Upload
others
View
7
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
AD AIGD 322 UNDERiATiER FACILITIES INSPECTIONS AND ASSISWiNIS At It).NAVAL AIR STATION A&t I| NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERINGCOAND VASHINGtON D)C CHESAPEAKE.. SEP 62
IJNClAq F IFFD CNIS/NAVFAC.FPO I-,2-(201 FIG 13/2 HL
"IIIIIII"."I
""llIIll"ll
11111 10 12I2111111112-
111125 11111"*4 1*
• ( I
Ir' I
PHOTOGRAPH THIS SHEET
0dUNDSOP JTcrk Fcii,#/e.s
1 i :::Z P~-/ A as Al cr/t A/r"s
LEVEL INVENTORY
NAVALI. Am~ STATIOA)
FPo./-,R2 2,3DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION
I DD'hI7ON S mTA M AAppmowd fo pub~c seloisS
Dbiaabutica Valimillid
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
ACCESSION FORINTIS GRAW 0DTIC TAB DTICUNANNOUNCED Q],cs~c,.,o, ":',~z ,mtmt .,,' I ZLECTE i
AU DW APR 1 986lowa .aa 1So m "Ih
DUSDrIBIrION sAVAILABILITY CODES
DIST AVAIL AND/OR SPECIAL DDATE ACCESSIONED
DATE RETURNED
86 4 l6 03
DATE RECEIVED IN DTIC REGISTERED OR CERTIFIED NO.
PHOTOGRAPH TIS SHEET AND RETURN TO DTIC.DDAC
DOCVU3f PROCESSIG SHEET PREVIOUS EDITION MAY SE USED UNTIL
Dtlc &9CtA 70A STOCK is EXOAUSTED.
ill -
II -IJI &
I
IICo
V aA C'itAII
A
I-fI
~r
V
V
| UNDERWATER FACILITIESINSPECTIONS
ANDI ASSESSMENTS
AT
II
NAVAL AIR STATIONALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA
GAOU 2^ ieAdCO 3UiJFPO- 1-82-(20) SEPTEMBER 1982
PERFORMED FOR:OCEAN ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECT OFFICECHESAPEAKE DIVISIONNAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMANDWASHINGTON, D.C. 20374
BY: UNDERWATER CONSTRUCTION TEAM TWO
PORT HUENEME, CALIFORNIA 93043
CONSULTANT:CHILDS ENGINEERING CORPORATIONMEDFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 02052 4
I U CONTRACT N62477-81-C-0448TASK 4I
I
UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
IRPORT DoUMWATION PAGEla. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION lb. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGSUnclassified
2a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY OF REP.Approved for public release;distribution is unlimited
2b. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE
4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 5. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT #FPO-I-82(20)
6a. NAME OF PERFORM. ORG. 6b. OFFICE SYM 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATIONChilds Engineering Corp. Ocean Engineering
& ConstructionProject OfficeCHESNAVFACENGCOM
6c. ADDRESS (City, State, and Zip Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City, State, and Zip )Medfield, MA 02052 BLDG. 212. Washington Navy Yard
Washington, D.C. 20374-2121Ba. NAME OF FUNDING ORG. 8b. OFFICE SYM 9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT INDENT #
N62477-81-C-0448, Task 4
Bc. ADDRESS (City. State & Zip) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERSPROGRAM PROJECT TASK WORK UNITELEMENT # # # ACCESS *
11. TITLE (Including Security Classification)1 Underwater Inspection & Assessments at Naval Air Station Alameda, California
12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)
13a. TYPE OF REPORT 13b. TIME COVERED 14. DATE OF REP. (YYMKDD) 15. PAGESFROM TO 82-09 69
16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION
17. COSATI CODES 18. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if nec.)FIELD GROUP SUB-GROUP Underwater inspection. Mooring inspection.__Naval Air Station Alameda. CA
19. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary & identify by block number)The objective of the Underwater Facility Assessments conducted at te Naval AirStation in Alameda. California is to provide a generalized structuralcondition report of certain facilities within the Activity. The facilitiesare Piers 1. 2. 3. 4. Wharves 1 and 2. and the bulkhead at East-West (Con't)20. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 21. ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
SANE AS RPT.22a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22b. TELEPHONE 22c. OFFICE SYMBOLJacaueline B. Riley 202-433-3881DD FORM 1473. 84MAR SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
BLOCK 19 (Con't)
Taxiway. Each facility was inspected by a team of divers from UnderwaterConstruction Team Two using visual/tactile, non-destructive techniques.Typical and critical elements were photo-documented.
The conditions of the facilities range from poor to excellent.
Pier 3 and Wharves 1 and 2 are in very good condition. No repairs arerecommended for these facilities.
Piers 2 and 4, and the Bulkhead are generally in good condition but somedeterioration was observed and minor repairs are recommended for thesefacilities.
Pier 1 is in poor condition. Presently vehicular traffic is restricted fromthe pier. We recommend that this restriction remain in force and that deadload on the pier be minimized. It is reported that the pier is due to berepaired or replaced in the mid-1980's. We recommend that this schedule beadhered to.
,9
• I
LEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The objective of the Underwater Facility Assessments conducted at
rthe Naval Air Station in Alameda, California is to provide a gen-
eralized structural condition report of certain facilities within
the Activity. The facilities are Piers 1, 2, 3, 4, Wharves 1 and
[2, and the bulkhead at East-West Taxiway. Each facility was in-
spected by a team of divers from Underwater Construction Team Two[ using visual/tactile, non-destructive techniques. Typical andcritical elements were photo-documented.
i The conditions of the facilities range from poor to excellent.
Ii iPier 3 and Wharves 1 and 2 are in very good condition. No repairs
are recommended for these facilities.
Piers 2 and 4, and the Bulkhead are generally in good condition
but some deterioration was observed and minor repairs are recom-
mended for these facilities.
I Pier 1 is in poor condition. Presently vehicular traffic is re-
[ stricted from the pier. We recommend that this restrictionremain in force and that dead load on the pier be minimized. It
is reported that the pier is due to be repaired or replaced in
rJ L the mid-1980's. We recommnend that this schedule be adhered to.
I Refer to the following Executive Summary Table for an overview of
each facility's construction and recommendations.
[4
II1 ±'
II NAVAL AIR STATION
ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA
j EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TAE
Total No. of Piles/ Size
I Facility Year Built Lin. Ft. of Bulkhead (lxw) (ft.) Structures
Pier 3 1945 . 4440/0 1355 x 150 20" square pre-cast concretepiles.
Wharf No. 2 1945 210/0 573 x 45 20" square pre-cast concrete
piles.
Pier 2 1941 1006/0 1211 x 80 20" square pre-Enlarged 1974 cast concrete pi
18" square pre-1stressed concretpiles.
IWharf No. 1 1941 b 526/0 744 x 90 20" square pre-
Enlarged 1945 cast concretepiles.
Pier 1 1937 0/1350 650 x 50 Steel sheet pile
Bulkhead 1939 0/3010 N/A Steel sheet pileIiI concrete encased
Pier 4 1953 48/0 160 x 5'to 15' Treated timberII piles.
IA
| i
I
AIR STATION
A, CALIFORNIA
'E SUMMARY TABLE
Est. Cost ofRecommendations
*uctures Recommendations (thousands)
square pre- 1) Re-inspect in 5 years. N/Ait concrete.es.
Isquare pre- 1) Re-inspect in 5 years. N/Ait concretees.
s quare pre- 1) Repair severely damaged $11;t concrete piles, piles by driving 2 sistersquare pre- piles and casting a new cap.
essed concrete 2) Jacket heavily spalled $16es. piles in concrete.
3) Re-inspect after constructionand 5 years thereafter.
square pre- 1) Re-inspect in 5 years. N/A,t concreteLes.
el sheet piles 1) Refer to Section 4.5.4 $5400Repair by driving new steelsheet pile wall.
!el sheet piles, 1) Repair spalled concrete $12icrete encased wall cap.
2) Fill in front of bulkhead $433) Re-inspect after construction
and 5 years thereafter
tated timberLes. 1) Replace damaged pile. $4
2) Refasten, re-position and $1.5shim piles.
3) Backfill exposed piles at $5mudline.
4) Re-inspect after constructionand 5 years thereafter
9-N
i TABLE OF CONTENTS
I PAGE
Executive Summary i
Section 1.0 INTRODUCTION .... ................ . 1-1
1 1.1 Report Content........ . ...... 1-2
Section 2.0 ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION . ... ........... 2-1
1 2.1 Location of Activity .................. 2-12.2 Existing Facilities ... ............ 2-12.3 Facilities Inspected ... ............ . 2-2
Section 3.0 INSPECTION PROCEDURE ... .......... . 3-1
3.1 Level of Inspection ... ............ 3-13.2 Inspection Procedure ... ............ 3-13.3 Inspection Equipment ... ............ 3-4
Section 4.0 FACILITIES INSPECTED ... ............ 4-1
4.1 Pier 3.. . ................... 4-54.1.1 Description ..................... ....... 4-54.1.2 Observed Inspection Condition . ....... . 4-114.1.3 Structural Condition Assessment ...... . 4-124.1.4 Recommendations .... .............. 4-12
4.2 Wharf 2 ......................... 4-13
4.2.1 Description . . . . . ....... . . . 4-13
4.2.2 Observed Inspection Condition . . .. ....... 4-154.2.3 Structural Condition Assessment . . . . . . 4-161 4.2.4 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16
4.3 Pier 2.. ....... ................. .4-174.3.1 Description ............. . . 4-174.3.2 Observed Inspection Condition . ....... 4-204.3.3 Structural Condition Assessment . . . . . . 4-204.3.4 Recommendations . . . ............. 4-21
Ii4.4 Wharf 1.....................4-224.4.1 Description ........ ........ . 4-22
4.4.2 Observed Inspection Condition. .......... .. 4-251 4.4.3 Structural Condition Assessment . . . . . . 4-254.4.4 Recommendations . . . . . ............ . 4-26.1
ilii
I
I TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.)
I PAGE
4.5 Pier 1 ..... ........... . ..... 4-27
4.5.1 Description .... ............... . 4-274.5.2 Observed Inspection Condition . ....... . 4-294.5.3 Structural Condition Assessment ...... . 4-304.5.4 Recommendations ... .............. 4-31
4.6 Bulkhead ...................... 4-324.6.1 Description .... ............... . 4-324.6.2 Observed Inspection Condition ....... 4-344.6.3 Structural Condition Assessment ...... 4-35
4.6.4 Recommendations .............. 4-36
4.7 Pier 4 ........................ 4-37
4.7.1 Description ........ ........ 4-37
4.7.2 Observed Inspection Condition . . . . . . . 4-39
4.7.3 Structural Condition Assessment ...... . 4-404.7.4 Recommendations .............. 4-41
j APPENDIX
*1[
[A
'I11
I I
I
ILIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
1 Location Map ................ ... 2-3
i 2 Facilities Location Map.. ... . . .. .... 2-4
3 Inspection Path . . . . . . .... 3-3
4 Pile Condition .... . .......... 4-3
5 Pile Condition ....... . . . ..... 4-4
6 thru 10 Pier 3 Pile Plan & Pile Conditions.. . ... 4-6 thru 10
11 Wharf 2 . . . . . . 4-14
12 & 13 Pier 2 " ." 4-18, 19
I 14 & 15 Wharf1 " ".".4-23, 24
16 Pier 1 " . ." 4-28
17 Bulkhead Plan & Elevation .... .. . .4-33
18 Pier 4 Pile Plan & Pile Conditions . ..... 4-38
Iv
I[4
I
m ., alV
I
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
FollowsPhoto No. Description Page
1 Aerial view of Piers 1,2 and 3; Wharves1 and 2; and the Bulkhead adjacent toParking Apron No. 4 .... ............. . 2-4
I 2 Aerial view of Pier 4 ... ............ . 2-4
3 Pier 3, Pile V, Bent 86, Elevation 102.Base of pile jacket. Note clear definitionof pile chamfer edges illustrating sound
concrete ...... .................. 4-11
4 Pier 3, Pile A, Bent 103. Elevation 85±.
Typical marine growth including mussels,I sponges and hair-like algae ......... 4-11
5 Wharf 2, Pile A, Bent 25, Elevation 102.0.* Spall at bottom of concrete jacket exposing
pile ........ .................... 4-15
6 Wharf 2, Pile B, Bent 15, Elevation 102.0.Typical marine growth at base of pilejacket ....... ................. 4-15
* 7 Wharf 2, Pile B, Bent 1, Elevation 98.0.Typical band cleaned location for Level Iinspection ...... ................. 4-15
8 Pier 2, Pile A, Bent 131, Elevation 96.0.Spalled concrete at pile corner. Verticaland horizontal cracks. Pile severelyI damaged ................... 4-20
9 Pier 2, Pile A, Bent 130, Elevation 96.0.Vertical and horizontal cracks. Pileseverely damaged .... .............. 4-20
10 Pier 2, Pile A, Bent 133, Elevation 99.0.Area of band cleaning and light spallingof pile corner ..... ............... 4-20
11 Pier 2, Pile B, Bent 124, Elevation 95.0.Area of light spalling on pile face. Noteexposed aggregate ..... .............. 4-20
. 12 Wharf 2, Pile A, Bent 11, Elevation 95.0.Cleaned area at pile corner. Note distinctchamfer edges indicating sound concrete . . . 4-25
vi
I 2
I LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS (Cont'd.)
Follows
Photo No. Description Page
13 Wharf 2, Pile A, Bent 11, Elevation 95.0.Light spalling at pile corner ...... . . 4-25
14 Pier 1, Cell #23, south side. Elevation95.0. 8" 0 hole in steel sheet pile.Note gravel fill within cell ...... ... 4-29
15 Pier 1, Typical corrosion node . .... ... 4-29
16 Pier 1, Typical condition of steel sheetpiles at the mudline . . . . . . .i......4-30
17 Pier 1, Typical Corrosion hole in sheetpile knuckle...... . . . . . . * . . . 4-30
1 18 Bulkhead, Typical condition of concreteencasement with steel sheet piles exposedat base ..... ................... 4-34
19 Bulkhead, Overview of Bulkhead. Notespalling at edge of concrete cap ...... 4-34
20 Pier 4, Typical displaced pile head.Similar conditions found Pile A, Bents4, 6 and 7 of the Main Pier ........... 4-39
21 Pier 4, Typical condition of concrete jacket.Note zipper for closing fabric forms . . . . 4-39
22 Pier 4, Typical marine borer trench foundin some of the newer piles near the mudline,Southwest pile, Dolphin No. 3 . . . . . . . . 4-39
vii
p :! __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -I--.- - -
| I
I
I SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is a product of the Underwater Facilities Inspection
jProgram conducted by the Ocean Engineering and Construction Proj-ect Office (FPO-1), Chesapeake Division (CHESDIV), Naval Facili-
jties Engineering Command (NAVFAC). The Underwater Facilities
Inspection Program falls under the NAVFAC Specialized Inspection
1Program. Managed and executed by CHESDIV, the program is intendedto be responsive to the needs of the Fleet as far as inspection
of waterfront facilities.
Mandated under Government Contract No. N62477-81-C-0448, this
j project entails technical and engineering services for the inspec-
tion, damage and deterioration assessment, repair analysis andI cost estimates for repairs for the submerged portions of selected
Naval Waterfront Facilities. The inspection is usually conducted
or managed by on-site structural diver engineers.
For this inspection, responsibility for the various aspects of
the project was shared among several organizational groups. The
U. S. Naval Underwater Construction Team Two (UCT-2) performed
the underwater inspection and data collection. A representative
from CHESDIV provided general technical direction for the whole
[ project and acted as liaison among the Naval Air Station, UCT-2,
CHESDIV and the consultant. Representatives from Childs Engineer-
ing Corporation, also provided on-site technical and engineering
support to UCT-2, oversaw the acquisition of field notes and
measurements, and performed limited underwater inspection services
in order to become familiar with general conditions and secure
photographic documentation. Using the data and documentation thus
collected, personnel at Childs Engineering Corporation prepared
this Underwater Facilities Inspection and Assessment Report.'I
t~Il1-1
I1.1 REPORT CONTENT
Included in this report are a description of existing facilities,
the inspection procedures, the results of the inspection, the
analysis of the findings, and all relevant drawings and photos.
The results of the inspection of each facility are divided into
four categories: a description of the facility, observed con-
ditions, structural assessment, and recommendations. Included
in the recommendations are cost estimates (based on current local
prices) for any repair work, (see Appendix). Calculations for the
I structural assessment and recommendations are found in the Appendix.
III
I
I 4
SECTION 2 ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this section is to provide a general description
of the Naval Air Station in Alameda, California. Included in
this section are descriptions of the Naval Air Station's location
and existing facilities. The information is provided to aid in
identification of the facility and to support all considerations
necessary to accurately assess the condition of facilities
inspected under this task.
2.1 LOCATION OF ACTIVITYINAS Alameda is located on the west end of the City of Alameda in
f Alameda County, California (see Figure 1). It is bounded on the
5 north by the City of Oakland and on the south and west by San
Francisco Bay. It is at the geographic center of the San Fran-
cisco-Oakland Standard Metropolitan area. This area is roughly
divided into two sectors. San Francisco and San Mateo Counties
make up the portion known as the West Bay. The portion with
which NAS Alameda is most concerned is the East Bay, which is
comprised of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. (Reference NAS
Alameda Master Plan)
2.2 EXISTING FACILITIES
INAS Alameda is the only port in Northern California with a 40 foot
plus project depth (mean lower low water) required for berthing
ICV/CVN class ships. It serves as one of only two deployment points
for aircraft carriers on the West Coast. The three major piers
[total 6,120 feet of berth and offer the best pier facilities forNavy ships in the San Francisco Bay Area. NAS Alameda also has
the only pier facilities in the Central Bay Area capable of hand-
ling a limited quantity of ordnance. For this reason and the deep
'I
2-1
I-
water capability, submarines utilize the Naval Air Station to
off-load and load their torpedoes before entering and leaving
IMare Island Naval Shipyard. (Reference NAS Alameda Master Plan)
2.3 FACILITIES INSPECTED
The facilities inspected under this contract at the NAS Alameda
include Piers Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, Wharves 1 and 2 and the Bulk-
head adjacent to Parking Apron No. 4. (See Figure 2 and Photos
1 and 2)
2It
[
it
IIP
i . 4
II
2-2
p
IY v
NOTN.
U I 6 5 BOX SIB NAVAL A .TAION A .AO PN
[I~ ~~~P a- I______ PA
pal.
NO~e:
PIR
r I
-------- - --- IE
PIE 3
0 E D-\ \- -. ~ z
NOTE:
RE FEEC $AE FROMMAVFA_ DWGNO._(638456
_1 MiLKlAl
> . ,-
silk
AD!
CHESAPEAKE DIVISIONC L ° EGINE -E R IN G
WASHIN TON. D .¢
stake m P ,I , BOX SS3
NfAVAL :AIN TAT lON ALAM EDA. CA F".N .: "
" * - " ,,"°'"°'" FA C ILITIE S LO C ATIO N 2 ,
GORPOATIO
I(
PHOTO #1: Aerial view of Piers 1, 2
and 3; Wharves 1 and 2; and
the Bulkhead adjacent to
Parking Apron No. 4.
PHOTO #2: Aerial view of Pier 4
o
4
i ' :, r" i¢4
!/
SECTION 3 INSPECTION PROCEDURE
Between September 13 and September 24, 1982, the U. S. Navy's
UCT-2 performed an on-site underwater inspection of selected
facilities within the U. S. Naval Air Station, Alameda, California.
UCT-2 provided diving assets and acquired field data to be incor-
porated into field notes. An engineer from Childs Engineering
Corporation provided technical direction to UCT-2 and fully docu-
mented the inspection data acquired through UCT-2.
Between September 25 and September 28, two engineers from Childs
Engineering Corporation performed some limited on-site underwater
inspection work. The level of inspection to be performed, the
type of structure being inspected, actual on-site conditions and
past experience, combined with a thorough knowledge of engineer-
ing theory, dictated the inspection procedures that were followed.
3.1 LEVEL OF INSPECTIONI"The inspection techniques used had to be sufficient to yield
j information necessary to make a general condition assessment of
the supporting structure of each facility, identify any areas
[that were mechanically damaged or in advanced states of deterior-ation, and formulate repair and maintenance recommendations and
r cost estimates. In general, this meant utilizing visual/tactile
L inspection techniques, accompanied by occasional external measure-
ments employing such instruments as a scale, calipers or ultra-.1 sonic steel thickness gauge, where appropriate. Photographic
documentation of typical as well as notable or unusual conditions
was also obtained.
[ 3.2 INSPECTION PROCEDURE
The scope of work for this portion of the underwater inspection
program required that seven (7) facilities at the Naval Air Station,
3-1
I0
Alameda be inspected. There were varying degrees of inspection.
Levels I, II and III inspections were applied appropriately
throughout each facility. The Level I inspection is a visual/
tactile inspection of the full length of the exposed pile (see
Figure 3). A level II inspection involves a visual/tactile inspec-
tion along the full length of the pile along with band cleaning
at two elevations. Generally the band cleaning was executed at
mean low water or if the pile was jacketed, it was band cleaned
just below the jacket; the second elevation for band cleaning was
at mid-depth. The Level III inspection was performed on the steel
sheet pile structures. This involved the use of non-destructive
methods to measure the thickness of the steel.
Due to the field conditions encountered, the degree of inspection
varied and involved one or more of the above-mentioned inspection
levels. On Pier 4 a Level I inspection was performed on all
piles. On Pier 3 all perimeter piles and every pile in every
10th bent were inspected in accordance with a Level I inspection.
Also a Level II inspection was performed on approximately 5% of
the piles. On Pier 2 and Wharves 1 and 2 a Level I inspection
was performed on all perimeter piles and all piles in every 5th
bent. Also a Level II inspection was executed on approximately
5% of the piles.
[The bulkhead along Parking Apron No. 4 was exposed at mean lowwater and was inspected in the dry. The associated seaplane
[ rramps were also exposed at mean low water although thickness
measurements were taken on the steel H-piles under water.
In all levels of inspection of concrete piles, the concrete was
regularly hit with a hammer to gauge the soundness of the concrete
and to detect any softness that might be present.
I It should be noted that non-destructive methods of inspectionwere employed. The conditions noted reflect direct observation
3-2
*4~~.44 4CL .:
INSPECT FORCORROSION OR
DAMAGE
MEASURE THE TYPE
AND EXTENT OF
DETERIORATION
INSPECT FOR
I ANOMALIESL
~ [ TYPICAL DIVER INSPECTION PATH.1 LEVEL I
GRPI CLE ...T'S NIERN NAVAL FACNUTlES ENGINEERING COMMAND
NA3DII..M INSPECTION PAT 3Owarrette 10347 3-3
I
of structural components. Information which may infer knowledge
of conditions not accessible by non-destructive testing methods
is based on government-furnished documents, our knowledge of
structures in similar environments and/or generally accepted
engineering theories.
3.3 INSPECTION EQUIPMENT
Equipment used for inspection included a Krautkramer D-Meter ultra-
sonic steel thickness gauge with DMR Probe and a Nikon III with
28mm lens, an Ikelight 150L Superstrobe, dive lights, 100-foot
cloth tape, 6' rule, chipping hammers and dive knives.
Choice of equipment was made as a result of past experience. Most
of the equipment is straightforward, easy to handle, carry and
use, and has proven reliable under hard use.
Ultrasonic steel thickness gauging is preferred over other tech-
niques (such as drilling test holes) since it is non-destructive,
easy to handle, fast and reasonably accurate.
3
I
I1~3-4
, I
SECTION 4.0 FACILITIES INSPECTED
Within this section of the report, each facility inspected at the
Naval Air Station is referenced separately. The discussion ofeach facility is presented in four parts: 1) a description of
the construction and function of the structure, which is derived
from both the on-site inspection and from the referenced govern-ment-furnished drawings; 2) an enumeration of general and speci-
fic conditions observed during the on-site inspection; 3) a qual-itative assessment of the structural condition of the facilitybased on the inspection data; and 4) recommendations for actions
to be taken to insure long-term, cost-effective maintenance andutilization of the facility. Detailed breakdowns of cost estimatesare included in the Appendix.
Marine growth profiles were noted at each facility. These profileswere similar for all the facilities at the Naval Air Station. Ingeneral, mussels and barnacles, along with a covering of soft
growth, including algae, sponges and various marine invertebrates,covered the concrete piles. This growth extended from mean tide
level to within 1' to 2' of the mudline. The thinning out ofgrowth at the mudline is probably due to either scouring or aj change in the level of the mudline attributed to dredging.Mussels in some areas were as thick as 4", but generally were
scattered thinly along with barnacles. The soft growth wasusually about 1" thick and could be found throughout each facility[in combination with the mussels and barnacles.On the concrete piles, deterioration was noted with respect toits structural significance. Piles not capable of supportingthe imposed load were noted as severely damaged. This anomaly 4[ 1displayed the following characteristic:
o Piles cracked and broken with rebar still intact
(see Figure 4).
4-1
, •'
I
IA condition where the concrete has spalled to a point where the
cross sectional area of the remaining pile has marginal capabil-
i ities to support its designed load is noted as heavy spalling
(see Figure 5). In many cases of heavy spalling, rebar is exposed
to the water and has experienced corrosion.
Spalling that does not immediately threaten the structural integ-
rity of the pile was noted as light (see Figure 5).
Hereafter in this report, there will be reference to these common
j conditions.
f
*1iI
4-24
YM m7
- 7-
I Er
>-AC~I1NG ot4 FLLEJ'
ELEVATILN%,
A A
ELEVATION
0,
•o A-A5EV-RE DAM4AGE
, , SECTION A-A
GRAPHIC SCALE CHESAPEAKE DIVISION
CIILDS ENGINEERING NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMANDCORPORATION WAS"INTON. D.C
t BOX 58 NAVAL AIR STATION ALAMEOA. CA FIGNO.NA IEDFIRLD" MA PILE CONDITION 4
Charrette 10347 i
i • |-3
C.PILE CAP
! PILE PILE
OFTEN REIAR 15-
1.*' . CKFO)<E.P, U5UALLYCOF RO5IO OFRE1BAR 15 0o5ERVED
_mOR. THAN ., LE55 THAN 3"
I{. PEMAINIMG-~ ~ i _ CONCRETE
r ISSINe
HEAVY SPALLING LIGHT .SPALLING
GRAPHIC SCALE CHESAPEAKE DIVISIONC DHE ENGINEERING NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
COsRTon ANNTRsO S NAVAL AIR 11TATION ALAWIEDA. CA FGO
I NA "'""I°"" PILE CONDITION 5
Charrette 10347 4
/
PHOTO #8: Pile A Berft 131, Elevation 96.0.
Vertcalandhorizontal cracks.Pileseveelydamaged.
PHTO#9_PleAen_10 Elevation 96.0.
Vertcalandhorizontal cracks.
Pileseveelydamaged.
V PHTO #: Splledone~te t pie coner
4.1 CARRIER PIER - PIER 3
1 i4.1.1 DESCRIPTION
Pier 3 was built in 1945 and is 1355' long by 150' wide. Its
reinforced concrete deck is supported by approximately 4,440
20" square precast concrete piles, of which approximately 3,900
are vertical piles and 540 are batter piles (see Figures 6
through 10). The vertical piles are jacketed in concrete from
the pile cap down 13'0". The jackets provide a 4" concrete
cover on all pile faces. The driven capacity of each pile isI 45 tons. The design live load on the deck is 500 psf.
It is the southernmost facility in this activity and is adjacent
to Wharf 2 (see Figure 2). Pier 2, just to the north, runs par-
Iallel to Pier 3.
[ Pier 3 is the largest berthing facility at NAS Alameda and cansimultaneously accommodate two nuclear-powered attack carriers.
Total feet of berth available at this pier is 2,500.
1
Reference: Navy Department Bureau of Yards and DocksS Y & D Drawings Nos. 317483, 317484 and 317497
V 4.
4-5
I i
I
0 00-0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 00 0
TO l~o Duo o70 000 000 000 00 Oo O 00 oDo Oo o~o oo o0 Duo oDo 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0o 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0n 0 0 0 n 0 o 0n o0 0 0 a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 1 1 00 [:2.o T oo o 0 p Oo Oo 0 0 00 T OO o O O
ao 0 0 o .0 0 0 z 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0
o o0n on 0 0n 0 0n0n00 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In
I0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0In
a 0I £0 0I 0I 0I 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 £ 0d~ CU 0I 0o0o0o00 0 000o00004 000 oo oo OL o o0 o o0o oL o0D,000
0In 00 0 D 0 In n In 0 0 In 0 0 n In In 0n 0n In In 0n 0In 0000 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00I 0 0 .0 I 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 c I I I
I o 0o oo oo ooooo oo o Oo oL opoo on o ooo
o A on0o oo Ono o O no 00 o 0 oL .oooooo oo 6a0 0 000 0 00 00 nIInn 0~I 0 0 n 0 0000 0~I 0~ RI 0I 0nI 0I 0 0 l0 0 In0 0 00000000000 0InnnnnnnI ~~~~~nnnnnnI~~~~~~ 0 0 0 0~
Z I29 5ACES @ I'Z'- 0" 3 4 8'-0 "
I ILEVEL5 OF -IMM~ECTIOI4AOR 0 LEVEL I (ALL FILES IW SEWJ OR ROW) FLAN
o LEVELMl 5CALE AS SHOWN
LEGEND
[S EVERE~ 0AMAGS (REQUIRE5 ELAEEEiK HEAVY 5PALLIN6
I W LI(I4T SPALLN.9
65.0 -LEVATIOW(MLLW EL tO0.O') NOTE:REFEREN~CE TAKEN FROMA
Y4 D 0WS WOS. 1'7483 4 317484.
~f
(a 17 0 00 0 2 05 0 10 07 Z9 0 T
o o0 0 0~ o0. o00 0o po o o 0~ 0~ o0 o~~o __o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-.
U oD oTO 000 O O to to To To O 000 0O 0 o V)__._0 0 0' o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0o 0 0o_ T0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 R 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N0 o
ooooooo o o o 1 ~o oo o 0 ofo o o o o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0l 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,(0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0
o 0, nn0 o 0 o o 0o oo 0 0 0o0 0 oooo0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D[0 0 0 0 0 0 [ 0 0 0 0Ono DAD A~ ADo ADo oo Ono Ono A~ Ono Opo oo ADo Ao O-B0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 R 000 00 0 0 0 "0 0 00 00 0
I?- d" -348 O"_
144
5 SHOWN,.J
, 4
GRAHI SCAL CHESAPEAKE DIVISION lr "
GRAPHISCALENAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND iCHiLoI ENGINtERING WAS04100M7Of D.C
,,,' 0' o ; o I CONPOATION.
48- 3174-. PIER C3,L-
I
T T T 74.0
OC go 0 0000 00 00 0 0000 00 D 0D0 0 O 0000 0001
o QV O DO 10 TO 0 0 O O DO DO 0 o O o OF 00 TOC gO oO O O O D O IO O O O OO OO ODD OD Oo Oo Oo o[]0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o. o 0o00 D D 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 p0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 D 0 0 D 0 [ D 0 0 0
0C 0 0 0 O0~ 0O 000O 00 0 0 0DaO0O000O0DfD 0 0f 0f 0f 0f 0f D0 0 Of~f0 c 0 0 0 ITI 0 D0 00 D 0 Or00 00o 0 0 0 T
0
t 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 00 Dc D
0. : 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 000 00 0 0o 0D
LA~~ 0 ~~ o 0 0D0DL0OD0 0O 0O 0O00000 ~ ~ 0 00 0 0 0
DO 000D0D00O0D000 0D0000 D00c0 c0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 OLO O O00 3 0 0 c O O 0
0 0 0 0 p0 0 0 0 0 0 000 000 0 C
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cOn Ono On On O noA000 ooo Ao LAo 0o0 o o I
000000000000000000 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0:o~ o~ k o~ ok k ok o. o~ oko o~o oo o~o oflo of0 of o of o of,
+71.0 Z' 5FACF5 CT 1 024 - 348'-d."
ILE-EL5 OF*JN15,ECT114()OR (JLEVEL I (ALL FILES IW BEtJT OFAROW) PA
rLEVELr M:-CALE AS BRAOWN
I
c LEGEND
@ SEVERE DAMAGS (ReCQUIRC-5 REPLACEMeWT)SHE.AVY' SPALLIND
1.LI614T SPALLINLW65.0 ELEVATION (MLLW EL 100.0') NOTE:
REFEREWCE TAJKEW FROt4YJUI OWG, N.OS. 317483 4317484.
/
7 NylpITITT T 7Z 0 A
0 0 0 0 0DQ 0 0 0 0aCRj 0 0 00 00 00 00 0 00 0DU to0 TO RO F1 TO T O TO 00 0U0 0 00 0 0 0== o-4J .0c0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3~ R 00 0 0o 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 04i
o 0 0n l 0r 0r 0rO 0 0 Or ToOr 00
0 C 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 c
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .
0~~~~~ C 0000
CC0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L
000 L f0 0 L 0 O0 0 00 0 cl0
0 C 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 cu
000 C 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p F0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Cc c c 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 c 00
346-0 70.0JU%
l-
GRAPHI SCALEnN CHESAPEAKE DIVISIONGRA~tIC SCLE INAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
EN IPROM 'Y4 0 10 0' 20' 30' 40 5e 4d CORPORATI N AVLAAS~INAASA
~ 4317W. I: it I I PIER #3 71 Im
0i I
I
oc 00 go 00 00 00 go 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 g 00 00 00 0° 00 D0 0 0 0 0 ° °0 0 Goo T 00 0 00 ° ° ° O0 u0 °0 o 0° °
0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0o 0 OOa0 0 0 0OC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 o 0 a .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o - 0 --- 0-.- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0-0 0 0 --- 0 D D 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0
Io o oS -- 0 -0 -0 -0 D 0 0 -- o - 0 0 D D 0 0
- 0 0 00In 0 0 0 - 0 -o 0 D 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 00 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o n0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Oo 0o 00 L A L A Oo 00 n P o LOoA7noooOoO
f 0 00 go 00 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 00 0
70.0 3 PACES II_ @12 0 3tO-O0
I/ LEVEL5 OF.IN5PECTIOlR oI I LEVEL I (ALL PILEStW e6EVT ORROW) PLAN. 5CALE A5 5HOWN-- LEVEL r
I.
LEGEND@ SEVERE DAMAGE (REQUIRES REPLACEMeIET)
) HEAVY SPALLING
3 ( L1,1T 3PALLINit65.0 ELIEVATIOW(MLLW EL 100.0') NOTE:
F IRE1CE TAKEN FROM YDOWNO.178 317W.
75s 83 oo4
0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Oo-0
7 0 00 0 0O To TO 0 0DU OUO 0oO T0
0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0O 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t
0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- .0 o 0 0 0000 o 0 0000 o 00a o 00o o
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0
3 0 0 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0L
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0.000000000000 00 00 00 0 000 000 00 0000 0 a00 00 0 0 F
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- I0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0go oLo Ono oLo A0 Oo Ono ono AL O° Oo o o&4o oAo o00
0-0000000000000000000000000000 O..0~0 0 0 0 " 0 0000 0000 .- , 000a1- 3 (,O '- 07 .72
I
PLAN
A5 5HOWN u
I-
I GRAPHIC SCALE I[ NAL CHESAPEAKE DIVISIONI 0 a CNDS NGIEIN N AVA FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
g o i2 4 6 sx NAVAL AIR STATION "AAE"A. CA naS O.
~ ~ e .I 0 O 4 ~ I COAPAi; O#:-i A;:;T,0€
i R 4q I,,, A I mOFILD. WA PIER #3 ,8
4-8
Ic.0.
0 0 0 0
I 0
CC 0 0
-1 . 0 0
00000000 coo CU 0 000- 0 ~ 0 ~o O 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 000a D 0 000
0 0a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a0
D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000a00 a 0 a DD D 0 03 0
000
0_ D 0 0 a 000 0 0 000
000
0 0 0 0. 0 0 00 0 0
00 0 0
0n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0-I* 0 0 00
a 0 0 0 0 D
~ii i0 0 0 a0 0 0
0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0
a 0 0a 0 00 00 0
0 0
a 0a00 0 0 0a 0 0 aaa 0 0aD 0 0 0 0a
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0o 0 0 0
000 a 000 o 0 0 0 0 G 0 0 'a) 0 0 0 0o I 0J0 0 0 0D 0a
0 0 a a memo 0 a oooa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a a 0 0 0 0 0 a a
W 038 SPACEStG -LIIZ'0 I I I I
I'INOTE. PAFIEFERE.Cit TAKE04 FROM Y*D P A
~wB rNos. 30+463 #317484. 5CALE AS SHOWN
0 0 - - MATCH LINE -D0 01oo '°° ° )
0
0 00
0 LEVEL5 OF INJ5PECTIOWJ0 0 OR LEVEL I (ALL PILES IN BU.T OR ROW)
0 0 00Eo
00 00 01
0 0
00 ,LEGEND0
D 0 a 0 _a 0 ( c, SEVERE DAMAGV, (REQUIRE5 REPLACEDvCI-T)0° ) HEAVY 5PALLING
0 0 g LIG14T 5PALLIW60 0 0
0
0
:' o o° I 5.0 E:LE ATI0M(MLLW EL I00.00)
0
0 L0 *
00° L ___0 0
0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 a 0 a 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 00o a 0 a 0 0 00 0 0 0 0
0 D 0
a 000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 00 00a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 F0 0
0 2 0 00 0 C
o 0 0 0 a 0 0 a " 0 0 a 0 0 0 0
05 106 8 ,1 .. 11 0 10 SFA 0 05016- Z 61 8
S RAPHIC SCALE NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
C0A AE VISICOOPONATION0ox 323 NAVAL AIR STATION ALAMEDA. CA FlNo
UEF 0L. VA PIER #3 9I M DF• i .MA
~150 -0"
5L0o -0,8B 9 14-3!44 4 8 B- C7 -0 Z Z- 'O L~s. T-
DECK' EL II.F- TTTI
MLLW EL 100.0' ~__
TYPICAL CROS5 5ECSCALE AS SHOWN
NO0TE:r REEVNENCE TAKEN FROM~
I 4D DWG V4.3117497.
K t L 3 T U V4
-o~ 1- 0- -3 &9
-- CONCRETE JACK~ET
2-41
PRECA51CONCRETE PILE5
ICAL CROSS 5ECTIONSCALE AS SHOWN
GRAPHIC SCALE CHESAPEAKE DIVISIONtlwo$ INOINEERINO NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
CIPRT( - WAIIHNGOW. 0 Cgo 03 AL 0A CA FI NoRoRS)m 02522 5 NAVAL AIR STATIONAAE .CA nN
MEIEL.APIER 3 Am 10
40i-10
Wilig
4.1.2 OBSERVED INSPECTION CONDITIONS
In general, all of the piles which were inspected are in good to
excellent condition. Although the pier is almost 40 years old,there has been very little deterioration of the concrete. Little
or no softness in the concrete was observed, indicating that the
original concrete mix was well-proportioned and resulted in a
dense, impenetrable product.
1% of the piles inspected had some minor spalling or cracking.
The observed deterioration is cosmetic in nature and is of no
real structural significance.
There is no apparent pattern to the location on the pile or piles
within the pier which have experienc the spalling and/or
cracking.
All of the vertical piles in the pier are protected with concrete
jackets from the pile cap to approximately Elevation 102.2 (see
Photo #3). The jackets were installed when the piles were
driven. The jackets are in excellent condition and have protected
the piles from deterioration in the tidal zone. No softness in
the concrete jackets was noted.
A few of the piles have been repaired in the area below the con-
crete jackets. The repairs consist of a steel form which has been
filled with concrete and encases the pile. No information was
found detailing the time that these repairs were made. Based on
the location of the repaired piles (generally interior piles),
it may be that the repairs were made at the time of original con-
struction. It is possible that the piles were damaged during
installation and rather than removing and driving new piles, the
piles were repaired.
4-11
PHOTO #3: Pile V, Bent 86, Elevation
102. Base of pile jacket.
Note clear definition of
pile chamfer edges illus-
trating sound concrete.
PHOTO #4: Pile A, Bent 103. Elevation
85±. Typical marine growth
including mussels, sponges
I and hair-like algae.
t-.. ....
t i ,
Typical of all facilities at NAS Alameda, the marine growth on
the piles consisted of mussels, barnacles, sponges and hair-like
algae (see Photo #4).
4.1.3 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Since no significant structural damage to any of the piles was
observed, there is no significant loss in pile load carrying
capacity and therefore no loss in overall pier capacity.
Calculations of original pile capacities indicate that all piles
have sufficient strength to support current use loading.
4.1.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
No repairs are recommended at this time.
The piles should be re-inspected in 5 years and this inspection
should be used as a baseline to determine what, if any, deterio-
ration has occurred.
'I
4-12
xi MW _ 9 2 /
4.2 WHARF NO. 2
4.2.1 DESCRIPTION
Wharf No. 2 is located in the southern portion of NAS Alameda,
(see Figure 2). It is bordered to the north by Pier 2 and to
the south by Pier 3. The wharf is functioning as an approach
to Pier 3. Its reinforced concrete deck is supported by approx-
imately 210 - 20" square concrete piles (see Figure 11). These
piles have been jacketed in concrete from the pile cap down 13'.
The jackets provide a 4" concrete cover on all pile faces. Thewharf is 573' long and 45' wide. Design deck live load is 500psf and the driven capacity of each pile is 45 tons.
Reference: Navy Department Bureau of Yards and Docks
Y and D Drawing No. 317494
I4'I
I-I
A
T J DECKEL It(..O' LEVEL tJ CCONCRETE JACK~ET O
z-4
EL IOZ.0
MLLW EL %00.0 ___I
-Wmww I Q!I -LEGEND20 "SqUARE I .. -"-PRECA5T 10 1 0 @ 5EVERCONCRETEHEVPILE HAV
,2' LI(frIT
65.0 ELEVA1
TYPICAL Cti055 SECTION4
10 5 0 5 10 205CALE OF FEET
I R a a a4a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
a a a a .0-0 a a a 0 a a a a a R 0 a a
j 00 a a~-0 a a a a 0 a a a a
Ia a a a a aJa a a a a a a a a a a a a
z(. 5FACES V 141O"~ -364'-0"
-5-101
PLAN
[[Jil Ii I
MoEEEC AE FROM t o~ 04 0t
7 Wo.7-
II I I I I I I I Il I I i m
LEVEL5 OF INSFECTIO 40"- -4-0
OR LEVEL I (ALL PILES I EIT OR ROW) 7
0 LEVEL r /4
LEGEND /9
o 5EVERE DAMAE (REQUIR~ES REPLACEtMEMT) 37 'oX HEAVY 5PALLIN,6 0 0
0' LI6HT 5PALLIIJ0, 0 0
10 00 065.0 ELEVATIO9(MLLW EL 100.0') 0 *
000 00 0 00: 0 000 0 0\ 0° 0 0 *00 0 0 0 \
0 0 0 0 000 0
O0 2
O 0 0 0000
o~~~ o U- o o o 0 o O0 0
o o o o o o a
a a ,' a a a a 0N
a a a a o
100_
GRAPHIC SCALE CHESAPEAKE DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMANDC"ILDS ff"(110"empla W&oImoTON+ 0 C
C.O NuO.ATOON
A5 S1HOW N o sa w NAVAL AIR STATION LA, CA INO X. .
UIIWHARF W2 11 A. #2
'Ofi
4.2.2 OBSERVED INSPECTION CONDITIONS
In general, all of the piles which were inspected are in good
to excellent condition. Little or no softness in the concrete
was observed, indicating that the original concrete mix was well-
proportioned and resulted in a dense, impenetrable product.
One of the piles inspected had some minor spalling or cracking.
The observed deterioration is cosmetic in nature and is of no
real structural significance.
All of the piles in the wharf are protected with concrete jackets
from the pile cap to approximately Elevation 102.0. The jackets
were installed when the piles were driven. In general, the jac-
kets are in excellent condition and have protected the piles
from deterioration in the tidal zone.
One of the jackets is spalled at the base, Pile A Bent 25 (see
Photo #5), exposing the pile. The pile is in good condition so
the spall is of no structural significance.
Typical of all facilities at NAS Alameda, the marine growth onthe piles consisted of mussels, barnacles, sponges and hair-like
algae (see Photo #6).
Several piles have been repaired by replacement with new piles.
The damaged piles are cracked and spalled, probably the result
of driving since they're at interior locations. The replacement
piles have been driven adjacent to the damaged piles.
Typical of all Level II inspections several of the piles were
band cleaned at several locations along their length. Photo #7
illustrates a typical band cleaned location.
4-15
_. 1 IB O 1
PHOTO #5: Pile A Bent 25, Elevation
102.0. Spall at bottom of
* concrete jacket exposing
pile.
*1PHOTO #6: Pile B Bent 15, Elevation
102.0. Typical marine
*growth at base of pile
jacket.
I 17 PHOTO #7.1 UPile B, Bent 1, Elevation
98.0. Typical band clean
location for Level II
inspection.
4.2.3 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Since no significant structural damage to any of the piles was
observed, there is no significant loss in pile load carrying
capacity and therefore no loss in overall pier capacity.
Calculations of original pile capacities indicate that all piles
have sufficient strength to support current use loading.
4.2.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
No repairs are recommended at this time.
The piles should be re-inspected in 5 years and this inspection
should be used as a baseline to determine what, if any, deterio-
ration has occurred.
I
ILI 4-16-1 111
4.3 PIER 2
4.3.1 DESCRIPTION
The original pier was built in 1941 and is 1001' long by 80' wide.
Its reinforced concrete deck is supported by approximately 1,006
structural piles. In 1974 the pier was extended 18 bents, 210'.
The older portion of the pier has approximately 870 - 20" square
precast piles, of which 714 are vertical piles and 166 are batter
piles. The new section of the pier consists of approximately 136
18" square prestressed, precast structural piles; 102 vertical
piles and 34 batter piles (see Figures 12 and 13). The driven
capacity of each pile is 50 tons. The design live load on the
deck is 400 psf.
Pier 2 is adjacent to Wharf 2 to the south and Wharf 1 to the
north. It is also sandwiched between Pier 1 and Pier 3, (see Fig.2).
Pier 2 has four berthing spaces available totaling 2,420 feet.
One of these spaces has been reserved for fleet operations and
is left vacant. Transient vessels utilize this berth for loading
and off-loading small amounts of ordnance. The remaining three
berthing spaces usually accommodate AOE, AOR, and DD combinations
of ships.
Reference: Navy Department Bureau of Yards and DocksY & D Drawing No. 161, 013Department of the Navy Naval Facilities EngineeringCommand - NAVFAC Drawings Nos. 6018843, 6018845
4-17
oup 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0a a a 0O 0a0 a 0
0 a 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0
0 0~ 0~ 0~ 0a ~ 0~ 0 a 0 0 a a 0 a0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 aR
4V 1- 1-75ACE @ I Z -?0~4,
LEVEL OF-IN5PECTIOh) (EYTEJSIOI ADDED 1974) PLAN
OR LEVEL I (ALL FILES IW BENJT 09 ROW) 5CALE AS SHOD LEVELU
1 8 1 1 5 1 13 122 12,1 120 119 118 117 1 (6 115 l11t 11
rob, (T_ o .5a 0 a a a a 0 a 0 a a a a 0 a a a a
X 0 -0 a0 0 a --- a a a 0 0 0 0 a
2 a0 0
to a 0 0 0 a0 a 0 a a a a a a 0 a0 00 0"
0 0 0 0 a 0 o o a a 0 0 a 0 0
0 a a 0 0 a a a a a 0 0 a a 0 a a a 0
L + -70.LEGEND me 3 SPACES '-O"= 372'-0"
@' E SEVEREF DAMAGE (REQUIRES REPLACEtEI4T) PLAN( HEAVY' SPALLIN& NOE: LAS
f LIG6T SPALLIML9 REFERENCE TAK EN FROM Y4D SCALE A SHOWN
5.0 ELEVATION (MLLW EL 00.0) DWG NO. II,OI3 4 WAVFACDWS NOS. (oI0843 $ ol88+5.
-- II T ITI 7 .. --
- - -
a a a a a0 0 a 0 a a a a a a a
D oo 10 o o O o g ;0 09 v DID o
o0 0 0 ° 0 a a a a a a a a a a 0
°o~ o ° ., .. °® ¢
_ I{ I , SPACES@ IZ..-O =I9Z -
PLAN MATH LUJE -H (BENT NO. N'1)r
0 . a a a 0 a a 0 a a 0 0 0
a 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 a
a 0 0 a a a a 0 a a a a a a a a a
700
4 i2'-O'' 3"/2'-O"IA MATC TC LINE- G EHT NO.NO, .-
- AA CESAPAKE DIVISION
SA~t SHOW GRPHC CL NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
OWN"C=O, p----.IONm .,AS;f.?oN, o C-A
,, 13 9) 0 9) PIE 0 a 29 a
0 'm
DO DII Il III UO Dov o 0r 00u
1 9oa a 0 0 a a a 0 a a a 0 0 0 a 0 0 a0
a0 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 a a 0 0 a 0 10 0a 0 0 0 0
0 0 a a 0 a a a a 00 0 00a 00
O a a 0 0 0 a a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 a a a 0
a a 0 a a 0 0 a a 0 0 a a 0 a a a a a
3( SACE5 @I'- 4-3
M ATCH L IME- G.(BENMT NO, 1oo)
/ *, 11 . I .
E-L 114.25 --VI
MLLW EL 100.01 2osBE r~4
4%* a. - C3
I t I, f NOTE: TYPICAL CROSS SECTION~
REFERENCE TAKEN FROM Y4O GT'O5APpwcNo. lt,of 9 4NVFAC NTT CL
~j 1 M DW5.JOS11OIS84(601I86+5,
0 O 00 0 0 0 0 a. 0 0 0 0
0000 0 a a 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 0
O0 0 a a a a 0 0 a D 0 0 a 0 0 0 O
0 a a 0 a a a a a a a0 aa a a
0 a 0 0 0 0 a a0
0a A A a0 J A a a a 0 0 0 a ° a
0 0 a0 a a a 0 0 a a 0 0 R a a a 0 0a
MATCH LINE -F (DENT NO. (4) -4-
I 5CUALE AS5 4OWIJ
LEVEL5 OF IN5fECTIO?4 -
OR LEVEL I (ALL PILES IN SEIJT OR ROW)o LEVEL :
LEGEND
@ © SEVERE DAMAGS (REQUIRIE REPLACEMEIMT)
2" SQUARE X HEAVY 5PALLINGL
-RECA5T ,d LIGHT 5P&LLIN&CONCRETE 65.0 ELEVATIOJ(MLLW EL I00.0')-PILE5
CHESAPEAKE DIVISIONGRAPHIC SCALE NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
CHILDS ENGINEERING WASINGTON, D.C
os 0 C IOx isa NAVAL AIR STATION ALAMEDA. CA vIG NO
I?0 0 020 40 so m~N%.M111111L0""" PIER *2 13
4-19
4.3.2 OBSERVED INSPECTION CONDITIONS
In general, all of the piles in the newer section of the pier
(Bents 148 through 165) are in excellent condition. Some light
spalling was noted on one pile, however, this appeared to be the
result of poor fabrication rather than structural deterioration.
Piles in the older section of the pier (Bents 147 through 64) are
generally in good condition. Two piles, Pile A Bent 131 and Pile
A Bent 130, have suffered severe structural damage (see Photos #8
and #9). These piles are cracked at the pile cap and at various
locations along their length. They appear to have been hit by
either a vessel or a camel and broke as a result of the impact.
Four of the piles inspected exhibit heavy spalling of concrete.
In some cases rebar is exposed and corroding.
Eleven of the piles inspected exhibited light spalling (see Photos
#10 and #11). The light spalling appears to be cosmetic and of no
structural significance.
Several other piles in the old section of the pier exhibit minor
cracking at the corners and some softness (less than 1/2") in the
concrete. This condition is consistent with the age and exposure
of the piles.
4.3.3 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT
The two severely damaged piles are no longer capable of supporting
the design loads.4
The heavily spalled piles, although capable of supporting the
design loads, are considered marginal from a structural standpoint.
4-20:fl
PHOTO #10: Pile A Bent 133, Elevation 99.0.
Area of band cleaning and light
spalling of pile corner.
PHOTO #11: Pile B Bent 124, Elevation 95.0.1;'~ Area of light spalling on pile
*f ace. Note exposed aggregate.
Ib,
I' 'A
)V
I ,IPHOTO #12: Pile A Bent 11, Elevation 95.0.
Cleaned area at pile corner.
Note distinct chamfer edges
indicating sound concrete.
PHOTO #13: Pile A Bent 12, Elevation 95.0.
Light spalling at pile corner.
:1 4
4
f9.
' 1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Continued deterioration of the concrete and corrosion of the rebar
will reduce the load carrying capacity of the piles below design
limits.
Piles which have light spalling or minor cracking and softness are
sound. There is no significant loss in pile load carrying capacity.
4.3.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
The two severely damaged piles, Pile A Bent 131 and Pile A Bent 130,
should be repaired by driving two piles on either side of the dam-
aged pile and casting a reinforced concrete cap between the newpiles under the existing cap. The estimated cost for repairing adamaged pile by this technique is $5,318.00. The total estimated
cost for repairing the two piles is therefore $10,636.00.
The piles exhibiting heavy spalling should also be repaired. We
recommend that a reinforced concrete jacket be cast around the
pile in the area of heavy spalling. The spalled area should be
cleaned by chipping to sound concrete and the rebar cleaned or
replaced as necessary.
It is estimated that a ten foot length of jacket would be suffi-
cient to cover the deterioration noted on each pile. If a fabric
* j form is used, the cost per 10' jacket would be $1,320.00.
Since 30% of the total number of piles were inspected and four of
these exhibited spalling, we expect that a total of 12 piles in
the entire pier need jackets. The total cost to install 12 jackets
is estimated to be $15,840.00.r4
The recommended repairs should be accomplished as soon as possible.
All repairs should-be inspected after completion. The entire pier
I Ishould be inspected in 5 years. The immediate inspection will insure
that the repairs have been properly constructed. The follow-up
inspection will determine the change of conditions with respect to time.
4-21
4.4 WHARF NO. 1
4.4.1 DESCRIPTION
Wharf No. 1 is located in the southern portion of the NAS Alameda,
(see Figure 2). It is bordered to the north by Pier 1 and to the
South by Pier 2. This wharf is functioning as an approach to
Pier 2. When the wharf was built in 1941 it was 744' long and 40'
wide. In 1945 it was widened by 50' to the inshore side. 20"
square concrete piles were used in both cases, although in the
1945 addition the piles were jacketed in concrete from the cap
down 13'. The jackets provide a 4" concrete cover on the faces
of the piles. In all, there are approximately 472 vertical piles
and 54 batter piles supporting the reinforced concrete deck (see
Figures 14 and 15). The design live loading on the decks of both
portions is 400 psf. The driven capacity of each pile is 50 tons.
1
Reference: Navy Department Bureau of Yards and DocksY & D Drawings NOs. 317495, 161012 and 161016
44
H4-22
414 1(4)5 ' 154 5 SZ5 51 7 4b 4 43
0 0 (ri00p) a a
o 0
ll
a 0 0 0 0 0 0
o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ao 0 0 08 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0a 0 0 0
4\ r 0 D - PC~@ Z ~
00 0
00 o 0 0 Bl~Jo aRoW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t
0 0EEL
4- ,,0.,, a 0 0 - 0 _ a - a 0 0 0 0 0 0
(z 0 0 a oo 0 a a a 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 C
~0 a 0 0 00 0 30 0PCE 0m 0Z-!
0
0
X HEAV
22P1 OL7 1 11r
"<E O L45 P&LLIb a a a a A C o 0 aon
5OR E LEV EL I(ALL PILES' 114 G WTl OR ROW) o o a 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 o ,
0 LEVEL31]
@OT SEVERE DAMAGEE(REQUIRES, FIEPLA tAM -) 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 c
XI HEAVY SPILLIN& 0 ° a 0 ° a 0 0 0 a 0 "
Xi 1 .I61T 5PALLIN& 1
(,5.0 ELEVATIOW (MLLW EL I00.0')- i
NOTE: MiTCI LINe -j PL AN
f--ff emeMCIE TAK EW FMOM Y4D (E M.SCA*LE AS SWOWIl
~~pWft Nos.. zj17,495 f u.1012I p 1&l016.
4 4+4 241 40 37 38 57 36 35 34 33 3Z 30 29 z8
0 0 O
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O p
o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 13 13-
o a0 0a 0 0 0 a a 0 a a 0 0 a
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 013 0 0 0 0 0 O 13 D
PACE5 @ IZ'-0" 40=4321-01 MATCH LtN -J (BEWIJT V0. 21)
T T T ~I '*tfp 12
o o o ao o a.0, 0 o o a o o a
o O 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 a A
o 0 0 0 a a O a O a 0 3 a O 0 0 0 0 0 {
o 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0
a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 3 0
oa a a a a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a 0
0 o 0 0: o 0 0 O a3 O 0 a a 0 a 0 ,,
im SpAcEs L2. i "i m in I-"
GRAPHIC SCALE CHESAPEAKE DIVISION
A P CHILD$CALEIN I NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
D~~v.J U rn' ~CORPORATION ANOT.D.4 68 1 5 NAVAL AIR STATION ALAMEDA, CA ITNO.
Ii, iii t I M1I.. MA WHARF #1 14
_____II I___II__,__i
TIC0-0
DECK' EL 116.0~ 1 -Z0 -tIO-*
CONCRETE
JACK'~ETED KMLLW EL- 100.0' -Z
4
20 5QUARE PRECASTIi CONCRETE PILES
20 5QUAP.EFPECAST C014CRETE
FILES
TYPICAL CR055 SECTIONSCALE A5 SHO0WN
I NOTE:I " REFERENCE TAKE*N FROM Y410 DW614O. 317495.
5EAWAL L
4
04APHIC SCALE CtHESAPEAI!E DIVISION
~ ~ NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMANDCL
CI ~:M...A W ARF # 1 15
-4
4.4.2 OBSERVED INSPECTION CONDITIONS
In general, all of the piles which were inspected are in good to
excellent condition. Although the pier is over 40 years old,
there has been very little deterioration of the concrete. Little
or no softness in the concrete was observed, indicating that the
original concrete mix was well-proportioned and resulted in a
dense, impenetrable product (see Photo #12).
One of the piles inspected had some minor spalling (see Photo #13).
The observed deterioration is cosmetic in nature and is of no real
structural significance.
Vertical piles in the newer portion of the pier are protected with
concrete jackets from the pile cap to approximately Elevation 102.0.
The jackets were installed when the piles were driven. The jackets
are in excellent condition and have protected the piles from deteri-
oration in the tidal zone. No softness in the concrete jackets
was noted.
4.4.3 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Since no significant structural damage to any of the piles was
observed, there is no significant loss in pile load carrying
capacity and, therefore, no loss in overall pier capacity.
Calculations of original pile capacities indicate that all piles
have sufficient strength to support current use loading.
4
4-25II
p%
4.4.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
No repairs are recommended, at this time.
The piles should be re-inspected in 5 years and this inspection
should be used as a baseline to determine what, if any, deterio-
ration has occurred.
I
SI
4-26 L
'K'
4.5 PIER I
4.5.1 DESCRIPTION
This pier is located just north and parallel to Pier 2. It is
also adjacent to the north end of Wharf 1 (see Figure 2).
Pier 1 is the smallest of the three piers having one berth of
500 feet available. It is primarily used for berthing one AOR,
DD, or AFS type ship. The present state of this pier is sub-
standard.
The pier is of an earth-filled cellular-steel sheet pile con-
struction. It was built in 1937 and is approximately 650' long
and 50' wide (see Figure 16). The bituminous deck is supported
by an earth fill. Live loading on the deck is currently restricted
to prevent vehicular traffic.
Reference: Navy Department Bureau of Yards and DocksY & D Drawings Nos. 126348 and 126349
42
I 4-27
14- CIELL 5@ Z G'- +1 3 (D9 - 3 "
79.0 7. 0
5ECEL 5ETPL
CAPL
S5CALE A
LEGEN~D
1 ~78.0- ELE'JA-riot4 (MLLW EL 100.0')* -LOCATIOt4 OF 0- METER STA1TI
MLLW EL 100.0
TYPICAL CRO55 5EC~rtON
NJOT TO 5CALE
1 a. NOTE:I REFEREN.CE TAK'EN FROM Y4Df DWO NOS. 1?4'5+6 4 uZ6.349.
8 1 1 1.13 14 15
80.0
17 is81 20 ZI22232
81.0 88.0
I in0 CELLS @ UL9 -41"= ZC3- 9"3
PLANSCALE AS SHOW?4
.W EL 100.0'AETER ShT1O14
GRAPHIC SCALE CHESAPEAKE DIVISION
3I 40 I I I CORPORATION WASIOINOON. W.C
1 0 t 10 0 90X 40 5 S!3 NAVAL AIR STATION ALAMEDA. CA Fla noY4 D MI1F1EL1 PIER 1 li6
-W-wil
- ___________________
II
4.5.2 OBSERVED INSPECTION CONDITIONS
The pier is currently closed to vehicular traffic. This restric-
tion has been in effect for many years and is the result of
several cave-ins in the deck surface. The cave-ins are appar-
ently the result of loss of cell fill through holes in the steel
sheet piles created by corrosion and on impact damage.
During the inspection period, the north side of the pier was
inaccessible.
Over the past several years, Station Personnel have patched
better than twenty holes in the steel sheet piling and have
patched several cave-ins of the deck.
During the inspection several steel sheet pile patches were
observed. The newer patches look to be in good condition while
the older patches appear corroded.
Several holes were observed during the inspection. Typically,I the holes are approximately 8" 0 (see Photo #14).
The steel sheet piling exhibits varying degrees of corrosion from
the pile cap to the mudline. Frequently corrosion nodes (see
Photo #15) were noted. These nodes are basically corrosion by-
product which when removed reveal a significant pit in the steel.
The pits ranged in diameter from 1/8" to 5/8" and up to 1/8" deep.
Photo #16 illustrates a typical steel sheet pile at the mudline.
Other deterioration included corrosion splits at the sheet pile
interconnects (knuckles). This condition is not unusual and is
the result of corrosion occurring in a high stress area (see Photo
#17).
I] 4-29
PHOTO #14: Cell #23, south side.
Eleatin 9.0.8" 0 hole in
steel sheet pile. Note gravel
fill within cell.
II PHOTO #15: Typical corrosion node.
Steel thickness measurements were taken at several locations along
the pier and at several elevations at each location. The severe
pitting in the area around mean low water (Elevation 100±) made
obtaining the readings very difficult. The results of the mea-
surements are included in the Appendix. The range of deterioration
was broad. In some areas, no metal loss was measured while others
(holes) had 100% metal loss. The average metal loss based on the
measurements is approximately 20%. Since many readings were not
possible in the pitted areas (usually high corrosion areas), we
feel that the actual average metal loss is closer to 40% or 50%.
4.5.3 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Pier 1 is in poor condition. Although the patching which has
been performed by Station Personnel is eliminating the deck cave-
ins by maintaining the earth fill within the cells, it is not
strengthening the sheet piling.
The loss of metal along the cell walls increases the tension
stress in the steel. The corrosion holes (split) at the sheet
pile knuckles are an indication of high stress corrosion.
Elimination of vehicular traffic on the pier has helped reduce
stresses in the steel by decreasing the lateral load generated
by the earth fill within the cells.
fA
4-30
W -
PHOTO #16: Typical condition of steel sheet
piles at the mudline. I
I PHOTO #17: Typical corrosion hole in sheet-~ pile knuckle.
4.5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that the current vehicle restriction continue and
that the hole patch program continue until more permanent repairs
can be made.
Although it is difficult to determine the point at which sufficient
corrosion has occurred to increase stresses in the steel to a point
of failure, we feel that this point is not far away. It is our
understanding that the pier is scheduled for major repair or even
replacement in the mid-1980's. We recommend that this schedule
be followed since a delay could lead to a significant failure.
There are several factors to be considered in determining whether
to repair the pier or replace it, not the least of which is antic-
ipated pier use.
I There are several alternative repair techniques which could beIused if a decision -b made to repair rather than replace. One
technique would be to install a new steel sheet pile wall around
the existing pier. The new wall should be tied into the existing
wall and the void between the new and old walls filled with either
j concrete or gravel. The estimated cost to drive a new steel sheet
pile wall and backfill it around the existing wall is approximately
$4,000.00 per lineal foot.
To encapsulate the entire pier, the estimated cost is $5,400,000.
4-31
4.6 BULKHEAD (PARKING APRON NO. 4)
4.6.1 DESCRIPTION
The bulkhead is located north of and parallel to Pier 1 and in-
cludes Seaplane Ramps 1, 2 3 and 4 (see Figure 2). Presently,
the seaplane ramps are not being utilized by seaplanes, they are
being used as a storage and deployment area for oil booms. Orig-
inally, the bulkhead was constructed in 1939. Sometime after
that, an addition in the form of an extended pile cap and batter
piles appeared on the bulkhead (see Figure 17).
References: Navy Department Bureau of Yards and Docks, Y & D Drawing No. 126533.
Department of the Navy Naval Facilities Engineering1 I Command 0 NAVFAC Drawing No. 638436.
'I
4Ii
SPARItGAPROW.
COIJCRETE
4 i CONCRETETE:-DRAIATED 5BRACE6
TYPCA CROSACETIO
W'O 5CALE
~ PAR~igII4 -AVF,0 t4O. 4
R~AMP NO. f-' MAMF Wo. 2m AMPNWO. 3 RAMP i
W 5WALAt4E BERTAINLG AREA
FLAW
NOTE:SCALIE AS 514OWN.
,REFeREPice TAI~6IJrAom IJAVFAC DW6 NO. 65849to Y#( '4DW6NO. 124.593.
50 O.C. 5FACIN& (TY'P)
- 7 MUPLatJE
30.0 5EE 514EET FILIN6(
ELEVATIONNO 5CALE
RAMP 0JO. 4-.- LACCE5 PIER
ARE A
GRAPHIC SCALE ICHESAPEAKE DIVISION '
OS ~ NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMANDCHLD$ E NGIERN WASHINGOD. 0
loo 05 NAVAL AIR STATION A'MD.C mNO
I., I* I SSIES.MABULKHEAD 1
4-33 '
4.6.2 OBSERVED INSPECTION CONDITIONS
In general, the bulkhead appears to be in good condition. There
does not appear to be any significant misalignment along the bulk-
head which would indicate yielding of the wall. The concrete
encasement around the steel sheet piling is in good condition and
shows little sign of deterioration. The encasement concrete is
sound.
Thickness measurements of the steel sheet piling indicate metal
loss of less than 10%. This is probably attributable to the fact
that the original design called for backfilling in front of the
sheeting about halfway up the concrete encasement. The fill in
front of the wall would have served as a barrier against corrosion.
At present, there are several locations (approximately 50% of the
length) along the wall where the steel sheeting is exposed. Maxi-
mum exposure is approximately 2 feet (see Photo #18).
Batter piles were added to the wall sometime after the original
construction (see Photo #19). These piles were tied into the bulk-
head by extending the concrete encasement to form a concrete wallcap.
The batter piles are corrugated steel shells filled with concrete.[ IThe condition of the shells is poor since much of the metal is
corroded, however, the concrete within the shells appears sound.
The wall cap extension which is used to tie in the batter piles
is in fair condition. The upper and lower edges of the concrete
have spalled in many locations. In some instances, rebar is
exposed in the spall areas and is corroded.
Associated with the bulkhead are four seaplane ramps and one access
pier. In all cases they are being used as staging areas for oil
4-34
* S- - .-.....-...- 4
PHOO #8: ypialcondition of concrete j
piles exposed at base.
IPHOTO #19: overview of Bulkhead. Note
spalling at edge of concrete
cap.
i------------------7==--------
II __ __ __ ___ __ __ __ __ ___ __ __ __ ___ ___n 7_ __
booms and no longer serve in their original design function.
All of the ramps and the pier are reinforced concrete decked with
steel H-pile supports. Several of the ramp surfaces have large
spalled areas where rebar is exposed.
Thickness measurements of remaining steel on one H-pile in the
access pier indicate substantial metal loss due to corrosion.
4.6.3 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT
The bulkhead is in good condition. No major structural anomalies
were found which would detract from its capacity.
The deterioration of the concrete wall cap should be stopped to
prevent weakening of the batter pile system.
The deterioration of the ramp decks is consistent with its esti-
mated age and environmental exposure. The deterioration wouldbe structurally significant if the ramps were used as designed.
However, since they are used only as oil boom staging and storage
areas, the spalling of the concrete has little or no structuralsignificance.
The deterioration of the H-piles supporting the ramps and access
pier is also of little structural significance based on current
use.
-II4
I-I
4.6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
The spalled corners of the concrete wall cap should be repaired
by cleaning to sound concrete, cleaning and/or replacing deterio-
rated rebar and patching with pneumatically applied concrete.
This will prevent deterioration of the batter pile support system.
Fill should be placed in front of the wall to original design
levels. This will eliminate corrosion of the steel sheet pilings.
The estimated cost of repairing the wall cap is $18,000.00 and
filling in front of the wall is $43,000.00.
All repairs should be inspected after completion. The entire piershould be inspected in 5 years. The immediate inspection will
insure that the repairs have been properly constructed. The follow-
up inspection will determine the change of conditions with respect
to time.
'1
4-36
-7Al= xIN pO
4.7 PIER 4
4.7.1 DESCRIPTION
Pier 4 is located on the northernmost boundary of the NAS Alameda,
in the area of the Fuel Supply Point (see Figure 2). Presently
it is being used as a fuel pier. It is a "T" shaped pier that
extends approximately 100' outshore. The outshore end of the
pier is 160' long and 5' to 15' wide while the inshore section
is 13' wide, (see Figure 18). The wooden plank decking is sup-
ported by 48 timber piles. Concrete jackets have been placed on
41 piles for their full length. The pier was built in 1953.
I
Reference: Department of the Navy Naval Facilities EngineeringCommand - NAVFAC Drawing No. 1250175
It~I
ji A,,
I - I I I - - -
DP WIE - NO.I
o.I I0 0 _ o
7 PILE I 7 PILEDOLPHIN I DOLPHIN
<I I
4 I I0-
PILE( CAP I 314ORE LI E
-~ e cr~j~ ~ L.LWEL 0.
PLAN
I I NOT TO SCALE
---- CONCRETE JACKET
I -TYPICAL TIMBER FILE WITH CONCRETE JAC.E .
NT:NOT TO SCAL15
*~~ ~ REFERENCE TAI'iEM FROM I4AqFAC 0W6 WOJ. ItSOI75.
N O .4
0 LEGEND
0 o~ 5HADED PILES ARE MEW
oALL 0TWER5 HAVE BEENJACKETED
7 FILE m4se rILE DISPLACED*NOT BEARINGommmI~ X PILE MI55ING
4E
EL 100.0
E LE VATIONNOT TO SCALE
E JACK'ET
CHESAPEAKE DIVISION
C, NO. ItS0175. NAO ID APIER #4
4.7.2 OBSERVED INSPECTION CONDITIONS
In general the piles are in good condition.
One pile, Main Pier Pile A Bent 5 is displaced completely from
the pile cap and broken but still connected at the mudline.
The three remaining piles along the north face of the product
handling area (Main Pier Pile A Bents 4, 6 and 7) are slightly
displaced and no longer bearing fully on the pile cap (see Photo
#20).
The original piles are all jacketed in concrete from the mudline
to approximately 3' below the pile cap. Most of the jackets are
buried in the mud except for the piles in Bents 1, 2 and 3 of
the Approach Pier. These jackets stop approximately 6" above
the mudline.
In general the submerged section of the pile jackets are in good
condition and the concrete is sound (see Photo #21). The upper
3 to 4 feet of the jackets exhibit varying degrees of deteriora-
tion, including cracking and spalling of the concrete.
Several new piles have been driven to replace the old pier support
pilings and to replace 4 - seven-pile breasting dolphins. In
general the new piles are in good condition and still well-pre-
served by creosote. However, a few piles have suffered attack
by marine borers (see PhotQ #22).
The older piles were probably jacketed as a result of marine borer
damage and to protect against continued borer attack.
4-39
I!I
PHT #20 Tyia dis
plcd ieed
placd Pile Ahed.
4, 6 and 7of the
j Main Pier.
I
I'
PHOTO #21: Typical condition of concrete
jacket. Note zipper forclosing fabric forms.
PHOTO #2 2: Typical marine borer trenchfound in some of the newer
piles near the mudline, South-
west pile, Dolphin No. 3.
' Io
! t'.
I> r.' !
I: " ,
• ' I I I I '
II
4.7.3 STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
SI The damage along the north face of the product handling area is
the result of vessel impact. There is a camel which lays along
this front row of piles which extends beyond the breasting dolphins.
Therefore, when vessels berth at the pier they impact the camel,
which in turn, impacts these four pilings.
The one broken and displaced piling is no longer capable of sup-
porting load and should be replaced.
Piles not bearing 100% at the cap may cause damage to the piles
or the pile cap by crushing under heavy loads. The piles should
be re-positioned, refastened and shimmed as necessary to attain
full bearing.
Along the Approach Pier where the pile jackets do not extend to
the mudline, the mudline should be raised. By backfilling around
the piles and covering the exposed timber, the possibility of
borer attack will be eliminated.
The newer piles which exhibit borer attack indicate that marine
borers are still present and active in the area. Since the dol-
phin piles are subject to vessel impact by design, jacketing of
the piles is not possible.
A
4-40
,1 l|
4.7.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
The broken pile should be replaced as soon as possible. The dis-
placed piles should be re-positioned, refastened and shimmed to
obtain full bearing.
To eliminate possible future damage of these piles, we recommend
removal of the existing camel. If camels are necessary for the
operation of the facility, they should be attached to the breast-
ing dolphins.
The exposed portions of the jacketed piles in the Approach Pier
should be backfilled. We recommend the placement of bags contain-
ing underwater concrete around the exposed portion of the pile.
The estimated cost for replacing the existing damaged pile with
a new treated timber pile is $4,000.00. The re-positioning, re-
fastening and shimming of three piles is estimated to cost $500.00
per pile for a total of $1,500.00.
The backfilling with underwater concrete filled bags around the
Approach Pier piles is estimated to cost $5,000.00.
All repairs should be inspected after completion. The entire
pier should be inspected in 5 years. The immediate inspection
will insure that the repairs have been properly constructed.
The follow-up inspection will determine the change of conditions
with respect to time.
4-41
' , - I I
CHILDS ENGINEERING CORPORATION SHEET NO _ OF
Box 333 CALCULATED BY cu'p DATE ... I..JMEDFIELD. MA 02052 CECEO Y-_c_. DATE
SCALE
' ,-i.
+ U,A-( ----5
044
' 7e. ,C +,,O i. r,, 6" L
i'A- (1o, -2,tm z P,.4
L--.
j v ( ( 5 Z - 1 4137-4, /4
CHILDS ENGINEERING CORPORATION SHEET NO. OF
Box 333 CALCULATED BY - ATE
MEDFIELD, MA 02052 CAECUED BY DATE
SCALE
1/
,j~~~ Z.'o L
I
Iii
- • ~ sil l
CHILDS ENGINEERING CORPORATION OEET _. OF
Box 333 CALCULATED BL DAEMEDFIELD, MA 02052
CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
6, . . Lt . )e.4 .-
.7
b a
pX OOC) gnaw
i "______
'I ''} S ~ x I 'O o -- ! S y~ o =.",1 ,o o ee
" × oo . ill~oo
a l L,-m ~
[ . ...
CHILDS ENGINEERING CORPORATION SHEET NO oFBox 333 CALCULATED BY- DATE -
MEDFIELD. MA 02052 CALCUED BY DATEICHECKED BY , .DATE
I SCALE -_-
~A
S -- oo/5S L
II-
I CHILDS ENGINEERING CORPORATION__Box 333 -- I__ I__NO
MEDFIELD, MA 02052 CALCULATED BY (7i1CHECKED BY DAILE_ _____
SCALE mAT ~
.1 ULTRASONIC STEEL THICKNESS MEASUREMENTS-
--FACILITY 21 F_ I ~1
f Q~:0RJW~ NA1.7HIc1~wass .5"
E ImA 10 N 4 z...-f~z.-- ~ 7HC K ~e.S 5
* AA~A
pc o' OMmwm emm 014" ai
.~~~~~-= a f .- ~
CHILDS ENGINEERING CORPORATION ____ IN_
Box 333MEDIELD. MA 02052 CALCULATED,, B -y____ _ DATE _ !_ _ ---
CHECKED BY DAIE -
SCALE F,-r -' f e.LP
I
ULTRASONIC STEEL THICKNESS MEASUREMENTS
S!PFACILITY -7.
.. ..... .. ...
10~a NALHFHCKWLSE.5OO
I I
ELN;
*a
-II- - , 4 F
v .: • . , , ,,;, ., . . ,,,4"( , [0 5... ... -- .. ,,;: I 1
=' - " ' " .. . Il I 4
AD-AI66 322 UNDERWATER FACILITIES INSPECTIONS AND ASSESSWNIS AVl 0NAVAL All STATION ALt.Ill NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERINGCOMAND WASHINGTON DK CH4ESAPEAKE. SEP 82
IN.A,-;IF FD tI4UVAAt IPO I A1-8 201 F/0 13/2 MLIEEIELZ
I I I I iFO I_
IEEE. -'IIII * "
11111I1*25111111.4 nlf6
i/i
~2-5
CHILDS ENGINEERING CORPORATION ____ f__ INOO
Box 333 0MEDFIELD. MA 02052 CALCULATED By____________
CHECKED BY____________ DATE
SCALE *t
I ULTRASONIC STEEL. THICKNESS MEASUREMENTS.
7-FArCILITY P I-
inR3CaJ'NAT H IC N-ESS -500
I-SN I ON~
t I-
-vs.
I CHILDS ENGINEERING CORPORATION SJog' IeA NO'W~Box 333 . ________ ____
MEDFIELD. MA 02052 CALCULATED by t-b S DATE Q/A~ZL a-.
CHECKEDSBY DAIL
SCALE 45c 'C-*4
ULTRASONIC STEEL THICKNESS MEASUREMENTS.
-- F, CILITY ~ I_
iDiRIC.11 NAL-TH1--Kt ESS 00
-ELFVATI O4kC~4
104 "ye 0 rAaINId 14S4
II JO.~ O-~L T~aee
IA
El oI*m t m " m fsoa
I CHILDS ENGINEERING CORPORATION 964F E Si N;)tA'A.
Box 333MEDFIELD. MA 02052 CALCULATED OV _________ ATL I_____________
CMECKED BY DATF
SCALE N-44t Ie SA-ArL .
- ULTRASONIC STEEL THICKNESS MEASUREMENTS.
-F~A I NT 1K..Sa0
NI ZI
ilAl
IL-A I N-*=4IKESlo41 -4
*~-w4L-w-tFt
qa
mm..mmai m~um~ mtS 1t
CHILDS ENGINEERING CORPORATION 5.- ...... -,
Box 333MEDFIELD. MA 02052 CALCULATED .Y Cs DATE
CHECKED BY DATE -
SCALE T O --a . L
ULTRASONIC STEEL THICKNESS MEASUREMENTS.
--FACILITY P 996
-DRlcal NAL. THICI NE.SS _ 500
II
• . /LowO " . . EL
JOZ, " .1LT1o
!*
ELFYNT10 -- T Q 4 IC NS
1014
.S4 m.. . .
10
0'ATEI , _ _ 1