.563 in.
Plate thickness (input): 0.500 in.
Recommended plate thickness: not calculated
Anchor type and diameter: Heavy Hex Head ASTM F 1554 GR. 36, 1 1/2
Installation torque: 0.000 in.-lb
Hole diameter in the base material: Hole depth in the base material: Minimum thickness of the base material: 17.500 in.
10.0000
4.5000
10.0000
Coordinates Anchor [in.]

Anchor
x
y
1
0.000
-5.500
2
0.000
5.500
c -x
11.000
11.000
c +x
11.000
11.000
4.5000
10.0000
10.0000
10.0000
10.0000
c -y
11.000
22.000
c +y
22.000
11.000
AppendixE:RWQCPConditionAssessmentSummary
Process
Component
InstallationYear
Condition
OUL
EvRUL
Comments
RecommendedAction
ProjectCost:Jan
2015
NotcontrolledbySCADA.Bubbler.Rarelyused.Budgetedtobe Nearingtheendofitsusefullife.Replaceinnext1020years.
replacedifthepumpstationisrevised.Reportsofexcessivenoise
andvibration.Wasofflineduringassessment.
Headworks
OPPPump1(7)
1956
15
$318,000
3.75
SeecommentsforOPPPump1.
Headworks
OPPPump2(8)
1956
15
3.75
Headworks
OPPPump3(9)
1956
15
3.75
$318,000
SeecommentsforOPPPump1.
Headworks
NPPPump1
1972
15
11.25
Headworks
NPPPump2
1987
15
11.25
NPPPump3
1972
15
$239,000
NPPPump4
1972
15
7.5
Headworks
NPPPump5
1987
15
7.5
$96,000
$96,000
SeecommentsforNPPPump1.1998inlineRobiconVFD.
Nearingtheendofitsusefullife.Replaceinnext1020years.
Upgraded12yearsago.Performancepumpcurveandflowtested
twiceperyear.
ManualautoVFDnothookedup.Accesstoactuatorstations.
1972
15
$96,000
$96,000
SeecommentsforNPPPump5.
NPPPump6
$96,000
7.5
Headworks
Headworks
200hp;268amps;WP1enclosure;XA008825AIPT;6pulse
KofflerVFDpluscoolingfan;RelianceXEEnergyEfficient.Pumps
rebuilt1015yearsago;modifiedsplitseal.Pumpsrotatedbased
onhours.Olderbutwellmaintained;minimalvibration;high
noise.
SeecommentsforNPPPump1.1987VFD.Novibration.
SeecommentsforNPPPump1.1993VFD.Olderbutreasonably
wellmaintained.Corrosionatcoupling.LoudVFD.
Headworks
$96,000
7.5
Headworks
NPPPump1Motor
1993
15
$34,000
7.5
Headworks
NPPPump2Motor
1987
15
$34,000
7.5
Headworks
NPPPump3Motor
1993
15
7.5
Headworks
NPPPump4Motor
1998
15
7.5
$34,000
$34,000
Headworks
NPPPump5Motor
1987
15
7.5
Headworks
NPPPump6Motor
1987
15
7,5
$34,000
$17,000
Headworks
OPPPump1(7)Motor
1956
15
3.75
Headworks
OPPPump2(8)Motor
1956
15
3.75
$26,000
$17,000
Headworks
OPPPump3(9)Motor
1956
15
$13,000
3.75
SeeK/J2006FCARetrofitRecommendations.Buildingandpumps WhileCityhasbudgetedforrepairs,itisrecommendedthata
wellmaintainedbutnearingtheendoftheiroriginalusefullife, NewHeadworksreplacetheNPP&OPPwithinthenext1020
years.
airductpipingtooclosetoMCC(nottocode)withinbuilding.
Misc.PlantBuildings
NEWPumpingPlant(NPP)Building
1972
Misc.PlantBuildings
OLDPumpingPlant(OPP)Building
1956
Headworks
MeterPit
2007
$265,000
50
SeeK/J2006FCARetrofitRecommendations.Buildingandpumps WhileCityhasbudgetedforrepairs,itisrecommendedthata
NewHeadworksreplacetheNPP&OPPwithinthenext1020
haveexceededtheirusefullifetherehasbeenfloodinginthe
pastandelectricalconduitisexposedwithinthestructure.
years.
50
4
15
3.75
Metervalves.Timetoupgradeenclosedarea.Corrosionto
structuresuspectedbelowthewaterline.
1
$901,000
Updgrademeterpitequipment.
$82,000
Headworks
Headworks
MeterPit
MeterPit
2007
1972
15
50
Headworks
InfluentBox/Septage
1966
N/A
50
Headworks
NPPBarscreen1
1993
10
3.75
Seecommentformagmeters.
Seecommentformagmeters.
$86,000
PerformrepairsperK/J2006FCA.Reexaminestructureas
makingdecisionsfornewRWQCPbuildings/processes.
$15,000
12.5
AddtoCIPforreplacement.Spraywaternoise.
Nearingtheendofitsusefullife.Needstobeexaminedfor
rehabilitationneedsinthenext510orreconfiguredfornew
HW.
AddtoCIPforreplacement.Outofservice.
$489,000
Headworks
NPPBarscreen2
1993
10
Headworks
NPPBarscreen3
1993
10
Headworks
ScrewScreeningsPress1
1993
20
Headworks
1993
20
N/A
$489,000
AddtoCIPforreplacement.Exhaustfannoisy.Betteraccessibility Nearingtheendofitsusefullife.Replaceinnext510years.
needed.
$489,000
$122,000
$122,000
Headworks
Headworks
Misc.PlantBuildings
GritRemovalSystem
GritHandlingFacility
1993
1988
20
1988
25
$122,000
12.5
Includegritcycloneandclassifier.Nearingendofusefullife.
Corrosionandgreasebuilduponfloorandpostnearbythe
hopper.
SeeK/J2006FCARetrofitRecommendations.Buildingand
equipmentarenearingtheendoforhaveexceededtheiruseful
life.
PrimarySedimentationTank1
1972
$285,000
50
25
Corrosion.Concernaboutchainsproketlife.Partsavailable.
Primary
1972
50
25
Primary
1972
50
25
Primary
1972
50
25
Primary
SludgeTransferPump1a
1972
15
Primary
SludgeTransferPump1b
1972
15
Primary
1972
15
Primary
1972
15
Primary
SludgeTransferPump3
2001
15
11.25
Primary
SludgeTranserPump4a
1972
15
Primary
1972
15
Primary
SludgeGrinder(MuffinMonster)1
1985
15
Primary
Primary
1985
1985
$265,000
ItisrecommendedthataNewHeadworksreplacetheNPP&
OPPwithinthenext1020yearsandincludeanewGrit
HandlingSystem.
25
Nearingusefullife.Enclosedarea.Suspectcorrosionofconcrete
atwaterline.
Primary
Nearingtheendofitsusefullife.Replaceinnext1020years&
relocateittoanewHWsystem.
15
15
PerformrehabilitationmeasuresperK/J2006FCARetrofit
Recommendations(includesPSTInfluentandEffluent
ChannelsandPSTs).
SeerecommendedactionforPrimarySedimentationTank1.
$7,313,000
N/A
Solutiontolinethatfailed.Newelectricalstations.Doesnothave SeerecommendedactionforPrimarySedimentationTank1.
thesamemotorfanassemblyandrunshot.Corrosion.
SeecommentsforPSTs13.
SeerecommendedactionforPrimarySedimentationTank1.
N/A
N/A
Noconditiongiven.PumpingfromSedTankstoSludge
Thickeners.
Thickeners.
Thickeners.
Thickeners.
Thickeners.
Thickeners.
Noconditiongiven.NoPrimaryPump4a.PumpingfromSed
TankstoSludgeThickeners.
Noconditiongiven.2hp.Onemuffinmonsterperpairofprimary
pumps.
SeecommentsforMuffinMonster1.
Replaceinnext510years.
$34,000
$34,000
$34,000
$34,000
Replaceattheendofitsusefullife.
$34,000
$34,000
$34,000
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
Primary
Primary
SluiceGates
1985
1972
15
3
25
Corrosion.
$40,000
$259,000
12.5
Secondary
IntermediatePump1
1988
15
7.5
Secondary
IntermediatePump2
1988
15
7.5
Secondary
IntermediatePump3
1988
15
7.5
Secondary
IntermediatePump1Motor
1988
15
7.5
Secondary
1988
15
7.5
Secondary
1988
15
7.5
Motorsnothighefficiency(94.6%).UsedtobypassFFRs.Added
forpumping>60mgdwetweatherflows.Considerlifeofthe
pumpbeforeupgradingtohighefficiencymotors.Infrequently
operated.Reasonablygoodshape.
SeecommentsforIntermediatePump1.Serviceableand
maintainedokay.Somecorrosion.Vibrationandnoiseok.
SeecommentsforIntermediatePump1.Somecorrosion.
Vibrationandnoiseok.
IntermediatePumpStation
1980
FixedFilmReactor1
1980
50
12.5
SeecommentsforFixedFilmReactor1.
Secondary
FixedFilmReactor2
1980
Secondary
NorthSoilBedFilters(OdorControl)
1999
Secondary
Misc.PlantBuildings
SouthSoilBedFilters(OdorControl)
FixedFilmReactorsEquipment
Room
50
50
1980
50
$96,000
$17,000
$17,000
$17,000
Noimmediateactionnecessary.Needtoreexaminestructure
innext510years,asdecisionsaremadeforchangesto
N/A
secondarytreatment.
RecommendtorehabthefacilityperK/J2006FCAretrofit
recommendationstoaccommodatedecisionsforchangingthe
RWQCPlayout.Replacetop3feetofmedia.
$811,000
SeerecommendedactionforFixedFilmReactor1.
N/A
12.5
NotincludedintheK/J2006FCAorthe2010LRFPcondition
assessment.Functioningproperly.
NotincludedintheK/J2006FCAorthe2010LRFPcondition
assessment.Functioningproperly.
SeeK/J2006FCARetrofitRecommendations.
50
1999
$96,000
50
SeeK/J2006FCAReportandRetrofitRecommendations.
Structuralissuestoassess.Leakage.Lessvnotches.Noscum
removalandscumblindsmedia.Toplayersofmediaweathered.
Secondary
$96,000
Rarelyused.SeeK/J2006FCARetrofitRecommendations.
Misc.PlantBuildings
Noactionrecommendedatthistime.
N/A
Noactionrecommendedatthistime.
N/A
PerformrehabmeasuresrecommendedbyK/J2006FCA
withinnext510years
$101,000
SeeK/J2006FCAReportandRetrofitRecommendations.
Recommendtorehabthefacilitytoextenditsusefullifeuntil
Refurbishedcompletemixbasins.Structuralinspectionneededto 2035perK/J2006FCAretrofitrecommendationsto
determineremainingusefullife.
accommodatedecisionsforchangingprocessesinthefuture.
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
AerationBasin1
AerationBasin2
AerationBasin3
1972
1972
1972
3
3
3
50
50
50
$2,466,000
25
25
25
1972
50
25
Secondary
AerationBasin4
AerationBasinFineBubbleCeramic
DomeDiffusers
2009
10
7.5
Secondary
SluiceGates
1972
25
12.5
Secondary
Collector/MechanismDrive1
1972
20
10
Secondary
2007
20
10
Secondary
1972
20
10
Secondary
1972
20
10
SeecommentsforAerationBasin1.
SeerecommendedactionforAerationBasin1.
Appeartobeworkingsufficiently.
Assessotherdiffusertechnology.Replaceceramicdome
diffusers2019.
Appeartobeinsufficientcondition.Nooperationalconcerns
noted.
Manyduckson/aroundmechanism.Structuralmaintenancethat Replaceattheendofitsusefullife.
addressespaintandcorrosionissuesisneededtoextenduseful
lifeofthestructure.Mechanicallysufficient.Innerringrusting.
N/A
N/A
N/A
$2,370,000
$288,000
$815,000
SeecommentsforCollector/MechanismDrive1.
$815,000
$815,000
$815,000
Secondary
Secondary
1988
1988
3
3
20
20
10
10
$815,000
$815,000
SeeK/J2006FCARetrofitRecommendations.Needtotendto
weirsandverifyallarelevelacrossbasin.Somecorrosion.
2035perK/J2006FCAretrofitrecommendationsto
Appearsokaystructurally.Shortcircuitingoccursduetosidewall accommodatedecisionsforchangingprocessesinthefuture.
notbeingdeepenough.Cornersandcornersweepsare
problematic.Filledcornersandenergydissipationneeded.
Secondary
SquareSecondaryClarifier1
1972
50
$1,073,000
25
SeecommentsforSquareSecondaryClarifier1.
Secondary
1972
50
25
Secondary
1972
50
25
Secondary
Secondary
SquareSecondaryClarifierSlide
Gates
1972
50
25
1972
20
10
SeerecommendedactionforSquareSecondaryClarifier1.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Coveredinbirddroppings.Didnotconfirmoperability.Corrosion. Replaceatendofusefullife.
$155,000
Birddroppingsandseaairimpactingmetalsurfaces.Weirsappear Recommendtorehabthefacilitytoextenditsusefullifeuntil
relativelylevelacrossbasin.Energydissipationsidewalldepth
betterthanSC14.Controlpanelscorroded.Corrosion
protectionneededformotorsandbullgear.
Secondary
RoundSecondaryClarifier5
1988
50
37.5
Secondary
RoundSecondaryClarifier6
RoundSecondaryClarifierSlide
Gates
1988
50
37.5
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
RASPump1
RASPump2
RASPump4
RASPump1Motor
1988
1972
1972
1972
1972
2
2
2
3
20
15
15
15
15
$436,000
SeecommentsforRoundSecondaryClarifier5.
Somecorrosion.Needtoconfirmoperability.
Replaceatendofusefullife.
N/A
$89,000
15
92.4%efficiency.Pumpsappeartobeingoodworkingorder.
Locatedindoors.Minimalcorrosionandinsignificantlybetter
conditionthanequipmentlocatedoutdoors.
SeecommentsforRASPump1.
SeecommentsforRASPump1.
$102,000
11.25
$102,000
11.25
$102,000
11.25
7.5
Secondary
RASPump2Motor
1972
15
7.5
Secondary
RASPump4Motor
1972
15
7.5
SeecommentsforSludgePumpRoom/BlowerRoom.
Misc.PlantBuildings
SecondaryClarifierRASPumpRoom
1988
50
Secondary
RASPump5
1988
15
SeerecommendedactionsforSludgePumpRoom/Blower
Room.
$9,000
$9,000
$9,000
N/A
7.5
$105,000
Secondary
RASPump6
1988
15
7.5
$105,000
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
RASPump7
Blower1
Blower2
Blower3
1988
2012
1972
2012
15
1
3
1
15
15
15
7.5
15
$105,000
ReplacedbyTurblexconstantspeedblowerin2012.Motorand
motorcontrolarenotveryenergyefficient.
Oldunit.Requiresfrequentattentionbutworkssufficiently.
Motorandmotorcontrolarenotveryenergyefficient.
New.Replaceattheendofitsusefullife.
SeecommentsforBlower1.
N/A
$443,000
7.5
15
N/A
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Blower4
Blower5
Blower1Motor
1972
2012
1972
3
1
3
15
15
15
Oldunit.Requiresfrequentattentionbutworkssufficiently.
Motorandmotorcontrolarenotveryenergyefficient.
SeecommentsforBlower1.Runscontinuously.
$443,000
7.5
15
7.5
Secondary
Blower2Motor
1972
15
7.5
Secondary
Blower3Motor
1972
15
7.5
Secondary
Blower4Motor
1972
15
7.5
Secondary
Blower5Motor
1972
15
7.5
N/A
$60,000
$86,000
$60,000
$52,000
$103,000
Misc.PlantBuildings
SludgePumpRoom/BlowerRoom
1972
50
Oldunitwithsomemodificationstothecontrols.Functionally
sufficient.
Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary
DualMediaFilter1
DualMediaFilter2
DualMediaFilter3
DualMediaFilter4
DualMediaFilter5
DualMediaFilter6
DualMediaFilter7
DualMediaFilter8
DualMediaFilter9
DualMediaFilter10
DualMediaFilter11
DualMediaFilter12
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
Misc.PlantBuildings
DMFEquipmentBuilding
1980
Tertiary
DMFPump1
1980
15
7.5
Tertiary
DMFPump2
1980
15
7.5
Tertiary
DMFPump3
1980
15
7.5
Tertiary
DMFPump4
1980
15
7.5
Tertiary
DMFPump1Motor
1980
15
7.5
Tertiary
DMFPump2Motor
1980
15
7.5
Tertiary
DMFPump3Motor
1980
15
7.5
Tertiary
DMFPump4Motor
1980
15
7.5
Tertiary
DMFBackwashSupplyPump1
1980
20
Tertiary
DMFBackwashSupplyPump2
1980
20
Tertiary
DMFSurfaceWaterPump1
1980
20
Tertiary
DMFSurfaceWaterPump2
1980
20
37.5
37.5
37.5
37.5
37.5
37.5
37.5
37.5
37.5
37.5
37.5
37.5
50
SeecommentsforDualMediaFilter1.
Oldbutfunctional.
Oldbutfunctional.
Oldbutfunctional.
Oldbutfunctional.
DMFLiftPump
DMFLiftPump
DMFLiftPump
DMFLiftPump
withinnext510years.Needtoreexaminestructureinnext5
10years,asdecisionsaremadeforchangestosecondary
$426,000
treatment.
$604,000
N/A
SeerecommendedactionforDualMediaFilter1.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
withinnext510years
$33,000
$33,000
$33,000
$33,000
$13,000
$13,000
$13,000
$13,000
$96,000
$96,000
$25,000
$25,000
Tertiary
DMFBackwashWastePump1
1980
$25,000
20
Tertiary
Tertiary
DMFBackwashWastePump2
WaterReclamationFilters(RW
Filters)
1980
20
1976
50
$25,000
Noconditiongiven.
RelocateandreplacewithnewRWFiltersattheendofis
usefullife.
ReplaceRWStorageTanks13withasingle2MGsteeltank.
Noconditiongiven.
Disinfection
AbandonedTank(RWStorageTank
3)
Disinfection
WaterReclamationTank(RW
StorageTanks1&2)
1976
50
Disinfection
Disinfection
PAGCRWPump
MainRWPump1
2009
2009
20
20
Disinfection
Disinfection
Disinfection
MainRWPump2
MainRWPump3
MainRWPump4
2009
2009
2009
20
20
20
Disinfection
RWPump1
2009
20
1956
50
N/A
Noconditiongiven.Biologicalgrowthontopoftank.
Disinfection
RWPump2
2009
Disinfection
ChlorinationStation
1972
50
ReplaceRWStorageTanks13byasingle2MGsteeltank.
N/A
20
2
N/A
37.5
Disinfection
ChlorineContactTank
1972
15
11.25
Disinfection
2009
50
50
Disinfection
UVDisinfectionTank
OutfallBox(SulfurDioxidePump
Enclosure)
1963
50
37.5
Solids
SludgeThickener1
1972
50
25
Solids
SludgeThickener2
1972
50
25
Solids
SludgeThickener3
1972
50
25
Solids
SludgeThickener4
1972
50
25
Solids
ThickenerDriveMechanism1
2002
20
10
Solids
2002
20
10
Solids
2002
20
10
Solids
1972
20
Solids
WASSludgePump1
1988
15
7.5
Solids
WASSludgePump2
1988
15
7.5
Solids
WASSludgePump3
1988
15
7.5
PerformK/J2006FCARetrofitRecommendations.
$25,000
$96,000
$25,000
$96,000
$96,000
$17,000
$17,000
$34,000
RelocateandreplacewithanewChlorineContactTankbyend
ofitsusefullifetoaccommodatefuturechangestoRWQCP
N/A
process/buildinglayout.
Excellentcondition.
Noimmediateactionnecessary.
N/A
PerformK/J2006FCARetrofitRecommendations(except
$444,000
seismicbracingforsulfurdioxideenclosure).
Rehabilitatedin1990's.1.5hpmixer.Glasslinedteflonslipline. PerformK/J2006FCARetrofitRecommendations,aswellas
Linesembedded10yearsago.Pumpingfromcommongreaseline replaceinteriorcoatingofofthickenersandcleananycracksin
sharedwithotherthickeners.Requiressignificanteffortto
beamsandwallsandepoxyinject
reconditionduetocorrosion.Unitworksverywell.
$982,000
SeecommentsforSludgeThickener1.
SeerecommendedactionforSludgeThickener1.
N/A
SeecommentsforSludgeThickener1.
SeerecommendedactionforSludgeThickener1.
N/A
Neverusedduetohydraulicissues.Mechanicalequipment
N/A
N/A
removedin2002.
Replaceattheendofitsusefullife,w/newsolidshandling
$108,000
system.
$108,000
system.
$108,000
system.
Decommissionedequipmentremovedin2002.Capturestoo
Replacewhennewsolidshandlingsystemisimplemented.
$108,000
muchhydraulically.
Requiresconsiderablemaintenance.Inaverybadlocation.
LocatedinsameroomasMCC's.Considerincludingnewpump
roomandequipmentinthe510yearR&Rprogram.
$24,000
SeecommentsforSludgePump1a.
$24,000
$24,000
6
Solids
WASSludgePump4
1988
15
$24,000
7.5
Solids
WASPump1Motor
1988
15
3.75
Solids
WASPump2Motor
1988
15
3.75
Solids
WASPump3Motor
1988
15
3.75
Solids
WASPump4Motor
1988
15
3.75
Solids
1980
15
7.5
Solids
1980
15
7.5
Solids
1980
15
7.5
Solids
1980
15
7.5
Solids
1980
15
7.5
Solids
1980
15
7.5
Solids
SludgeTransferPump1aMotor
1980
15
7.5
Solids
SludgeTransferPump1bMotor
1980
15
7.5
SeecommentsforSludgePump1a.PumpingfromSludge
thickenerstoBlendTank
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$56,000
$56,000
$56,000
$56,000
$56,000
$56,000
$1,000
$1,000
Solids
1980
15
7.5
Solids
1980
15
7.5
$1,000
$1,000
Solids
1980
15
7.5
Solids
1980
15
7.5
Solids
ScumFeedPump1
1980
15
7.5
$1,000
Solids
Solids
Solids
Solids
Solids
Solids
Solids
ScumFeedPump2
ScumTransferPump1
ScumTransferPump2
ScumFeedPump1Motor
ScumFeedPump2Motor
ScumTransferPump1Motor
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
1980
Solids
Solids
ScumTransferPump2Motor
SludgeGrinderatScumTransfer
Pump1
SludgeGrinderatScumTransfer
Pump2
ScumConcentrator
Solids
ScumDecantTank
2001
Solids
ScumPitA
1980
Solids
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
$1,000
PumpingfromScumPitB.
PumpingfromScumPitB.
PumpingfromScumPitA.
PumpingfromScumPitA.
$56,000
$56,000
7.5
$56,000
7.5
$56,000
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
1980
15
$40,000
1980
1980
15
20
$40,000
ReplacewithnewRWQCPsolidsprocess.
10
$28,000
25
Concretecorrosion.SeeK/J2006FCARetrofitRecommendations. PerformK/J2006FCARetrofitRecommendations.
3
50
$84,000
25
Solids
Solids
Solids
Solids
Solids
Solids
ScumPitB
FlowMeters
SludgeBlendingTank
SludgeBlendingTankMixingPump
1
SludgeBlendingTankMixingPump
2
BeltFilterPress1
1980
1977
1999
50
25
SeecommentsforScumPitA.
20
1999
25
SeerecommendedactionforScumPitA.
12.5
SeeK/J2006FCARetrofitRecommendations.Corrosionconcerns. PerformK/J2006FCARetrofitRecommendations.
Seemsfunctionallysufficient,butshouldbeverifiedwitha
structuralassessment.
15
N/A
$52,000
$12,000
$105,000
1999
1985
15
20
$105,000
Somecorrosion.Unitsworkwell.
Replacewithnewunitswhennewsolidshandlingsystemis
selected.
SeecommentsforBeltFilterPress1.
SeerecommendedactionforBeltFilterPress1.
N/A
15
Solids
BeltFilterPress2
1985
20
15
Solids
BeltFilterPress3
1985
20
15
N/A
SeecommentsforBeltFilterPress1.
SeerecommendedactionforBeltFilterPress1.
N/A
Solids
BFPBackwashPump1
1985
15
Solids
BFPBackwashPump2
1985
15
$9,000
$9,000
Solids
BFPBackwashPump3
1985
15
Solids
BFPPolymerPump1
1985
15
$9,000
$16,000
Solids
BFPPolymerPump2
1985
15
Solids
BFPPolymerPump3
1985
15
$16,000
$16,000
Solids
Solids
Solids
Solids
Solids
Solids
BFPPolymerStorageTank
BFPSludgeFeedPump1(Mixed
Sludge)
Sludge)
Sludge)
AirPollutionControlVessel1
AirPollutionControlVessel2
1985
20
1999
15
$28,000
$43,000
1999
15
1999
15
$43,000
1999
1999
2
2
25
25
$43,000
Seemssufficientbutodorsstilloccur(mayhavebeenlandfill
locatedcloseby).
Noimmediateactionnecessary.Coststoreplaceareincluded
inthesolidsalternativesifexistingsolidshandlingprocessis
replacedwithathermalconversionprocess.
SeecommentsforAirPollutionControlVessel1.
SeerecommendedactionforAirPollutionControlVessel1.
N/A
18.75
N/A
18.75
Goodcondition.
Solids
Solids
AshStorageSystem
LandfillGasCompressor
2002
2007
25
20
Misc.PlantBuildings
OilStorageBuilding
1956
50
Misc.PlantBuildings
AdministrationBuilding
1975
50
Misc.PlantBuildings
OperationsBuilding
1972
50
PerformK/J2006FCARetrofitRecommendations.Replaceif
existingsolidshandlingprocessisreplacedwthathermal
conversionprocess.
18.75
Goodcondition.
SeeK/J2006FCARetrofitRecommendationsbuildingisinneed Replacethefacilitytoaccommodatedecisionsforchangingthe
ofextensiverepairs.Approx1,250sqft.
RWQCPlayout.
Buildingwillberemovedtoopenspaceforfuture
buildings/processesandwillbereplacedwithanewRWQCP
Existingworkspacesareverylimitedduetothebuildingbeing
usedformanypurposes.
8
$20,000
#DIV/0!
$419,000
ReplacewithnewRWQCPHeadquarters.
N/A
RenovateandmovelaboratoryintonewRWQCPHeadquarters
$770,000
isbeingbuilt.
Misc.PlantBuildings
Misc.PlantBuildings
Misc.PlantBuildings
Tunnel1(EquipmentRoomstoOps
Building)
Tunnel2
MaintenanceandWarehouse
Facility
1972
50
1972
50
1983
25
Approx.1,100squarefootareacontainingtankpedestals.
Misc.PlantBuildings
ChemicalStorage
1972
50
Misc.PlantBuildings
1956
50
1969
25
Misc.PlantBuildings
InfluentGateHydraulicsBuilding
CausticTankFACILITY
DECOMMISSIONED
H2OXMSSBuilding(formerlya
StorageBuilding)
1934
50
Misc.PlantBuildings
OpsTrainingBuilding
1934
50
Misc.PlantBuildings
FACILITYDECOMMISSIONED
buildings/processes.
buildings/processes.Trainingspacetobeallocatedinnew
RWQCPHeadquarters.
SeeK/J2006FCARetrofitRecommendationsandIncineration
BuildingEvaluation.
Misc.PlantBuildings
SolidsIncinerationBuilding
1972
25
Arcflash.1970'srepairedconductors.Conduitshortcircuiting
studydonein1988.Oldgeneratorsdonotworkwithtransfer
switchesduetoMCCageandVFDsatthenewpumpingplant.
PlantPower
PlantPower
PlantPower
PlantPower
Generator(nearFFRs)
Generator(nearSecondaryClarifier
1)
Generator(nearDMFs)
EquipmentRoomGenerator(near
AshStorageSystem)
2011
1972
1977
1998
30
30
30
30
N/A
30
Replacementofgeneratorcompletedin2011.
$474,000
15
N/A
30
$316,000
15
PlantPower
Generator(inNPP)
1972
30
Generator(inNPP)
1972
30
N/A
Generator(nearUV)
2009
PlantPower
MCC(SludgePumpRoom)
1972
30
N/A
30
PlantPower
30
PlantPower
$42,000
withinnext510years
$50,000
withinnext510years
$273,000
withinnext510yearstoexistingfacility.Additionalspace
withinnext510yearstoexistingstructure.Needtoreexamine
structureinnext510years,asdecisionsaremadeforchanges
$59,000
toRWQCPlayout.
RehabwithNPPandOPPBuildingsorreplacewithNewHW.
$50,000
N/A
N/A
Noimmediateactionnecessary.Needtodecidewhen/ifto
N/A
demolishthestructureasdecisionsaremadetochangethe
Noimmediateactionnecessary.Needtodecidewhen/ifto
demolishthestructureasdecisionsaremadetochangethe
RWQCPlayout.
N/A
IncinerationBuildingretrofitspertheSeismicEvaluationofthe
PilesSupportingtheIncineratorandOperationsBuildings
TechnicalMemorandumarealreadyplanned.Nofurther
actionrequired.
N/A
$506,000
30
15
$488,000
9
PlantPower
MCC(betweenRoundSecondary
Clarifiers5&6)
1988
30
$135,000
PlantPower
MCC(NPP)
1972
30
$352,000
10
AppendixE:RWQCPRepair/ReplacementNeedsTimeline
Potential
Future
Regs
LEGEND: Replacementalreadybudgetedinnext12years
Repairalreadybudgetedinnext12years
K/JFCAFinalReportrecommendation(2006)
Process
2015
Area
Headworks
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
Ammonia<1mg/L
TotalNitrogen<8mg/L
TotalNitrogen<3mg/L
NPPBarscreens13
Primary
TimeHorizon
2020
NPPBuilding(Existingairductpipingtoo
closetoMCC)
OPPBuilding(K/J)
ScrewScreeningsPress
GritRemovalSystemImprovements
MeterPitEquipment
RawSludgePipefromSludgeSumpof
PST3toSludgeFeedPumpinSludge
PumpRoom
PSTCollectorMechanisms
MeterPit
InfluentGate
HydraulicsBuilding
OPPPumps79
MeterPit
NPPBuilding
NPPPumps16
SludgeTransfer
Pumps
PSTs&SlideGates
IPSStructure
MuffinMonsters
PSTInf&EffChannel
PrimaryEffluent
Diversion/RAS
MixingBox
Secondary
ScumPipefromPSTs3&4toSludge
PumpRoom
FFRMediaToplayers
IPSPumps(upgrade) FFRStructure
FFREquipment&
PumpRooms
FFRStructure(structuralassessment)
ABFineBubble
System(newtype
diffusers&domes)
ABs&Influent
Channel
AB'sStructuralAssessment
Blowers15
SquareClarifier
SquareClarifier
Allclarifiercollectormechanisms/weir
Collector/
leveling/skimmers,includingautomated
Collector/
MechanismDrives1,
scumremovalforroundclarifiers
MechanismDrive2
3,&4
RoundClarifier
Collector/
ABinfluentairpipingassessment
MechanismDrives5
&6
ABBlowers(blowercontrolproject,#4
inefficient,#2needstobeautomated)
Tertiary/RW
SecondarySlide
Gates
SquareClarifiers
RASPumps1,2,&4 RASPumps5,6,&7
RWFilters(getting
DMFPumps(lift,bw
DMFEquipment
cover&replaced
supply,sfcwater,&
coatingonallmetal Building
bwwaste)
surfaces)
OutfallBox&SO2
PumpEnclosure
AmmoniaSystem
AmmoniaSystem
OutfallBox&SO2
PumpEnclosure
DMFs(replacing
leakingbackwash
valvesandpiloting
airwashsystem)
SoilBedFilters
RoundClarifiers
NewClarifiers
Electrical/Eqpmt
Room
2062
AppendixE:RWQCPRepair/ReplacementNeedsTimeline
TimeHorizon
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
Ammonia<1mg/L
TotalNitrogen<8mg/L
MiscPlantBuildings
Power
Solids
Disinfection/RW
TotalNitrogen<3mg/L
RWChlorineContactTanksA&B
(alreadyremovedcorrodedcenter
column,gettingcovered,&otherminor
repairs)
CCT(corrodedbeams/supportsatoutlet
ChlorineContact
box,leakingjoint,&boltsatcentercage
Tank
repaired)
SludgeTransferLinefromThickener1
AshStorageSystem
SludgeTrasferPumps
WASPumps
BFPBackwashPumps&PolymerPumps
SludgeBlendingTankMixPumps
ScumFeed&
TransferPumps
ScumTransfer
MuffinMonsters
ThickenerDrive
Mechanisms
BFPSludgeFeed
Pumps(Mixed
Sludge)
RWStorageTanks1, RecycledWater
2,&3(already
Pumps(Mainand
gettingcovered)
PAGC)
ChlorinationStation UV/RWPumps1&2
SludgeThickeners
(Thickener4notin
use)
GritHandlingFacility
SludgeBlendingTank
BFPs
ChlorinationStation
AshStorageSystem
ScumPitsA&B
AirPollutionControl
System
Incinerators(MHFs)
SolidsIncineration
Building
Generatorsareallbeingreplaced?(i.e.,
MCC(between
allportabletopermanent?)Studyby
RoundClarifiers5&
TMDA.ArcflashstudysuggestedforGen
6)
nearFFR.
MCC(inNPP)
MCC(inOPP)
MCC(inSludgePumpRoom)
Replace12kVline?Performashort
circuitstudy(lastonewas1988)
AssessconduitthroughoutRWQCP
RWQCPelectricalstations
NPPTransferSwitchcheck
ReplacelightinginGritHandlingFacility
&RoundSecondaryClarifiers
Administration
Building/
ReclamationPlant
Tunnel1
OpsTrainingBuilding
Maintenance
WarehouseFacility
Tunnel2
H2OXMSSBuilding
OperationsBuilding
OilStorageBuilding
ChemicalStorage
UVDisinfectionTank
2062

Appendices E - G-Utilization Ratio

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendices E - G-Utilization Ratio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

City of Palo Alto Long Range Facilities Plan for the RWQCP

APPENDIX E - RWQCP CONDITION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Palo Alto/8510B00/Deliverables/Task 11/Appendices/AppCvr.docx

APPENDIX G - SEISMIC EVALUATION OF THE PILES

pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Palo Alto/8510B00/Deliverables/Task 11/Appendices/AppCvr.docx

CITY OF PALO ALTO

(925) 932-1710 FAX (925) 930-0208

CITY OF PALO ALTO

Seismic Evaluation Parameters ........................................................................ 10

Incinerator Building Floor Plan.......................................................................... 3

City of Palo Alto

SEISMIC EVALUATION OF THE PILES SUPPORTING

Seismic Evaluation Criteria

Seismic Evaluation Parameters

Soil Site Class

pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Palo Alto/8510A10/Disciplines/Structural/Seismic Evaluation (DRAFT)

Seismic Evaluation Parameters

Material Properties and Strengths

Material Properties - Piles

Soil-Pile Interaction Modeling

Pile Lateral Spring Stiffness Values

1.2D + 1.0L + 1.0E

Pile Connection Type

Pile Capacity Check

Sa (g) vs. T (sec)

Pile Shear Capacity Check - Incinerator Building

Pile Connection Type

Pile Capacity Check

Pile Shear Capacity Check - Operations Building

New Pile Cap

New Piles, Typ 4

New Pile Cap

building. If such behavior is determined to be unacceptable, rehabilitation of the existing

City of Palo Alto

pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Palo Alto/8510A10/Disciplines/Structural/Seismic Evaluation (DRAFT)

City of Palo Alto

APPENDIX B - SOIL-PILE INTERACTION ANALYSIS RESULTS

pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Palo Alto/8510A10/Disciplines/Structural/Seismic Evaluation (DRAFT)

Jan 13, 2011, ground settled from pile cap

Load vs Top Deflection

Load vs Top Deflection

Lateral Load (kips)

Jan 13, 2011, ground settled from pile cap

Pile-Head Deflection (in)

Jan 13, 2011, ground settled from pile cap

Lateral Deflection (in)

Jan 13, 2011, ground settled from pile cap

Shear Force (kips)

Jan 13, 2011, ground settled from pile cap

Bending Moment (in-kips)

Jan 13, 2011, ground settled from pile cap

Mobilized Soil Reaction (lbs/in)

Lateral Load (kips)

Jan 13, 2011, ground settled from pile cap

Pile-Head Deflection (in)

Jan 13, 2011, ground settled from pile cap

Lateral Deflection (in)

Jan 13, 2011, ground settled from pile cap

Shear Force (kips)

Jan 13, 2011, ground settled from pile cap

Bending Moment (in-kips)

Jan 13, 2011, ground settled from pile cap

Mobilized Soil Reaction (lbs/in)