FORM 1 CERTIFICATE OF SEISMIC PERFORMANCE LEVEL UC ... › sites › ...Campus: UC Berkeley Building...

Campus: UC Berkeley

Building Name: MLK Garage

CAAN ID: 1792

Auxiliary Building ID: N/A Date: 7/11/2019

This Form 1 (March 26, 2019) is to be used in connection with Guidebook, Version 1.3, Section III.A.3.c-g

Page 1

FORM 1

CERTIFICATE OF SEISMIC PERFORMANCE LEVEL

☒ UC-Designed & Constructed Facility

☐ Campus-Acquired or Leased Facility

BUILDING DATA

Building Name: MLK Parking Garage

Address: Core Campus, Berkeley, 94720

Site location coordinates: Latitude 37.868889 Longitudinal -122.260278

UCOP SEISMIC PERFORMANCE LEVEL (OR “RATING”): IV

ASCE 41-17 Model Building Type:

a. Longitudinal Direction: C1: Reinforced Concrete Moment-Resisting Frame

b. Transverse Direction: C1: Reinforced Concrete Moment-Resisting Frame

Gross Square Footage: 21,140 sq. ft.

Number of stories above grade: 0

Number of basement stories below grade: 1

Year Original Building was Constructed: 1960

Original Building Design Code & Year: 1955 UBC Assumed

Retrofit Building Design Code & Year (if applicable): 2016, 2010 CBC

SITE INFORMATION

Site Class: C Basis: Geologic Hazards and Site Classification, Geomatrix Plate 2

Geologic Hazards:

Fault Rupture: No Basis: Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation- Oakland West Quadrangle

https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/regulatorymaps/

Liquefaction: No Basis: Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation- Oakland West Quadrangle


Landslide: No Basis: Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation- Oakland West Quadrangle


ATTACHMENT

• Retrofit Structural Drawings: Lower Sproul Redevelopment Project, Bid Package 4, Rutherford &Chekene, January 2016, Sheet 4G-S0.01 General Notes

• Seismic Evaluation Report: "Seismic Evaluation Report, Lower Sproul Plaza Parking Structure,"Rutherford & Chekene, April 2012.

Campus: UC Berkeley


CAAN ID: 1792



Page 2

CERTIFICATION & PRESUMPTIVE RATING VERIFICATION STATEMENT

I, Bret Lizundia, a California-licensed structural engineer, am responsible for the completion of this

certificate, and I have no ownership interest in the property identified above. My scope of review to

support the completion of this certificate included both of the following (“No” responses must include an

explanation):

a) the review of structural drawings indicating that they are as-built or record drawings, or that they

otherwise are the basis for the construction of the building: � Yes ☐ No

b) visiting the building to verify the observable existing conditions are reasonably consistent with those

shown on the structural drawings: � Yes ☐ No

Based on my review, I have verified that the UCOP Seismic Performance Level (SPL) is presumptively

permitted by the following UC Seismic Program Guidebook provision (choose one of the following):

☐ 1) Contract documents indicate that the original design and construction of the aforementioned

building is in accordance with the benchmark design code year (or later) building code seismic design

provisions for UBC or IBC listed in Table 1 below.

☐ 2) The existing SPL rating is based on an acceptable basis of seismic evaluation completed in 2006 or

later.

� 3) Contract documents indicate that a comprehensive1 building seismic retrofit design was fully-

constructed with an engineered design based on the 1997 UBC/1998 or later CBC, and (choose one of the

following):

☒ the retrofit project was completed by the UC campus. Further, the design was based on ground

motion parameters, at a minimum, corresponding to BSE-1E (or BSE-R) and BSE-2E (or BSE-C) as

defined in ASCE 41, or the full design basis ground motion required in the 1997 UBC/1998 CBC or later

for EXISTING buildings, and is presumptively assigned an SPL rating of IV. (See note ahead.)

☐ the retrofit project was completed by the UC campus. Further, the design was based on ground

motion parameters, at a minimum, corresponding to BSE-1 (or BSE-1N) and BSE-2 (or BSE-2N) as

defined in ASCE 41, or the full design basis ground motion required in the 1997 UBC/1998 or later CBC

for NEW buildings, and is presumptively assigned an SPL rating of III.

☐ the retrofit project was not completed by the UC campus following UC policies, and is presumptively

assigned an SPL rating of IV.

1 A comprehensive retrofit addresses the entire building structural system as indicated by the associated seismic evaluation, as opposed to

addressing selective portions of the structural system.

Campus: UC Berkeley


CAAN ID: 1792



Page 3

07-15-19

CERTIFICATION SIGNATURE

Bret Lizundia Executive Principal

AFFIX SEAL HERE

Print Name Title

S3950

12/31/2020

CA Professional Registration No. License Expiration Date

Signature Date

Rutherford + Chekene

375 Beale Street, Suite 310

San Francisco, CA 94105-2066

415-568-4400

Firm Name, Phone Number, and Address

Note: The April 2012 seismic evaluation report included both an Option 1 retrofit and an Option 2 retrofit.

Option 1 was selected and implemented in the 2016 retrofit drawings. At the time, a draft of the UC

Seismic Safety Policy had been issued which had an explicit column for ratings to be one level higher with

peer review than if done without peer review. The report was peer reviewed. The report assigned a

Seismic Performance Rating of Good (now Level III). The 2010 CBC was used for detailing. As the current

version of the UC Seismic Safety Policy does not have the explicit rating columns with and without peer

review and the report and retrofit was not subjected to an updated peer review, a conservative Seismic

Performance Level IV rating is assigned to the retrofitted structure.

07-15-2019

Campus: UC Berkeley


CAAN ID: 1792



Page 4

Table 1: Benchmark Building Codes and Standards

UBC IBC

Wood frame, wood shear panels (Types W1 and W2) 1976 2000

Wood frame, wood shear panels (Type W1a) 1976 2000

Steel moment-resisting frame (Types S1 and S1a) 1997 2000

Steel concentrically braced frame (Types S2 and S2a) 1997 2000

Steel eccentrically braced frame (Types S2 and S2a) 1988g 2000

Buckling-restrained braced frame (Types S2 and S2a) f 2006

Metal building frames (Type S3) f 2000

Steel frame with concrete shear walls (Type S4) 1994 2000

Steel frame with URM infill (Types S5 and S5a) f 2000

Steel plate shear wall (Type S6) f 2006

Cold-formed steel light-frame construction—shear wall system (Type CFS1) 1997h 2000

Cold-formed steel light-frame construction—strap-braced wall system (Type CFS2) f 2003

Reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame (Type C1)i 1994 2000

Reinforced concrete shear walls (Types C2 and C2a) 1994 2000

Concrete frame with URM infill (Types C3 and C3a) f f

Tilt-up concrete (Types PC1 and PC1a) 1997 2000

Precast concrete frame (Types PC2 and PC2a) f 2000

Reinforced masonry (Type RM1) 1997 2000

Reinforced masonry (Type RM2) 1994 2000

Unreinforced masonry (Type URM) f f

Unreinforced masonry (Type URMa) f f

Seismic isolation or passive dissipation 1991 2000

Note: UBC = Uniform Building Code . IBC = International Building Code .a Building type refers to one of the common building types defined in Table 3-1 of ASCE 41-17.b Buildings on hillside sites shall not be considered Benchmark Buildings.c not usedd not usede not usedf No benchmark year; buildings shall be evaluated in accordance with Section III.J.

h Cold-formed steel shear walls with wood structural panels only.i Flat slab concrete moment frames shall not be considered Benchmark Buildings.

Building Seismic Design Provisions

g Steel eccentrically braced frames with links adjacent to columns shall comply with the 1994 UBC Emergency Provisions, published September/October

1994, or subsequent requirements.

Building Typea,b

Note: This table has been adapted from ASCE 41-17 Table 3-2. Benchmark Building Codes and Standards for Life Safety Structural Performed at BSE-1E.

COORDINATION OF DOCUMENTS

DIMENSIONAL CONTROL

GENERAL

CONCRETE

DRILLED DOWELS

SHOTCRETE

4. LOCATION AND SIZE OF CURBS AND PADS.

1. SLAB EDGES AT BUILDING PERIMETER AND SHAFTS.

4. FLAT FRAMING: TOP OF STEEL OR TOP OF CONCRETE.

3. STEEL ANGLES AND CHANNELS: FACE.

2. WALLS: FACE OF CONCRETE OR MASONRY SURFACES OR FACE OF STUDS.

1. TYPICAL, U.O.N.: CENTERLINE.

D. DIMENSION POINTS ARE AS FOLLOWS, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED:

[ EXAMPLE W12x14 (-6") ].b. TOP OF STEEL IS REFERENCED TO TYPICAL TOP OF STEEL FOR THAT LEVEL

1. CENTER MEMBERS ON GRID LINES THAT ARE SHOWN LOCATED ON GRID LINES.

B. THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS CAN BE LOCATED WITHOUT WRITTEN DIMENSIONS:

3. ITEMS EMBEDDED IN STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS, INCLUDING DRAINS, SLEEVES, CONDUITS, AND BOXES.

2. CONCRETE PADS AND CURBS FOR SUPPORT OF EQUIPMENT AND PIPING.

2. ORNAMENTAL METAL, INCLUDING RAILINGS, SUN CONTROL DEVICES AND TRELLISES.

DETAIL REFERENCEITEM

4. OPENINGS AND RECESSES IN SLAB.

CONDUITS THROUGH SLAB OR CONCRETE WALL

DRILLED DOWELS

A. HIT RE500-SD ADHESIVE ANCHORING SYSTEM, HILTI, INC. (ICC ESR-2322).B. SET-XP EPOXY ADHESIVE, SIMPSON STRONG-TIE CO. CICC ESR-2508.

15, 19/4G-S4.01

3/4G-S4.00

A. FOR MORE DETAILED INFORMATION, SEE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. THE SPECIFICATIONS

SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THESE NOTES.

B. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC), TITLE 24,

2010 EDITION.

C. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS AT THE JOB SITE BEFORE

COMMENCING WORK AND SHALL REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE UNIVERSITY'S REPRESENTATIVE.

D. OMISSIONS OR CONFLICTS BETWEEN VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF THE DRAWINGS, NOTES, AND

DETAILS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE UNIVERSITY'S REPRESENTATIVE AND

RESOLVED BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.

E. DETAILS SHOWN SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT AT ALL APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS

WHETHER SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT OR NOT.

F. THE CONTRACTOR MUST SUBMIT IN WRITING ANY REQUESTS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE

PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. SHOP DRAWINGS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY'S REPRESENTATIVE

FOR REVIEW DO NOT CONSTITUTE "IN WRITING" UNLESS IT IS CLEARLY NOTED THAT SPECIFIC

CHANGES ARE BEING REQUESTED.

G. UNLESS SPECIFICALLY SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, NO STRUCTURAL MEMBER SHALL BE CUT, DRILLED,

OR NOTCHED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE UNIVERSITY'S REPRESENTATIVE.

A. DO NOT USE SCALED DIMENSIONS. WHERE NO WRITTEN DIMENSION IS PROVIDED, CONSULT

WITH THE UNIVERSITY'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR CLARIFICATION BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.

2. SPACE MEMBERS EQUALLY BETWEEN MEMBERS ON GRID LINES OR MEMBERS OTHERWISE

LOCATED, WHERE MEMBERS ARE SHOWN EQUALLY SPACED.

C. ELEVATIONS NOTED ON THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS USE THE FOLLOWING CONVENTIONS:

1. ACTUAL ELEVATIONS ARE DESIGNATED IN FEET (EXAMPLE: EL +259'-3"), REFERENCING

NGVD DATUM.

2. FEATURES THAT ARE CLOSELY RELATED TO OTHER SIMILAR ELEMENTS AT INDIVIDUAL FLOORS,

ARE REFERENCED TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TYPICAL ELEMENT AT THAT LEVEL. DIMENSIONS

ARE GIVEN IN INCHES.

a. TOP OF CONCRETE AT DEPRESSED AREAS IS RELATED TO TYPICAL TOP OF CONCRETE

(EXAMPLE: T.O.C. -2").

E. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR DIMENSIONAL CONTROL FOR THE FOLLOWING

STRUCTURAL FEATURES, UNLESS DIMENSIONS ARE NOTED ON THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS:

2. PLAN LOCATION OF CHANGES IN ELEVATION OF TOP OF CONCRETE SLABS, INCLUDING

DEPRESSIONS, STEPS, AND TRENCHES.

3. LOCATION OF SLOPE BREAKS IN PLAN AND TOP OF SLAB PROFILE AT RAMPS AND

SLOPED SLABS.

A. ALTHOUGH WATERPROOFING AND DRAINAGE ITEMS ARE SOMETIMES PICTURED ON THE STRUCTURAL

DRAWINGS FOR REFERENCE, THESE ITEMS ARE THE DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY OF OTHERS AND ARE

B. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR LOCATION AND DETAILS OF NON-BEARING INTERIOR AND

EXTERIOR WALL CONSTRUCTION.

C. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR LOCATIONS

AND SIZES OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:

1. ANCHOR BOLTS, INSERTS AND HANGERS FOR ATTACHMENT OF NONSTRUCTURAL BUILDING COMPONENTS.

D. ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS, BUT AFFECT STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS,

SHALL BE SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS OF THE STRUCTURAL DETAILS LISTED BELOW, EXCEPT AS APPROVED

BY UNIVERSITY'S REPRESENTATIVE.

E. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL OR LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR LOCATION AND DETAILS OF MISCELLANEOUS STEEL

ITEMS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO:

1. FRAMING THAT SERVES SOLELY AS A COMPONENT OF NON-BEARING STUD WALL OR CURTAINWALL

ASSEMBLY, INCLUDING JAMB FRAMING AT ROLL-DOWN DOORS, JAMB AND/ OR HEAD REINFORCEMENT AT

OTHER STUD AND CURTAIN ASSEMBLIES, CANTILEVER FRAMING FOR SILLS AND PARTIAL HEIGHT WALLS.

PENETRATIONS THROUGH FOOTINGS

AND GRADE BEAMS

13, 14/4G-S4.01

CONDUITS IN SLAB NOT PERMITTED

DETAILED AND/OR SPECIFIED ELSEWHERE.

A. f'c = 4000 PSI. SHOTCRETE IS ONLY PERMITTED WHERE INDICATED ON DRAWINGS.

A. REINFORCING STEEL

1. ALL BARS, U.O.N.: ASTM A615, GR 60 OR ASTM A706, DEFORMED.a. ASTM A706 FOR BARS TO BE WELDED.

a. AT LAP SPLICE, OVERLAP CROSSING WIRES 6" MINIMUM, U.O.N.

a. WHERE HEADED BARS ARE SHOWN, CONFORM TO ASTM A970.

b. HEADED BARS WILL BE PERMITTED TO BE SUBSTITUTED FOR HOOKS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AT CONTRACTOR'S OPTION, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF UNIVERSITY'S REPRESENTATIVE.

b. MECHANICAL SPLICES WILL BE PERMITTED AT OTHER LOCATIONS AT CONTRACTOR'S OPTION, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF UNIVERSITY'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR LOCATION AND TYPE OF COUPLER.

i. LENTON, ERICO, INC. (IAPMO ESR-0129)ii. BARTEC, DEXTRA AMERICA, INC. (ICC ESR-1705)iii. TAPERLOCK, DAYTON SUPERIOR (ICC ESR-2481)iv. HRC 500/510, HEADED REINFORCEMENT CORP (ICC ESR-2764)v. BAR-LOCK, DAYTON SUPERIOR (ICC ESR-2495)

a. WHERE MECHANICAL SPLICES ARE SHOWN, PROVIDE TYPE 1 COUPLERS, U.O.N.

2. WELDED WIRE FABRIC: ASTM A185.

3. HEADED BARS:

4. MECHANICAL BAR SPLICES: COVER AND CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT BAR COUPLERS.

DESIGN CRITERIA

A. APPLICABLE CODE: ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC), TITLE 24, 2010 EDITION.

B. LIVE LOADS AND VIBRATION CRITERIA: SEE LIVE LOAD/VIBRATION CRITERIA KEY PLANS FOR EACH STRUCTURE.

C. OCCUPANCY CATEGORY III FOR PLAZA AND STAIR STRUCTURES (PROVIDES EXITING FOROCCUPANCY CATEGORY III STRUCTURES)

D. WIND DESIGN PARAMETERS

1. BASIC WIND SPEED: 85 MPH (3-SECOND GUST)

2. EXPOSURE: C

3. WIND IMPORTANCE FACTOR (ASCE/SEI 7-05 TABLE 6-1

A. I = 1.15 FOR OCCUPANCY CATEGORY III STRUCTURES

E. SEISMIC DESIGN

1. SEISMIC DEMAND:

a. LOCATION:

37.8688 DEGREES NORTH LATITUDE AND 122.2603 DEGREES WEST LONGITUDE.

b. SITE CLASS: C PER 2010 CBC

c. SITE SPECIFIC RESPONSE SPECTRA:

i. 2003 NEHRP MAP VALUES: S = 1.987, S = 0.774ii. SITE COEFFICIENTS: F = 1.0, F = 1.3 (SITE CLASS C)iii. S = F x S = 1.0 x 1.987 = 1.987, S = F x S = 1.3 x 0.774 = 1.006iv. S = S x 2/3 =1.987 x 2/3 = 1.325, S = S x 2/3 = 1.006 x 2/3 = 0.671v. SITE SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY VALUES FOR TOP 100 FEET OR 30 METERS (V 30): 1190 FT/SEC AT RC-1 BORING, 1590 FT/SEC AT RC-2 BORING, AND 1,350 FT/SEC AT RC-3 BORING FOR AN AVERAGE OF 1375 FT/SEC.vi. SITE SPECIFIC RESPONSE SPECTRA WERE DEVELOPED USING THE “THIN SOIL PROFILE” IN THE MAY 14, 2009 REPORT BY URS, ENTITLED “FINAL REPORT: UPDATED PROBABILISTIC AND DETERMINISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSES FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY AND LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY” AS A STARTING POINT. THE THIN PROFILE IN THE URS REPORT IS BASED ON A COMPOSITE V 30 VALUE OF 1,970 FT/SEC. SPECTRA IN THE URS REPORT ARE AVAILABLE FOR 72-, 475-, 949-, AND 2475-YEAR RETURN PERIODS. MODIFICATIONS FOR SITE SPECIFIC SPECTRA WERE PERFORMED BY R&C AND INCLUDED ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE LOWER SITE AVERAGE SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY, RETURN PERIODS SPECIFIC TO THE PROJECT, AND SPECTRAL REDUCTIONS PER FEMA 440 USING BASE SLAB AVERAGING AND EMBEDMENT EFFECTS. FOR BASE SLAB AVERAGING REDUCTIONS A VALUE OF be = 200 FT WAS USED AS A CAP. THE RESULTING SPECTRA ARE AS FOLLOWS. THE UNADJUSTED 2010 CBC DESIGN EARTHQUAKE LEVEL SPECTRUM FOR SITE CLASS C IS PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE.

SPECTRAL ACCELERATION (g)(AND ASSOCIATED RETURN PERIOD FOR PROBABILISTIC LEVELS)

PERIOD(SEC)

2/3 BSE-R 2/3 BSE-C BSE-R(225 YEARS)

BSE-C(975 YEARS)

BSE-1OR DE

(475 YEARS)

2010 CBCDE LEVEL

UNADJUSTEDSITE CLASS C

0.01 0.25 0.42

0.03

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.3

0.5

0.75

1

2

3

4

0.27

0.43

0.51

0.54

0.67

0.68

0.38 0.63 0.52 0.53

0.45 0.41 0.67 0.56 0.61

0.76 0.65 1.14 0.91 0.77

0.87 0.77 1.31 1.07 1.33

0.94 0.81 1.40 1.13

1.17 1.00 1.76 1.41

1.23 1.02 1.85 1.53

1.01 0.85 1.52 1.21 0.90

0.47

0.24

0.16

0.82 0.71 1.23 0.97 0.67

0.42 0.36 0.63 0.49 0.34

0.26 0.24 0.38 0.31 0.22

0.19 0.18 0.29 0.21 0.17

0.57

0.12

NOTES:1. DE = DESIGN EARTHQUAKE LEVEL2. BSE-R AND BSE-C LEVELS ARE FROM 2010 CBC CHAPTER 34, SECTION 3418. THE BSE-R IS THE HAZARD LEVEL WITH A 20% PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE IN 50 YEARS OR A 225-YEAR RETURN PERIOD. THE BSE-C IS THE HAZARD LEVEL WITH 5% PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE IN 50 YEARS OR A 975-YEAR RETURN PERIOD3. 2/3 BSE-R AND 2/3 BSE-C LEVELS ARE FROM 8/25/11 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SEISMIC SAFETY POLICY APPENDIX A TABLE A.1.

1.33

1.33

1.33

2. NEW NW STAIRS/AREA Z1:

a. METHODOLOGY: EQUIVALENT LINEAR STATIC FORCE DESIGN PER ASCE/SEI 7-05

b. SEISMIC FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEM: SPECIAL REINFORCED CONCRETE SHEAR WALLS (BEARING WALL SYSTEM): R = 5, Ω = 2.5, C = 2.5

c. SEISMIC IMPORTANCE FACTOR: I = 1.25 (OCCUPANCY CATEGORY III)

d. SEISMIC PARAMETERS: AS NOTED ABOVE.

e. SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY: E (OCCUPANCY CATEGORY III, S > 0.75)

f. h = 17’ (DYNAMIC BASE AT BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION 242.5 TO LEVEL 1 AT 259.5)

g. T = C x (h ) = 0.02 x 17 = 0.17 SECONDS < T = 12 SECONDS

h. BASE SHEAR (AT FACTORED OR LRFD LEVEL)

V = C x W = [ S / (R / I) ] W = [ 1.325 / (5 / 1.25 ) ] W = 0.33 W (GOVERNS)V ≤ C x W = [ S / ( T (R / I)) ] W = [ 0.671 / (0.17 (5 / 1.25 ) ] W = 0.99 WV ≥ C x W = 0.01 W = 0.01 WV ≥ C x W = [ 0.5 S / (R / I) ] W = [ 0.5 x 0.774 / (5 / 1.25 ) ] W = 0.10 W

3. SEISMIC STRENGTHENING AND RENOVATIONS TO EXISTING PLAZA STRUCTURES

b. CRITERIA: 2010 CBC CHAPTER 34, SECTION 3417.5 AND 8/25/11 UC SEISMIC SAFETY POLICY.

i. STATE OWNED, OCCUPANCY CATEGORY IIIii. EARTHQUAKE HAZARD LEVEL 1: 2/3 X BSE-R WITH LIFE SAFETY STRUCTURAL (S-3) ACCEPTANCE CRITERIAiii. EARTHQUAKE HAZARD LEVEL 2: 2/3 BSE-C WITH COLLAPSE PREVENTION STRUCTURAL (S-5) ACCEPTANCE CRITERIAiv. TARGETED UC SEISMIC RATING LEVEL: III (FORMERLY KNOWN AS "GOOD"), WITH SEISMIC PEER REVIEW

a. METHODOLOGY: NONLINEAR STATIC PUSHOVER PER ASCE/SEI 41-06 INCLUDING ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA.

c. SITE SPECIFIC RESPONSE SPECTRA: AS NOTED ABOVE UNDER SEISMIC DEMAND SECTION.

d. SEISMIC FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEMS

i. AREA C: SHEAR WALLS THAT ARE PART OF CESAR CHAVEZ STUDENT CENTER. NO STRENGTHENING REQUIREDii. AREA P: STRENGTHENED EXISTING CONCRETE MOMENT FRAME UP TO CLOSING OF SEISMIC/THERMAL EXPANSION GAP, THEN ADJACENT SURROUNDING STRUCTURES OF AREA Z2 TO THE WEST, AREA C TO THE NORTH, MLK/WEST ADDITION TO THE EAST, AND NEW ESHLEMAN TO THE SOUTH.iii. AREA Z3: EXISTING CONCRETE MOMENT FRAME UP TO CLOSING OF SEISMIC/THERMAL EXPANSION GAP, THEN ADJACENT SURROUNDING STRUCTURES OF AREA Z2 TO THE WEST, AREA P TO THE NORTH AND EAST, AND NEW ESHLEMAN TO THE SOUTH.iv. AREA Z4: EXISTING ORDINARY REINFORCED CONCRETE SHEAR WALLS IN ALL DIRECTIONS, PLUS BACKUP RESISTANCE FROM NEW ESHLEMAN TO THE SOUTH AND FOR EAST-WEST MOVEMENT.

F. NONSTRUCTURAL SEISMIC DESIGN: FOR SEISMIC DEMANDS ON NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS, INCLUDING SEISMIC ANCHORAGE AND BRACING, THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA ARE TO BE USED.

1. SITE CLASS: C2. 2003 NEHRP MAP VALUES: S = 1.987, S = 0.7743. SITE COEFFICIENTS: F = 1.0, F = 1.3 (SITE CLASS C)4. S = F x S = 1.0 x 1.987 = 1.987, S = F x S = 1.3 x 0.774 = 1.0065. S = S x 2/3 =1.987 x 2/3 = 1.325, S = S x 2/3 = 1.006 x 2/3 = 0.6716. DYNAMIC BASE (h = 0): BASEMENT FLOOR AT ELEVATION 242.5"7. h = 17’

G. FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA

1. THE FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALL DESIGN IS BASED ON CRITERIA AND RECOMMENDATIONSPRESENTED IN THE 25 OCTOBER 2012 MEMO PREPARED BY RUTHERFORD + CHEKENE, ENTITLED“STAGE 3 GEOTECHNICAL MEMORANDUM, PACKAGE NO. 3: BANCROFT WAY TEMPORARY SHORING,LOWER SPROUL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY, UC BERKELEYPROJECT NO. 12520B, BERKELEY.”

2. BEARING PRESSURES FOR STRIP AND SPREAD FOOTINGS

a. FRICTION COEFFICIENT BETWEEN SOIL AND FOOTING: 0.30 (ASD).b. PASSIVE PRESSURE: 270 PCF EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE (ASD).c. ULTIMATE CAPACITIES ARE 1.5 TIMES THE ABOVE ALLOWABLE CAPACITIES.

NOTES1. FOOTING CONDITION 1: FOOTINGS AT NGVD ELEVATION 235 TO 240, WITH MINIMUM WIDTH OF 4’0” AND MINIMUM DEPTH OF 2’0’.2. FOOTING CONDITION 2: FOOTINGS WITH A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 3’0” AND MINIMUM DEPTH OF 1’6”.3. FOOTING CONDITION 3: FOOTINGS WITH A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 2’0” AND MINIMUM DEPTH OF 1’6”.

3. FOUNDATION LATERAL CAPACITIES

BEARING PRESSURES (PSF)

LOADING CONDITION FOOTINGCONDITION 1

FOOTINGCONDITION 2

FOOTINGCONDITION 3

ASD LEVEL

DEAD

DEAD+LIVE

DEAD + LIVE + SEISMIC/WIND

ULTIMATE CAPACITY

5,000

9,000

12,000

24,000

6,000

7,000

9,300

6,000

6,300

8,400

4. RETAINING WALL LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

5. DESIGN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION: REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.

NOTES:1. GLOBAL DYNAMIC PRESSURE APPLIES TO THE DIFFERENCE IN WALL HEIGHT ACROSS THE STRUCTURE.2. LOCAL DYNAMIC PRESSURE APPLIES LOCALLY TO WALL OVER FULL WALL HEIGHT.3. SURCHARGE APPLIES TO LOADS APPLIED WITHIN A 1.5H:1V SLOPE UP FROM THE BASE OF THE WALL.4. PRESSURES ASSUME DRAINED CONDITIONS BEHIND THE RETAINING WALL.

CONDITION ATTOP OF WALL

SLOPE OF TOPOF BACKFILL

STATIC(EFP IN PCF

AT ASD)

SURCHARGECOEF. (ASD)

EARTHQUAKE PRESSURES

REDUCEDSTATIC

(EFP IN PCFAT ASD)

DYNAMIC (PSF) ATFACTORED LEVEL

GLOBAL LOCAL

RESTRAINED

CANTILEVER

HORIZONTAL 60 0.48 50 15∆H 12H

4H : 1V 72 0.48 60 14H

3H : 1V 77 0.48 64 17H

2H : 1V 92 0.48 76 18H

HORIZONTAL 40 0.32 40 15∆H 12H

47

51

61

4H : 1V

3H : 1V

2H : 1V

0.32

0.32

0.32

47

51

61

14H

17H

18H

B. CONCRETE MIXES. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.

USE

MUD SLAB

MIX MINIMUMSTRENGTH

(PSI)

AGG.SIZE

MAX.SLUMP

(IN)

MIN.CEMENT-

ITIOUS(PCY)

MAXWATER(PCY)

MAXW/C

RATIO

NOTES

5 PCY MACRO-FIBER

MAT FOUNDATION

OTHER FOUNDATIONS

SLAB-ON-GRADE

SITE COLUMNS ANDWALLS (NOT ARCH.EXPOSED)

SITE COLUMNS ANDWALLS (ARCHEXPOSED)

SITE BEAMS, SLABS,STEPS AND MISC

A

B

C

D

E

E-AE

F

1,500 AT 7DAYS

4,000 AT 56DAYS

4,000 AT 28DAYS

4,000 AT 28DAYS

4,000 AT 28DAYS

4,000 AT 28DAYS

SIZE 57

SIZE 57

SIZE 57

SIZE 7

SIZE 57

4±1

4±1

8±1

8±1

4±1

550

550

275

280

280

275

0.40

0.45

0.45

0.45

NOT USED IN BP4

30-40% SLAG + 15%-20%FLY ASH

SHRINKAGE CONTROLLEDAGGREGATE

HRWR.

HRWR. SHRINKAGECONTROLLED AGGREGATE,WATERPROOFINGADMIXTURE

SHRINKAGE CONTROLLEDAGGREGATE

s 1

MS a s M1 v 1DS MS D1 M1

s

s

a v

o d

1

n

a t n0.75

L

s DSsss 1

D1

s 1

MS a s M1 v 1DS MS D1 M1

x

a v

STRUCTURAL TESTING AND INSPECTION.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

SPECIAL INSPECTION CHECKLIST

1. ADDITIONAL SAMPLING AND TESTING WILL BE REQUIRED WHEREMATERIALS CANNOT BE POSITIVELY TRACED TO MILL CERTIFICATES.

E. MATERIAL TESTING: THE ITEMS INDICATED BELOW REQUIRE SAMPLING AND/ ORTESTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE CBC AND REQUIREMENTSOF THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS.

INSTALLATIONEXPANSION ANCHOR

ITEM

BUILDING PAD PREPARATIONFOOTING EXCAVATIONS

PLACEMENT OFREINFORCEMENT, ANCHORBOLTS AND EMBEDS

WELDING AND COUPLING OFREINFORCEMENT

SPECIFICATION SECTION(s) NOTES

C. REFER TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS FOR MORE DETAILED REQUIREMENTS FORTESTS AND INSPECTIONS. THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS SHALL TAKEPRECEDENCE OVER THESE CHECKLISTS.

A. THE FOLLOWING CHECKLISTS ARE TO ASSIST THE CONTRACTOR INSCHEDULING OF TESTING AND INSPECTION RELATED TO STRUCTURALFEATURES. THE WORK OF OTHER DISCIPLINES MAY REQUIRE TESTING ANDINSPECTION THAT IS ADDITIONAL TO THE ITEMS LISTED BELOW.

CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE

CONCRETE

FILL MATERIAL AND COMPACTION

ITEM

EXPANSION ANCHORS,TORQUE TEST

GROUT, COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

MATERIAL TESTING CHECKLIST

RUTHERFORD + CHEKENE ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS THAT MAY BE ON THE SITE.

A. RUTHERFORD + CHEKENE HAS NOT PERFORMED INVESTIGATIONS TO DETERMINE

THE PRESENCE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. THE UNIVERSITY WILL PROVIDE THE RESULTS

OF SUCH INVESTIGATIONS IF THEY HAVE BEEN PERFORMED.

B. THE CM/CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT PERSONNEL WITHIN

THE WORK AREA ARE PROTECTED FROM EXPOSURE TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. IF

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ARE DISCOVERED, THE CM/CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY

D. SPECIAL INSPECTORS SHALL BE QUALIFIED BY TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE FORTHE REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AND MUST BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE UNIVERSITY'S REPRESENTATIVE.INSPECTORS SHALL THOROUGHLY REVIEW THE APPLICABLE PORTIONS OF THE DOCUMENTS.INSPECTORS SHALL PERFORM ALL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AS REQUIRED BY CBCSECTION 1701.

DRILLED DOWELS IN CONCRETE

THE UNIVERSITY'S REPRESENTATIVE AND CEASE WORK UNTIL CONDITIONS CAN BE MAINTAINED IN

COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS.

03 30 00

VARIES

03 30 00

03 61 00

SLUMP, STRENGTH, TEMP.,AIR, BASE PLATE GROUTING

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER

EXPANSION ANCHORS,TORQUE TEST

PULL TESTS

VARIES

03 10 00, 03 20 00, 03 30 00

03 20 00

03 30 00

PER ICC REPORT

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER

MIX DESIGN

CONTRACTOR FURNISHED DESIGN

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EMPLOY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, LICENSED INTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO PREPARE A FULLY ENGINEERED DESIGN OF THEFOLLOWING ITEMS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REFERENCED REQUIREMENTS,DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND THE CALCULATIONS SHALL BE STAMPED BY THEPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. TEMPORARY SHORING AND BRACING OF PLAZA STRUCTURE TO BEBY LICENSED CALIFORNIA STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.

ITEMTEMPORARY SHORING OF EXCAVATION

DRAWING REFERENCE SPECIFICATION SECTION

B. REFER TO APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF DIVISION 1 OF THE PROJECTSPECIFICATIONS AND THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT FOR UNIVERSITY'SREPRESENTATIVE, UNIVERSITY'S TESTING LABORATORY, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER ANDCONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES REGARDING TESTING AND INSPECTION.

SPECIFICATIONSECTION(s)

NOTES

AGG.TYPE

NWC

NWC

NWC

NWC

NWC

NWC

TOPPING SLAB SEE DIVISION 32

A. INFORMATION SHOWN ON DRAWINGS RELATIVE TO EXISTING CONSTRUCTION IS BASED ON LIMITEDAVAILABLE INFORMATION.

1. DIMENSIONS SHOWN FOR EXISTING CONSTRUCTION HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY SURVEY OR MEASUREMENT. VERIFY DIMENSIONS SHOWN FOR EXISTING CONSTRUCTION AT THE JOB SITEPRIOR TO FINALIZING SHOP DRAWINGS FOR COMPONENTS AFFECTED BY DIMENSIONS OFEXISTING CONSTRUCTION.

2. NO INCREASE IN CONTRACT SCHEDULE OR PRICE WILL BE ALLOWED FOR REWORK DUE TO CONTRACTOR'S FAILURE TO VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF SHOP DRAWINGS.

3. EXISTING CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS FOR THE BUILDING ARE AVAILABLE FROM THE UNIVERSITY.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

-

-

-

-

-

-

A. THE PROJECT STRUCTURAL ENGINEER WILL PERFORM STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION IN ACCORDANCE WITHSECTION 1702 OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE. STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION WILL CONSIST OF VISITS AT THEFOLLOWING STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION.

1. UPON COMPLETION OF FOUNDATION REINFORCING.2. UPON COMPLETION OF WALL REINFORCING.3. UPON COMPLETION OF REINFORCING FOR SUSPENDED SLABS AND BEAMS.4. UPON COMPLETION OF FIBER-REINFORCED POLYMER INSTALLATION.

B. STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS SPECIALINSPECTION.

STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION

BID PACKAGES AND STRUCTURAL SCOPE

MULTIPLE BID PACKAGES HAVE BEEN PREPARED FOR THE LOWER SPROUL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.THE FOLLOWING PROVIDES A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE STRUCTURAL SCOPE IN EACH BID PACKAGE.

A. BID PACKAGE 1: SEISMIC STRENGTHENING OF ANTHONY HALL.

B. BID PACKAGE 2: UTILITY WORK. NO STRUCTURAL SCOPE.

C. BID PACKAGE 3: BANCROFT WAY TEMPORARY SHORING. PROVIDES CRITERIA FOR TEMPORARY CONTRACTOR-DESIGNED SHORING ALONG BANCROFT WAY AND THE RAMP TO THE GARAGE NEEDEDFOR DEMOLITION OF ESHLEMAN HALL.

D. BID PACKAGE 4: MAJOR DEMOLITION AND NEW NW STAIR. THIS INCLUDES:1. THE NEW STAIR AT THE NW CORNER OF THE PLAZA AND THE ASSOCIATED RECONSTRUCTION OF THE

AREA Z1.2. SEISMIC STRENGTHENING OF AREA P THROUGH WRAPPING OF SELECTED COLUMNS WITH FIBER-

REINFORCED POLYMER OVERLAYS AND LIMITING MOVEMENT AT THE EXPANSION JOINTS THROUGHADDITION OF INFILL WHERE EXISTING STRUCTURE REMAINS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE JOINT. REMAININGEDGES WHERE ONE SIDE OF THE JOINT WILL HAVE NEW STRUCTURE ARE ADDRESSED AS PART OF BIDPACKAGE 5.

3. GRAVITY STRENGTHENING OF SELECTED BEAMS AND GIRDERS IN AREAS P, Z3, AND Z4.4. CRITERIA FOR TEMPORARY CONTRACTOR-DESIGNED SHORING AND BRACING OF AREAS P, Z3, AND Z4

DUE TO THE LOSS OF GRAVITY SUPPORT AND LATERAL BRACING WHEN ESHLEMAN HALL AND THE WESTSIDE OF MLK ARE DEMOLISHED.

5. DEMOLITION OF ESHLEMAN HALL AND THE WEST AND SOUTH ADDITIONS OF MLK.

E. BID PACKAGE 5: REMAINING WORK ON THE PROJECT, INCLUDING THE ESHLEMAN REPLACEMENTBUILDING, MLK WEST AND SOUTH ADDITIONS, NE STAIR RECONSTRUCTION, AND MISCELLANEOUSPLAZA IMPROVEMENTS.

TEMPORARY SHORING AND BRACINGOF PLAZA STRUCTURE

4SP-S2.00SH

MECHANICAL EQUIP. ANCHORAGE S.M.D. S.M.D.

SIZE 7 4±1

02 41 00

STEELA. W-SHAPES: ASTM A992.B. ANGLES, CHANNELS, BENT PLATES AND FLAT BARS: ASTM A36, U.O.N.C. PLATE: ASTM A572, GRADE 50 TYPICAL; ASTM A36 AND ASTM A572 GRADE 42 WHERE NOTED.D. ROUND, SQUARE, AND RECTANGULAR TUBES: ASTM A500, GRADE B.E. PIPES: ASTM A53, TYPE E, GRADE B, TYP. U.O.N. ASTM A53, TYPE S, GRADE B FOR AESS SHAPES.F. HIGH STRENGTH BOLTS: ASTM A325, SLIP CRITICAL, U.O.N. BOLTS ARE INSTALLED AS PRETENTIONED, U.O.N. IF CONTRACTOR CHOOSES TO USE TWIST-OFF TENSION-CONTROL TYPE BOLTS, ASTM 1852 MAYBE SUBSTITUTED FOR ASTM A325. TWIST-OFF BOLTS ARE NOT PERMITTED AT AESS.

G. MACHINE BOLTS AND THRU-BOLTS: ASTM A307.H. STANDARD ANCHOR BOLTS: ASTM F1554, GRADE 36, U.O.N.I. HIGH STRENGTH ANCHOR BOLTS: ASTM F1554, GRADE 1O5.J. SHEAR CONNECTOR STUDS: AWS D1.1, TYPE B, AUTOMATICALLY END WELDED.

L. EXPANSION OR WEDGE ANCHORS: HILTI KWIK BOLT TZ EXPANSION ANCHOR, OR APPROVED EQUAL

M. U.O.N., STEEL ELEMENTS AT EXTERIOR LOCATIONS ARE HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED INCLUDING AESS

2. SEISMIC CRITICAL WELDS: WELDS USED FOR CONNECTIONS IN THE SEISMIC LOAD-RESISTING SYSTEM, INCLUDING COMPLETE PENETRATION, PARTIAL PENETRATION AND FILLET WELDS. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR REQUIREMENTS. EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY NOTED ON DRAWINGS, ALL WELDS AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS SHALL BE CONSIDERED SEISMIC WELDS:

a. COLLECTOR BEAM END CONNECTIONS.

b. CONNECTIONS AS DESIGNATED ON DRAWINGS.

3. DEMAND CRITICAL WELDS: ALL COMPLETE PENETRATION SEISMIC WELDS. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR REQUIREMENTS.

1. ELECTRODES: E70XX

K. WELDING :

CONNECTORS. AESS MEMBERS ARE NOT HOT-DIPPED GALVANIZED; SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR PRIMER

STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMING NOTES

A. CODE: COMPLY WITH ANSI / AISC 360 "SPECIFICATION FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL BUILDINGS",

B. CONNECTIONS: USE CONNECTIONS DESIGNATED AS "TYPICAL" WHERE SPECIFIC

CONNECTION DETAILS ARE NOT CALLED OUT. WHERE GEOMETRY OR OTHER CONDITIONS

VARY FROM CONDITIONS OF THE TYPICAL CONNECTIONS, PROVIDE SIMILAR

CONNECTIONS OF EQUAL STRENGTH.

C. OPENINGS: FOR FRAMING AT OPENINGS NOT NOTED ON PLANS, SEE TYPICAL

DETAILS.

D. COMPOSITE CONSTRUCTION: ALL STEEL BEAMS AND GIRDERS SHALL HAVE

WELDED STUDS U.O.N.

2005, FOR ALL TOLERANCES, SPACINGS, MINIMUM WELD SIZESAND OTHER DETAILS NOT NOTED OR SHOWN.

SH

EE

T N

O.

DW

G. T

ITLE

KE

Y P

LA

NP

AC

KA

GE

NO

.C

ON

SU

LT

AN

TS

CONGER MOSS GUILLARD

landscape500 Third Street #215

San Francisco, California 94107415-495-3070 T415-495-3080 F

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

structural56 Second Street Suite 600


SYSKA & HENNESSY INC.

mep / vertical transportation800 Corporate Pointe, Suite 200.

Culver City, CA 90230310-254-3858 T310-665-0172 F

SHERWOOD DESIGN ENGINEERS

civil58 Maiden Lane

San Francisco, CA 94108415-677-7300 T415-677-7301 F

CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES

acoustics130 Sutter Street, Suite 500


ROLF JENSEN & ASSOCIATES INC.

code / fire protection2125 Oak Grove Road Suite 300

Walnut Creek, California 94598-2539925-938-3550 T925-938-3818 F

ATELIER TEN

LEED / sustainability450 Geary Street, Suite 200

San Francsico, California 94102415-351-2100 T415-351-2104 F

TEECOM DESIGN GROUP

audio visual / telecommunications1333 Broadway Suite 601Oakland CA 94612-1906

510-337-2800 T510-337-2804 F

BID SET

SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER INC.

waterproofing1055 W. 7th Street, Suite 2500

Los Angeles, CA 90017213 271 2000 T213 617 0411 F

12/18/2012

ANC CONSULTANTS

specifications writer22900 Oak Ridge Drive #90

Santa Clarita, CA 91350650-364-7878 T

HORTON LEES BROGDEN

lighting designer300 Brannan Street, Suite 212

San Francisco, CA 94107415-348-8273 T415-348-8298 F

SUSSMAN / PREJZA & COMPANY, INC

graphics5870 West Jefferson Blvd, Suite J

Los Angeles, California 90016310-836-3939 T310-836-3980 F

PACKAGE 4:DEMOLITION & NW STAIR

ADDENDUM 31/30/13

ADDENDUM 52/6/132

1

ST

AM

PA

RC

HIT

EC

TN

OT

ES

University of California,Berkeley, CA

933 Pico Boulevard | Santa Monica, CA 90405

t. 310.450.1400 | f. 310.450.1403

PR

OJE

CT LOWER SPROUL

REDEVELOPMENTPROJECT

THIS RECORD DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED,IN PART, BASED UPON INFORMATIONFURNISHED BY OTHERS. WHILE THISINFORMATION IS BELIEVED TO BE RELIABLE,MOORE RUBLE YUDELL AND ITS CONSULTANTTEAM ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEACCURACY OF THIS RECORD DRAWING ORFOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS THAT MAYHAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO IT AS ARESULT OF INCORRECT INFORMATIONPROVIDED TO MOORE RUBLE YUDELL AND ITSCONSULTANT TEAM. THOSE RELYING ON THISRECORD DOCUMENT ARE ADVISED TO OBTAININDEPENDENT VERIFICATION OF ITSACCURACY.

SU

BM

ITT

AL

RECORD DOCUMENTSJANUARY, 2016

GENERAL NOTES

4G-S0.01

Note: Restraints were installed to limit displacements so that demands in BSE-R and BSE-C eventswould not experienced by the structure. See April 2012 evaluation report by R+C, entitled: "SeismicEvaluation Report, Lower Sproul Plaza Parking Structure".

Seismic Evaluation Report

Lower Sproul Plaza Parking Structure

Draft Report April 2012

Prepared by:

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE55 Second Street, Suite 600

San Francisco, CA 94105

2010 074SC

Prepared for:

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEYDepartment of Facilities Services

Capital Projects

Consulting Engineers • Structural Geotechnical 55 Second Street Suite 600 San Francisco CA 94105 • TEL 415 568 4400 FAX 415 618 0684

PRINCIPALS: David S. Bleiman; Dominic E. Campi; Hel en M. Fehr; Larry C. Fournier; William T. Holmes; A fshar Jalalian; Gyimah Kasali, Ph.D.; Thomas W. Lau ck; Bret Lizundia; Walterio A. López; Joseph Maffei, Ph .D.; Peter C. Revelli; Patrick J. Ryan; C. Mark Sau nders; Joseph D. Ungerer; Wayne W. Wong

April 18, 2012 Clay Holden Moore Ruble Yudell Architects and Planners 933 Pico Boulevard Santa Monica, CA 90405

2010-074SC

Subject: UC BERKELEY - STUDENT COMMUNITY CENTER LOWER SPROUL PLAZA PARKING STRUCTURE

SEISMIC EVALUATION Draft for UCB Review

Dear Clay, We are pleased to provide you with the findings from our seismic evaluation of the central portion of the parking garage structure of the Lower Sproul Plaza. We have carried out our evaluation according to the methodology described herein and in accordance with our agreement with MRY. If you have any questions regarding our findings, please call Francisco Parisi or Bret Lizundia at 415-568-4400. Sincerely, RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

Francisco Parisi, S.E. Associate

Bret Lizundia, S.E. Principal

University of California, Berkeley Seismic Evaluation Report Student Center - Parking Structure April 2012

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE Page i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report summarizes the findings of a seismic hazard evaluation of structure for the central area of Lower Sproul Plaza at the University of California, Berkeley. This portion has been named “Area P” as part of the UCB Student Community Center project. The purpose of this study is to identify structural and nonstructural deficiencies related to seismic performance of the Area P structure and, if required, to recommend a strengthening scheme that addresses them.

Based on our evaluation, we have the following findings and conclusions.

• Seismic retrofit of Area P at Lower Sproul Plaza is not triggered by any of the requirements of Chapter 34 of the 2010 CBC, as there are no planned changes to the structural system, and none of the other triggers in CBC Section 3417.3.1 are exceeded.

• The lateral force-resisting system consists of concrete columns and girders acting as a moment frame system. The 2" perimeter expansion joint will limit the horizontal displacement of the structure. Once this point is reached, the lateral seismic loads will be resisted by the surrounding structures.

• The 26" round concrete columns and 26"x26" semioval concrete columns have sufficient transverse reinforcement so that the columns have a desirable ductile behavioral mechanism of flexural yielding. The 26"x42" oval columns have insufficient transverse reinforcement, resulting in a brittle mechanism governed by shear. This effect is more noticeable when the column is displaced in its narrower north-south direction.

• The 42"x32" concrete girders exhibit a brittle mechanism governed by shear before reaching their maximum flexural capacity, due to insufficient transverse reinforcement in the middle third of the girder. The 26"x32" concrete girders have sufficient transverse reinforcement so that they have a desirable ductile behavioral mechanism of flexural yielding.

• The interconnection details between columns and girders are considered to have adequate capacity to transfer moment into the columns. The structural slab is also adequate to transfer seismic shear forces into the girder and column.

• The structure does not have sufficient displacement capacity to satisfy the Life Safety performance level acceptance criteria at a seismic hazard level associated with the 225-year return period seismic event (defined as the “BSE-R” event in CBC Chapter 34), and


RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE Page ii

the Collapse Prevention level acceptance criteria at a seismic hazard level associated with the 975-year return period event (defined as the CBC Chapter 34 “BSE-C” event) for the structure. The structure will suffer significant degradation and potential loss of vertical load-carrying capacity before closing the 2" gap allowed by the perimeter joint.

The results of the seismic evaluation indicate that the Area P may be rated as Level VI (formerly known as "Very Poor") based on the current UC seismic rating system. Note that this report does not address capacity of the structure to resist gravity loads, which is object of a separate study.

In order to bring the seismic performance level of the structural to Level III (formerly known as "Good") rating based on the UC seismic rating system, two retrofit schemes have been developed:

• Option 1: Infill of the perimeter seismic/expansion joint to reduce the gap size to 1/2" and provide fiber jacketing to ten 26”x42” oval columns.

• Option 2: Provide fiber jacketing to all the 26”x42” oval columns and to all concrete girders.

Option 1 is less expensive and is recommended. It has been incorporated in the most recent set of drawings for the Student Community Center project, the 50% Design Development package, dated 3/28/12.

The retrofitted structure will have sufficient displacement capacity to satisfy the Life Safety performance level acceptance criteria at a seismic hazard level associated with the 225-year return period seismic event (the “BSE-R” event ), and the Collapse Prevention level acceptance criteria at a seismic hazard level associated with the 975-year return period event (the “BSE-C” event) for the structure.


RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ iii

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................................v

1. BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 1

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE STRUCTURE .............................................................................. 3

3. SCOPE OF SERVICES ........................................................................................................... 7

4. EXISTING DRAWINGS ........................................................................................................ 8

5. FIELD OBSERVATIONS ...................................................................................................... 8

6. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................. 8

Analysis of Key Structural Elements ...................................................................................... 10 Building Performance Objectives ........................................................................................... 11 Overall Force-Displacement Response ................................................................................... 12

7. STRUCTURAL FINDINGS AND DESIGN ....................................................................... 20

Seismic Deficiencies and Retrofit Objectives......................................................................... 20 Retrofit Option 1 ..................................................................................................................... 20 Retrofit Option 2 ..................................................................................................................... 25 Incremental Dynamic Response and Seismic Hazard ............................................................ 30

8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 32

Expected Seismic Performance of Existing Structure ............................................................ 32 Expected Seismic Performance of The Retrofitted Structure ................................................. 34 Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 36

APPENDICES

Appendix A - UC Berkeley Earthquake Performance Levels dated 8/25/2011 Appendix B - Structural Calculations (separate cover).


RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE Page iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Page No.

Figure 1: Existing Structures ........................................................................................................1

Figure 2: Building Site .................................................................................................................3

Figure 3: Area "P" Plan View ......................................................................................................4

Figure 4: Building Schematic Section Looking East ...................................................................5

Figure 5: Typical Girder Sections ................................................................................................5

Figure 6: Typical Column Sections ..............................................................................................6

Figure 7: Typical Perimeter Expansion Joint Detail ....................................................................7

Figure 8: Idealized Structure ........................................................................................................9

Figure 9: BSE-R Design Response Spectra modified for Base Slab Averaging with be = 200 ft for Embedment Effects and for Site Shear Wave Velocity vs30 = 420 m/sec ............................................................................................14

Figure 10: BSE-C Design Response Spectra Modified for Base Slab Averaging with be = 200 ft for Embedment Effects and for Site Shear Wave Velocity vs30 = 420 m/sec ............................................................................................15

Figure 11: Approximate Response of Concrete Columns for Existing Structure: ........................16

Figure 12: Approximate Response of Concrete Girders for Existing Structure: Shear-Critical 42"x32"Girder (left); Flexurally-Controlled 28"x32" Girder (right).............................................................16

Figure 13: Overall Force-Deformation Curve of the Existing Structure in the East Direction. ..................................................................................................17

Figure 14: Overall Force-Deformation Curve of the Existing Structure in the West Direction. ................................................................................................18

Figure 15: Overall Force-Deformation Curve of the Existing Structure in the North Direction .................................................................................................19

Figure 16: Overall Force-Deformation Curve of the Existing Structure in the South Direction .................................................................................................19

Figure 17: Retrofit Scheme Option 1 ...........................................................................................21

Figure 18: Details for Fiber Jacketing of 26”x42” Oval Column ................................................22

Figure 19: Perimeter Expansion/Seismic Joint Infill Detail.........................................................22

Figure 20: Overall Force-Deformation Curve - Retrofitted Structure - Option 1- East Direction .............................................................................................23

Figure 21: Overall Force-Deformation Curve - Retrofitted Structure - Option 1- West Direction ............................................................................................24


RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE Page v

Figure 22: Overall Force-Deformation Curve - Retrofitted Structure - Option 1 - North Direction .........................................................................................24

Figure 23: Overall Force-Deformation Curve - Retrofitted Structure - Option 1 - South Direction .........................................................................................25

Figure 24: Retrofit Scheme Option 2 ...........................................................................................26

Figure 25: Details for Fiber Jacketing of Concrete Girders .........................................................26

Figure 26: Approximate Response of Concrete Beams and Columns for Retrofitted Structure with Fiber Wrapped Beams and Columns ..........................27

Figure 27: Overall Force-Deformation Curve - Retrofitted Structure - Option 2 - East Direction ............................................................................................28

Figure 28: Overall Force-Deformation Curve - Retrofitted Structure - Option 2 - West Direction ...........................................................................................28

Figure 29: Overall Force-Deformation Curve - Retrofitted Structure - Option 2 - North Direction .........................................................................................29

Figure 30: Overall Force-Deformation Curve - Retrofitted Structure - Option 2 - South Direction .........................................................................................30

Figure 31: Incremental Dynamic Response of the Existing Structure .........................................31

Figure 32: Incremental Dynamic Response of the Retrofitted Structure - Option 1 ....................31

Figure 33: Incremental Dynamic Response of the Retrofitted Structure - Option 2 ....................32

LIST OF TABLES

Page No.

Table 1: List of Existing Drawings and Documents .......................................................................8

Table 2: Material Properties............................................................................................................9

Table 3: Expected Seismic Performance - Existing Structure - EW Direction ............................33

Table 4: Expected Seismic Performance - Existing Structure - NS Direction .............................33

Table 5: Expected Seismic Performance - Retrofitted Structure - Option 1 – EW Direction ......34

Table 6: Expected Seismic Performance - Retrofitted Structure - Option 1 – NS Direction .......35

Table 7: Expected Seismic Performance - Retrofitted Structure - Option 2 – EW Direction ......35

Table 8: Expected Seismic Performance - Retrofitted Structure - Option 2 – NS Direction .......36

University of California, Berkeley Seismic Evaluation Report Lower Sproul Plaza - Parking Structure April, 2012

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE Page 1

1. BACKGROUND

Lower Sproul Plaza is included in the scope of the current UC Berkeley Student Community Center (SCC) project. The Plaza consists of several structures (see Figure 1) surrounded by Martin Luther King Student Union (MLK), Cesar Chavez Student Center (Chavez), Zellerbach Hall, and Eshleman Hall. Area P corresponds to the central portion of the plaza, separated from the adjacent structures by a perimeter expansion joint. This area is the focus of the present report.

Figure 1: Existing Structures1

1 Moore, Ruble, Yudell, 2010, “Section 4: Structural Engineering,” University of California, Berkeley, Student Community Center Project Program, Technical Companion, December.



The University provided existing drawings and previous reports for the structures within the project. Area P was apparently not included in the 1997 Preliminary Seismic Evaluation Phase 1 report2 that covered the majority of major campus buildings, nor in the 1998 Phase 2 follow-up. Two other reports were identified in the review:

• “Lower Sproul Plaza Seismic Study, University of California, Berkeley, California,” Diseño Architects, Gong Neishi Gong Structural Engineers, October, 1994. They concurred with a UC System Rating of “Fair” rating for the plaza contained in the 1978 report below. They provided a scheme intended to convert the plaza to a “Good” rating by adding shear walls and presumably providing the Plaza with its own code compliant (to the 1991 UBC) lateral system.

• “Investigation of Seismic Hazards,” H.J. Degenkolb Engineers, June 9, 1978.

This study was not received, but is referenced by Gong Neishi Gong in their 1994 report.

The 1994 report focused mostly on strengthening of the structure to limit damage to the structural and nonstructural components. Lateral deflection requirements were met indirectly as it was assumed the surrounding structures on all four sides will limit the ability of the parking structure to deflect and that these structures have a significant number of shear walls at the basement level. The evaluation did not address the expansion joint that separates the Plaza from the adjacent structures.

The proposed renovations to Area P are limited to replacing the existing architectural topping slab with new paving, as well as improvements to the waterproofing and drainage system. Given that previous seismic reports rated the parking structure as "Fair", and recommended strengthening of the parking structure, the University requested this seismic evaluation of Plaza parking structure and conceptual retrofit study.

This study is limited to the seismic evaluation of the Area P structure and does not include other areas of the Plaza. Since Lower Sproul Plaza was built in various phases, surrounding areas are an integral part of the adjacent buildings.

2 University of California, Berkeley, 1997, 1997 Preliminary Seismic Evaluation: Phase 1 - Planning, Design and Construction,

Volume I - Summary (Phase 1), Volume II - Building Documentation/Part A (Phase 1), Volume III - Building Documentation.



2. DESCRIPTION OF THE STRUCTURE

The Area P structure is located in the central portion of the Lower Sproul Plaza and is surrounded by the Cesar Chavez Student Center, Eshleman Hall, Zellerbach Hall, and the MLK Student Union buildings, at the University of California, Berkeley campus (see Figure 2). The Area P structure has approximately 18,000 gross square feet of area with open public spaces at the plaza level and a parking garage below.

Area P is a one-story, L-shaped, reinforced concrete structure. The basement story (Level 1) is fully below grade and the story above (Level 2) is part of the Lower Sproul Plaza. The structure is separated from the surrounding buildings and Plaza structures by a 2" perimeter expansion joint.

The architect was Hardison and De Mars; the structural engineer was Pregnoff and Matheu. Original drawings are dated May 20, 1959. The building code used in design is not listed on the original structural drawings, but it is presumed to be the 1958 or 1955 UBC. Gravity loads are resisted by a reinforced concrete two-way slab on beams that span to concrete girders and columns. The concrete slab is 6" thick and supports an architectural topping slab. The topping slab thickness is noted on Sheet A1 of the parking structure drawings as varying between 3” and 4-1/2” in one detail and between 3” to 4” in another detail. It has an exposed aggregate finish with brick banding on an orthogonal grid. The structural slab spans between beams and girders spaced at 10’10” to 12'. Beams are typically 20" wide by 28" deep (including the slab). For this report, width is listed first, and depth is listed second.

Girders and columns provide support for the gravity load system, as well as resist the lateral forces, acting as a moment frame. The girders are typically 26"x32" at the edges along Lines P and 23, and 42"x32" at interior locations (See Figure 5). The 26"x32" girder has typical longitudinal reinforcement consisting of 3 - #11 bars, top and bottom, with added #10 bars at the regions of maximum negative moment and at the girder midspan. The 42"x32" girder has a typical longitudinal reinforcement consisting of 4- #11 bars, top and bottom, with added #11 bars at the regions of maximum negative moment and at the girder midspan. Both types of girder have a typical transverse reinforcement provided by #4 stirrups with spacing at each end of 2 at 6" on center, 2 at 9" on center, 2 at 12" on center, and then 18" on center for the rest of the span length.

Figure 2: Building Site

Lower Sproul Plaza, UC Berkeley, CA



There are also two 48"x32" girders along Gridline X between Gridlines 17 and 23, and one 48"x32" girder along Gridline 20 between Gridlines X and U, with longitudinal and transverse reinforcing steel similar to that for the typical 42"x32" girder.

Figure 3: Area "P" Plan View



Figure 4: Building Schematic Section Looking East

Figure 5: Typical Girder Sections

Girders frame into three types of columns (see Figure 6):

• Round: There are three round columns along the west side at Gridline X and one round column at Gridlines P and 23. They are 26" in diameter with typical longitudinal reinforcement consisting of 13 #11 bars and transverse reinforcement provided by 1/2" diameter at 3" pitch spiral that extends from the top of the footing to the bottom of the concrete girders. The columns are supported by square spread footings.

• Oval: The typical interior column is oval-shaped, with a 26” dimension in the north-south direction and a 42” dimension in the east-west direction, with typical longitudinal reinforcement consisting of 14 #11 bars and transverse reinforcement provided by #3 ties at 12” on center, and with additional ties spaced at 3" at the top and bottom of the column. There are a total of 10 oval columns supported by square spread footings.

• Semi-oval: Double columns (8 in total) are used at Line 23 along the seismic/thermal separation between Area C and Area P, and along Line P at the separation between Area



P and Area K1. These columns have flat sides abutting one another and the remaining sides rounded. They are typically 26"x26" semi-oval shaped column with longitudinal and transverse reinforcement similar to that of the 26" round columns, and are supported by a rectangular spread footing. The columns are typically 13' 10" tall measured from the top of the Level 1 slab-on-grade to the top of column where it connects to the girders.

There are a total of 22 columns supporting the Level 2 slab. .

Figure 6: Typical Column Sections

The basement floor is a 6” slab-on-grade. Live load criteria are not given on the drawings. Allowable bearing pressures are based on a January 30, 1958 geotechnical report by Woodward, Clyde, Sherrard and Associates, with typical pressures of 5,000 psf for dead load, 7,500 psf for dead plus live load, and 10,000 psf for dead plus live plus earthquake loads. The typical foundation details consist of a 6” slab-on-grade over a membrane over a mudslab over drain rock, and there is a subdrain system in the drain rock

The concrete compressive strength is specified as 3,750 psi for columns and 3,000 psi for all other members. Rebar is intermediate grade, with a nominal yield strength of 40 ksi.

The perimeter expansion joint is 2" wide typical between adjacent concrete beams and slab (see Figure 7). The 2" separation is also present between perimeter double columns. The joint width at the architectural topping slab varies between 3/8" to 1/2", and it is infilled with pre-molded filler.



Figure 7: Typical Perimeter Expansion Joint Detail

3. SCOPE OF SERVICES

The anticipated scope of services of our review was described in our 1/21/11 proposal. We have performed those tasks, itemized as follows.

1. Review of Existing Information

a. Existing Drawings: Original architectural and structural drawings, together with relevant renovations, for the building have been reviewed.

b. Seismic Evaluation: The previous seismic evaluation report was reviewed.

2. Site Visit: We made two brief site visits to review existing conditions that can be seen without finish removal at the Level 2 Plaza and underground parking garage at Level 1. They are described below. Additional site investigation and testing of material properties were performed as part of a separate investigation of gravity load-carrying capacity.

3. Seismic Evaluation: The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the 2010 California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 34 requirements for the evaluation of UC system existing buildings. The following tasks were included.

a. Mass takeoff: We performed a mass takeoff of the structural and finish materials of the structure to develop weights for use in the seismic analyses.

b. We conducted a seismic evaluation of the columns and girders. c. We reviewed the capacity of the deck diaphragm. d. Preliminary evaluation findings were discussed with the UC Berkeley Seismic

Review Committee (SRC) at our 4/28/11 meeting on the SCC project.



4. Seismic Retrofit Concepts: Prior to completion of our evaluation, we prepared seismic strengthening sketches for two different options to go in the 100% schematic design set of drawings for the UCB SCC project. Refer to sheet SP-S2.02A of the Student Community Center - University of California -100% Schematic Design Set dated 6/17/11 for more information. We later updated this as part of the 50% Design Development set, dated 3/28/12.

5. Letter report: We have summarized our findings in this letter report.

4. EXISTING DRAWINGS

Our structural analysis is based on the information from the existing documents listed in Table 1, as well as brief site-walks at the existing structure.

Table 1: List of Existing Drawings and Documents

Title Prepared by Date Sheets

Student Center - Parking Structure

Hardison and Demars, Architect, Richmond, CA – Architectural

20 May 1959

A1-A4 CA1-CA2

Student Center - Parking Structure

Pregnoff and Matheu, Structural

20 May 1959

S1-S5

5. FIELD OBSERVATIONS

A brief site visit was made on 1/26/2011. The columns and girders were reviewed visually to corroborate information shown on drawings. During this visit, the perimeter expansion joint was visually inspected and measured from above at the Level 2 Plaza.

Scanning of the reinforcing steel and compression testing of selected beams and girders, as well as scanning of reinforcing steel of several columns in the structure, were also carried out as part of a more comprehensive, separate study of the gravity load-carrying capacity of the Lower Sproul Plaza structure. Findings of this investigation are summarized in the memo titled "Plaza Scanning Results" prepared by Rutherford & Chekene, dated 9/9/11. The investigation confirmed the spacing of the transverse steel reinforcement in the concrete girders and columns shown on the construction documents. Similarly, the investigation also confirmed the layout of the longitudinal reinforcing steel in the concrete girders and columns. Compression testing results determined that the mean concrete strength in the two tested girders was 4,242 psi.

6. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

The seismic evaluation methodology includes three primary steps: analyzing the capacity and behavior of key structural elements in the building, combining these component behaviors to estimate the building's overall force-displacement response, and comparing the building's approximate incremental dynamic response to the seismic hazard at UC Berkeley. The analysis of the existing structure assumes the expected material strength values shown in Table 2.



Table 2: Material Properties

Material Description Expected strength Basis

Reinforcing steel

Intermediate grade, deformed

fye = 50 ksi

ASCE 41-06 and data from other buildings from the same era

Cast-in-place concrete Columns

3,750 psi nominal

f'ce = 5,625 psi

ASCE 41-06 and construction documents

Cast-in-place concrete All other concrete

3,000 psi nominal f'ce = 4,500 psi

ASCE 41-06 and construction documents

Though the concrete compressive strength investigation in the girders found a mean concrete strength of 4,242 psi, this evaluation report utilized an expected strength of 4500 psi for these elements. This difference of 5% between these two values will result in a very minor reduction in the calculated shear capacity of the girder, on the order of 3%, and it has a negligible impact (



ANALYSIS OF KEY STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

Columns

Hand calculations demonstrate that the round and semioval columns are governed by flexure and that they do not experience significant strength degradation due to diagonal shear at large ductility values. On the contrary, the oval columns are governed by shear and will significantly degrade at large ductility values due to diagonal shear. Column rebar embedment at the connection to the girders at Level 2 is about 1% to 6% shorter than that required per ACI 318-05. Since this differential in embedment length will result in a negligible reduction in the yielding or diagonal shear capacity of the columns, it will be assumed for simplicity that the columns can reach their full capacity either in flexural yielding or diagonal shear. Embedment of the longitudinal steel reinforcement at the spread footings is adequate.

Force-deformation curves were developed for the columns utilizing the modeling parameters and acceptance criteria defined in ASCE/SEI 41-06, based on bilinear approximation of the column moment-curvature relationship obtained using the computer program XTRACT, using expected strength properties for both concrete and steel reinforcement. These curves represent a "lower bound" condition, as they consider strength degradation in the column, and are the basis for the conclusions included in this report.

Concrete Girders

The 42"x32" concrete girders are shear critical and will develop a brittle failure mechanism. This expected behavior is due to an insufficient number of stirrups the central portion of the beam, where 18" stirrup spacing is typical, thus, exceeding the d/2 spacing limit of 29"/2 = 14.5". As a result, the contribution of the transverse reinforcement to the shear capacity of the section is reduced in 50% per Section 6.3.4 of ASCE-41-06. This is not the case at the girder ends where closer stirrup spacing of 12" or less occurs, allowing the girder to develop its full shear capacity. In general, the shear mechanism is expected to occur at the girder midspan.

The 48"x32" concrete girders are also shear critical and will develop a brittle failure mechanism, as their transverse steel reinforcement is similar to the 42"x32" girders. Given that the modulus of inertia and shear capacity of the 48"x32" girder are approximately 12% and 14% greater than those of the 42"x32" girder, respectively, it was considered acceptable to model the 48"x32" girders as 42"x32" girders for simplicity purposes.

The 26"x32" concrete girders are governed by flexure. Though the stirrup size and spacing is similar to that of the 42"x32" girders, the smaller section and flexure reinforcement allows the 26"x32" concrete girders to develop their full flexural capacity first, resulting in a ductile mechanism.

Top steel reinforcement in the girders typically consists of #11 continuous bars with splices at the girder-column joints ranging from 18' to 20.5' long, which is adequate for developing the rebar full yield strength. Additional top bars are present for negative moment. Bottom steel reinforcement is also typically #11 bars with 4' long splices at the girder-column joint. In this case, there is no added bottom reinforcing steel at the joints and the splice length is not adequate



to fully developing the yield strength of the bar. As a result, the yield strength is reduced proportional to the ratio between the required and the provided splice length per ASCE/SEI 41-06 Section 6.3.5, resulting in a reduction of 5% in the expected capacity of the existing bars.

Force-deformation curves for girders were developed utilizing the modeling parameters and acceptance criteria defined in ASCE/SEI 41-06. For the specific case of flexurally-controlled girders, these curves were based on bilinear approximation of the girder moment-curvature relationship obtained using the computer program XTRACT, using expected strength properties for both concrete and steel reinforcement. Separate curves were determined for positive and negative bending of the girders.

Concrete Slab

The concrete slab was evaluated as a diaphragm element that transfers inertial forces within the structure to the lateral-force-resisting elements. The absence of openings and the length-to-width ratio of 1.5 suggest that the concrete slab behaves as a rigid diaphragm.

The slab thickness is typically 6", and it is reinforced in two directions with #4 bars at 8" on center at the bottom and #4 bars at 16" on center at the top. Additional top reinforcement consisting of #4 bars are present at regions of negative moment in the column lines.

Hand calculations show adequate capacity of the slab to transfer the seismic shear force into the girder-column system, corroborating the rigid diaphragm assumption made for the idealized structure. The loads utilized for this verification correspond to a base shear of approximately 4500 kips based on the expected maximum base shear force obtained from pushover analyses of the retrofitted structure. building. Refer to Section 7 for additional information.

BUILDING PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

The proposed renovations to Area P of the Lower Sproul Plaza are limited to resurfacing work and local improvements to drainage and waterproofing, with an estimated total construction cost not exceeding 25% of the total construction cost for the replacement of the structure. In addition, these renovations will not increase the seismic force or reduce the strength of any structural components by more than 10% of the current values for this structure; thus, no new structural work is anticipated. Based on these conditions, Area P does not require a seismic evaluation as the structure does not trigger any of the requirements of Section 3417.3 of 2010 CBC.

However, per University request, this voluntary seismic evaluation was performed. The building was evaluated for two earthquake hazard levels based on Chapter 34 requirements of the 2010 CBC, as follows:

• BSE-R: 225-year return period event or probability of occurrence of 20% in 50 years. This event was utilized to evaluate the Life Safety (S-3) Performance Level.

• BSE-C: 975-year return period event or probability of occurrence of 5% in 50 years. This event was utilized to evaluate the Collapse Prevention (S-5) Performance Level.



OVERALL FORCE-DISPLACEMENT RESPONSE

A static nonlinear pushover analysis was used to evaluate the concrete girders and columns that serve as lateral force-resisting system for the structure, assuming that these elements are connected through a rigid diaphragm. A computer model of the structure was created in SAP 2000 Advance 1.4.1.0 (Computer and Structures, Inc) to perform the pushover analysis. The beams and columns were modeled using concentrated plastic hinge properties at locations where nonlinearity in the structural element occurs, typically at the ends. Modeling parameters and numerical acceptance criteria for beam and columns were based on ASCE/SEI 41-06.

The structure was assumed to be fixed at the base. This assumption is conservative, as beams and columns will develop larger shear forces for similar story drift values, when compared to the same structure with a pinned base. As a result, the fixed base structure will develop the non-linear mechanisms earlier in the pushover analysis. If the foundation stiffness were considered in the analysis, it is estimated that the contribution of the rotation at the spread footing to the story drift would be approximately 0.13". This value is negligible and will not significantly affect the results of the pushover analysis.

The target displacement was calculated for two different hazard levels, BSE-R and BSE-C, based on the 225-year and 975-year site specific response spectra respectively. Since the seismic hazard analysis report created for UC Berkeley by URS Corporation dated 5/14/20093 only includes probabilistic earthquake response spectra for the 2,475-year, 949-year, 475-year and 72-year return periods, it was necessary to generate BSE-R and BSE-C response spectra with sufficient accuracy for this preliminary seismic evaluation.

The BSE-R spectrum was generated by matching the results of our own probabilistic hazard analysis using the EZ-FRISK program with those presented by URS Corporation at the 475-year and 949-year return periods. URS has spectra for both rock sites and “thin soil” sites. The input parameters of our analysis were tuned so that the resulting probabilistic spectra closely matched the corresponding URS response spectra for a thin soil site. Then the site input parameters were modified for the tested soil conditions to compute the 225-year and 949-year return period response spectra to be used for the building evaluation.

Note that URS Corporation did not provide a BSE-C spectrum (975-year return period), but since this spectrum is close enough to the 949-year return period event, the latter return period will be used for evaluating the building for the BSE-C performance level. The input assumptions for our probabilistic seismic hazard analysis include the following: • Fault Seismic Sources: We consider active seismogenic fault sources within 200 km of

project site, using on the fault sources in the EZ-Frisk computer program. The sources

3 URS Corporation, 2009, Updated Probabilistic and Deterministic Hazard Analyses for the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley - Capital Projects and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.



are based on the findings of the USGS Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP 2007)4.

• Fault Recurrence: Seismic hazard at the site is dominated by activity on the nearby Hayward Fault. Using the findings of the WGCEP 2007, we model Hayward fault recurrence using a characteristic model with earthquake magnitude normally distributed around a mean value based on fault rupture length. This is the default modeling choice for the fault in EZ-Frisk v7.62.

• Background Seismicity: To include the seismic hazard associated with unmapped fault sources, our analysis considers background seismicity based on historical records of earthquake activity. In the EZ-Frisk program, background seismicity is modeled by generating a grid of evenly spaced cells over a geographic area. Each cell has a defined activity rate and range of possible earthquake magnitude. We use the EZ-Frisk default gridded background seismicity, which includes the default maximum earthquake magnitude MW = 7.

• Site Shear Wave Velocity: To estimate the effect of the GMPE site terms, we conduct the hazard analysis for VS30 = 420 m/sec (the measured shear wave velocity for the Student Community Center) and 600 m/sec (URS "thin soil" designation).

• Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPE): For fault seismic sources, we use the Next Generation equations of Abrahamson-Silva (2008)5, Boore-Atkinson (2008)6, Campbell-Bozorgnia (2008)7, and Chiou-Youngs (2008)8 equally weighted. The Idriss (2008)9 GMPE is not included in our analysis since it was developed for rock sites (VS30 > 450 m/sec).

4 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), 2007, The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1437 and California Geological Survey Special Report 203 [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1437/]. 5 Abrahamson, N. and W. Silva, 2008, “Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA Ground-Motion Relations,” Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, Volume 24, Number 1, February. 6 Boore, D. and G. Atkinson, 2008, “Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for the Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped PSA at Spectral Periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s,” Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, Volume 24, Number 1, February. 7 Campbell, K. and Y. Bozorgnia, 2008, “NGA Ground Motion Model for the Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% Damped Linear Elastic Response Spectra for Periods Ranging from 0.01 to 10s”, Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, Volume 24, Number 1, February. 8 Chiou, B. and R. Youngs, 2008, “An NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra,” Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, Volume 24, Number 1, February. 9 Idriss, I., 2008, “An NGA Empirical Model for Estimating the Horizontal Spectral Value Generated By Shallow Crustal Earthquakes,” Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, Volume 24, Number 1, February.



• To estimate basin response or shallow sediment effects in the attenuation relationships, we use a value of Z1.0 (the depth to VS = 1000 m/sec) of 300 m, and a value of Z2.5 (the depth to VS = 2500 m/sec) of 2 km. We compute these values per the recommendations of Chiou and Youngs (2008).

• Fault Directivity: We include the effects of fault average directivity according to Somerville et al. (1997)10 and Abrahamson (2000)11.

• Intensity Measure: In accordance with the requirements of ASCE/SEI 7-05, the Next Generation GMPEs use the GMRotI50 spectral acceleration at 5% damping as the intensity measure.

The resulting response spectra for the 225-year and 975-year events were then modified for base slab averaging with be = 200 ft and embedment effects per FEMA 440. The results are shown in Figures 9 and 10.

In the east-west direction, the period obtained from the analysis program is 0.31 seconds, whereas the period in the north-south direction is 0.43 seconds. As a result, the spectral accelerations for the 225-year and 975-year event for the east-west direction are 1.0g and 1.8g respectively, and for the north-south direction are also 1.0g and 1.8g respectively.

Figure 9: BSE-R Design Response Spectra Modified for Base Slab Averaging with be = 200 ft for Embedment Effects and for Site Shear Wave Velocity Vs30 = 420 m/sec

10 Somerville, P., et al., “Modification of Empirical Strong Ground Motion Attenuation Relations to Include the Amplitude and Duration Effects of Rupture Directivity,” Seismological Research Letters, Volume 68, Number 1, January/February, pp. 199-222. 11 Abrahamson, N., 2000, “Effects of Rupture Directivity on Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis,” Proceedings from the 6th International Conference on Seismic Zonation, Palm Springs, California.



Figure 10: BSE-C Design Response Spectra Modified for Base Slab Averaging with be = 200 ft for Embedment Effects and for Site Shear Wave Velocity Vs30 = 420 m/sec

Figure 11 shows the force-displacement response of the concrete columns of the existing structure, based on criteria established in ASCE/SEI 41-06. Round and semioval columns have similar force-deformation relationship and nominal moment capacity; thus, for simplicity, only one curve is shown for these two types of column. Direction X-X corresponds to bending of the column around the axis along its largest dimension, typically when the column is pushed in the east-west direction. Direction Y-Y refers to bending around the shortest column dimension, when the column is pushed in the north-south direction.



Figure 11: Approximate Response of Concrete Columns for Existing Structure

Figure 12 shows the force-displacement response of the concrete girders of the existing structure, also based on criteria established in ASCE/SEI 41-06. For the flexurally-controlled 26”x32” girders, the response is based on concentrated plastic moment hinges located approximately at a distance of d/2 = 30”/2 = 15" from the face of the columns. Nonlinear behavior of the 42"x32" girders was modeled utilizing shear hinges located where stirrup spacing transitions from 18" to 12" spacing within the girder, where the maximum combined gravity and seismic shear force is expected to occur. The typical girder span is approximately 36', except that for east-west direction, the central span is only 24'. Therefore, two separate response curves were developed based on the span length, as the shear deformation is dependent on the girder span.

Figure 12: Approximate Response of Concrete Girders for Existing Structure: Shear-Critical 42"x32"Girder (left); Flexurally-Controlle d 26"x32" Girder (right)



Figures 13 and 14 show the pushover or overall force-displacement curve of the building in the east-west direction. The two target roof displacements of 1.1” (0.6% of the Area P story height) and 2.6” (1.5% of the story height) correspond to the BSE-R and BSE-C events respectively. The target displacement for 2/3 of the BSE-R and BSE-C events are also shown in the figure. These values are 0.7” and 1.4” respectively. It is worth clarifying that the target displacement values for 2/3 of the BSE-R and BSE-C are calculated based on 2/3 of the Sa values for the respective event, not 2/3 of the BSE-R and BSE-C displacements. The curves were developed for a maximum story drift of 3”, though the Area P structure is only capable of displacing a maximum of 2" before contacting the adjacent structures. The overall behavior is contro

FORM 1 CERTIFICATE OF SEISMIC PERFORMANCE LEVEL UC ... › sites › ...Campus: UC Berkeley Building...

Documents

Transcript of FORM 1 CERTIFICATE OF SEISMIC PERFORMANCE LEVEL UC ... › sites › ...Campus: UC Berkeley Building...