IIIIIII.I llIIllllel sheet piles 1) Refer to Section 4.5.4 $5400 Repair by driving new steel sheet pile wall.!el sheet piles, 1) Repair spalled concrete $12 icrete encased wall cap

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_


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


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.




capacity and therefore no loss in overall pier capacity.




No repairs are recommended at this time.




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


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.


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.


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-"


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


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.




capacity and, therefore, no loss in overall pier capacity.



4

4-25II

p%


No repairs are recommended, at this time.




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


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


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%.


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.


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 '


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.


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


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


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|


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

Documents

IIIIIII.I llIIllllel sheet piles 1) Refer to Section 4.5.4 $5400 Repair by driving new steel sheet pile wall.!el sheet piles, 1) Repair spalled concrete $12 icrete encased wall cap