1 / 18

December 1, 2011

December 1, 2011. Oakland Army Base Redevelopment Preliminary Condition Assessment and Evaluation of Army Wharves 6 ½ and 7 Overview. Kamran Marashi, P.E., S.E. Jim Schettler, P.E., S.E. Agenda. ITEM TOPICS Introduction J. Schettler Design Criteria J. Schettler

livvy
Download Presentation

December 1, 2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. December 1, 2011 Oakland Army Base RedevelopmentPreliminary Condition Assessment and Evaluation ofArmy Wharves 6 ½ and 7Overview Kamran Marashi, P.E., S.E. Jim Schettler, P.E., S.E.

  2. Agenda ITEM TOPICS • Introduction J. Schettler • Design Criteria J. Schettler • Evaluation and Methodology K. Marashi • Findings and Recommendations K. Marashi • ROM Cost Estimate Summary J. Schettler • Path Forward / Questions J. Schettler / K. Marashi 2

  3. 1. Introduction Location: Wharf 6 ½ (Berth 8) & Wharf 7 (Berth 7) 3

  4. 1. Introduction Location: Wharf 6 ½ (Berth 8) & Wharf 7 (Berth 7) 4

  5. 1. Introduction Wharf 6 ½ (Berth 8) 5

  6. 1. Introduction Wharf 7 (Berth 7) 6

  7. 2. Design Criteria Future Uses • Option #1 – Limited Action • Current Condition w/ Limited Capital Cost • 10 year expected live with annual maintenance • Option #2 – Original Capacity • Rehabilitate to original capacities • 25 year expected life • Option #3 – Upgrade to Modern Facility • Break-bulk Facility (1000 psf live load) • 30 year expected life • Option #4 – Wharf Replacement • Modern Wharf • 50+ year expected life 7

  8. 3. Evaluation and Methodology Wharf 6 ½ • Wharf 6 ½ Deck Plan Condition Assessment Ratings: Ca Bldg Code Chapter 31F 8

  9. 3. Evaluation and Methodology Wharf 7 • Wharf 7 Deck Plan Condition Assessment Ratings: Ca Bldg Code Chapter 31F 9

  10. 3. Evaluation and Methodology Past Retrofits • Typical Pile Jacketing & Splicing 10

  11. 3. Evaluation and Methodology Subsurface Profiles • Wharf 6 ½ Soils Profile 11

  12. 3. Evaluation and Methodology Subsurface Profiles • Wharf 7 Soils Profile 12

  13. 4. Findings and Recommendations Wharf 6 ½ • Option #1: • Limited Action, 350 PSF • Option #2: • Original Capacity, 400 PSF • Option #3: • Upgrade to Modern Facility, 1,000 PSF • Option #4: • Wharf Replacement, 1,000 PSF 13

  14. 4. Findings and Recommendations Wharf 7 • Option 1: • Limited Action, 200 PSF • Option 2: • Original Capacity, 400 PSF 400 PSF • Option 3: • Upgrade to Modern Facility, 1,000 PSF • Option 4: • Wharf Replacement, 1,000 PSF 14

  15. 5. ROM Cost Estimate Summary Cost Estimate Assumptions • Condition Assessment • Above Water Visual Inspection • Limited Assessment to “Typical Area” • Does not include: • Buildings and infrastructure (i.e. rails) • Fire protection • Utilities • Mechanical • Electrical • Dredging • Engineering • Permitting • Hazardous materials 15

  16. 5. ROM Cost Estimate Summary Rough Order of Magnitude Total Estimated Marine Structures Capital Costs * - Does not include berthing and mooring hardware costs 16

  17. 6. Path Forward / Questions Path Forward • Piers 6 ½ & 7 • Prelim Condition Assessment & Evaluation on Existing Rails • Bulkhead Wall Evaluation for Surcharge - Scope Development • Select a Future Use Consistent with Program Goals • Create a Work Plan to Achieve the Goals • Piers 6 • Preliminary Condition Assessment & Evaluation for Future Uses • Piers 5 • Preliminary Condition Assessment & Evaluation for Future Rail Use 17

  18. 6. Path Forward / Questions Questions? 18

More Related